Having read the decision, I thought I'd write up three separate posts on Town of Greece v. Galloway. This first post discusses Justice Kennedy's opinion for the Court. The next one will talk about Justice Kagan's dissent and Justice Alito's concurrence. The final post will discuss Justice Thomas's concurrence (joined in part by Justice Scalia).
Here are 10 points on Justice Kennedy's opinion. The opinion was joined in full by Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito. It was joined by Justices Scalia and Thomas except as to Part II(B).
1. By far the most prominent theme in Justice Kennedy's opinion is the role of tradition and historical practice in validating the practice of legislative prayer. That point is repeated no less than six or seven times in all kinds of contexts. The practice is "part of our expressive idiom" and our "heritage." Justice Kennedy writes that "Marsh is sometimes described as "carving out an exception" to the Court's Establishment Clause's jurisprudence," inasmuch as no "tests" were applied in Marsh, but in reality, "[t]he Court in Marsh found those tests unnecessary because history supported the conclusion that legislative invocations are compatible with the Establishment Clause" That's important. It indicates that the mode of analysis in Marsh was not a carve-out, so much as the place where all Establishment Clause analysis begins, and, under certain circumstances, where it ends.
2. Note the emphasis on both history and particularism in the following: "Marsh stands for the proposition that it is not necessary to define the precise boundary of the Establishment Clause where history shows that the specific practice is permitted....A test that would sweep away what has so long been settled would create new controversy and begin anew the very divisions along religious lines that the Establishment Clause seeks to prevent." Very interesting. The claim seems to be that it is the rigidity of the tests themselves in this area, and their failure to grant a kind of presumptive validity to entrenched social practices and traditions, which itself generates religious division.
3. In keeping with points #1 and #2, neither the Lemon test nor the endorsement test figure in Kennedy's analysis at all. There is only a whisper of endorsement in Kennedy's claim in Part II(B) (which JJ. Scalia and Thomas did not join) where he writes that "[i]t is presumed that the reasonable observer is acquainted with this tradition and understands that its purposes are to lend gravity to public proceedings and to acknowledge the place religion holds in the lives of many private citizens, not to afford government an opportunity to proselytize or force truant constituents into the pews." That certainly doesn't mean that these tests are dead. They just are largely MIA.
4. Framing: Everybody--Justice Kennedy, Justice Kagan in dissent (of which more soon), and the parties--seems to have accepted the following framing by the Court: "The Court's inquiry, then, must be to determine whether the prayer practice in the town of Greece fits within the tradition long followed in Congress and the state legislatures." No member of the Court resisted this framing or opined that this was an inappropriate or wrong-headed sort of inquiry.
5. "Sectarian" prayers: "An insistence on nonsectarian or ecumenical prayer as a single, fixed standard is not consistent with the tradition of legislative prayer outlined in the Court's cases." The Court here disavows the claim that only nonsectarian prayers are within Marsh's compass. Again the basis for the claim is in part historical: "The decidedly Christian nature of these prayers must not be dismissed as the relic of a time when our Nation was less pluralistic than it is today." The growing diversity of the country embraces a kind of deep substantive pluralism as well. The County of Allegheny dictum characterizing Marsh as it did--relying, that is, on the fact that the chaplain in Marsh "removed all references to Christ"--is also repudiated by the Court. Kennedy writes: "Marsh nowhere suggested that the constitutionality of legislative prayer turns on the neutrality of its content."
6. Entanglement and majoritarianism in supervision: Kennedy further remarks that requiring the Court to supervise the content of prayers would demand government over-involvement in religious matters. The cite here is to Hosanna-Tabor, not to Lemon. It would also inevitably result in majoritarian favoritism, as courts would demand words acceptable only to a majority, the effect of which would be to exclude a minority.
7. Limits: the limits on the acceptability of legislative prayer seemed to be those which "over time...denigrate nonbelievers or religious minorities, threaten damnation, or preach conversion." Also, where "many present may consider the prayer to fall short of the desire to elevate the purpose of the occasion and to unite lawmakers in their common effort."
8. Note the words "over time" in the previous statement. Although plaintiffs presented some evidence that two of the prayer practice occasions did not serve the traditional functions of legislative prayer as formulated by the Court, these two occasions "do not despoil a practice that on the whole reflects and embraces our tradition. 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 prayer will not likely establish a constitutional violation." That is quite a different test than any that existed before. Moreover, the fact that nearly all of the congregations in town are Christian and therefore are substantially represented--or over-represented--in the legislative prayer practice does not itself render the practice unconstitutional: "So long as the town maintains a policy of nondiscrimination, the Constitution does not require it to search beyond its borders for non-Christian prayer givers in an effort to achieve religious balancing."
9. On the claim that this case could be distinguished from Marsh on the ground that civilians are coerced to participate, the plurality says that the principal purpose of legislative prayer "is largely to accommodate the spiritual needs of lawmakers and to connect them to a tradition dating to the time of the Framers....The analysis would be different if town board members directed the public to participate in the prayers, singled out dissidents for opprobrium, or indicated that their decisions might be influenced by a person's acquiescence in the prayer opportunity."
10. Finally, Lee v. Weisman, which Justice Kennedy authored, is distinguished on the ground that nobody is dissuaded from leaving the meeting room during a prayer, arriving late, or making a later protest. Such activities occur regularly and pass without notice. Quiet acquiescence, in this context as compared with the school context, "does not suggest agreement with the ideas and words expressed."
The Supreme Court has ruled in favor of the Town of Greece in Town of Greece v. Galloway, a case involving the constitutionality of the practice of legislative prayer. The decision is here.
I will have more comments on the decision after having read it through. Suffice it to say for now that the language and jurisprudence of tradition figures extremely prominently in both Justice Kennedy's plurality opinion and in Justice Kagan's main dissent.
Tuesday, April 15, 2014
New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio has reversed the New York City Department of Education's policy of exclusion of religious groups that engage in "worship" from the use, on equal terms with other groups, of public school classrooms--a policy that was upheld several times by the Second Circuit as vindicating "interests favored by the Establishment Clause." The Mayor concluded that "[a] faith-based organization has a right like anyone else" to use the public school space.
Monday, April 14, 2014
This review by Professor Cary Nederman of Professor Maurizio Viroli's Redeeming the Prince: The Meaning of Machiavelli's Masterpiece is very interesting (h/t Matt Lister). I have not read Viroli's book yet (saving it for the summer!), but his reading of Machiavelli--and in particular his interpretation of the famously perplexing Chapter 26 ("Exhortatio ad capessendam Italiam in liberatemque a barbaris vindicandam")--makes a fine textualist case for a kind of civil religion in Machiavelli's work. Here, Machiavelli pleads for an Italian redeemer who--"favorita da Dio e dalla Chiesa" ("favored by God and the Church")--will deliver Italy from its present troubles. The troubles are pretty bad: "sanza capo, sanza ordine, battuta, spogliata, lacera, corsa, e avessi sopportato d'ogni sorte ruina" ("without a head, without order, beaten, denuded, wounded, run down, and having sustained all manner of ruin"). Here's a bit from the review concerning what Machiavelli had in mind concerning the divine agent who would unify Italy and redeem its national promise:
In contrast to most scholars, for whom Chapter 26 cannot be reconciled with the previous body of the text, Viroli insists that Machiavelli's "Exhortation" represents the very crescendo of The Prince. How does Viroli arrive at such an unconventional reading?....His overarching insight, I take it, is that we ought to take Machiavelli at his word when he speaks of religious matters and, in particular, mentions the workings of God. The prevailing tendency, of course, has been to dismiss such references as reflective of either his impiety or his wicked sense of humor. On this important point, I believe Viroli to be largely correct. Scholars have all-too-often filtered their readings of Machiavelli through a set of preconceived notions or impressions of what they assume he was saying, according to his longstanding reputation, rather than what the text actually states. This does not mean that Machiavelli's political thought lacks an underlying agenda, but rather that we must always commence our investigations by taking the words he wrote seriously and at face value....
In particular, Machiavelli's invocation of prophetic wording in Chapter 26, according to Viroli, reflects the overarching purpose of The Prince: the call for a redeemer, presumably Lorenzo de' Medici, to unify Italy in order to remove the foreign elements that have dominated its politics. Machiavelli says that such a redeemer is sanctioned by God, who has rendered the moment propitious for such action. Viroli insists that we must take Machiavelli at his word in this regard, rather than dismissing it as incompatible with the general message of The Prince.
That supposed "general message" helps us to grasp the sense in which Machiavelli may be characterized as a realist for Viroli. Specifically, Viroli asserts that Machiavelli adopts the stance of a "realist with imagination." By this he means that Machiavelli perfectly well understood the situation of Italy as it existed in his own day; this is his "realist" dimension. Yet he posits that Machiavelli was also engaged in an imaginative way to change such reality by promoting a savior, a redeemer, capable of instituting the reforms necessary to transform the realities of his day. On Viroli's account, Machiavelli pursued this agenda by mythologizing the great men of bygone times as well as some of his contemporaries. Thus, he mythologizes the redeemers whom he lauds in Chapters 6 and 26 -- such as Moses, Cyrus and Theseus -- as well as recent political figures such as Caterina Sforza and (especially) Cesare Borgia, both of whom he had encountered during his days in the Florentine civil service. Their deeds are transformed by him without regard to their actual behavior, for which Machiavelli has no use. Machiavelli's realism, then, is not confined to an effort to analyze and explain political events and personalities, past and present, in the manner of a political scientist. Rather, he renders his favored subjects larger than life, with the purpose of exhorting the redeemer to aim at their example, even if he falls short.
Sunday, April 13, 2014
Over at The University Bookman, Professor Elizabeth Corey (Baylor, political science) has a very generous review of The Tragedy of Religious Freedom.
If you do not know Professor Corey's work (the latter noted here by Lisa Schiltz), you should check it out.
Friday, April 11, 2014
Want to be a lawyer? It appears that the study of the classical languages has instrumental as well as intrinsic virtues.
Friday, April 4, 2014
The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has issued its latest decision in Bronx Household of Faith v. Board of Education of the City of New York. For lots of background on the case, which involves equal access to a limited public forum–public school classrooms–after hours for a religious organization that engages in, among other things, “worship,” there are several posts on the case in the MOJ archives. See also this post. The court found for the City, with a dissent by Judge Walker.
Writing for the panel majority, Judge Leval framed the case in these terms:
This appeal raises the question whether the Board of Education of The City of New York (the “Board”), in making the City’s school facilities available outside of school hours for use by outside users and subsidizing such use, may, in furtherance of interests favored by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, refuse to permit the holding of religious worship services.
The trouble ought to be evident already. What exactly are “interests favored by the Establishment Clause”? Are they the same as interests the violation of which would be unconstitutional? That can't be right. If they were such interests, then it would be unconstitutional for the City to permit Bronx Household of Faith to use its facilities. But it isn’t unconstitutional for the City to do so. So what are these “interests”? How is the City acting consistently with “its constitutional duties” here? What “constitutional duties”? The City has no “constitutional duties” to exclude this organization.
After resurrecting the hoary distinction between “expression” and “conduct” (never mind that the Free Exercise Clause protects “exercise”), the court continues:
the Hialeah ordinances [in the Lukumi Babalu case] were motivated by the city council’s disapproval of the targeted religious practice. The Board has no such motivation. There is not a scintilla of evidence that the Board disapproves of religion or any religion or religious practice, including religious worship services. Its sole reason for excluding religious worship services from its facilities is the concern that by hosting and subsidizing religious worship services, the Board would run a meaningful risk of violating the Establishment Clause by appearing to endorse religion. This difference is of crucial importance in determining the reach of Lukumi’s reasoning that a burdensome regulation focused on a religious practice is constitutionally suspect and therefore subject to strict scrutiny. This reasoning makes perfect sense when the regulation’s focus on religion is gratuitous, and all the more so when it is motivated by disapproval of religion (or of a particular religion or religious practice). On the other hand, it makes no sense when the regulation’s focus on religion is motivated by the governmental entity’s reasonable interest in complying with the Establishment Clause….The Establishment Clause prohibits government from engaging in conduct that would constitute an establishment of religion, such as endorsing, or seeming to endorse, a religion. It is only to the extent that governmental conduct affects religion that the restrictive force of the Religion Clauses is operative. Accordingly, rules and policies designed to keep a governmental entity in conformity with its obligations under the Religion Clauses must of necessity focus on religious subject matter. If the focus is not religious, the Religion Clauses have no application. Such focus on religion is neither an invidious discrimination nor constitutionally suspect. To the contrary, it is inevitable.
(12-13, emphasis added). I see. So a municipality can exclude religious people and organizations from access on equal terms to a limited public forum such as a public school classroom if including them would constitute not only “endorsing” religion but also “seeming to endorse” religion.
What does it mean to “seem to endorse religion”? I’m reminded of triple inchoate crimes in criminal law, like attempting to attempt to solicit somebody to commit a crime. What government exclusion of religion would be impermissible under a standard that protects an interest against appearing or seeming to favor religion? The court says that it would not be constitutionally impermissible for the government to issue the following rules: “This city shall not adopt any rule or practice that constitutes an improper burden on the free exercise of religion, or that constitutes an establishment of religion.” Or, “No school or teacher shall compel any student to participate in religious exercises, or seek to persuade any student to alter his or her religious beliefs.” I don’t understand the point of these examples. Of course those rules would be permissible. Those rules reflect what the Religion Clauses actually prohibit, not what they “appear” or “seem” to prohibit.
There are other debatable features of the majority opinion, including the extension of Locke v. Davey, which involved state subsidies, to this limited public forum case. More to the point, however, appearance of endorsement is not the standard under the Establishment Clause as misguidedly interpreted by the Supreme Court even since the Allegheny case. But as I have explained before, the endorsement test, with its emphasis on hurt feelings, offenses taken (and given), and the delicacy of the perception of personal sensibilities is at least partly to blame for what is an “inevitable” and deeply regrettable bloating of the Establishment Clause.
Wednesday, April 2, 2014
My colleague Mark Movsesian and I discuss some of the background of the case and the oral argument, with a few predictions at the end, in this podcast.
