Court of Appeals Rules in Favor of County Commission Legislative Prayer
Yesterday the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit issued an important ruling on the constitutionality of prayer before legislative bodies. In Cobb County, Georgia, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) challenged the County Commissions legislative prayer practice, contending that the practice of allowing community clergy members to offer sectarian prayer before County Commission meetings was unconstitutional. Specifically, the ACLU alleged that the practice of allowing the clergy to end their prayers with reference to a specific deity, i.e., in Jesus name or to the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, violated the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution. The Eleventh Circuit disagreed.
U.S. Court of Appeals Judge William H. Pryor wrote an opinion for a majority of the court. Judge Pryors opinion set forth a comprehensive analysis of the Supreme Courts religion cases which control the constitutionality of legislative prayer. As Judge Pryor explained for the Eleventh Circuit, the seminal legislative prayer decision, Marsh v. Chambers, 486 U.S. 783 (1983), makes clear that [t]he content of the prayer is not of concern to judges where . . . there is no indication that the prayer opportunity has been exploited to proselytize or advance any one, or to disparage any other, faith or belief. Pelphrey (a.k.a. Bats) v. Cobb County, Georgia, No. 07-13611, slip op. at 3 (11th Cir. Oct. 28, 2008) (alteration in original). Absent evidence of exploitation, [w]hether invocations of Lord of Lords or the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Mohammed are sectarian is best left to theologians, not courts of law. Id. As the Eleventh Circuit noted, the Supreme Court in Marsh never held that the prayers in Marsh were constitutional because they were nonsectarian, but rather, the non-sectarian nature of some legislative prayers is merely a factor for consideration. Id. at 15. Because the parsing of legislative prayers would achieve a particularly perverse result, id. at 23, the court refused to step into the role of ecclesiastical arbiter. Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
To read the opinion in full, click here. I encourage everyone to read this opinion, which I consider to be one of the most comprehensive on this issue.
