Case Name: Jon Garth MURRAY, et al., Appellants, v. Angela Marie BUCHANAN, Treasurer of the United States, et al.
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Jurisdiction: District of Columbia
Decision Date: 1983-10-28
Citations: 232 U.S. App. D.C. 42
Docket Number: No. 81-1301
Parties: Jon Garth MURRAY, et al., Appellants, v. Angela Marie BUCHANAN, Treasurer of the United States, et al.
Judges: Before ROBINSON, Chief Judge, WRIGHT, TAMM, WILKEY, WALD, MIKVA, EDWARDS, GINSBURG, BORK and SCALIA, Circuit Judges, and BAZELON and MacKINNON, Senior Circuit Judges.
Reporter: United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Volume: 232
Pages: 42–53

Head Matter:
720 F.2d 689
Jon Garth MURRAY, et al., Appellants, v. Angela Marie BUCHANAN, Treasurer of the United States, et al.
No. 81-1301.
United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.
Argued En Banc Oct. 27, 1982.
Decided Oct. 28, 1983.
Ronald A. Lindsay, Washington, D.C., with whom Myra C. Selby, Indianapolis, Ind., was on the brief, for appellants.
Michael Jay Singer, Atty., Dept, of Justice, Washington, D.C., with whom Stanley S. Harris, U.S. Atty., Leonard Schaitman, Atty., Dept, of Justice, Washington, D.C., were on the brief, for appellees, Buchanan, et al. Royce C. Lamberth, Kenneth M. Raisler and R. Craig Lawrence, Asst. U.S. Attys., Washington, D.C., also entered appearances for Buchanan, et al.
Stanley M. Brand, General Counsel, Washington, D.C., with whom Steven R. Ross, Asst. Counsel, Washington, D.C., United States House of Representatives, was on the brief, for appellees O’Neill and Ford.
Michael Davidson, Senate Legal Counsel, Washington, D.C., with whom M. Elizabeth Culbreth, Deputy Senate Legal Counsel, Washington; D.C., for Senate and Daniel J. Popeo, Paul D. Kamenar and Nicholas E. Calió, Washington, D.C., for Senator Helms, et al., were on the joint brief, for appellees.
Arthur B. Spitzer and Elizabeth Symonds, Washington, D.C., were on the brief, for amicus curiae urging the case be reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

Opinion:
ON REHEARING EN BANC
Before ROBINSON, Chief Judge, WRIGHT, TAMM, WILKEY, WALD, MIKVA, EDWARDS, GINSBURG, BORK and SCALIA, Circuit Judges, and BAZELON and MacKINNON, Senior Circuit Judges.
Opinion PER CURIAM.
Special concurrence filed by Senior Circuit Judge MacKINNON.
Separate statement filed by Circuit Judge GINSBURG in which Senior Circuit Judge BAZELON concurs.
PER CURIAM:
After argument of this appeal before the court sitting en banc, the Supreme Court decided Marsh v. Chambers,-U.S.-, 103 S.Ct. 3330, 77 L.Ed.2d 1019 (1983). Marsh rejected a first amendment-establishment clause challenge to the Nebraska Legislature's practice of beginning each session with a prayer by a chaplain paid by the state.
On July 18, 1983, the court directed the parties here "to show cause why, in light of . Marsh v. Chambers ., this appeal should not be dismissed and the district court instructed to vacate its judgment and dismiss the complaint for failure to raise a substantial constitutional question." See Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 536-38, 94 S.Ct. 1372, 1378-80, 39 L.Ed.2d 577 (1974); Levering & Garrigues Co. v. Morrin, 289 U.S. 103, 105-06, 53 S.Ct. 549, 550, 77 L.Ed. 1062 (1933). All parties have now responded to that order.
We have reviewed the parties' presentations, and are persuaded that the complaint in this action retains no vitality. The Supreme Court's decision in Marsh v. Chambers is dispositive of appellants' challenge to the public funding of congressional chaplains. The Court answered the question presented in Marsh with unmistakable clarity: The "practice of opening each legislative day with a prayer by a chaplain paid by the State [does not] violate[ ] the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment." Id. -U.S. at-, 103 S.Ct. at 3331. In so ruling, the Court relied heavily on the "unambiguous" history of congressional chaplaincies. Id. at---, 103 S.Ct. at 3332-36. The practice at issue, the High Court said, has been "unbroken . for two centuries in the National Congress," id. at -, 103 S.Ct. at 3336, and "ha[d] become part of the fabric of our society." Id. at -, 103 S.Ct. at 3335.
We perceive no tenable basis for a claim that the very congressional practice deliberately traced by the Court in Marsh should be subject to further review. Therefore, we dismiss this appeal, vacate the judgment of the district court, and remand the case with instructions to dismiss the complaint for want of a substantial constitutional question.