Opinion ID: 2604613
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Primary effect

Text: Lemon's second prong asks whether the primary effect of the act is to advance religion. Lemon, 403 U.S. at 612-13, 91 S.Ct. at 2111-12. In Bowen v. Kendrick , the Supreme Court considered whether aid, neutrally awarded to conduct teen pregnancy counseling, violated the establishment clause when awarded to a particular religious group. 487 U.S. at 612, 108 S.Ct. at 2575-76. The Court held that it would have a primary effect of advancing religion under the second Lemon prong if the grant inculcate[d] the views of a particular religious faith. Id. at 621, 91 S.Ct. at 2115. When determining the primary effect of a given government act, the religious affiliation of the actors is not determinative. On the contrary, the Court has held the fact that one of the actors is religiously affiliated or inspired is not enough to show that the act advances religion. See Bradfield v. Roberts, 175 U.S. 291, 20 S.Ct. 121, 44 L.Ed. 168 (1899) (state may give money to Catholic sisterhood to run a hospital so long as the hospital is primarily secular and open to all); Carter, 857 F.2d 448 (use of a Christian pastor as a paid chaplaincounselor did not have the primary effect of advancing religion because the chaplain avoided proselytization [47] and was primarily a counselor with the versatility and training needed to help people of all religious backgrounds as well as those with no religious background at all). Voswinkel v. City of Charlotte, 495 F.Supp. 588, 595-97 (1980) held Charlotte police department's use of a Baptist minister as chaplain failed the second prong of the Lemon test because: the department contracted directly with the Providence Baptist Church, giving it a superior opportunity to disseminate its doctrine; the department paid half of the chaplain's $20,000 salary; and the position, by its terms, had to be filled by a minister, creating a per se unconstitutional religious test for public employment. However the primary effect of the police chaplaincy program is not advancement of religion under the second prong of the Lemon test, even if that counseling addressed religious issues in specific situations. [48] Barring counselors from entering the spiritual or religious realm would be hostile to those counseled who hold religious or spiritual beliefs. Additionally, barring ministers from volunteering in this secular setting simply because they are ministers would raise serious free exercise issues under the First Amendment. [49] The sheriff's chaplaincy program does not have the suspect characteristics which led to the invalidation of the chaplaincy in Voswinkel. Indeed, Voswinkel itself indicates its inapplicability here: the creation of a counseling position to which any counselor could apply and be considered on a religiously neutral grounds is not a government action that could reasonably be said to threaten `an establishment of religion.' 495 F.Supp. at 600. The chaplains here, unlike Voswinkel, were neutrally chosen through a bidding process open to all without regard to religious affiliation and the chaplains actually volunteering come from all denominations. The distinction is clear in Voswinkel that the court did not believe that a public employee, hired as a counselor through some neutral selection process, is constitutionally required to refrain from discussing `spiritual' or `moral' matters in the course of his counseling duties. Id. at 600. Our case is most analogous to the hospital chaplaincy in Carter because the police chaplains here do not proselytize but do provide broad-based counseling to people of all religions, and those with no religion at all, in a secular manner. Carter, 857 F.2d 448. The similarity continues in that the religious expertise of the chaplains is available to all as is their crisis intervention counseling. The Supreme Court has noted provision of benefits to [a] broad [ ] spectrum of groups is an important index of secular effect. Widmar v. Vincent, 454 U.S. 263, 274, 102 S.Ct. 269, 277, 70 L.Ed.2d 440 (1981). Like the Catholic nuns in Bradfield, 175 U.S. 291, 20 S.Ct. 121, 44 L.Ed. 168, the volunteers may be religiously inspired but run the operation free of proselytizing and open to all. The primary effect of this program is not to advance religion. Thus it passes the second prong of Lemon.