Town of Greece v. Galloway began oral arguments before the Supreme Court this week. Greece is a small city located just north of Rochester, New York. For the last 14 years, the city of Greece has begun each town council meetings with a prayer, almost exclusively Christian in nature. Each meeting, a different cleric would come before the body and offer up a prayer to the council members and any observers.

In 2008, two retired women living in the town, Linda Stephens and Susan Galloway, complained that these prayers were always Christian, and seemed to align the town with Christianity. Stephens is an atheist, and Galloway is Jewish. The town did respond at first, inviting leaders of other faiths to come in and lead the prayers—including Jewish, Baha’i, and Wiccan. But that was not enough to make up for approximately 10 years of solely Christian prayers, and after those notable outliers, the town returned to mainly Christian speakers.

So, Stephens and Galloway sued their town, contending that Greece has violated the Constitution. The issue is not that the town council meetings are beginning with prayers; the ability to do so was established under the 1983 Supreme Court Case Marsh v. Chambers.  However, Marsh also stated that it’s only legal to begin a meeting with a prayer if the “government does not act with improper motive in selecting prayer-givers or exploit the prayer opportunity to proselytize, advance, or disparage any one faith or belief.” Stephens and Galloway are arguing that by choosing only Christian prayers, the town of Greece has broken those constraints. After a series of contrasting appeals, the case has made it to the Supreme Court.

Oral arguments began on Wednesday, and there have already been some interesting conversations. My guess is that the Supreme Court will stick to precedent, but with this cast of characters on the Court, it’s always hard to predict. Some of the justices who offered questions or comments seem to be suspicious of Greece’s case; perpetual swing vote Justice Anthony Kennedy stated, “well, the essence of the argument is we’ve always done it this way, which has some — some force to it. But it seems to me that your argument begins and ends there.” Justice Elena Kagan deviated from purely First Amendment issues and pointed out that we’re all entitled to equal protection under the Constitution, regardless of religious beliefs. Chief Justice John Roberts raised interesting thoughts about the context of tradition in public life. Justices Samuel Alito and Antonin Scalia waxed poetic about how no prayer will every satisfy everyone 100 percent of the time. It’s important to note that another player in this case includes the Obama Administration, which is standing on Greece’s side. Deputy Solicitor General Ian Gershengorn was there to advocate the administration’s views.

The balance of faith and secularity in the public sphere is always a contentious topic. It seems like every couple of years there is another instance of a battle over religion in a public school, whether it stems from the use of prayer or the reference to God in “The Star Spangled Banner.” And every single time this issue comes up, there does not seem to be an absolutely right or wrong answer—any sort of balancing test is wobbly at best. There are always people who will be offended, but there’s also always a line that is very easily crossed. The Court will most likely not be able to solve these debates completely, but some guidance would be helpful as our society becomes more religious and culturally diverse in faith.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured Image Courtesy of [Michael Peligro via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Supreme Court Considers Prayer in Public Life appeared first on Law Street.

The new Supreme Court term has begun! Over the past few years, the nation’s highest court has dealt with many historic cases, including the Affordable Care Act, the Voting Rights Act, Proposition 8, and the Defense of Marriage Act.  Many of these decisions were closely split, contentious, and received a poignant mix of outright disgust and frantic applause from various political factions. This upcoming term promises an equally exciting set of decisions. On the docket in upcoming weeks are cases that include campaign contribution limits, abortion rights, affirmative action, public prayer, and the ability of the president to make recess appointments.

Here are some of the upcoming cases that could be important to keep an eye on:

Already in progress is McCutcheon v. FEC. Under current law, there is an aggregate limit on how much an individual can give to campaigns over two years: $123,200. McCutcheon, backed by the RNC, alleges that these caps are unconstitutional because they limit freedom of speech. This case can be seen as a follow up to the controversial Citizens United case that allowed corporations and groups to levy free speech through making unlimited campaign donations.

In an upcoming case, NLRB v. Noel Canning, the high court will address the constitutionality of recess appointments. A recess appointment is exactly what it sounds like—an appointment to a position that normally requires Senate approval made unilaterally by the President during a Senatorial recess. This case specifically deals with whether or not recess appointments can be made during a recess that occurs in the middle of a Senate session, and whether or not recess appointments can be made to vacancies that existed before the appointment. There is no precedent on which the Supreme Court will be influenced, meaning the outcome of this case is a total tossup.

Town of Greece v. Galloway asks whether starting a town council meeting with a prayer violates the separation of church and state. Greece, a small town in Rochester starts each meeting with an (usually) overtly Christian prayer. A few non-Christian members complained that they felt coerced to participate.

Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action will deal with the of question of whether by amending their state constitution to prohibit race and sex based discrimination in public college admissions—meaning affirmative action—Michigan has violated the Equal Protections Act.

McCullen v. Coakley  deals with a Massachusetts law creating a 35-foot buffer zone around abortion clinics so that protesters urging women to make different choices are not allowed to protest within 35 feet of an abortion clinic. The plaintiffs believe that this buffer zone violates their freedom of speech rights.

Bond v. US is a truly interesting case in which a woman attacked her husband’s pregnant girlfriend with a potent mix of chemicals to attempt to kill her. She was charged by the government with being in possession of chemical weapons, and violating the Chemical Weapons Convention that was ratified by the United States. This case will offer an interesting view on the intersection between domestic courts and international law.

These are obviously not the only cases to watch in the current term. Other cases such as Kansas v. Cheever deals with the issue of self-incrimination. The Affordable Care Act Contraception mandate is being challenged in a number of cases. Limits on abortion-inducing drugs will be questioned in Cline v. Oklahoma Coalition for Reproductive Justice. All of these cases promise that the 2013-2014 season of Supreme Court decisions will be as revolutionary and exciting as the last few have been.

[Christian Science Monitor]

—

Featured image courtesy of [Wally Gobetz via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post New Term, New Cases, New Surprises appeared first on Law Street.