Town of Greece v. Galloway

Date: May 5, 2014

Citation: 12-696

Issue: First Amendment Establishment Clause

Significance: In a 5–4 decision the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that it was constitutional for local town councils to open public sessions with sectarian prayers led by clergy members drawn from the surrounding community. This decision overturned a contrary ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit which had previously found such a practice in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Background

Beginning in 1999, the town of Greece, New York, opened its monthly, public town council meetings with a prayer delivered by a member of the clergy. These clergy members were invited from a widely available directory of local congregations, almost all of which were Christian. The facts of the case state that between 1999 and 2007, all of these invocations were delivered by Christian clergy, and that many of them included sectarian language, such as "we acknowledge the saving sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross. We draw strength, vitality, and confidence from his resurrection at Easter."

Respondents Susan Galloway and Linda Stephens were residents of Greece who often attended town council meetings. After making several complaints about the prayers being "offensive," "intolerable," and "an affront to the diverse community," Galloway and Stephens brought suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of New York. They alleged that the practice of the town council violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment by preferring Christian prayer above others. They asked that the Court insist that prayers be limited to "inclusive and ecumenical" statements that would "not associate the government with any one faith or belief."

In deciding this case, the Court touched on a number of issues: whether or not the prayers in question were coercive or proselytizing; whether or not courts would be required to judge the nondenominational content of specific prayers if the suit were granted; and whether or not the First Amendment required the town council to more actively solicit a greater diversity of prayer givers.

Opinion of the Court

In the 5–4 majority decision written by Justice Anthony Kennedy (joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia, and Clarence Thomas), the Court relied on the precedent of Marsh v. Chambers, decided by the US Supreme Court in 1983 (463 U.S. 783). In Marsh v. Chambers, the Court upheld the practice of the Nebraska state legislature in opening sessions with a prayer delivered by a chaplain paid by the state. The Court found the Nebraska practice in accord with the long established practice of opening sessions of Congress with prayer. The Court ruled that, "In light of the history, there can be no doubt that the practice of opening legislative sessions with prayer has become part of the fabric of our society. To invoke divine guidance on a public body entrusted with making the laws is not, in these circumstances, a violation of the Establishment Clause; it is simply a tolerable acknowledgment of beliefs widely held among the people of this country."

In Town of Greece v. Galloway, Justice Kennedy wrote that prayers offered in this context were not likely to be coercive as long as it is "solemn and respectful in tone, [inviting] lawmakers to reflect upon shared ideals and common ends before they embark on the fractious business of governing." Furthermore, the Court’s majority found no support in Marsh v. Chambers for the idea that prayers must be nonsectarian or generic in order to be allowable before legislative sessions: "Prayer that reflects beliefs specific to only some creeds can still serve to solemnize the occasion." In addition, if the Court were to rule that only nonsectarian prayer were allowable, it would then be in the Constitutionally untenable position of judging the content of specific prayers: "Once [government] invites prayer into the public sphere, [it] must permit a prayer giver to address his or her own God or gods as conscience dictates, unfettered by what an administrator or judge considers to be non-sectarian." The Court’s majority also found that the Town of Greece was not required to actively search beyond its own borders for non-Christian prayer as long as it made reasonable efforts to invite clergy from all the congregations within its borders. In any event, the Court decided, "the quest to promote a diversity of religious views would require the town to make wholly inappropriate judgments about the number of religions it should sponsor and the relative frequency with which it should sponsor each."

Justice Elena Kagan, joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, and Sonia Sotomayor, wrote the primary minority opinion in Town of Greece v. Galloway. Justice Kagan wrote that Marsh v. Chambers was not a proper precedent, the key difference between the cases being that town council meetings involve the direct participation of ordinary citizens rather than elected officials alone: "so month in and month out for over a decade, prayers steeped in only one faith, addressed toward members of the public, commenced meetings to discuss local affairs and distribute government benefits. In my view, that practice does not square with the First Amendment’s promise that every citizen, irrespective of her religion, owns an equal share in her government." Justice Kagan also wrote of the possible coercive effects on an individual who must decide whether or not to participate in a prayer that violates her deeply held beliefs: "the public proceeding becomes (whether intentionally or not) an instrument for dividing her from adherents to the community’s majority religion, and for altering the very nature of her relationship with her government."

Impact

Following Marsh v. Chambers but prior to Town of Greece v. Galloway, there was great legal confusion in the lower courts regarding various kinds of public prayer, "with judges in almost every region reaching different results depending on whether denominational or non-denominational prayers were being offered; whether members of one faith or members of diverse faiths were giving the prayers; and the political and religious values of the deciding judge." Though many scholars have criticized both decisions as relying too heavily on historical rather than constitutional analysis, the Town of Greece v. Galloway has settled a deeply contentious question.

Bibliography

Denniston, Lyle. "Opinion analysis: Prayers get a new blessing." SCOTUSblog. SCOTUSblog 5 May 2014. Web. 1 Nov. 2015.

"Marsh v. Chambers." FindLaw. FindLaw, 2015. Web. 1 Nov. 2015.

Segall, Eric. "Supreme Court Prayer Decision in Greece v. Galloway Should Be Easy." The Daily Beast. The Daily Beast, 4 Nov. 2013. Web. 1 Nov. 2015.

"The Supreme Court 2013: Town of Greece v. Galloway." Harvard Law Review 128.1 (2014). Web. 1 Nov. 2015.

Torres-Spelliscy, Ciara. "The Democracy We Left Behind in Greece and McCutcheon." NYU Law Review 89 (2014). Web. 20 Dec. 2015.

Town of Greece, New York v. Galloway et. al. 12-696. Supreme Court of the United States. Supreme Court of the U.S., 2013. Web. 1 Nov. 2015.

"Town of Greece v. Galloway." Oyez. Chicago-Kent College of Law at Illinois Tech, n.d. 7 Dec. 2015.