Town of Greece v. Galloway
| Decision Date | 05 May 2014 |
| Docket Number | No. 12–696.,12–696. |
| Citation | 134 S.Ct. 1811,572 U.S. 565,188 L.Ed.2d 835 |
| Parties | TOWN OF GREECE, NEW YORK, Petitioner v. Susan GALLOWAY et al. |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Thomas G. Hungar, Washington, DC, for Petitioner.
Ian H. Gershengorn, for the United States as amicus curiae, by special leave of the Court, supporting the Petitioner.
Douglas Laycock, Charlottesville, VA, for Respondents.
Douglas Laycock, University of Virginia School of Law, Charlottesville, VA, Charles A. Rothfeld, Richard B. Katskee, Mayer Brown LLP, Washington, DC, Ayesha N. Khan, Counsel of Record, Gregory M. Lipper, Caitlin E. O'Connell, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Washington, DC, for Respondents.
*
The Court must decide whether the town of Greece, New York, imposes an impermissible establishment of religion by opening its monthly board meetings with a prayer. It must be concluded, consistent with the Court's opinion in Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783, 103 S.Ct. 3330, 77 L.Ed.2d 1019 (1983), that no violation of the Constitution has been shown.
Greece, a town with a population of 94,000, is in upstate New York. For some years, it began its monthly town board meetings with a moment of silence. In 1999, the newly elected town supervisor, John Auberger, decided to replicate the prayer practice he had found meaningful while serving in the county legislature. Following the roll call and recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance, Auberger would invite a local clergyman to the front of the room to deliver an invocation. After the prayer, Auberger would thank the minister for serving as the board's "chaplain for the month" and present him with a commemorative plaque. The prayer was intended to place town board members in a solemn and deliberative frame of mind, invoke divine guidance in town affairs, and follow a tradition practiced by Congress and dozens of state legislatures. App. 22a–25a.
The town followed an informal method for selecting prayer givers, all of whom were unpaid volunteers. A town employee would call the congregations listed in a local directory until she found a minister available for that month's meeting. The town eventually compiled a list of willing "board chaplains" who had accepted invitations and agreed to return in the future. The town at no point excluded or denied an opportunity to a would-be prayer giver. Its leaders maintained that a minister or layperson of any persuasion, including an atheist, could give the invocation. But nearly all of the congregations in town were Christian; and from 1999 to 2007, all of the participating ministers were too.
Greece neither reviewed the prayers in advance of the meetings nor provided guidance as to their tone or content, in the belief that exercising any degree of control over the prayers would infringe both the free exercise and speech rights of the ministers. Id., at 22a. The town instead left the guest clergy free to compose their own devotions. The resulting prayers often sounded both civic and religious themes. Typical were invocations that asked the divinity to abide at the meeting and bestow blessings on the community:
Id., at 45a.
Some of the ministers spoke in a distinctly Christian idiom; and a minority invoked religious holidays, scripture, or doctrine, as in the following prayer:
Id., at 88a–89a.
Respondents Susan Galloway and Linda Stephens attended town board meetings to speak about issues of local concern, and they objected that the prayers violated their religious or philosophical views. At one meeting, Galloway admonished board members that she found the prayers "offensive," "intolerable," and an affront to a "diverse community." Complaint in No. 08–cv–6088 (WDNY), ¶ 66. After respondents complained that Christian themes pervaded the prayers, to the exclusion of citizens who did not share those beliefs, the town invited a Jewish layman and the chairman of the local Baha'i temple to deliver prayers. A Wiccan priestess who had read press reports about the prayer controversy requested, and was granted, an opportunity to give the invocation.
Galloway and Stephens brought suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of New York. They alleged that the town violated the First Amendment's Establishment Clause by preferring Christians over other prayer givers and by sponsoring sectarian prayers, such as those given "in Jesus' name." 732 F.Supp.2d 195, 203 (2010). They did not seek an end to the prayer practice, but rather 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. Id., at 210, 241.
The District Court on summary judgment upheld the prayer practice as consistent with the First Amendment. It found no impermissible preference for Christianity, noting that the town had opened the prayer program to all creeds and excluded none. Although most of the prayer givers were Christian, this fact reflected only the predominantly Christian identity of the town's congregations, rather than an official policy or practice of discriminating against minority faiths. The District Court found no authority for the proposition that the First Amendment required Greece to invite clergy from congregations beyond its borders in order to achieve a minimum level of religious diversity.
The District Court also rejected the theory that legislative prayer must be nonsectarian. The court began its inquiry with the opinion in Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783, 103 S.Ct. 3330, which permitted prayer in state legislatures by a chaplain paid from the public purse, so long as the prayer opportunity was not "exploited to proselytize or advance any one, or to disparage any other, faith or belief," id., at 794–795, 103 S.Ct. 3330. With respect to the prayer in Greece, the District Court concluded that references to Jesus, and the occasional request that the audience stand for the prayer, did not amount to impermissible proselytizing. It located in Marsh no additional requirement that the prayers be purged of sectarian content. In this regard the court quoted recent invocations offered in the U.S. House of Representatives "in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ," e.g., 156 Cong Rec. H5205 (June 30, 2010), and situated prayer in this context as part a long tradition. Finally, the trial court noted this Court's statement in County of Allegheny v. American Civil Liberties Union, Greater Pittsburgh Chapter, 492 U.S. 573, 603, 109 S.Ct. 3086, 106 L.Ed.2d 472 (1989), that the prayers in Marsh did not offend the Establishment Clause "because the particular chaplain had 'removed all references to Christ.' " But the District Court did not read that statement to mandate that legislative prayer be nonsectarian, at least in circumstances where the town permitted clergy from a variety of faiths to give invocations. By welcoming many viewpoints, the District Court concluded, the town would be unlikely to give the impression that it was affiliating itself with any one religion.
The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed. 681 F.3d 20, 34 (2012). It held that some aspects of the prayer program, viewed in their totality by a reasonable observer, conveyed the message that Greece was endorsing Christianity. The town's failure to promote the prayer opportunity to the public, or to invite ministers from congregations outside the town limits, all but "ensured a Christian viewpoint." Id., at 30–31. Although the court found no inherent problem in the sectarian content of the prayers, it concluded that the "steady drumbeat" of Christian prayer, unbroken by invocations from other faith traditions, tended to affiliate the town with Christianity. Id., at 32. Finally, the court found it relevant that guest clergy sometimes spoke on behalf of all present at the meeting, as by saying "let us pray," or by asking audience members to stand and bow their heads: "The invitation ... to participate in the prayer ... placed audience members who are nonreligious or adherents of non-Christian religion in the awkward position of either participating in prayers invoking beliefs they did not share or appearing to show disrespect for the invocation." Ibid. That board members bowed their heads or made the sign of the cross further conveyed the message that the town endorsed Christianity. The Court of Appeals emphasized that it was the "interaction of the facts present in this case," rather than any single element, that rendered the prayer unconstitutional. Id., at 33.
Having...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Citizens for Quality Educ. San Diego v. Barrera
...Union , 492 U.S. 573, 590, 109 S.Ct. 3086, 106 L.Ed.2d 472 (1989), abrogated on other grounds by Town of Greece v. Galloway , 572 U.S. 565, 134 S.Ct. 1811, 188 L.Ed.2d 835 (2014) ; see also Gillette v. United States , 401 U.S. 437, 450, 91 S.Ct. 828, 28 L.Ed.2d 168 (1971) (the government ma......
-
Chelsey Nelson Photography LLC v. Louisville/Jefferson Cnty. Metro Gov't
...(2015) ; Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. , 573 U.S. 682, 134 S.Ct. 2751, 189 L.Ed.2d 675 (2014) ; Town of Greece v. Galloway , 572 U.S. 565, 134 S.Ct. 1811, 188 L.Ed.2d 835 (2014) ; Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. E.E.O.C. , 565 U.S. 171, 132 S.Ct. 694, 181 L.Ed.......
-
Emilee Carpenter, LLC v. James
...government may not coerce its citizens to support or participate in any religion or its exercise." Town of Greece, N.Y. v. Galloway , 572 U.S. 565, 586, 134 S.Ct. 1811, 188 L.Ed.2d 835 (2014) (internal quotation marks omitted). That principle has no application here. Insofar as those activi......
-
Hilsenrath ex rel. C.H. v. Sch. Dist. of the Chathams
...Chapter , 492 U.S. 573, 597, 109 S.Ct. 3086, 106 L.Ed.2d 472 (1989), abrogated on other grounds by Town of Greece v. Galloway , 572 U.S. 565, 134 S.Ct. 1811, 188 L.Ed.2d 835 (2014). Indeed, to "[f]ocus exclusively on the religious component of any activity would inevitably lead to [the acti......
-
Between a Rock and a Hard Place: the Struggle to Analyze School Board Prayer and a New Method of Establishment Clause Analysis
...excessive entanglement between government and religion. Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 612-13 (1971).17. Marsh, 463 U.S. at 786.18. 572 U.S. 565 (2014).19. Id. at 576 (quoting County of Allegheny v. ACLU, Greater Pittsburgh Chapter, 492 U.S. 573, 670 (1989) (Kennedy, J., concurring in par......
-
RELIGIOUS LIBERTY AND JUDICIAL DEFERENCE.
...2375 (2020); Our Lady of Guadalupe Sch. v. Morrissey-Berru, 140 S. Ct. 2049, 2055 (2020). (231) See, e.g., Town of Greece v. Galloway, 572 U.S. 565, 572 (232) See, e.g., Hosanna-Tabor, 565 U.S. at 180; Our Lady, 140 S. Ct at 2055. (233) See, e.g., Espinoza v. Mont. Dep't of Revenue, 140 S. ......
-
ESTABLISHMENT'S POLITICAL PRIORITY TO FREE EXERCISE.
...Inc. v. Comer, 137 S. Ct. 2012 (2017). (10) See Am. Legion v. Am. Humanist Ass'n, 139 S. Ct. 2067 (2019); Town of Greece v. Galloway, 572 U.S. 565 (2014). The ministerial exception cases have been held to implicate both Clauses. See Our Lady of Guadalupe Sch. v. Morrissey-Berru, 140 S. Ct. ......
-
Revisiting Smith: Stare Decisis and Free Exercise Doctrine.
...Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 220-21 (1972); see also Smith, 494 U.S. at 890; cf Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709 (2005). (202.) See 572 U.S. 565, 578 (203.) See 565 U.S. at 182-85. (204.) See 139 S. Ct. 2067, 2087-89 (2019) (plurality opinion). (205.) While this Article leaves aside a......