In The Satanic Temple, Inc. v. City of Boston, (D MA, July 31, 2023), a Massachusetts federal district court upheld Boston City Council's refusal to invite a representative of The Satanic Temple ("TST") to deliver an invocation at a City Council meeting. The court said in part:
TST can prevail on its Establishment Clause claim if the evidence shows that the City's denial of TST's request to give the invocation was based on TST's religious beliefs. The City provides ample evidence that the refusal to invite TST to give an invocation was not because of TST's religious beliefs. All of the evidence submitted suggests that individual City Councilors invited speakers who served their constituents and were active in their communities, and TST did not qualify as such....
While TST provides some evidence that it had been involved in the greater Boston community, which is the primary factor City Councilors consider when selecting invocation speakers, through “Menstruatin’ with Satan,” “Warmer than Hell,” and Boston Pride tabling, there is no evidence that the City Councilors knew of those activities, nor that those activities took place within the Councilors’ districts. Indeed, the evidence clearly conflicts with that conclusion.....
The emails sent from the public to the City Councilors fall short of supporting TST's discrimination claim. Emails from the public expressing disagreement with TST's beliefs —particularly where, as here, there is no evidence that any City Councilor responded to those emails—do not support an inference that City Councilors did not invite TST to give an invocation because they shared the same opinion as the senders....
The City Council's process—or lack thereof—for selecting invocation speakers is the most troublesome to the Court of all factors to consider regarding legislative prayer practices. There is no dispute that the selection of the invocation speaker is left to each individual City Councilor's discretion, and there are no formal written policies governing this procedure. This leaves ample room for abuse, which concerns the Court. However, the lack of a formal, written policy does not by itself create a constitutional problem (though the existence of one could provide neutrality-enforcing guidelines that would help avoid constitutional issues in the future), nor does the fact that the selection of speakers is left to the discretion of the individual Councilors.
The court also rejected a free exercise claim. [Thanks to Greg Chaufen for the lead.]
