We Listen.

U.S. Supreme Court Permits Religious Prayer at Local Government Meetings

By: Andrew D.H. Rau & Amanda J. Sundquist

Constitutional questions regarding the use of prayer to open municipal meetings have often come before the courts, as discussed in a prior blog entry in the public school context. This week, the United States Supreme Court issued an important decision upholding the right of a town board to open its monthly meetings with religious prayer.

In Town of Greece, NY v. Galloway, a town board began inviting local clergymen to deliver an invocation at the start of monthly meetings. Two residents brought suit, alleging the town violated the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause by preferring sectarian Christian prayers above others. They requested an injunction that would limit the town to “inclusive and ecumenical” prayers that referred only to a generic God and would not associate the government with any one faith or belief. The District Court, on summary judgment, upheld the town’s prayer practices. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed the District Court. The U.S. Supreme Court then granted certiorari to decide whether the town’s prayer practices violated the Establishment Clause.

The Supreme Court looked first to its 1983 decision in Marsh v. Chambers, where it upheld the First Amendment right of the Nebraska Legislature to open sessions with a prayer delivered by a chaplain paid from state funds. The Court noted that “Marsh stands for the proposition that it is not necessary to define the precise boundary of the Establishment Clause where history shows that the specific practice is permitted. Any test the Court adopts must acknowledge a practice that was accepted by the Framers and has withstood the critical scrutiny of time and political change.”

In the instant case the Court found that inviting a predominately Christian set of ministers to lead the prayer did not violate the Establishment Clause in light of the unique facts. The Court stated, “That nearly all of the congregations in the town turned out to be Christian does not reflect an aversion or bias on the part of the town leaders against minority faiths. So long as the town maintains a policy of nondiscrimination, the Constitution does not require it to search beyond its borders for non-Christian prayer givers in an effort to achieve religious balancing.”

The Court then looked at whether the town’s practice was distinguishable from Marsh on the grounds that it coerces participation. The Court noted that the principal audience for these invocations is not the public, but the lawmakers themselves. The Court stated that “[t]he analysis would be different if the town board members directed the public to participate in the prayers, singled out dissidents for opprobrium, or indicated that their decisions might be influenced by a person’s acquiescence in the prayer opportunity.” The Court distinguished this case from Lee v. Weisman, a 1994 case which found a religious invocation to be coercive in a school graduation ceremony context.

While this case makes clear that religious prayer is permitted in municipal meetings, it is important to take note of the many caveats and individual facts that may tip a municipality inadvertently into an Establishment Clause violation.   For help determining whether your municipality’s practices are consistent with the law, please contact Amanda J. Sundquist and Andrew Rau in our West Chester office.

Share on Social Media
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google+
  • LinkedIn
  • Email

Sophisticated, Responsive and Focused.

  • “At Unruh Turner Burke & Frees, the client’s objective is never lost in the details and as a result, even complex deals get done quickly and efficiently..."

    Read More...

  • “Unruh Turner Burke & Frees has been a tremendous resource to me and my team throughout the past 17+ years. This highly-talented group delivers the...”

    Read More...

  • “Unruh Turner Burke & Frees has been a trusted source of advice and counsel on all levels of governmental law and regulation, from zoning and land use...”

    Read More...

  • "Our Trust Department has utilized Unruh Turner Burke & Frees’ expertise for several years to assist our clients with their overall estate plans. They..."

    Read More...

  • “Over the last 25 years Unruh Turner Burke & Frees has represented our residential building and development enterprise in many capacities including real..."

    Read More...

  • "Based on my long-term relationship with Unruh Turner Burke & Frees, I can wholeheartedly recommend its services to any business owner who wishes to work with...”

    Read More...

  • “We recently hired Unruh Turner Burke & Frees to handle a conditional use application for our Chestnut Street Lofts apartment project in downtown West Chester..."

    Read More...

  • “I have been working with Unruh Turner Burke & Frees for many years. They have provided legal counsel in the areas of Estate Planning, Land Use, Litigation and...”

    Read More...

  • “I have relied on the firm's legal advice to make critical decisions on handling family wealth and making appropriate decisions for my family's future.”

    Read More...

  • “… This highly-talented group delivers the highest quality legal work and brings real-world experience in a very cost-effective manner…”

    Read More...

  • "If there is an issue facing a municipality, Unruh Turner Burke & Frees is the source for sound guidance and direction.”

    Read More...

  • “…They have provided legal counsel in the areas of Estate Planning, Land Use, Litigation and Real Estate. In every one of those areas I have been blessed with great ...”

    Read More...

  • "Whether we are competing in a strong market or working through a declining market, it has always been reassuring to know that Unruh Turner Burke & Frees has both..."

    Read More...

meet our elite team
West Chester, PA
17 West Gay Street
P.O. BOX 515
West Chester, PA 19380
(610) 692-1371
Phoenixville, PA
120 Gay Street
P.O. Box 289
Phoenixville, PA 19460
(610) 933-8069