Monday, May 20, 2013
Certiorari Granted in Legislative Prayer Case
The Supreme Court has granted cert. in Town of Greece v. Galloway, a case out of New York in which the Second Circuit held in an opinion by Judge Guido Calabresi that the town's practice of allowing volunteer private citizens to open town board meetings with a prayer violated the Establishment Clause. The last Supreme Court decision to address this precise issue was Marsh v. Chambers (1983), where the Court in a majority decision by Chief Justice Burger upheld the particular practice at issue in Nebraska. Courts of appeals have taken different approaches to the issue post-Marsh, even within the same circuit (see, e.g., the Fourth Circuit's very different approaches in Joyner v. Forsyth County, Wynne v. Town of Great Falls, and Simpson v. Chesterfield County) so I suppose it was on the Court's radar. But one never knows exactly why the Court decides to take up an issue.
For some discussion of the Second Circuit decision, see this post.
UPDATE: Interesting early posts on the case by Eugene Volokh and Paul Horwitz.
https://mirrorofjustice.blogs.com/mirrorofjustice/2013/05/certiorari-granted-in-legislative-prayer-case.html
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the
comment feed
for this post.
There has been various opinions in the lower courts involving legislative prayers with mixed results so this case can be useful to clarify the legal question. Given the leaning of the Court, worried about how they will rule, and hope it won't go too far (e.g., to do away with "endorsement test" in such places, weakening religious liberty in the process).
There were more troublesome fact scenarios than this one (e.g., another case upholding a local policy held that the denial of Wiccan speaker not important, since most faiths were represented) but the lower court does suggest how a policy can have a troubling disparate impact on certain religious groups. This in return "endorses" certain religions over others as a matter of effect at least.
It is a bit interesting how people around here would feel about the matter given Jesus' opinion about such showy public expressions of faith. This is duly noted separate from the legal question.