6th Circuit Grants En Banc Review In Legislative Prayer Case

The U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals on Feb. 27 granted en banc review in Bormuth v. County of Jackson.  In the case, a 3-judge panel in a 2-1 decision held that the manner in which the Jackson County, Michigan Board of Commissioners opens its meetings with prayer violates the Establishment Clause.  AP reports on the grant of review by the full court which has the effect of vacating the panel decision while review is pending. [Thanks to Tom Rutledge for the lead.]

6th Circuit: County Board's Prayer Practice Violates Establishment Clause

In Bormuth v. County of Jackson, (6th Cir., Feb. 15, 2017), the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 decision held that the manner in which the Jackson County, Michigan Board of Commissioners opens its meetings with prayer violates the Establishment Clause.  The majority held that the County Commissioners went beyond that permitted by the Supreme Court's Town of Greece decision.  Plaintiff in the case was Peter Bormuth who described himself as a Pagan and an Animist. When during the public comment period at one meeting Bormuth complained that the invocation practice violated the Establishment Clause, one of the Commissioners "made faces expressing his disgust" and then turned his chair around so he would not look at Bormuth while he spoke.

Judge Moore's majority opinion said in part:

A combination of factors distinguishes this case from the practice upheld in Marsh and Town of Greece, including one important factor: the identity of the prayer giver.... Here, the Jackson County Commissioners give the prayers.... The difference is not superficial. When the Board of Commissioners opens its monthly meetings with prayers, there is no distinction between the government and the prayer giver: they are one and the same....

Because they are the ones delivering the prayers, the Commissioners—and only the Commissioners—are responsible for the prayers’ content.... And because that content is exclusively Christian, by delivering the prayers, the Commissionersare effectively endorsing a specific religion....

What is more, the prayer givers are exclusively Christian because of an intentional decision by the Board of Commissioners.... [A]t least one Jackson County Commissioner admitted that, in order to control the prayers’ content, he did not want to invite the public to give prayers....

First, the Board of Commissioners directs the public to participate in the prayers at every monthly meeting.... Second, the Board of Commissioners has singled out Bormuth for opprobrium. During a public meeting, a Commissioner stated that Bormuth’s lawsuit was an "attack on Christianity and Jesus Christ, period."...

Third, Bormuth has submitted evidence suggesting that the Board of Commissioners has “allocated benefits and burdens based on participation in the prayer.” ... Shortly after Bormuth filed his complaint, Jackson County officials nominated members for the County’s new Solid Waste Planning Committee from a pool of applicants.... Although Bormuth had three years of experience working on related issues, the Board of Commissioners did not nominate him.

Judge Griffin filed a lengthy dissenting opinion. AP reports on the decision.

5th Circuit Hears Oral Arguments On School Board Invocations

The U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday heard oral arguments (audio of arguments) in American Humanist Association v. Birdville Independent School District.  Last August federal district court for the Northern District of Texas (full text of opinion) held that case law permitting legislative prayer applies to invocations at school board meetings.  The practice of the Board, in its latest iteration, involved selecting students at random to make a presentation at each board meeting.  American Humanist Association issued a press release on the oral arguments.

4th Circuit Grants En Banc Review In Legislative Prayer Case

The U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals announced this week that it has granted en banc review in Lund v. Rowan County, North Carolina. In the case, a 3-judge panel of the 4th Circuit held in a 2-1 decision that the practice of the Rowan County Board of Commissioners to open its meetings with an invocation led on a rotating basis by one of the commissioners is constitutional under the Supreme Court's Town of Greece decision. (See prior posting.)

4th Circuit: Sectarian Invocations Led By County Commissioners Are Permissible

In a 2-1 decision today, the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, reversing the trial court, upheld the practice in Rowan County, North Carolina Board of Commissioners of opening their meetings with an invocation led on a rotating basis by one of the commissioners.  In Lund v. Rowan County, North Carolina,  (4th Cir., Sept. 19, 2016), the majority in a 54-page opinion held that the Board's practice is constitutional under the U.S. Supreme Court's Town of Greece  decision, saying in part:

The Board’s legislative prayer practice falls within our recognized tradition and does not coerce participation by nonadherents. It is therefore constitutional.

The district court (see prior posting) had held that Town of Greece does not cover sectarian invocations delivered by the county commissioners themselves instead of invited clergy. The majority, however, said:

Nowhere did the [Supreme] Court say anything that could reasonably be construed as a requirement that outside or retained clergy are the only constitutionally permissible givers of legislative prayer.

Judge Wilkinson, dissenting, said in part:

This combination of legislators as the sole prayer-givers, official invitation for audience participation, consistently sectarian prayers referencing but a single faith, and the intimacy of a local governmental setting exceeds even a broad reading of Town of Greece.

Charlotte Observer reporting on the decision says that the ACLU, representing plaintiffs, will ask for en banc review.

Atheists Sue Pennsylvania House Over Invocation Policy

Yesterday, American Atheists and Americans United filed a federal lawsuit challenging the practice of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives to allow theists but not non-theists to give opening invocations at daily sessions of the House.  The complaint (full text) in Fields v. Speaker of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives, (MD PA, filed 9/25/2016), contends that the practice violates the Establishment Clause, the free speech and free exercise clauses, and the equal protection clause. American Atheists issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit. AU has an interview with three of the individual plaintiffs in the case.

Colombia Court Ends Municipal Council Invocations

Fox News Latino reports that on May 10 a trial court judge in Cartagena, Colombia ordered a stop to invocations at the beginning of Municipal Council meetings and events of other public entities. Yesterday 1000 people demonstrated against the decision in front of city hall, carrying signs with messages such as:   "Cartagena is Christ's" and "God demands that we pray without ceasing."

FFRF Sues House Chaplain Over Invocation Requirements

The Freedom From Religion Foundation yesterday filed suit in federal district court in Washington, D.C. against the U.S. House of Representatives, its Chaplain and other House officials.  The complaint (full text) in Barker v. House of Representatives, (D DC, filed 5/5/2016), challenges the criteria used by the current House Chaplain in approving guest chaplains who deliver some 40% of the invocations opening House sessions. The House Chaplain requires that the guest chaplain be sponsored by a member of the House, be ordained, and deliver an invocation addressed to a "higher power."  Plaintiff Daniel Barker, co-president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, says he meets all these requirements, but was not permitted to deliver an invocation on the ground that his ordination is not in a religion that he now practices. The complaint alleges more generally that "the guest chaplain requirements are inherently discriminatory against the nonreligious and minority religions." The suit seeks declaratory and injunctive relief.

FFRF issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit, saying in part:

FFRF is asking the ... Court ... to declare that barring atheists and other nonreligious individuals from the position of guest chaplain violates the Constitution and RFRA, and that requiring guest chaplains to invoke a supernatural power violates Article VI. The organization is also bringing an Establishment Clause claim under the First Amendment of the Constitution, pointing out the chaplain's office is showing an unconstitutional preference for religion over nonreligion.

"We take some satisfaction in filing this lawsuit on the National Day of Prayer, an unconstitutional law enacted at the behest of the Rev. Bill Graham in 1952 requiring the president to issue an annual proclamation exhorting citizens 'to turn to God in prayer, at churches,'" says Barker.

City Adopts Moment of Silent Prayer To Stop Scheduled Satanic Invocation

After hours of discussion, the Phoenix, Arizona City Council last night voted 5-4 to begin council meetings with a moment of silent prayer, replacing the 65-year old tradition of opening meetings with an invocation.  As reported by Tucson News Now, the change came in reaction to the invocation scheduled for the February 17 council meeting that was to be delivered by a member of the Satanic Temple. Originally some Council members had proposed to merely change the way in which persons were chosen to deliver invocations as a way to prevent the Satanic invocation, but at yesterday's meeting the city's attorney said that kind of retroactive change would likely pose constitutional problems. Meanwhile,  Councilman Jim Waring who wants to continue having invocations says he will seek a referendum on the issue

4th Circuit Hears Oral Arguments On County Commissioners' Invocation Policy

The U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals today heard oral arguments (audio of full arguments) in Lund v. Rowan County, North Carolina, (Docket No. 15-1591). In the case, a North Carolina federal district court held that a county Board of Commissioners' invocation policy is not constitutionally permissible under the Supreme Court's Town of Greece decision when sectarian invocations are delivered by the county commissioners themselves rather than invited clergy and other prayer-givers. The district court also found the county's practice unconstitutionally coercive. (See prior posting.) WBTV reports on today's arguments.

Challenge To City Council Invocation Policy Is Moot

In Beaton v. City of Eureka, (CA App, Sept. 21, 2015), a California Court of Appeals dismissed as moot a state constitutional challenge to the city of Eureka's Invocation Policy adopted in 2012.  That policy required invocations at city council meetings to be non-sectarian.  In 2014, after a 9th Circuit opinion holding that sectarian prayers at city council meetings do not violate the Establishment Clause of the California or federal constitutions, Eureka adopted a revised Invocation Policy.  The challenge to the original policy is moot and the court refused to rule on the broader question of whether legislative prayer in all forms violates the California constitution.

Florida City Ends Invocations After Satanist Demands Participation

The Coral Springs, Florida City Council has decided to end its practice of offering an invocation to open council meetings.  According to a report this week from Christian News Network, the decision came after a Satanist requested to lead an invocation.  Bowing to the campaign by Satanist Chaz Stevens to force an end to city council prayers by "mak[ing] a fiasco out of it," Coal Gables Mayor Skip Campbell said he did not want to spend thousands of dollars on lawyers fees to fight Stevens' invocation request.

Arizona City Adopts Christian-Only Invocation Policy

At its September 14 meeting, the Coolidge, Arizona City Council had before it a resolution (full text) to open each Council meeting with a prayer.  The resolution was drafted to comply with the Supreme Court's Town of Greece guidelines.  However, according to the Coolidge Examiner, in passing the resolution, Council by a 4-2 vote also adopted an amendment offered by Councilman Rob Hudelson to limit invocations to Christian prayers.  The paper reports:

Speaking last was Hudelson, who himself is a preacher. He made clear his views that the United States is a Christian nation.

“I think it’s very important,” Hudelson said. “We just proclaimed Constitution Week. You know what was said at the end of the [Revolutionary] war? A treaty in Paris that said ‘In the name of the most holy and undivided trinity.’ You don’t get that from the Quran. You get it from the Bible. You get it from Christianity. That’s our heritage.”

After this, Hudelson motioned to accept the resolution with the stipulation that this be a Christian item

The City Attorney told Council that this amendment would violate the Establishment Clause, but nevertheless Council passed it.  The Resolution is subject to a 30-day review period, and the City Attorney will now rewrite it to comply with Council's amendment.

Suit Challenges County's Refusal To Allow Invocations By Theists or Humanists

The ACLU, Americans United and the Freedom From Religion Foundation filed suit in federal district court yesterday challenging Brevard County, Florida's policy of rejecting or ignoring requests by atheists and Humanists to deliver invocations at meetings of the Brevard County Board of Commissioners during the regular pre-meeting invocation period. Nontheists were allowed to make presentations only during the public comment period of the meeting. The complaint (full text) in Williamson v. Brevard County, (MD FL, filed 7/7/2015), contends that this policy violates the 1st and 14th Amendments as well as provisions of the Florida Constitution. It emphasizes that the County's policy is not the nondiscriminatory access envisioned by the Supreme Court in its Town of Greece decision permitting sectarian invocations. An ACLU press release announced the filing of the lawsuit, and  Florida Today reports on it.

District Court Modifies, But Will Not Dissolve, Injunction Barring Sectarian Invocations

In Hudson v. Pittsylvania County, Virginia, (WD VA, May 28, 2015), a Virginia federal district court modified, but refused to dissolve, its prior injunction (issued before the Supreme Court's Town of Greece decision) barring sectarian prayer at Pittsylvania County's Board of Supervisors meetings. The court said in part:

By opening its meetings with prayers led by Board members, the Supervisors of Pittsylvania County determined the content of the prayers offered at Board meetings and did so by consistently referencing the tenets of one denomination. In so doing, the Board involved itself “in religious matters to a far greater degree” than was the case in Town of Greece.... Moreover, by delivering the prayers to the assembled public and asking them to stand for the prayers, the Board members “directed the public to participate in the prayers.”... Finally, because the Board itself determined the content of the Pittsylvania County prayers, persons of other faiths had no opportunity to offer opening prayers in their faith traditions. As such, the Supreme Court’s decision in Town of Greece was decided on very different facts, and its decision does not alter the conclusion that the prayer practice of the Board of Supervisors of Pittsylvania County violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.

While the injunction in this case will be modified to eliminate any suggestion that legislative prayer must be nonsectarian, the Board’s exclusive practice of determining the content of and leading the citizens of Pittsylvania County in prayer associated with one faith tradition at the opening of Board meetings will remain enjoined.

Last August the district court had issued an opinion expressing a similar conclusion (see prior posting), but refused to modify the injunction then because it concluded  it did not have jurisdiction to do so until the 4th Circuit to which the case had been appealed granted at least a limited remand. In December, the 4th Circuit dismissed the appeal finding that it was untimely. (See prior posting.)

North Carolina County Commission Chairman Says He Will Only Allow Christian Invocations

Reacting to a recent federal district court decision invalidating the invocation practices in a nearby county (see prior posting), Lincoln County, North Carolina, Board of Commissioners Chairman Carrol Mitchem told WBTV News last week that only Christian prayers would be permitted at Council meetings. He said in part:

Other religions, or whatever, are in the minority. The U.S. was founded on Christianity.  I don’t believe we need to be bowing to the minorities. The U.S. and the Constitution were founded on Christianity. This is what the majority of people believe in, and it’s what I'm standing up for....

I don’t need no Arab or Muslim or whoever telling me what to do or us here in the county what to do about praying. If they don’t like it, stay the hell away.... I ain’t gonna have no new religion or pray to Allah or nothing like that.... 

We’re fighting Muslims every day. I'm not saying they’re all bad.  They believe in a different God than I do. If that’s what they want to do, that’s fine. But, they don't need to be telling us, as Christians, what we need to be doing. They don't need to be rubbing our faces in it.

Another Commission member, Alex Patton, disagreed with Mitchem saying that the country was founded on freedom of religion and complained that Mitchem had "just exposed our county to potential litigation, which was needless."

District Court Invalidates Invocations Delivered By County Commissioners Instead of Invited Clergy

In Lund v. Rowan County, North Carolina, (MD NC May 4, 2015), a North Carolina federal district court held that a county Board of Commissioners invocation policy is not constitutionally permissible under the Supreme Court's Town of Greece decision when sectarian invocations are delivered by the county commissioners themselves rather than invited clergy and other prayer-givers.  The court said in part:

Under the Board’s practice, the government is delivering prayers that were exclusively prepared and controlled by the government, constituting a much greater and more intimate government involvement in the prayer practice than that at issue in Town of Greece or Marsh....

Additionally, because of the prayer practice’s exclusive nature, that is, being delivered solely by the Commissioners, the prayer practice cannot be said to be nondiscriminatory....  [T]he present case presents a closed-universe of prayer-givers, that being the Commissioners themselves, who favored religious beliefs believed to be common to the majority of voters in Rowan County. While an all-comers policy is not necessarily required, a nondiscriminatory one is. When all faiths but those of the five elected Commissioners are excluded, the policy inherently discriminates and disfavors religious minorities. That some day a believer in a minority faith could be elected does not remedy that until then, minority faiths have no means of being recognized.

The court also held that the county's prayer practice is unconstitutionally coercive in violation of the Establishment Clause. Charlotte Observer reports on the decision.

County Council Prayer Policy May Limit Invocations To Local Clergy

In Coleman v. Hamilton County, Tennessee, (ED TN, April 22, 2015), a Tennessee federal district court upheld the prayer policy of the Hamilton County, Tennessee Commission.  The policy allows any eligible member of the clergy in the county to deliver an opening invocation. Plaintiff argued that the Policy is unconstitutional because it only allows invocations to be delivered by members of the clergy who are part of an eligible and established assembly or congregation and makes no provision for other individuals to deliver the invocation. The court rejected the argument, saying:

Plaintiffs’ argument is clearly flawed and flies in the face of established Supreme Court precedent. In Marsh, the Supreme Court expressly authorized legislative bodies to appoint and retain a single person to give invocations at the beginning of official meetings. To find that each and every individual person under the jurisdiction of a particular legislative body has the right to give an opening prayer or invocation at the body’s meetings would effectively overrule not only Marsh, but an entire body of federal case law approving of the constitutionality of chaplains and non-discriminatory legislative prayer policies.

An ADF press release announced the decision.

Canadian Supreme Court Rejects Prayer At City Council Meetings

In an important church-state decision, the Supreme Court of Canada yesterday held that a facially non-sectarian prayer prescribed by a municipal by-law to be said before the start of City Council meetings violates the duty of religious neutrality imposed by the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.  At each Council meeting, the mayor would recite the prayer, while at the beginning and end of the prayer he and other Council members would make the sign of the cross and say "in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit".  In Mouvement laïque québécois v. Saguenay (City), (SCC, April 15, 2015), the recitation of the prayer was challenged by an atheist who attended Council meetings. The Court said in part:

Neither the Quebec Charter nor the Canadian Charter  expressly imposes a duty of religious neutrality on the state. This duty results from an evolving interpretation of freedom of conscience and religion....

By expressing no preference, the state ensures that it preserves a neutral public space that is free of discrimination and in which true freedom to believe or not to believe is enjoyed by everyone equally, given that everyone is valued equally. I note that a neutral public space does not mean the homogenization of private players in that space. Neutrality is required of institutions and the state, not individuals.... On the contrary, a neutral public space free from coercion, pressure and judgment on the part of public authorities in matters of spirituality is intended to protect every person’s freedom and dignity. The neutrality of the public space therefore helps preserve and promote the multicultural nature of Canadian society enshrined in s. 27  of the Canadian Charter.

UPI reports on the decision. [Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]

British Parliament Passes Bill Authorizing Invocations At City Council Meetings

Law & Religion UK reports that on Wednesday in Britain the House of Lords gave final Parliamentary approval to the Local Government (Religious etc. Observances) Bill (full text). The bill, which now will be presented for Royal Assent, authorizes local governmental bodies to include in their meetings time for prayers or other religious observance or for observances connected with a religious or philosophical belief. It also provides that local authorities may support, facilitate or make arrangements to be represented at religious events or events connected with a religious or philosophical belief.  Apparently the bill is a reaction to a court ruling that town councils can open with an invocation, but only if it is not part of the formal meeting. (Background) (See prior related posting).  During the debate in the House of Lords (full text), Baroness Turner of Camden said:

A number of us who are secularists feel that our views have been somewhat bypassed. It is one thing to have prayers, but it is quite another thing to have prayers as part of an actual meeting.