City Council Prayer Policy Upheld

In Rubin v. City of Lancaster, (CD CA, July 11, 2011), a California federal district court rejected an Establishment Clause challenge to prayers with references to Jesus that were delivered under the invocation policy of Lancaster, California City Council.  Under the policy, which had been approved by voters in a referendum, all religious congregations with a presence in the city are invited to volunteer to lead an invocation.  Any single congregation is limited to no more than 3 times per year, and so far everyone who has volunteered has led an invocation.  In this lawsuit, plaintiffs limited their challenge to the invocation with explicit Christian references delivered at one meeting they attended. The court held:

Plaintiffs have failed to establish that the Policy has been used for an improper purpose or is otherwise unconstitutional. Volunteers of numerous faiths are invited to and have given invocations before City Council meetings, and the selection process does not discriminate against any faith. 

... Determining that the April 27, 2010 invocation violated the Establishment Clause by its single reference to Jesus would require this Court to analyze the content of the prayer. But because Plaintiffs do not even claim the April 27 invocation was “exploited to proselytize or advance any one, or to disparage any other, faith or belief,” this Court cannot properly perform such an analysis.... Because their evidence fails to show the April 27 invocation (or the Invocation Policy itself) would have the “effect of affiliating the government with any other one specific faith or belief,” Plaintiffs have not shown an Establishment Clause violation.

According to Wednesday's Los Angeles Daily News, plaintiffs plan to appeal to the 9th Circuit.

Denying Satanic Temple's Invocation Request Upheld

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.]

Satanic Temple Sues to Deliver Invocation at Chicago City Council

The Satanic Temple filed suit last week in an Illinois federal district court challenging the city's exclusion of its clergy from delivering an invocation before Chicago City Council.  The complaint (full text) in The Satanic Temple, Inc. v. City of Chicago, (ND IL, filed 5/3/2023) alleges in part:

2. The City of Chicago has a longstanding practice of inviting clergy to open each meeting of its City Council with a prayer. 

3. Plaintiffs, The Satanic Temple Inc. (“TST”), and Adam Vavrick, an ordained minister of the Satanic Temple and a leader of TST’s Illinois congregation, seek to take part in this time-honored tradition by delivering an invocation before a City Council meeting. For more than three years, the City has rebuffed Plaintiffs’ efforts to provide an invocation without providing any clear explanation of why. 

4. The City’s practices with regard to invocations before City Council violate the First Amendment in two ways:

first, the City violates the First Amendment’s establishment clause by excluding disfavored minority faiths from the opportunity to provide an invocation; and 

second, the City grants the City Clerk unconstrained discretion to decide who can and cannot deliver an invocation because it lacks any standards for selection of clergy to give invocations and has not established a uniform process for members of the clergy to apply to give an invocation.

Reason reports on the lawsuit.

South Dakota City Opts For No Formal Prayer Policy In Face Of Challenge

The Rapid City (SD) Journal reports on the response of Rapid City Council to objections that have been raised to its invocation policy. In January, the Freedom From Religion Foundation wrote to Council asking it to end its tradition of opening Council meetings with an invocation. Council responded at its Feb. 4 meeting by voting to continue to have an invocation and asking the city attorney to draft a formal written policy on the issue. On Feb. 15, FFRF wrote another letter (full text) setting out its legal position. In a Memo to the Mayor and Council dated April 3 (full text), city attorney Joel Landeen suggested elements of a policy that would strengthen the city's legal position: Move the invocation before the meeting formally starts and limit the time of those delivering it; formalize an inclusive process for selecting those who will deliver the invocation; state that the invocation should be non-sectarian and that it should not be used to proselytize or disparage other religions. By a unanimous vote, however, City Council last Monday chose instead to adopt no policy and remain in the position of defending its traditional informal invocation policy. It also agreed in an 8-2 vote that in June it will consider offers by outside organizations that have volunteered to help it with its legal defense if FFRF files suit.

Town of Greece Board Will Hear Secular Invocation Tonight

While the U.S. Supreme Court's decision last month in Town of Greece v. Galloway validated the existing invocation policy of the New York town involved (see prior posting), in a sense things are changing in Greece.  According to Justice Kennedy's description of the town's policy:

[Town] leaders maintained that a minister or layperson of any persuasion, including an atheist, could give the invocation. But nearly all of the congregations in town were Christian; and from 1999 to 2007, all of the participating ministers were too.

The American Humanist Association has announced that at tonight's Town Board meeting, for the first time a "secular invocation" will be delivered.  As reported last month by Religion News Service, tonight's invocation will be offered by Dan Courtney, a member of the Atheist Community of Rochester, NY, located nearby. Courtney says his invocation will stress that government needs to represent all the people regardless of religious belief. The American Humanist Society has compiled a list of individuals around the country available to deliver invocations that do not call on a "supernatural entity" for guidance.

Memphis City Council Adopts New Invocation Policy In Response To FFRF

On Tuesday, the Memphis, Tennessee City Council adopted a lengthy resolution (full text) creating a new policy on opening invocations before city council meetings.  As reported by WREG News, the policy was adopted in order to attempt to avoid a lawsuit threatened by the Freedom From Religion Foundation. Previously invocations were offered, but no written policy was in existence.

After beginning with nearly 3 pages of  "Whereas" clauses, the newly adopted resolution goes on to provide for the Council Administrator to draw up a broad list of religious and benevolent non-profit organizations-- both religious and secular-- with an established local presence. Representatives of these organizations, as well as any fire, police or military chaplain, are eligible to offer "an invocation, which may include a prayer, a reflective moment of silence, or a short solemnizing message... for the benefit of the Council." In somewhat contradictory directions, the policy calls for the Clerk to "make every reasonable effort to ensure that a variety of eligible invocation speakers are scheduled for the Council meetings." However it also provides that an invitation shall be published each year inviting eligible organizations to volunteer to offer the invocation, and that "the respondents to the invitation shall be scheduled on a first-come, first-serve basis to deliver the invocation."

Pastor Sues City Council Over Censorship of His Invocation

A suit was filed in a Florida federal district court this week by a pastor whose invocation at a Jacksonville City Council meeting was cut off by the Council president who thought the invocation was too political.  The complaint (full text) in Gundy v. City of Jacksonville, (MD FL, filed 7/1/2019), alleges that Pastor Reginald Grundy's microphone was cut off 4 minutes into his invocation after he said:

Father, in the name of Jesus, we have a political climate right now that is dividing our community further and further apart because of pride and selfish ambitions. People are being intimidated, threatened, and bullied by an executive branch of our city government while cronyism and nepotism is being exercised in backrooms.

City Council President Aaron Bowman justified his action the next day on Twitter, saying:

I never envisioned a CM (council member) stooping so low to find a pastor that would agree to such a sacrilegious attack politicizing something as sacred as our invocation. It obviously was a last ditch effort to try and revive a failed term and campaign. Fortunately I control the microphone.

Grundy contends that Bowman's action violated his free speech and free exercise rights protected by the U.S. and Florida constitutions. News4JAX reports on the lawsuit.

11th Circuit: City Council Invocation Is Government Speech

In Gundy v. City of Jacksonville Florida, (11th Cir., Sept. 30, 2022), the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of appeals held that an invocation opening a city council meeting delivered by Reginald Gundy, a pastor invited by a member of Council, is government speech.  At issue is a suit by the pastor whose microphone was cut off in the middle of his invocation by the city council president who concluded that the invocation had crossed over into a political attack. The court concluded that the pastor's suit should be dismissed, saying in part:

Mr. Gundy's appeal centers on the fact that he brought counts against Mr. Bowman and the City based on alleged violations of his free speech and free exercise rights under the United States Constitution and the Florida Constitution.

As a threshold and dispositive matter, ... we hold that the district court erred in deeming the invocation private speech in a nonpublic forum instead of government speech. And since Mr. Gundy did not allege a violation of his rights under the Establishment Clause, which is the proper constitutional vehicle to attack the government speech at issue here, his appeal must fail.

Religious Speakers At Republican Convention

Politico sets out the full schedule of speakers and events at the Republican Convention that began yesterday.  Here is the list of religious figures delivering invocations, remarks and benedictions:

Monday Afternoon Session:

• Invocation: Rabbi Ari Wolf
• Benediction: Pastor Mark Burns. Harvest Praise and Worship Center

Monday Evening Session:

• Prayers from Maria Foundation
• Invocation: Monsignor Keiran Harrington, Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn, NY
• Benediction Pastor Paula White, New Destiny Christian Center

Tuesday Session:

• Invocation:  Harmeet Dhillon, San Francisco, CA
• Benediction: Sajid Tarar, Founder, American Muslims for Trump

Wednesday Session:

• Invocation: Nathan Johnson, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
• Remarks: Darrell Scott, Senior Pastor, New Spirit Revival Center Ministries
• Benediction: His Eminence Archbishop Demetrios Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America and Exarch of the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans

Thursday Session:

• Invocation Reverend Dr. Steve Bailey, Pastor, New Philadelphia First United Methodist Church
• Remarks: Jerry Falwell, Jr., President, Liberty University
• Benediction: Roger W. Gries, Auxiliary Bishop Emeritus

Cutoff of Pastor's City Council Invocation Did Not Violate 1st Amendment

In Gundy v. City of Jacksonville, Florida, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78850 (MD FL, March 22, 2021)-- decided last month but just available on Lexis-- a Florida federal district court dismissed a suit by a pastor who contended that City Council president Aaron Bowman improperly shut off plaintiff's microphone in the middle of the invocation that he was offering. Finding that plaintiff's 1st Amendment rights were not violated, the court said in part:

First, the Court finds Mr. Bowman's actions were not viewpoint discrimination. Mr. Bowman's comment when interrupting Plaintiff and the subsequent removal of Plaintiff's amplification were for the stated purpose of preserving the invocation for its intended purpose. That purpose, according to the City, was to maintain "a tradition of solemnizing its proceedings . . . for the benefit and blessing of the Council." ...

During his invocation, Plaintiff's remarks were at times objectively disparaging of the City Council and the incumbent administration.... While the remarks might have been entirely appropriate if delivered in a more public forum or even Plaintiff's pulpit, they were subject to the reasonable and viewpoint-neutral limitations set by the City for the invocation period — a nonpublic forum.

Plaintiff has filed an appeal. Florida Politics has additional background on the case.

Colorado Local Commissions Debate Invocation Policies

Yesterday's Grand Junction (CO) Daily Sentinel reports that Grand Junction, Colorado City Council will consider a resolution at their meeting tomorrow under which the city clerk will randomly select spiritual leaders from local congregations to offer an invocation "according to the dictates of his/her own conscience." However, the person delivering the prayer will be asked that the invocation "not be exploited to proselytize a particular religious tenet or belief or aggressively advocate a specific religious creed or derogate another religious faith or to disparage any other faith of belief." Also the agenda for the meeting will state that the invocation is intended to "solemnize" the meeting, not to establish a particular religion, and will indicate that attendees may sit, stand or leave the room during the prayer. A local group, Western Colorado Atheists and Free Thinkers, has asked Council to eliminate the invocation and replace it with a moment of silence.

Meanwhile yesterday's Grand Junction Daily Sentinel reports that a Mesa County Commissioner (the county in which Grand Junction is located) is taking a different view. Under a policy adopted in 2005, one of the three Commissioners opens the County Commission meeting with a prayer which those in attendance are told they may join if they wish. Commissioner Janet Rowland yesterday ended her prayer "in the name of Jesus". Challenged at the meeting by a local resident, Rowland, who is in the midst of a primary contest for Republican nomination for a Commission seat, said: "I don't mind losing the election, but I do mind losing my faith or my belief in the Constitution."

Minister Uses Invocation To Lobby Against Civil Union Bill

What are the appropriate limits on the content of an invocation opening a legislative session? The Newark Star-Ledger yesterday reported that Rev. Vincent Fields, pastor of Greater Works Ministries, offered a controversial prayer at the opening of the New Jersey Senate on Monday. Just as the Senate's Judiciary Committee approved legislation to allow gays and lesbians to form civil unions with the same rights as married couples, the minister in his invocation said: "We curse the spirit that would come to bring about same-sex marriage." Sen. Loretta Weinberg, sponsor of the civil union bill, said that it is inappropriate to use the invocation to lobby for or against legislation.

UPDATE: New Jersey Senate President Richard Codey said that Rev. Fields will not be invited back to deliver an invocation. In the past, Fields has also been criticized for not keeping his invocations non-sectarian. (Newark Star-Ledger, Dec. 13.)

VA May Not Require Memorial Day Invocation At National Cemetery To Be Non-Denominational

In Rainey v. U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, (SD TX, May 26, 2011), a Texas federal district court issued a temporary restraining order preventing the Department of Veterans Affairs from regulating the content of the invocation and benediction that are to be delivered at a Memorial Day ceremony in Houston's National Cemetery.  The annual ceremony is put on by a charitable organization.  The director of the National Cemetery required ministers to deliver the text of their prayers in advance to assure that the prayers are non-denominational and inclusive of all beliefs. Invoking that policy, the Veterans Affairs Department told Rev. Scott Rainey that he could not deliver his invocation if he did not remove references to Jesus and to his religious beliefs. Rainey sued.  In a rather colorful opinion, the court wrote that the government cannot gag a citizen in the name of "some bureaucrat's notion of cultural homogeneity." The court went on:

The government's compulsion of a program's inclusion or exclusion of a particular religion offends the Constitution. The Constitution does not confide to the government the authority to compel emptiness in a prayer, where a prayer belongs. The gray mandarins of the national government are decreeing how citizens honor their veterans....

These people say that remarks need to be content-neutral messages. The men buried in the cemetery fought for their fellow Americans-- for us. In those fights, they were served by chaplains, chaplains of two faiths and many denominations.... No deputy general counsel of the Department of Veterans Affairs was in the Ia Drang Valley....

The government cannot realistically speak for the religious sensibilities of the numerous and varied people of America, even if it were constitutional for it to try. It is for them to speak for themselves as when the President asked Rick Warren to speak for him in Jesus' name at his inauguration. Americans are free-- free to read, write, talk, and pray without permission from George III or other governmental power.

The Houston Chronicle reported on the decision yesterday. [Thanks to Kate Shellnutt for the lead.]

UPDATE: The Houston Chronicle reported Friday that the Department of Veterans' Affairs has informed the court that it will no longer raise an objection to Rev. Rainey's planned invocation. [Thanks to Don Byrd for the update lead.]

Atheist Delivers Protest Invocation At County Commission Meeting

On Tuesday in Cobb County, Georgia, Edward Buckner, president of American Atheists and candidate for state Attorney General, used the invocation time at the county Board of Commissioners meeting to stage a protest against invocations. Today's Atlanta Journal Constitution reports that Bruckner requested that he be allowed to deliver the invocation, and that Commission chairman Samuel Olens granted the request. At Tuesday's meeting Olens told those in attendance that federal law requires him to allow anyone who signs up to deliver the invocation. In his remarks, atheist Buckner announced that he was speaking for "the 700,000 people who live in this county — especially the majority (yes, over half) of those 700,000 who are not members of any church, mosque, temple, or other religious organization,." He went on: "I speak as well for those political leaders who despair that success in politics cannot be achieved without hypocritical piety from politicians and who would prefer to run for office and to govern based on competence and political philosophy rather than on beliefs, real or pretended, in any supernatural beings." Chairman Olens said he found Bruckner's comments "repugnant and insulting."

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

Challenge To Pennsylvania Legislative Prayer Practices Survives Motion To Dismiss

In Fields v. Speaker of  the Pennsylvania House of Representatives, (MD PA, April 28, 2017), a Pennsylvania federal district court in a 33-page opinion refused to dismiss on the pleadings an Establishment Clause challenge to the Pennsylvania House of Representatives invocation policy.  House members may nominate "guest chaplains" to deliver an invocation at the beginning of a House session.  However House rules, as administered by the Speaker, do not permit non-theists to serve as guest chaplains. Plaintiffs are atheists, agnostics, secular humanists and freethinkers who have been denied the opportunity to deliver an invocation.  According to the court:

Plaintiffs plead a policy of religious discrimination sufficient to state a First Amendment claim.

Whether history and tradition sanctify the House‟s line of demarcation between theistic and nontheistic chaplains is a factual issue for a later day. Establishment Clause issues are inherently fact-intensive, and we must resist the academic intrigue of casting the salient inquiry too narrowly at this juncture. To the extent the parties‟ arguments evoke more nuanced constitutional questions— e.g., whether plaintiffs practice “religion” and are capable of “praying,” or whether tradition dictates that legislative prayer address a “higher power”—any such determination demands, and deserves, a fully developed record. As it stands, plaintiffs‟ challenge to the House‟s legislative prayer policy survives Rule 12 scrutiny.

The court also permitted two of the plaintiffs to move ahead with their challenge to the requirement that members of the public in attendance stand during the invocation.  On one occasion the Speaker publicly singled out plaintiffs for remaining seated.

The Court dismissed Free Exercise, Free Speech and Equal Protection challenges to the prayer policy, finding that legislative prayer is "government speech."

Michigan City To Consider New Invocation Guidelines

City Council in Port Huron, Michigan today plans to consider a written policy that would permit the invocation at its meetings to be led only by a minister from a recognized church in the community. Sunday's Port Huron Times Herald reported that the proposal was initiated after Khalil "Casey" Chaudry, an atheist, was refused permission to lead the invocation on the grounds that he wanted to use the time for a protest. Chaudry then used public speaking time to suggest that Council's unwritten policies be formalized. The proposed new policy will also limit any individual minister to three invocations per year, and will call for inviting ministers from all churches in the yellow pages to deliver the opening prayer. Also the invocation will be removed from the formal agenda and will instead be offered before the meeting is called to order. Finallly the mayor will no longer tell those wishing to participate to stand and bow their heads. [Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]

Inaugural Prayers and Speech Are Contrasts In Civic Religion

Pastor Rick Warren's invocation, Barack Obama's speech and Rev. Joseph Lowery's benediction at today's inauguration ceremony were fascinating contrasts in the tradition of denominational inclusiveness and civic religion. Prior to the inauguration, there was much speculation on whether Warren's invocation would be explicitly Christian. It was, well beyond the usual half dozen words at the end invoking Jesus. Warren ended his invocation (full text) with:

I humbly ask this in the name of the one who changed my life, Yeshua, Essa (ph), Jesus, Jesus, who taught us to pray, "Our Father who art in Heaven hallowed be thy name, thy kingdom come, thy will be done on Earth as it is in Heaven. Give us this day our daily bread and forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us, and lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil, for thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever." Amen.

Yet early on in his invocation, Warren attempted to include allusions to other faith traditions, though without specifically identifying them as such. He quoted a Biblical verse central to Judaism, saying: "The Scripture tells us 'Hear, oh Israel, the Lord is our god; the Lord is one.'" He immediately followed that with what was apparently a reference to the Muslim appellation for God as he said: "And you are the compassionate and merciful one." That was followed by: "And you are loving to everyone you have made"-- apparently intended to be a reference to the Christian notion of a loving God.

Obama, during his inaugural speech (full text), made a much more inclusive reference to the American religious landscape:

we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers. We are shaped by every language and culture, drawn from every end of this Earth...

Finally, as might be expected, Lowery's benediction called up images of the civil rights movement. As reported by USA Today, Lowery began with the first words of the Negro National Anthem, Lift Every Voice and Sing: "God of our weary years,God of our silent tears... " UPDATE: Here is the full text of Rev. Lowery's benediction.

Tangipahoa Parish School Board Adopts Minor Changes In Policy On Invocations

Today's Baton Rouge (LA) Advocate reports that the Tangipahoa Parish (LA) School Board has made minor modifications in its policy on invocations preceding Board meetings. A lawsuit is pending against the Board broadly challenging its invocation policy which is based on a Model Policy developed by the Alliance Defense Fund. (See prior posting.) That challenge is set to go to trial in federal court on June 1.

The changes made at last Thursday's meeting-- largely at the urging of ADF-- provide that congregations can request to be added to the Board's list of potential invitees to deliver an invocation, and in case of a question about whether the religious organization is bona fide, the Board will rely on the IRS list of exempt organizations. The amendments also provide that students or others called on to deliver the Pledge of Allegiance, the national anthem or the preamble to the Constitution at a Board meeting are not required to attend the invocation. Students will be introduced after the invocation and the call to order of the meeting to prevent pressure on them to attend board-sponsored prayers.

Hindu Cleric's Invocation In Senate Disrupted By Christian Protesters

Yesterday, for the first time in history, the U.S. Senate's session was opened with a Hindu prayer, offered by Hindu cleric Rajan Zed of Reno, Nevada. (See prior posting.) However, the invocation, which is usually routine, was interrupted by three Christian protesters in the public observation gallery. CNS News reports that the protesters began to pray loudly for forgiveness for betraying the Christian tradition when Rajan Zed, a Hindu chaplain from Nevada, began his invocation. Security guards quickly removed the protesters.

TPM Cafe reports that the protesters were members of the anti-abortion group Operation Save America. Its report also links to a video of the invocation and its disruption. In a press release after the event, Operation Save America said "The Senate was opened with a Hindu prayer placing the false god of Hinduism on a level playing field with the One True God, Jesus Christ. This would never have been allowed by our Founding Fathers."

Americans United for Separation of Church and State issued a press release deploring the intolerance of the religious right protesters. [Thanks for leads from Alliance Alert and Blog from the Capitol.]