1st Circuit: Satanic Temple Loses Bid to Deliver City Council Invocation

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....

Satanic Temple Can Move Ahead with Establishment Clause Challenge to Its Treatment by City Council

In The Satanic Temple v. The City of Chicago, (ND IL, March 31, 2024), an Illinois federal district court held that The Satanic Temple ("TST") had alleged enough to move ahead on its claim that the city had violated the Establishment Clause by constantly delaying for over three years a request by a TST clergyman to deliver an invocation at a Chicago City Council meeting.  The court said in part:

The Establishment Clause requires that the City treat Vavrick the same as it would any other clergy member from any other religion. Assuming, therefore, that the City has not scheduled Vavrick to give an invocation because of his religious beliefs, such practice violates the Establishment Clause.

The court however dismissed plaintiffs' free speech claim finding that plaintiffs had not plausibly alleged that City Council invocations are anything other than government speech. It also refused to grant a preliminary injunction.

Episcopal Priest Sues County Commissioners Over Invocation Policy

Suit was filed this week in a Michigan federal district court by an Episcopal Priest in Grand Haven, Michigan, challenging the manner in which the Ottawa County Board of Commissioners currently selects individuals to deliver invocations at Board meetings. The complaint (full text) in Cramer v. Ottawa County, (WD MI, filed 10/2/2023), alleges that prior to 2023, different Commissioners on a rotating basis selected individuals to offer invocations. However, since January 2023 when Joe Moss became Chairperson of the Commission, only he selects persons to give invocations.  He has selected only male pastors of Christian churches who share his religious beliefs.  Some of the pastors have included in their invocations praise for a far-right political group that Moss founded and leads. Plaintiff is an advocate of LGBTQ rights, while Moss has promoted an anti-LGBTQ agenda. Grand Haven Tribune reports on the lawsuit.

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.

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.

Courtroom Invocations Did Not Violate Establishment Clause [UPDATED]

In Freedom From Religion Foundation v. Mack, (5th Cir., Sept. 29, 2022), the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals held that a program devised by a Justice of the Peace under which his court sessions are opened with a prayer from a volunteer chaplain does not violate the Establishment Clause. The court said in part:

The plaintiffs cry coercion because Texas Justice of the Peace Wayne Mack opens his court with a ceremony that includes a prayer. But Mack also takes great pains to convince attendees that they need not watch the ceremony—and that doing so will not affect their cases. Some attendees say they feel subjective pressure anyway. Yet the plaintiffs have no evidence suggesting that “coercion is a real and substantial likelihood.” Town of Greece v. Galloway, 572 U.S. 565, 590 (2014).

Want of evidence showing coercion dooms their case. In holding otherwise, the district court disregarded the Supreme Court’s most recent guidance.

First Liberty Institute issued a press release announcing the decision.  The 5th Circuit had previously granted a stay which allowed the invocations to go on while the case was on appeal.

UPDATE: This was a 2-1 decision. Judge Jolly filed an opinion dissenting in part.  He argued that the case needed to be sent back to the district court for additional fact finding.  He criticized the majority's opinion, saying in part:

Plaintiffs have produced considerable evidence showing that Judge Mack conducts his opening prayer and other religious ceremonies “in such a way as to oblige the participation of objectors.” ...  For the majority to find that there is no evidence of coercion, suggests, in my opinion, willful blindness and indisputable error....

[D]espite digging into the history books, the majority’s opinion comes up dry on historical precedent.... [And] the majority inaccurately presents recent Supreme Court precedent.

City Council's Opening Of Meetings With Lord's Prayer Violates Establishment Clause

In Cobranchi v. City of Parkersburg, (D WV, May 17, 2022), a West Virginia federal district court held that Parkersburg's City Council violated the Establishment Clause by opening each of its meetings with The Lord's Prayer.  The court said in part:

The City Council’s prayer practice most clearly runs afoul of the Fourth Circuit’s concern with identifying the government with a single preferred religious sect. As noted, the Lord’s Prayer is sourced from a biblical translation of the gospel of Matthew, and the version utilized by the town council includes a concluding Christian doxology.... [I]t seems apparent that a reasonable observer to City Council meetings would be aware of the origin, or at the least Christian nature, of the prayer. By continually reciting, over a number of years, the same prayer clearly identifiable with a particular faith, without the opportunity for other faiths to be heard, the City Council impermissibly identified itself with a preferred religion.

FFRF issued a press release announcing the decision.

Satanic Temple Can Move Ahead With Establishment Clause Claim As To Invocation Denial

In The Satanic Temple, Inc. v. City of Boston, MA (D MA, July 21, 2021), a Massachusetts federal district court refused to dismiss an Establishment Clause challenge to Boston's City Council invocation policy.  The court said in part:

TST reached out to the Boston City Council, which opens each of its meetings with a prayer, asking to give the invocation.... Defendant denied those requests, explaining that City Councilors choose speakers from their communities for their assigned weeks, and that TST could not lead the prayer without an invitation from a City Councilor.... Those denials were made after members of the Boston public objected to the possibility of TST opening a City Council session with a prayer and in the wake of a public outcry and 2,000-person protest after TST attempted to stage a “Black Mass” at Harvard....

Given the fact-specific nature of the inquiry into the constitutionality of legislative prayer schemes and the lack of controlling authority from the First Circuit or Supreme Court, this Court will not dismiss TST’s Establishment Clause claim at the motion to dismiss stage....  TST has plausibly raised a claim that Defendant’s prayer selection policy has discriminated against it in violation of the Establishment Clause.

The court dismissed plaintiff's free exercise, free speech and equal protection challenges. Universal Hub reports on the decision.

5th Circuit: Courtroom Invocations Do Not Violate Establishment Clause

In Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc. v. Mack, (5th Cir., July 9, 2021), the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals granted a stay pending appeal of a Texas district court's declaratory judgment order which concluded that a a Justice of the Peace's program under which court sessions are opened with a prayer from a volunteer chaplain violates the Establishment Clause. (See prior posting.) Attendees may to step out of the courtroom before the ceremony if they wish. The appeals court held that official capacity claims under 42 USC §1983 are barred, and that FFRF's individual capacity claims are likely to fail. The court said in part:

The Supreme Court has held that our Nation’s history and tradition allow legislatures to use tax dollars to pay for chaplains who perform sectarian prayers before sessions. See Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783 (1983). If anything, Judge Mack’s chaplaincy program raises fewer questions under the Establishment Clause because it uses zero tax dollars and operates on a volunteer basis....

It’s true that Marsh and Town of Greece involved a legislature’s chaplains, not a justice of the peace’s chaplains. But it’s unclear why that matters, given the abundant history and tradition of courtroom prayer.

Washington Times reports on the decision.

9th Circuit: Denial of Invocation Spot To Satanic Temple Was OK

 In The Satanic Temple, Inc. v. City of Scottsdale, (9th Cir., May 19, 2021), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed an Arizona federal district court's dismissal of a religious discrimination suit by The Satanic Temple.  TST sued after it was not permitted to give a religious invocation at a city council meeting.  The district court concluded that the decision was based on a policy that only allowed organizations with substantial ties to the city to deliver invocations. According to the Court of Appeals:

After weighing the credibility of the witnesses, the district court properly concluded that TST had failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that TST’s religious beliefs were a factor, let alone a substantial motivating factor, in Biesemeyer’s decision not to approve TST to give a legislative prayer.

Friendly Atheist blog discusses the case.

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.

9th Circuit Hears Oral Arguments In The Satanic Temple's Suit On Invocations

On Thursday, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments (video of full arguments) in The Satanic Temple v. City of Scottsdale. In the case, an Arizona federal district court held that the Satanic Temple had failed to prove that the denial of their request to deliver an invocation at a City Council meeting was because of their religious beliefs. The district court concluded rather that the decision was based on a policy that only allowed organizations with substantial ties to the city to deliver invocations. (See prior posting.) Law& Crime reports on the oral arguments. [Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]

Satanic Temple Challenges Boston City Council's Prayer Policy

Earlier this week, The Satanic Temple filed suit in a Massachusetts federal district court challenging the policy of Boston City Council for selecting individuals to offer the invocations at Council meetings.  The complaint (full text) in The Satanic Temple, Inc. v. City of Boston, MA, (D MA, filed 1/24/2021), alleges that any member of City Council can select a prayer giver. However, The Satanic Temple, which was not selected by a Council member, was denied permission to offer a prayer.  The complaint, claiming Establishment Clause, Free Exercise, Free Speech and Equal Protection violations, contends in part:

As a result, the City broadcasts two constitutionally impermissible messages: those religions who make the cut are endorsed and are therefore insiders of the politically favored community; those who don’t make the cut are not endorsed and are therefore outsiders from the politically favored community.

AP reports on the lawsuit.

Court Upholds Denial of Invocation Slot For Satanic Temple

In Satanic Temple v. City of Scottsdale, (D AZ, Feb. 6, 2020), an Arizona federal district court held that the Satanic Temple failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the denial of their request to deliver a non-theistic invocation at a City Council meeting was because of their religious beliefs. The court rejected defendants' claims that the beliefs of the Satanic Temple do not constitute a religion. However the court credited the testimony of the Acting City Manager that he based his decision on a long-standing unwritten policy that only organizations that had substantial ties to the city could deliver invocations. This decision followed substantial public opposition to the Satanic Temple's appearance, including the orchestration by a church of 15,000 e-mails in opposition. The blog For Infernal Use Only reports on the decision.

UPDATE: In an April 9 opinion (full text), the court, with one exception, refused to amend its findings of fact or to amend its judgment.

Satanic Temple Can Proceed In Its Attempt To Offer City Council Invocation

In The Satanic Temple, Inc. v. City of Scottsdale, (D AZ, Nov. 18, 2019), an Arizona federal district court refused to dismiss a suit by The Satanic Temple (TST). Scottsdale City Council refused to allow the head of TST to deliver an invocation at a City Council meeting. The court, in finding that plaintiffs had standing to bring the lawsuit reasoned in part:

The injury alleged is discrimination – that Plaintiffs have been denied the opportunity to give an invocation when other religious groups have been allowed that privilege....

Although Establishment Clause violations can be asserted by the irreligious as well as the religious, such as a non-believing school student who is compelled to recite a prayer, Plaintiffs’ religious-discrimination claim necessarily requires that they be a religion....

In arguing that Plaintiffs are not religious, Defendant does not rely on any specific judicial definition. Defendant instead asserts that courts have distinguished between religious and secular prayers in legislative prayer cases....

The evidence discussed above suggests that Plaintiffs view their beliefs as religious and sincerely held. Whether Plaintiffs are religious for purposes of the merits of this case – for purposes of showing that the City’s action in the sphere of legislative prayer amounted to religious discrimination – is an issue for trial.

County Settles Suit Over Invocation Policy

According to yesterday's Carroll County Times, the Carroll County, Maryland, Board of Commissioners voted unanimously yesterday to settle a lawsuit, originally filed in 2013, challenging the Commissioners' policy on invocations.  Prayers that were often sectarian were delivered by members of the County Commission, on a rotating basis, rather than by invited clergy or a chaplain.  The Commissioners decided to settle the case after the 2017 decision by the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in Lund v. Rowan County, North Carolina finding a similar practice unconstitutional. (See prior posting.) At yesterday's Board meeting, a number of citizens objected to the settlement.

3rd Circuit Upholds Pennsylvania Legislative Prayer Policy

In Fields v. Speaker of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives, (3d Cir., Aug. 23, 2019), the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of appeals, in a 2-1 decision, upheld the invocation policy of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives.  The state's legislative chamber invites guest chaplains to open sessions with prayer, but excludes non-theists.  It also posts a sign asking visitors to rise during the prayer.  Judge Ambro, writing for the majority said in part:

A group of nontheists have challenged the theists-only policy under the Establishment, Free Exercise, Free Speech, and Equal Protection Clauses of our Constitution. As to the Establishment Clause, we uphold the policy because only theistic prayer can satisfy the historical purpose of appealing for divine guidance in lawmaking, the basis for the Supreme Court taking as a given that prayer presumes a higher power. For the Free Exercise, Free Speech, and Equal Protection Clauses, we hold that legislative prayer is government speech not open to attack via those channels.

The nontheists also challenge as unconstitutionally coercive the requests to “please rise” for the prayer. We hold that the single incident involving pressure from a security guard is moot. As for the sign outside the House chamber and the Speaker’s introductory request that guests “please rise,” we hold that these are not coercive.

Judge Restrepo, dissenting as to the exclusion of non-theists, said in part:

[B]y virtue of the fact that the history and tradition of legislative prayer in this country is thus devoid of any history of purposeful exclusion of persons from serving as chaplains based on their religions or religious beliefs, the Pennsylvania House’s guest-chaplain policy—which purposefully excludes adherents of Plaintiffs’ religions and persons who hold Plaintiffs’ religious beliefs from serving as guest chaplains—does not fit “within the tradition long followed in Congress and the state legislatures” and therefore violates the Establishment Clause.

[Thanks to Adam Bonin for the lead.]

11th Circuit: County's Invocation Policy Violates Establishment Clause

In Williamson v. Brevard County, (11th Cir., July 8, 2019), the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals held that the method used by the Brevard County, Florida Board of County Commissioners to select individuals to deliver pre-meeting invocations violates the Establishment Clause.  The Board's formal resolution provides:

Secular invocations and supplications from any organization whose precepts, tenets or principles espouse or promote reason, science, environmental factors, nature or ethics as guiding forces, ideologies, and philosophies that should be observed in the secular business or secular decision making process involving Brevard County employees, elected officials, or decision makers including the Board of County Commissioners, fall within the current policies pertaining to Public Comment and must be placed on the Public Comment section of the secular business agenda. Pre-meeting invocations shall continue to be delivered by persons from the faith-based community in perpetuation of the Board’s tradition for over forty years.

The court said in part:

In this case, Brevard County has selected invocation speakers in a way that favors certain monotheistic religions and categorically excludes from consideration other religions solely based on their belief systems. Brevard County’s process of selecting invocation speakers thus runs afoul of the Establishment Clause.

Florida Today reports on the decision.

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.