11-27-17 Commissioner Stinson11/27/17
TowneotOreece-14,Gallowavt,572 U.S. (2014), is a United States Supreme Court
case in which the court decided that theLTowniof_Greece,-New York may permit volunteer
chaplains to open each legislative session with a prayer.[2][3] Therplaintiffs were Susan
Gales y_and_Linda Stephens, repirr_esented_by Americans United for Separation-_ofiGhurch
and=State.[4]They argue-that_the. prayers violate e-Establishment;Clause-of=the:First
Amendment_to=the:United States -Constitution The _United- States, _Court of_Appeals-for_the
Second=Circuit ruled ag"ainstahe:town, and on-May_20, 2013 the Supreme Court agreed to
rule on the issue.[5] IVIay =S; 2014,_the U.S. Supreme�Court7rule:d_5.4 in favor of the
(Town_-ofGreece, and that the-town'apractice of beginninglegislatiue_sessions_ With,
prayers does_not=violate-the Establishment -Clause of_the=First Amendmint.r
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Town_of_Greece v._Galloway
t:?), C cir 1 ��c ,Witcm-my
Supreme Court of the United States
Full case
name
Docket nos.
Citations
Argument
Opinion
announcement
Prior history
Town of Greece, New York v.
Galloway et al.
572 U.S. (more)
681 F 3d 20 (reversed)
The townof-Greece-does notviolate-the First-
Amend dment's Establishmenf Clause: by
, o enin lit-rneetin s -with sectariani1 i rayer .a
-that:comports-WithAmerica's-traditionand .;
doesnr't coerce_particcipation bynonadherents;
11/16/17, 10:58 PM
Page 1 of 8
Majority opinion
I
By a 5-4 vote, the -Court_ ruled_that the_town's :practice -did- not violatethe_Establishment
(Clause. The majority opinion authored by Justice Kennedy stated: "The town..of:Gredbe
does not;_violate=the=First A n1 ndment_by-opening its_meetings-with_pray-erthat_comports
with our tradition-anddoes not coerce-participatio.n_by nonadherents.",[7] The court
concluded that the town's practice-otopening its town -board -meetings witha=pray-er:
offered by members of the clergy -does not=violate-the -Establishment Clause-whenthe:
practice-is-consistent with_ the-tradition_long-followed- by=Congress and_ state -legislatures,
the -town does-not-discriminate-againstminor-ity faiths -in -determining who r-riay-off- er a
prayer, and -the prayer does riot -coerce participationwith_non=adherents.[8][9][10]
The majority held that sectarian prayers at government meetings are permissible under
the Constitution.[1][3] `To -hold -that invocations must -be nonsectarian -would -force the-
legislatures-sponsoring--prayers-and_the-courts-deciding-these casesto act=as-supervisors--
and -censors=of-religious speech," Kennedy wrote for himself and the conservative
members on the court.[1] Lawmakers and judges would otherwise have to police prayer,
he wrote,rinvol_ving-"government-in_ religious_matters to_afar-greater-de: ree than is the
case under the: -town's current:practice of neither editinnor approving -prayers in advance
;nor -criticizing -their -content after the fact."[1] This=r_neans=that=prayers are allowed=to-invoke
;particular religious affiliations without -running -afoul of the_First-Amendment-prohibition
against endorsement-of-rel_igion_at federal, state or-locallevel.[11]
Kennedy stated thatvU.S:-Constitution-doesn't=require=the town -of Greece to -search
outside the -town for -chaplains from -other faiths -as long -as tithe=town-maintains a policy
.of
nondiscrirni-nation: ,He however included a restraint on legislature prayers by stating that "
[t]he purpose of legislative prayer is to lend gravity" to sessions where "the divisive
business of governing" will take place.[9] Noting that legislature prayer (in this context)
should be "solemn and respectful in tone",[8] Kennedy went on to state that when
legislative prayers are used as an opportunity to condemn or try to convert people who
are not members of a particular religion, then these prayers would not conform with the
Constitution .[8] He added in general: "Absent a- pattern_ of -prayers that over time-deni -rate,
proselytize., -or betray:an-impermissibl
_e Government -purpose, _a challenge based=solely on
the-c_ontent_of--a particular -prayer -will not likel establish a_constitutional-v_ielation."[12]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Town_of_Greece_v._Galloway 11/16/17, 10:58 PM
Page 3 of 8
prayers steeped in only one faith, addressed toward members of the public, commenced
meetings to discuss local affairs and distribute government benefits. In my view, that
practice does not square with the First Amendment's promise that every citizen,
irrespective of her religion, owns an equal share in her government."[14] According to
Kagan the providing equal treatment would have been easy: town council members could
tell the chaplains that the prayers should be non -denominational, or they could have
invited clergy from all different faiths to give the prayers, rather than focusing almost
exclusively on Christian ministers. [1 31[1 41 However, the town didn't employ either of those
measures. [141
Reaction to ruling
The reactions to the court's ruling were diverse. Christian conservatives and others who
feel that religious expression has been overly curtailed in public settings were happy with
the ruling. Eric Rassbach, deputy general counsel of the Becket Fund for Religious
Liberty, called the court's decision "a great victory for religious liberty."[1] Along with their
supporters, the Jewish and atheist women who filed suit against the town of Greece were
disappointed by the court's ruling.[1] A number of Jewish organizations, including the
American Jewish Committee and the Anti -Defamation League, had filed amici curiae
briefs in support of the respondents, and expressed disappointment with the majority's
decision.[171 Secular groups were also disappointed. Daniel Mach, director of the ACLU
Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief, for example stated: "We are disappointed by
today's decision. Official religious favoritism should be off-limits under the Constitution.
Towri-sponsored sectarian prayer violates the basic rule requiring the government to stay
neutral on matters of faith."[11 Ira Lupu, a law professor emeritus at George Washington
University who specializes in the First Amendment, called the court's ruling "a very bad
decision" because it undermined the Establishment Clause. Lupu explained that the court
decision "does not insist on any [...] reasonable effort to make prayer nonsectarian or to
push for diversity. The majority faith in a particular community can dictate the prayers and
minority faiths could be left out if they don't step up and say, 'Hey, what about us?"'[1]
The Los Angeles Times pointed out that the decision divided the justices along religious
lines, as well as ideological ones. All five justices in the majority were Catholics, and three
out of the four dissenters were Jewish.[18]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Town_of_Greece_v._Galloway 11/16/17, 10:58 PM
Page 5 of 8
See also
• Marsh v. Chambers: holding that the practice of hiring a chaplain for the Nebraska state
legislature did not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment
• Mouvement laique quebecois v Saguenay (City): a similar Canadian case
References
1. Lauren Markoe And Cathy Lynn Grossman (May 5, 2014).
. The Washington Post. Retrieved May 8, 2014.
2.
3. Liptak, Adam (May 5, 2014).
New York Times. Retrieved May 5, 2014.
4. Stohr, Greg (26 July 2013).
Bloomberg News. Retrieved 10 October 2013.
5. Liptak, Adam (20 May 2013).
. New York Times. Retrieved 10 October 2013.
6. Adler, Jonathan H. (May 6, 2014).
7.
The
. The Washington Post. Retrieved May 6, 2014.
8. Howe, Amy (May 5, 2014).
. SCOTUSbIog. Retrieved May 8, 2014.
9. Walsh, Mark (May 5, 2014).
. SCOTUSbIog. Retrieved May 8, 2014.
10. Denniston, Lyle (May 5, 2014).
SCOTUSbIog. Retrieved May 8, 2014.
11. Kaufmann, Scott (May 9, 2014).
. The Raw Story. Retrieved May 11, 2014.
12.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Town_of_Greece_v._Galloway
11/16/17, 10:58 PM
Page 7 of 8