Opinion ID: 222596
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Legislative Prayer Exception in Marsh

Text: In Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783, 103 S.Ct. 3330, 77 L.Ed.2d 1019 (1983), the Supreme Court addressed the constitutionality of the Nebraska legislature's practice of opening each session with a prayer given by a chaplain who was paid with public funds. Marsh is atypical within the Establishment Clause jurisprudence in that the Supreme Court did not employ its usual Establishment Clause tests to analyze the contested state practice. Rather, the Court's decision, which found that the practice was constitutional, is premised on the long history of prayer by legislative and deliberative bodies in the United States. Writing for the Court, Justice Burger set forth that history: The opening of sessions of legislative and other deliberative public bodies with prayer is deeply embedded in the history and tradition of this country. From colonial times through the founding of the Republic and ever since, the practice of legislative prayer has coexisted with the principles of disestablishment and religious freedom.... The tradition in many of the colonies was, of course, linked to an established church, but the Continental Congress, beginning in 1774, adopted the traditional procedure of opening its sessions with a prayer offered by a paid chaplain. Marsh, 463 U.S. at 787, 103 S.Ct. 3330 (internal citations omitted). Marsh paid particular attention to the timing of the enactment of the Bill of Rights, which played a pivotal role in the Court's reasoning. The Court observed that while prayers were not offered during the Constitutional Convention, the First Congress, as one of its early items of business, adopted the policy of selecting a chaplain to open each session with prayer. Id. at 787-88, 103 S.Ct. 3330. This led the Senate to create a committee to appoint a suitable chaplain on April 7, 1789. Id. at 788, 103 S.Ct. 3330. On April 9, 1789, the House of Representatives created a similar committee. Id. The Senate elected its first chaplain on April 25, 1789, while the House did the same a few days later on May 1, 1789. Id. On September 22, 1789, a statute providing for the payment of these chaplains was enacted. Id. A mere three days after Congress authorized payment for the chaplains, final agreement was reached on the language of the Bill of Rights. Id. The Supreme Court ascribed to this chronology great significance, explaining that this series of events shed[] light ... on how [the draftsmen] thought that [the Establishment] Clause applied to the practice of legislative prayer. Id. at 790, 103 S.Ct. 3330. The fact that the First Amendment was written only days after the Senate had authorized payment for the chaplains suggested to the Court that legislative prayer did not offend the First Amendment. The history was evidence of the following: Clearly, the men who wrote the First Amendment Religion Clause did not view paid legislative chaplains and opening prayers as a violation of that Amendment, for the practice of opening sessions with prayer has continued without interruption ever since that early session of congress. . . . It can hardly be thought that in the same week Members of the First Congress voted to appoint and to pay a Chaplain for each House and also voted to approve the draft of the First Amendment for submission to the States, they intended the Establishment Clause of the Amendment to forbid what they had just declared acceptable. Id. at 788, 790, 103 S.Ct. 3330. Given this unambiguous and unbroken history of more than 200 years of Congressional prayer, the Court explained, there can be no doubt that the practice of opening legislative sessions with prayer has become part of the fabric of our society. Id. at 792, 103 S.Ct. 3330. Nebraska's century-old practice of legislative prayer was consistent with two centuries of national practice and thus would not be cast aside. Id. at 790, 103 S.Ct. 3330. However, the Court did not define a legislative or deliberative body anywhere in its opinion. The second issue in Marsh was whether the specific prayers offered by the Nebraska Legislature violated the Establishment Clause. The Court found that they did not, again drawing from the history of legislative prayer in the First Congress. The Court identified three potentially problematic aspects of the Nebraskan prayer practice: (1) the prayers were given by a clergyman of only one denomination-Presbyterian-[who] has been selected for 16 years; (2) the chaplain is paid at public expense; and (3) the prayers are in the Judeo-Christian tradition. Id. at 793, 103 S.Ct. 3330. None of these factors, considered against the unique history of legislative prayers, rendered the Nebraska practice unconstitutional. Id. Again, the Court explained that at the First Congress, delegates did not consider opening prayers as a proselytizing activity or as symbolically placing the government's official seal of approval on one religious view. Id. at 792, 103 S.Ct. 3330 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Moreover, there was no evidence that the chaplain's long tenure stemmed from an impermissible motive and thus his reappointment did not in itself conflict with the Establishment Clause. Id. at 793-94, 103 S.Ct. 3330. That the chaplain was paid from public funds was similarly grounded in historic practice and thus not unconstitutional. Id. at 794, 103 S.Ct. 3330. The content of the prayer was not of concern because 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. Id. at 794-95, 103 S.Ct. 3330. In sum, the prayers were simply a tolerable acknowledgment of beliefs widely held among the people of this country. Id. at 792, 103 S.Ct. 3330.