The Obama Administration Sides With Legislative Prayer in a New Supreme Court Appeal

The law, lawyers, and the court.
Aug. 15 2013 3:06 PM

Legislative Prayer Goes Back to the Supreme Court

And this time, the Obama administration is on the side of prayer.

Invocation prayer
President Barack Obama bows his head for the invocation for a ceremony honoring the 200th birthday of Abraham Lincoln, Feb. 12, 2009. The Justice Department just sided with the town of Greece, N.Y., in their legislative prayer case.

Photo by Tom Williams/Roll Call/Getty Images

This fall, the Supreme Court will hear a big case about church and state, Greece v. Galloway. Greece, a town in upstate New York, routinely opens its city council meetings with prayers from local clergy. The 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals held that practice unconstitutional, finding the prayers had been overwhelmingly Christian. Because the facts are somewhat murky and the law murkier still, few people initially noticed the case. But last May, the Supreme Court agreed to decide it. And now suddenly everything is up for grabs. 

Greece v. Galloway is still a case about legislative prayer. But at least one side is using the appeal as a vehicle to have the court totally revamp its approach to the Establishment Clause. The court may just bite. And in a truly remarkable turn this week, the Obama Justice Department just came into the case—on the town of Greece’s side! Contrary to the positions of most appeals courts (and even some reliably conservative judges), and contrary to the language of earlier Supreme Court opinions, the solicitor general now takes the position that Greece’s practice is perfectly constitutional and the presence or number of Christian references doesn’t matter.

To understand Greece, we must begin with an earlier case—the Supreme Court’s 1983 decision in Marsh v. Chambers. Marsh involved a First Amendment challenge to Nebraska’s practice of having a permanent chaplain open legislative sessions with a prayer. The challenge was not far-fetched: The court had interpreted the Establishment Clause to prohibit government from favoring religion for decades, and legislative chaplaincies seemed a clear violation of that principle. Yet, in a 6–3 decision, the Supreme Court upheld Nebraska’s practice, making a small but important exception to its stated mandate of religious neutrality. In justifying that departure, the court stressed the long history of legislative prayer in this country. The First Congress approved the Establishment Clause, the court said, but it also hired chaplains. Clearly, then, legislative prayer did not violate the Establishment Clause. 

Advertisement

Yet, while Marsh accepted legislative prayer, it implied there would be limits. One part of the opinion provided that legislative prayer could not be “exploited to proselytize or advance any one, or to disparage any other, faith or belief.” In another, the court noted approvingly that Nebraska’s chaplain had dropped Christian references from his prayers following a complaint. So Marsh seemed to impose a limit on prayers—they could not be too denominational—but the court never explained precisely where the line should be drawn.

Greece v. Galloway picks up where Marsh v. Chambers left off. The town of Greece began inviting local clergy to offer prayers back in 1999. Until 2007, all the prayer-givers were Christian and their prayers tended to use identifiably Christian language, with frequent devotional references to Jesus Christ and frequent instructions for the audience to join in. After complaints, the prayer-givers temporarily got more diverse—a Wiccan priestess gave a prayer, as did the head of a Bah’ai congregation and a Jewish layperson. The town even said that atheists and agnostics could sign up to give invocations (though it did not publicize that fact). Yet the bulk of the prayers remained identifiably Christian. And since 2009, for reasons not entirely clear, all of the prayer-givers have again been Christian clergy.  

The plaintiffs’ argument is simple. The town arranged to have these prayers, chose these prayer-givers, gave them the podium, and required everyone else to be quiet and listen respectfully if they wanted to attend a legislative session or do business with the legislature. The prayer-givers are speaking for the town, and these are the town’s prayers. The town can no more disclaim them than it could disclaim the prayers of a public school teacher who prays over the public address system. So when these prayers end up all being identifiably Christian, the town is favoring Christianity. 

The Supreme Court is deeply divided on whether the government can endorse religion generally or whether it must remain strictly neutral—witness the recent fights over “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance or the internal confusion over the constitutionality of Ten Commandments displays. But there is much more widespread support, both on and off the court, for the proposition that the government can’t favor one particular religion over others. “I have always believed, and all my opinions are consistent with the view,” Justice Scalia once wrote, “that the Establishment Clause prohibits the favoring of one religion over others.” Marsh itself is grounded in this idea; Marsh speaks of legislative prayer as a “tolerable acknowledgment of beliefs widely held among the people of this country.” But that all falls apart if speakers pray in ways that alienate and offend their audiences.

We are still waiting for the plaintiffs to file their brief, but the defendant’s opening brief advances several theories, without seeming to recognize that they are irreconcilable. One part of the brief, for example, defends Greece’s actions by arguing that none of the prayers were proselytizing or disparaging. (It is not clear that this is factually true, and it plays a little fast and loose with the actual language from Marsh—remember Marsh spoke of legislative prayers that “proselytize or advance any one, or disparage any other, faith or belief.”) But the town’s brief also says it cannot censor prayers at all because doing so would violate the Free Speech Clause. Even odder is the brief’s general conception of the Establishment Clause, which the town says is only violated by “laws that tax citizens to support a particular church or compel adherence to particular tenets or beliefs.” That is a sentence from bizarro-world. Were it true, the government could force us all to sit through other peoples’ church services as long as we were not required to affirm what was said.