Fields v. Speaker of the Pa. House of Representatives
| Decision Date | 23 August 2019 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 18-2974 & 18-3167,s. 18-2974 & 18-3167 |
| Citation | 936 F.3d 142 |
| Parties | Brian FIELDS ; Paul Tucker; Deana Weaver; Scott Rhoades; Joshua E. Neiderhiser; Pennsylvania Nonbelievers, Inc.; Dillsburg Area Freethinkers; Lancaster Freethought Society; Rev. Dr. Neal Jones; Philadelphia Ethical Society ; Richard Kiniry Brian Fields ; Paul Tucker; Deana Weaver; Scott Rhoades; Joshua E. Neiderhiser; Pennsylvania Nonbelievers, Inc.; Dillsburg Area Freethinkers; Lancaster Freethought Society; Rev. Dr. Neal Jones; Philadelphia Ethical Society Appellants (18-3167) v. SPEAKER OF the PENNSYLVANIA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES; Parliamentarian of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives; Director of Special Events of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives; Representative for Pennsylvania House District 92; Representative for Pennsylvania House District 95; Representative for Pennsylvania House District 97; Representative for Pennsylvania House District 165; Representative for Pennsylvania House District 167; Representative for Pennsylvania House District 182; Representative for Pennsylvania House District 193; Representative for Pennsylvania House District 196, all solely in their official Capacities Appellants (18-2974) |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit |
AMBRO, Circuit Judge The Pennsylvania House of Representatives begins most legislative sessions with a prayer. The practice has two features that are challenged in this appeal. First, the House invites guest chaplains to offer the prayer, but it excludes nontheists (those who do not espouse belief in a god or gods, though not necessarily atheists) from serving as chaplains on the theory that "prayer" presupposes a higher power. Second, visitors to the House chamber pass a sign asking them to stand for the prayer, and the Speaker of the House requests that audience members "please rise" immediately before the prayer. At least once a House security guard pressured two visitors who refused to stand.
A group of nontheists have challenged the theists-only policy under the Establishment, Free Exercise, Free Speech,1 and Equal Protection Clauses2 of our Constitution. As to the Establishment Clause, we uphold the policy because only theistic prayer can satisfy the historical purpose of appealing for divine guidance in lawmaking, the basis for the Supreme Court taking as a given that prayer presumes a higher power. For the Free Exercise, Free Speech, and Equal Protection Clauses, we hold that legislative prayer is government speech not open to attack via those channels.
The nontheists also challenge as unconstitutionally coercive the requests to "please rise" for the prayer. We hold that the single incident involving pressure from a security guard is moot. As for the sign outside the House chamber and the Speaker’s introductory request that guests "please rise," we hold that these are not coercive.
Thus we affirm in part and reverse in part the ruling of the District Court.
A member of the Pennsylvania House or a guest chaplain opens most legislative sessions with a prayer. A guest chaplain must be "a member of a regularly established church or religious organization." The House defines "opening prayer" as a chance for its members "to seek divine intervention in their work and their lives." Taken together, the House rules do not allow nontheists to give the opening prayer.
Once a guest chaplain is selected, he or she is told to craft a prayer "respectful of all religious beliefs." Fields v. Speaker of the Pa. House of Representatives , 251 F. Supp. 3d 772, 777 (M.D. Pa. 2017) ( Fields I ). The 203 members of the House "com[e] from a wide variety of faiths," so "efforts to deliver an inter-faith prayer are greatly appreciated." Fields v. Speaker of the Pa. House of Representatives , 327 F. Supp. 3d 748, 751 (M.D. Pa. 2018) ( Fields II ). Still, no House member reviews the prayer ahead of time.
From 2008 to 2016 the House prayer practice was as follows. For 678 legislative sessions, 575 began with a prayer. Of those prayers, 310 were offered by House members and 265 by guest chaplains. Among the 265 guest chaplains were 238 Christian clergy, 23 Jewish rabbis, three Muslim imams, and one monotheistic (yet otherwise unrecognizable) speaker. Fields I , 251 F. Supp. 3d at 777. The House branched out in 2017 from the Abrahamic faiths with its first Sikh guest chaplain. Fields II , 327 F. Supp. 3d at 752.
The plaintiffs here wish to offer the opening prayer as well. They represent a variety of nontheist organizations, including Secular Humanists, Unitarian Universalists, and Freethinkers.3 Most of these groups self-identify as "religious" organizations, and their practices parallel those of a church. For instance, they gather regularly to discuss their worldviews, study important texts, observe annual celebrations, and participate in community service. Fields I , 251 F. Supp. 3d at 776. Their "clergy" even perform weddings and officiate at funerals. In short, they look and act like a church or synagogue in all ways but one: they do not profess belief in the existence of a higher power.
For this reason alone, the House denied their requests to offer a prayer. Each group had proposed an uplifting secular message — a "nontheistic" prayer touching on themes such as equality, unity, decency, hope, peace, compassion, tolerance, and justice. Fields II , 327 F. Supp. 3d at 750. But because their proposed invocations would not appeal to a "higher power," they were turned away. Id. at 753.
Two features of the prayer practice changed in response to this lawsuit. First, the Speaker of the House had asked guests to "please rise." Id. In 2017 he elaborated that guests "please rise as able." Id. Second, a sign outside the House chamber had explained that legislative sessions begin with a prayer and the Pledge of Allegiance, and it had asked that all guests "who are physically able" rise "during this order of business." After this lawsuit, "physically" was dropped. Id. at 754. On appeal, the parties dispute only whether the pre-2017 practice was unconstitutionally coercive.
The nontheists also challenge the coercive nature of one incident in 2012. After the Speaker’s general request to "please rise," plaintiffs Brian Fields and Scott Rhoades remained seated. A House security guard singled them out and pressured them to stand. Id. at 753. However, they were not asked to leave, and no action was taken against them.
The leaders of several nontheist groups, along with the groups themselves, brought this suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Speaker of the House, the House Parliamentarian, and several House members. The plaintiffs took aim at the guest chaplain policy and the practice of asking that guests "please rise" for the prayer. First, they asserted that the policy of excluding nontheists from serving as guest chaplains violated the Establishment, Free Speech, Free Exercise, and Equal Protection Clauses. Second, they claimed that asking guests to "please rise" for the prayer was unconstitutionally coercive in violation of the Establishment Clause.
At the motion-to-dismiss stage, the District Court winnowed the claims to the alleged Establishment Clause violations. Reasoning that legislative prayer is government speech rather than speech by private citizens, the Court dismissed the claims brought under the Free Exercise, Free Speech, and Equal Protection Clauses. The Establishment Clause claims survived, however, because the Court needed a record at summary judgment to determine (1) "[w]hether history and tradition sanctify the House’s line of demarcation between theistic and nontheistic chaplains," and (2) whether the Speaker’s request to "please rise" for the prayer was unconstitutionally coercive. Fields I , 251 F. Supp. 3d at 789.
After discovery, both sides moved for summary judgment. The Court held that the guest chaplain policy violated the Establishment Clause and issued a permanent injunction. As for the requests to "please rise" for the opening prayer, it held that the current policy (amended in response to the lawsuit) was not coercive, but that the pre-2017 policy was.
Both sides have appealed.
The District Court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. We have jurisdiction per 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review the Court’s findings of fact for clear error and its conclusions of law de novo . VICI Racing, LLC v. T-Mobile USA, Inc. , 763 F.3d 273, 282–83 (3d Cir. 2014).
Principally before us is whether the Pennsylvania House may intentionally exclude nontheists from offering prayers to open the legislative session. Because the House’s policy preferring theistic over nontheistic prayers fits squarely within the historical tradition of legislative prayer, we part with the District Court on this point and uphold the prayer policy.
(i) Background on the Historical Framework — History supplies our method of analyzing cases involving legislative prayer. In Establishment Clause challenges like this, we ask "whether the prayer practice" in question "fits within the tradition long followed in Congress and the state legislatures." Town of Greece v. Galloway , 572 U.S. 565, 577, 134 S.Ct. 1811, 188 L.Ed.2d 835 (2014). The early legislative practice of those who drafted the Establishment Clause "reveal[s] their intent" as to its scope. Marsh v. Chambers , 463 U.S. 783, 790, 103 S.Ct. 3330, 77 L.Ed.2d 1019 (1983) ; see also New Doe Child #1 v. United States , 901 F.3d 1015, 1020 (8th Cir. 2018) (). In other words, we employ "a history and tradition test." Am. Legion v. Am. Humanist Ass’n , ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Greenberg v. Goodrich
...‘absolutely clear that the allegedly wrongful behavior could not be reasonably expected to recur.’ " Fields v. Speaker of the Pa. House of Representatives , 936 F.3d 142, 161 (3d Cir. 2019) (quoting Parents Involved in Cmty. Sch. v. Seattle Sch. Dist. No. 1 , 551 U.S. 701, 719, 127 S.Ct. 27......
-
Eaton Corp. v. Geisenberger
...behavior could not reasonably be expected to recur." ’ " Hartnett , 963 F.3d at 307 (quoting Fields v. Speaker of the Pa. House of Representatives , 936 F.3d 142, 161 (3d Cir. 2019) (quoting Parents Involved in Cmty. Sch. v. Seattle Sch. Dist. No. 1 , 551 U.S. 701, 719, 127 S.Ct. 2738, 168 ......
-
Clark v. Governor of New Jersey
...clear that the allegedly wrongful behavior could not reasonably be expected to recur." See, e.g., Fields v. Speaker of the Pa. House of Representatives , 936 F.3d 142, 161 (3d Cir. 2019) (quoting Parents Involved in Cmty. Sch. v. Seattle Sch. Dist. No. 1 , 551 U.S. 701, 719, 127 S.Ct. 2738,......
-
Hansen Found., Inc. v. City of Atl. City
...‘absolutely clear that the allegedly wrongful behavior could not reasonably be expected to recur.’ " Fields v. Speaker of the Pa. House of Representatives, 936 F.3d 142, 161 (3d Cir. 2019) (quoting Parents Involved in Cmty. Sch. v. Seattle Sch. Dist. No. 1, 551 U.S. 701, 719, 127 S.Ct. 2738......
-
Between a Rock and a Hard Place: the Struggle to Analyze School Board Prayer and a New Method of Establishment Clause Analysis
...objected in an untenable position'" (citations omitted)).197. Town of Greece, 572 U.S. at 583.198. Compare Fields v. Speaker of Pa. H.R., 936 F.3d 142, 147 (3d Cir. 2019) (holding that the legislature's policy of only allowing theistic speakers to offer prayer is permissible), and Bormuth v......