Town of Greece v. Galloway

Last updated

Town of Greece v. Galloway
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued November 6, 2013
Decided May 5, 2014
Full case nameTown of Greece, New York v. Susan Galloway, et al.
Docket no. 12-696
Citations572 U.S. 565 ( more )
134 S. Ct. 1811; 188 L. Ed. 2d 835
Argument Oral argument
Case history
PriorGalloway v. Town of Greece, 732 F. Supp. 2d 195 (W.D.N.Y. 2010); reversed, 681 F.3d 20 (2d Cir. 2012); cert. granted, 569 U.S. 993(2013).
Holding
The town of Greece does not violate the First Amendment's Establishment Clause by opening its meetings with sectarian [1] prayer that comports with America's tradition and doesn't coerce participation by nonadherents. The judgment of the Second Circuit is reversed.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Antonin Scalia  · Anthony Kennedy
Clarence Thomas  · Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen Breyer  · Samuel Alito
Sonia Sotomayor  · Elena Kagan
Case opinions
MajorityKennedy (all but Part II-B), joined by Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Alito
PluralityKennedy (Part II-B), joined by Roberts, Alito
ConcurrenceAlito, joined by Scalia
ConcurrenceThomas (in part), joined by Scalia (Part II)
DissentBreyer
DissentKagan, joined by Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. I

Town of Greece v. Galloway, 572 U.S. 565 (2014), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the court decided that the Town of Greece, New York may permit volunteer chaplains to open each legislative session with a prayer. [2] [3] The plaintiffs were Susan Galloway and Linda Stephens, represented by Americans United for Separation of Church and State. [4] They argue that the prayers violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled against the town, [5] and on May 20, 2013 the Supreme Court agreed to rule on the issue. [6] On May 5, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5–4 in favor of the Town of Greece, holding that the town's practice of beginning legislative sessions with prayer did not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. [7]

Contents

Question before the court

Does the town of Greece, New York, impose an impermissible establishment of religion by opening its monthly board meetings with a prayer?

Decision of the court

Majority opinion

By a 5–4 vote, the Court ruled that the town's practice did not violate the Establishment Clause. The majority opinion authored by Justice Kennedy stated: "The town of Greece does not violate the First Amendment by opening its meetings with prayer that comports with our tradition and does not coerce participation by nonadherents." [8] The court concluded that the town's practice of opening its town board meetings with a prayer offered by members of the clergy does not violate the Establishment Clause when the practice is consistent with the tradition long followed by Congress and state legislatures, the town does not discriminate against minority faiths in determining who may offer a prayer, and the prayer does not coerce participation with non-adherents. [9] [10] [11]

The majority held that sectarian prayers at government meetings are permissible under the Constitution. [1] [3] “To hold that invocations must be non-sectarian would force the legislatures sponsoring prayers and the courts deciding these cases to act as supervisors and censors of religious speech,” Kennedy wrote for himself and the conservative members on the court. [1] Lawmakers and judges would otherwise have to police prayer, he wrote, involving "government in religious matters to a far greater degree than is the case under the town’s current practice of neither editing nor approving prayers in advance nor criticizing their content after the fact." [1] This means that prayers are allowed to invoke particular religious affiliations without running afoul of the First Amendment prohibition against endorsement of religion at federal, state or local level. [12]

Kennedy stated that U.S. Constitution doesn't require the town of Greece to search outside the town for chaplains from other faiths as long as the town maintains a policy of nondiscrimination. He however included a restraint on legislature prayers by stating that "[t]he purpose of legislative prayer is to lend gravity” to sessions where “the divisive business of governing” will take place. [10] Noting that legislature prayer (in this context) should be “solemn and respectful in tone”, [9] Kennedy went on to state that when legislative prayers are used as an opportunity to condemn or try to convert people who are not members of a particular religion, then these prayers would not conform with the Constitution. [9] He added in general: "Absent a pattern of prayers that over time denigrate, proselytize, or betray an impermissible government purpose, a challenge based solely on the content of a particular prayer will not likely establish a constitutional violation." [13]

Justice Kennedy wrote: “Legislative bodies do not engage in impermissible coercion merely by exposing constituents to prayer they would rather not hear and in which they need not participate.” [3] According to the majority legislative prayers might be impermissible if they “denigrate nonbelievers or religious minorities, threaten damnation, or preach conversion,” or if the prayer giver is chosen in a religiously discriminatory way. [14]

Concurring opinions

Justice Thomas wrote in his separate opinion (which was joined in part by Justice Scalia) that the case should be dismissed because the Establishment Clause doesn't apply to the states and its subdivisions, but only to Congress. He also stated that the Constitution would have only been violated if “actual legal coercion” like imposing taxes to pay for the church is used. [9] [15] Justice Alito wrote a separate concurring opinion (which was joined in part by Justice Scalia) in which he dealt with points raised by Justice Kagan in her dissent. [9] [15] In Alito's view “the logical thrust of many of [Justice Kagan's] arguments is that prayer is never permissible prior to meetings of local government legislative bodies.” [15]

Dissenting opinions

Justice Breyer filed a dissent that focused on the case facts [9] and argued that the town must do more to make its legislative prayer inclusive of other faiths. [16] Specifically, he argued that the town did not make a significant effort to inform non-Christian clergy about this event, and thus eventually marginalized religious minority populations. [17]

The main dissent was authored by Justice Kagan [18] and it was joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer and Sotomayor. [9] Kagan noted three key differences between the case before the court and Marsh (1983): [9]

  1. The Greece Town Council is not only a legislature, but also a place where the local government interacts with the local residents.
  2. The prayers in Greece were not directed to lawmakers, but instead also to the local residents seeking to do business with the government.
  3. The prayers in Greece were sectarian in nature.

Noting these differences, Kagan wrote: "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." [15] According to Kagan the providing equal treatment would have been easy: town council members could tell the chaplains that the prayers should be non-denominational, or they could have invited clergy from all different faiths to give the prayers, rather than focusing almost exclusively on Christian ministers. [14] [15] However, the town didn’t employ either of those measures. [15]

Reaction to ruling

The reactions to the court's ruling were diverse. Christian conservatives and others who feel that religious expression has been overly curtailed in public settings were happy with the ruling. Eric Rassbach, deputy general counsel of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, called the court's decision "a great victory for religious liberty." [1] Along with their supporters, the Jewish and atheist women who filed suit against the town of Greece were disappointed by the court's ruling. [1] A number of Jewish organizations, including the American Jewish Committee and the Anti-Defamation League, had filed amici curiae briefs in support of the respondents, and expressed disappointment with the majority's decision. [19] Secular groups were also disappointed. Daniel Mach, director of the ACLU Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief, for example stated: "We are disappointed by today’s decision. Official religious favoritism should be off-limits under the Constitution. Town-sponsored sectarian prayer violates the basic rule requiring the government to stay neutral on matters of faith." [1] Ira Lupu, a law professor emeritus at George Washington University who specializes in the First Amendment, called the court's ruling "a very bad decision" because it undermined the Establishment Clause. Lupu explained that the court decision "does not insist on any [...] reasonable effort to make prayer nonsectarian or to push for diversity. The majority faith in a particular community can dictate the prayers and minority faiths could be left out if they don’t step up and say, ‘Hey, what about us?'" [1]

The Los Angeles Times pointed out that the decision divided the justices along religious lines, as well as ideological ones. All five justices in the majority were Catholics, and three out of the four dissenters were Jewish. [20]

Constitutional prescription for legislative prayers

According to Lyle Denniston the constitutional prescription for legislative prayers is based on eight factors. These factors are: [11]

  1. Legislative prayers are not confined to meetings of Congress or state legislatures, but may also be recited in the more intimate and familiar setting of local government meetings
  2. The prayer portion of the meeting must be conducted only during a ceremonial part of the government body’s session, not mixed in with action on official policy
  3. The body may invite anyone in the community to give a prayer and (if it has the money) could have a paid chaplain; The officials on the body may also join in the prayer by bowing their heads or showing other signs of religious devotion, such as crossing themselves
  4. The body may not dictate what is in the prayers and what may not be in the prayers. A prayer may invoke the deity or deities of a given faith, and need not embrace the beliefs of multiple or all faiths
  5. In allowing “sectarian” prayers, the body’s members may not “proselytize” i.e. promoting one faith as the true faith, and may not require persons of different faith preferences, or of no faith, to take part, and may not criticize them if they do not take part
  6. The “sectarian” prayers may not disparage or discriminate against a specific faith, but officials need not go to extra lengths to make sure that all faiths do get represented in the prayer sessions — even if that means one faith winds up as the dominant message
  7. Such prayers are permissible when most, if not all, of the audience is made up of adults
  8. A court, in hearing a challenge to a prayer practice, is confined to examining “a pattern of prayers,” and does not have the authority to second-guess the content of individual prayer utterances; In judging such a pattern, the proper test is not whether it tends to put forth predominantly the beliefs of one faith, but whether it has the effect of coercing individuals who do not share that faith

See also

Related Research Articles

Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38 (1985), was a United States Supreme Court case deciding on the issue of silent school prayer.

Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court decided 8–1 in favor of the respondent, Edward Schempp, on behalf of his son Ellery Schempp, and declared that school-sponsored Bible reading and the recitation of the Lord's Prayer in public schools in the United States was unconstitutional.

Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that it is unconstitutional for state officials to compose an official school prayer and encourage its recitation in public schools, due to violation of the First Amendment. The ruling has been the subject of intense debate.

"Separation of church and state" is a metaphor paraphrased from Thomas Jefferson and used by others in discussions of the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Blaine Amendment</span> Failed amendment to the United States Constitution

The Blaine Amendment was a failed amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would have prohibited direct government aid to educational institutions that have a religious affiliation. Most state constitutions already had such provisions, and thirty-eight of the fifty states have clauses that prohibit taxpayer funding of religious entities in their state constitutions.

In United States law, the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, together with that Amendment's Free Exercise Clause, form the constitutional right of freedom of religion. The Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause together read:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, 536 U.S. 639 (2002), was a 5–4 decision of the United States Supreme Court that upheld an Ohio program that used school vouchers. The Court decided that the program did not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, as long as parents using the program were allowed to choose among a range of secular and religious schools.

Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783 (1983), was a landmark court case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that government funding for chaplains was constitutional because of the "unique history" of the United States. Three days before the ratification of the First Amendment in 1791, containing the Establishment clause, the federal legislature authorized hiring a chaplain for opening sessions with prayer.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Elena Kagan</span> US Supreme Court justice since 2010 (born 1960)

Elena Kagan is an American lawyer who serves as an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. She was appointed in 2010 by President Barack Obama and is the fourth woman to serve on the Court.

Braunfeld v. Brown, 366 U.S. 599 (1961), was a landmark case on the issue of religious and economic liberty decided by the United States Supreme Court. In a 6–3 decision, the Court held that a Pennsylvania blue law forbidding the sale of various retail products on Sunday was not an unconstitutional interference with religion as described in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Good News Club v. Milford Central School, 533 U.S. 98 (2001), was a decision of the U.S. Supreme Court written by Clarence Thomas holding that a public school's exclusion of a club from its limited public forum based solely on the club's religious nature was impermissible viewpoint discrimination.

Agostini v. Felton, 521 U.S. 203 (1997), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States. In this case, the Court overruled its decision in Aguilar v. Felton (1985), now finding that it was not a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment for a state-sponsored education initiative to allow public school teachers to instruct at religious schools, so long as the material was secular and neutral in nature and no "excessive entanglement" between government and religion was apparent. This case is noteworthy in a broader sense as a sign of evolving judicial standards surrounding the First Amendment, and the changes that have occurred in modern Establishment Clause jurisprudence.

Charles Joseph Siragusa is a senior United States district judge of the United States District Court for the Western District of New York.

The ministerial exception, sometimes known as the ecclesiastical exception, is a legal doctrine in the United States barring the application of anti-discrimination laws to religious institutions' employment of ministers or as to jobs with ministerial roles. As explained by the Supreme Court in the landmark 2012 case Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. E.E.O.C., the exception is drawn from the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and serves two purposes: to safeguard the freedom of religious groups "to select their own ministers" and to prevent "government involvement in [...] ecclesiastical decisions". The first purpose is rooted in the Free Exercise Clause; the second, in the Establishment Clause. When the ministerial exception applies, it gives religious institutions an affirmative defense against lawsuits for discrimination. For example, a woman seeking to become a Catholic priest cannot sue the Catholic Church for sex discrimination over its position that women cannot be ordained as priests. The Supreme Court later elaborated on when employees qualify as ministerial – and thus how broadly the exception applies – in Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru (2020).

Trump v. Hawaii, No. 17-965, 585 U.S. ___ (2018), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case involving Presidential Proclamation 9645 signed by President Donald Trump, which restricted travel into the United States by people from several nations, or by refugees without valid travel documents. Hawaii and several other states and groups challenged the Proclamation and two predecessor executive orders also issued by Trump on statutory and constitutional grounds. Citing a variety of statements by Trump and administration officials, they argued that the proclamation and its predecessor orders were motivated by anti-Muslim animus.

American Legion v. American Humanist Association, 588 U.S. ___ (2019), was a United States Supreme Court case dealing with the separation of church and state related to maintaining the Peace Cross, a World War I memorial shaped after a Latin cross, on government-owned land, though initially built in 1925 with private funds on private lands. The case was a consolidation of two petitions to the court, that of The American Legion who built the cross, and of the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission who own the land and maintain the memorial. Both petitions challenged the Fourth Circuit's ruling that, regardless of the secular purpose the cross was built for in honoring the deceased soldiers, the cross emboldened a religious symbol and had ordered it altered or razed. The Supreme Court reversed the Fourth Circuit's ruling in a 7–2 decision, determining that since the Cross had stood for decades without controversy, it did not violate the Establishment Clause and could remain standing.

Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, 591 U.S. ___ (2020), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that a state-based scholarship program that provides public funds to allow students to attend private schools cannot discriminate against religious schools under the Free Exercise Clause of the Constitution.

Carson v. Makin, 596 U.S. 767 (2022), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case related to the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and the Free Exercise Clause. It was a follow-up to Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue.

Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, 597 U.S. 507 (2022), is a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court in which the Court held, 6–3, that the government, while following the Establishment Clause, may not suppress an individual from engaging in personal religious observance, as doing so would violate the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Lauren Markoe; Cathy Lynn Grossman (May 5, 2014). "Supreme Court approves sectarian prayer at public meetings". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on May 7, 2014. Retrieved May 8, 2014.
  2. ↑ Town of Greece v. Galloway,No. 12-696 , 572 U.S. 565 (2014).
  3. 1 2 3 Liptak, Adam (May 5, 2014). "Town Meetings Can Have Prayer, Justices Decide". The New York Times. Archived from the original on May 5, 2014. Retrieved May 5, 2014.
  4. ↑ Stohr, Greg (July 26, 2013). "'Let Us Pray' Before Town Council Becomes High Court Case". Bloomberg News . Archived from the original on October 8, 2013. Retrieved October 10, 2013.
  5. ↑ Galloway v. Town of Greece, 681F.3d20 ( 2d Cir. 2012).
  6. ↑ Liptak, Adam (May 20, 2013). "Justices Take Case on Prayer at Town Board Meetings, and a Patent Dispute". New York Times . Archived from the original on September 12, 2013. Retrieved October 10, 2013.
  7. ↑ Adler, Jonathan H. (May 6, 2014). "Breaking — Supreme Court upholds legislative prayer in Town of Greece v. Galloway". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on May 5, 2014. Retrieved May 6, 2014.
  8. ↑ "Opinion of the Court, page 24" (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on September 22, 2015. Retrieved October 27, 2022.
  9. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Howe, Amy (May 5, 2014). "Tradition! Today's legislative prayer decision in Plain English". SCOTUSblog. Archived from the original on September 8, 2018. Retrieved May 8, 2014.
  10. 1 2 Walsh, Mark (May 5, 2014). "A "view" from the Court: A divided ruling on prayer, but no fireworks". SCOTUSblog. Archived from the original on May 9, 2014. Retrieved May 8, 2014.
  11. 1 2 Denniston, Lyle (May 5, 2014). "Opinion analysis: Prayers get a new blessing". SCOTUSblog. Archived from the original on May 8, 2014. Retrieved May 8, 2014.
  12. ↑ Kaufmann, Scott (May 9, 2014). "Florida town's choice: Violate Supreme Court ruling or open meeting with Satanic prayer". The Raw Story. Archived from the original on May 12, 2014. Retrieved May 11, 2014.
  13. ↑ "Syllabus opinion, p. 3" (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on September 22, 2015. Retrieved October 27, 2022.
  14. 1 2 Volokh, Eugene (May 5, 2014). "The Supreme Court's city council prayer decision". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on May 9, 2014. Retrieved May 8, 2014.
  15. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Adler, Jonathan H. (May 5, 2014). "Breaking — Supreme Court upholds legislative prayer in Town of Greece v. Galloway". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on May 17, 2014. Retrieved May 8, 2014.
  16. ↑ "Town of Greece v. Galloway". The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. Archived from the original on May 8, 2014. Retrieved May 9, 2014.
  17. ↑ "Town of Greece v. Galloway". Oyez. Retrieved March 25, 2024.
  18. ↑ Feldman, Noah (May 5, 2014). "Justice Kennedy has us all in his prayers". The St.Louis Post-Dispatch. Archived from the original on July 4, 2022. Retrieved May 19, 2014.
  19. ↑ "Jewish groups pan US Supreme Court prayer ruling Read more: Jewish groups pan US Supreme Court prayer ruling". The Times of Israel. May 7, 2014. Archived from the original on May 9, 2014. Retrieved May 9, 2014.
  20. ↑ David G. Savage (May 5, 2014). "Prayer case divides Supreme Court justices along religious lines". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on May 7, 2014. Retrieved May 8, 2014.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.