Lund v. Rowan Cnty., 1:13CV207.

• Decision Date: 04 May 2015
• Docket Number: No. 1:13CV207.,1:13CV207.
• Citation: 103 F.Supp.3d 712
• Court: U.S. District Court — Middle District of North Carolina
• Parties: Nancy LUND, Liesa Montag–Siegel and Robert Voelker, Plaintiffs, v. ROWAN COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA, Defendant.

103 F.Supp.3d 712

Nancy LUND, Liesa Montag–Siegel and Robert Voelker, Plaintiffs,

v.ROWAN COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA, Defendant.

No. 1:13CV207.

United States District Court, M.D. North Carolina.

Signed May 4, 2015.

Daniel Mach, Heather L. Weaver, American Civil Liberties Union, Washington, DC, Christopher A. Brook, American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina, Raleigh, NC, for Plaintiffs.

David C. Gibbs, III, Barbara J. Weller, Gibbs Law Firm, P.A., Seminole, FL, Bryce Denman Neier, The Law Office of Bryce D. Neier, Fayetteville, NC, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

BEATY, District Judge.

This matter is before the Court on the respective Motions for Summary Judgment of Defendant Rowan County [Doc. # 51] and Plaintiffs Nancy Lund, Liesa Montag–Siegel, and Robert Voelker [Doc. # 52]. The motions are fully briefed and ripe for adjudication. Plaintiffs contend that Defendant's prayer practice is distinguishable from that at issue in Town of Greece v. Galloway,–––U.S. ––––, 134 S.Ct. 1811, 188 L.Ed.2d 835 (2014), and constitutes unconstitutional coercion in violation of the First Amendment's Establishment Clause. Defendant argues that Town of Greececontrols and permits its legislative prayer practice. For the reasons discussed below, the Court will grant Plaintiffs' Motion and deny Defendant's Motion.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Nancy Lund, Liesa Montag–Siegel, and Robert Voelker (“Plaintiffs”) are residents of Rowan County, North Carolina, and each has attended multiple meetings of the Rowan County Board of Commissioners (“the Board”). Commissioners are elected to the Board, and Defendant Rowan County (“Defendant”) exercises its powers as a governmental entity through the Board. The Board usually holds two public meetings per month. From at least November 5, 2007, until the initiation of the present lawsuit in March 2013, the Board regularly opened its meetings with a Call to Order, an Invocation, and the Pledge of Allegiance, in that order.¹Once called to order, the Board Chair typically asked or directed everyone in attendance to stand for the Invocation and Pledge of Allegiance, at which point either the Chairman or another member of the Board would deliver the invocation or prayer.²All of the Commissioners stood for the Invocation and Pledge of Allegiance, and the Commissioners almost always bowed their heads during the Invocation. Frequently, the prayer-giver would begin the prayer with a phrase such as “let us pray” or “please pray with me.” The majority of the audience members would join the Board in standing and bowing their heads during the prayer. Between November 5, 2007, and the filing of Plaintiffs' Complaint, 139 of 143 Board meetings—in other words, 97%—opened with a Commissioner delivering a sectarian prayer invoking Christianity. For example, the prayers normally included references to Jesus, the Savior, and other tenets of the Christian faith. No invocation delivered since November 5, 2007, referenced a deity specific to a faith other than Christianity.

On February 12, 2012, the American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina Legal Foundation sent the Board a letter explaining that the sectarian nature of its Invocations violated the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, based on then-governing Fourth Circuit precedent.³The letter requested a response indicating the Board's planned course of action, but the Board did not formally respond. However, certain Commissioners did make public statements indicating their intentions to continue delivering Christian invocations at Board meetings. For example, then-Commissioner Carl Ford declared to the local television news, “I will continue to pray in Jesus' name. I am not perfect so I need all the help I can get, and asking for guidance for my decisions from Jesus is the best I, and Rowan County, can ever hope for.” (Compl. [Doc. # 1], at ¶ 31.) Commissioner Jim Sides stated in an e-mail obtained by local media that he would “continue to pray in JESUS name ... I volunteer to be the first to go to jail for this cause ... and if you [Commissioner Mitchell] will [get] my bail in time for the next meeting, I will go again!” (Id.) Commissioner Jim Sides also made other publicly disseminated statements—albeit not specifically regarding objections to the Board's prayer practice—regarding his views on religious minorities: “I am sick and tired of being told by the minority what's best for the majority. My friends, we've come a long way—the wrong way. We call evil good and good evil.” (Pls.' Mem. Law Supp. Mot. Summ. J. [Doc. # 53], at 3.)

On March 12, 2013, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction [Doc. # 5] and a Verified Complaint [Doc. # 1] asserting claims of First Amendment violations against Defendant pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Specifically, the Complaint contended that Defendant violated the Establishment Clause by delivering sectarian legislative prayers and by coercing Plaintiffs to participate in religious exercises. Plaintiffs have attended multiple Board meetings at which they have witnessed Commissioners deliver sectarian, Christian-themed prayers. Plaintiffs, none of whom are Christian, each attested to feeling coerced by Defendant's prayer practice. At each meeting attended by Plaintiffs Nancy Lund and Liesa Montag–Siegel, the Board Chair “asked or requested that all stand for the invocation and Pledge of Allegiance,” and as a result, “each member of the Board stood as did everyone [they] saw in the audience.” (Pls.' Ex. A, Lund Aff. [Doc. # 6–1], at ¶ 9; Pls.' Ex. B, Montag–Siegel Aff. [Doc. # 6–2], at ¶ 9.) Plaintiff Lund averred that the prayer practice caused her to feel excluded from the community and the local political process, and further, that she felt “compelled to stand so that [she] would not stand out,” at the Board meetings. (Pls.' Ex. A, Lund Aff. [Doc. # 6–1], at ¶¶ 9–11.) Plaintiff Montag–Siegel likewise objected to the sectarian prayers delivered by the Board, stating that the prayers caused her to feel excluded at meetings, excluded from the community, and coerced into participating in the prayers which were not in adherence with her Jewish faith. Plaintiff Montag–Siegel averred that “the prayers sent a message that the County and Board favors Christians and that non-Christians, like [her], are outsiders.” (Pls.' Ex. B, Montag–Siegel Aff. [Doc. # 6–2], at ¶ 10.)

Plaintiff Robert Voelker similarly objected to the Board's prayer practice, averring that the prayers caused him to “feel uncomfortable and excluded from the meeting and the political community,” as well as “coerced,” and “like an outsider at a governmental meeting.” (Pls.' Ex. C, Voelker Aff. [Doc. # 6–3], at ¶¶ 9–10.) Plaintiff Voelker further stated that he felt pressured to stand and participate in the prayers because at each meeting he had attended, Commissioners and most audience members stood during the invocation, and he “stood because the Invocation goes directly into the Pledge of Allegiance, for which I feel strongly I need to stand.” (Id.at ¶ 7.) Plaintiff Voelker also expressed concern about the sectarian prayer practice at a Board meeting and proposed a non-sectarian prayer that the Board could use instead to open meetings. Plaintiff Voelker now fears “that the [Board]'s clear disagreement with [his] public opposition to sectarian prayer could make [him] a less effective advocate on other issues” he cares about, and that he now “would have to think seriously about whether [he] would speak up out of fear [his] dissent ... would make [him] a less credible and effective advocate in the eyes of the Rowan County Commissioners.” (Id.at ¶ 13.)

The Board's invocation practice was completed according to a long-standing tradition of the Board. The Board has no written policy regarding its legislative prayer practices, but the Commissioners' post-litigation affidavits establish that each Commissioner gave the invocation on a rotating basis. Each Commissioner stated that “[t]he Commission respects the right of any citizen to remain seated or to otherwise disregard the Invocation in a manner that is not disruptive of the proceedings.” (Def. Affs. [Docs. # 23–1–# 23–5], at ¶ 14.) Likewise, the Commissioners all attested to the invocation being given for the benefit of the Board and for the purpose of solemnizing the meetings. The Board, in their respective affidavits, further averred that citizens may leave the room during the Invocation or arrive after the Invocation has been delivered, and that such actions would not impact citizens' rights to participate in the meetings.

Based on then-controlling circuit precedent, this Court granted Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction [Doc. # 5] on July 23, 2013. This Court enjoined Defendant from knowingly and/or intentionally delivering or allowing to be delivered sectarian prayers at meetings of the Rowan County Board of Commissioners during pendency of this suit. In the same Memorandum Opinion and Order [Doc. # 36], this Court denied Defendant's Motion to Dismiss [Doc. # 22] and denied Defendant's Motion to Stay Proceedings [Doc. # 30]. On May 5, 2014, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Town of Greece v. Galloway,–––U.S. ––––, 134 S.Ct. 1811, 188 L.Ed.2d 835 (2014), upholding sectarian legislative prayers as delivered at the Town of Greece's Town Council meetings. On January 20, 2015, the Parties here filed their respective Motions for Summary Judgment, arguing the merits of the present case predominately based upon the holdings of Town of Greece.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a court shall grant summary judgment when there exists no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a); Zahodnick v. Int'l Bus. Machs. Corp.,135 F.3d 911, 913 (4th Cir.1997). “In considering a motion for summary judgment, the district court must ‘view the evidence in the light most...