In The Satanic Temple, Inc. v. City of Boston, (1st Cir., Aug. 6, 2024), the U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals rejected arguments that the failure to invite Satanic Temple to deliver an invocation at a Boston City Council meeting violated the 1st Amendment's Establishment Clause and the free exercise clause of the Massachusetts Constitution. Individual members of Council invite invocation speakers, without any guidelines as to selection. They choose speakers based on personal relations or based on the work the speaker does in the member's district or with the member's constituents. The court said in part:
TST has not shown that any of the Boston City Councilors have chosen invocation speakers based on the Councilors' own religious preferences or biases or barred potential speakers from delivering invocations that oppose the Councilors' religious beliefs. The record shows rather that speakers were invited based on their contributions to the Councilors' districts and to the Boston community....
The record shows that there are many neutral, non-discriminatory reasons why TST has not been invited to give an invocation, including the following. TST does not claim to have had a personal or working relationship with any Councilor on the basis of work it has done to benefit Boston communities. ...
Chief Judge Barron filed a concurring opinion, saying in part:
The City starkly sets forth the argument that causes me concern in its brief to us on appeal. It contends -- seemingly unabashedly -- that the Establishment Clause permits City Councilors to choose invocation speakers based on how likely the selection is to earn them votes at the ballot box from certain religious communities....
I suppose the City is right that using invocations to attract political support from certain religious communities does not constitute invidious religious discrimination. But I am dubious that the Establishment Clause blesses the practice that the City describes....
