The legal case that has been referred to in the discussion regarding The Satanic Temple of West Florida and the invocation at Pensacola City Council meetings is the Galloway case.
What is the Town of Greece vs. Galloway? And what was the U.S. Supreme Court decision?
The town of Greece, New York, began its town meetings with a prayer given by an invited member of the local clergy.
Each month, the town would invite a different local minister to give an invocation following the roll call and the Pledge of Allegiance.
A few days before the meeting, a town employee would call congregations listed in the local directory until she found a minister available to lead the prayer.
In choosing the ministers, the town maintained a policy of non-discrimination, but in practice, most of the guest ministers turned out to be Christian.
In February 2008, Susan Galloway and Linda Stephens sued the town and argued that the town’s practices violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment by preferring Christianity over other faiths.
The district court found in favor of the town and held that the plaintiffs failed to present credible evidence that there was intentional seclusion of non-Christian faiths. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed and held that the practices violated the Establishment Clause by showing a clear preference for Christian prayers.
The case, Town of Greece vs. Galloway, was appealed to the United States Supreme Court. The basic question was: Does the invocation of prayer at a legislative session violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment even in the absence of discrimination in the selection of prayer-givers and content?
In a close vote, the Court said, “No.”
Justice Anthony Kennedy delivered the opinion for the 5-4 majority. The Court held that the context and jurisprudence surrounding the First Amendment suggested that the Establishment Clause was never meant to prohibit legislative prayer.
According to Kennedy’s opinion, the purpose of legislative prayer is to lend gravity to the occasion and invite law makers to reflect on shared values and common ends before they embark on what can be the divisive business of governing.
“Prayer that is solemn and respectful in tone serves that legitimate function,” said Kennedy. “Our tradition of legislative prayer permits ministers to ask their own god for blessings of peace, justice and freedom that find appreciation among people of all faiths.”
“In the general course, legislative bodies do not engage in coercion — coercion merely by exposing the public to prayer in which they need not participate,” he wrote. “The prayer in this case had a permissible ceremonial purpose. It was not an unconstitutional establishment of religion.”
In its review of the decision, the Harvard Law Review wrote that “in Justice Kennedy’s view, the Constitution does not require the government to take such steps to ensure inclusivity, and may even prohibit such involvement. As long as the government adheres to a “policy of nondiscrimination, it can allow people to fully express their religious beliefs in the public sphere, even if the result is that the majority faiths predominate.”‘
“Justice Kennedy views the clause as conferring a negative obligation: government merely ensures equal access to all religious faiths and can exercise minimal content restrictions beyond that.”
—–
Layman’s interpretation: The Pensacola City Council can open its meetings with a prayer.
It only has minimal control over content: A prayer may invoke the deity or deities of a given faith, and need not embrace the beliefs of multiple or all faiths. A prayers may not disparage or discriminate against a specific faith.
The Council may not “proselytize†— that is, promote one faith as the true faith — and may not require persons of different faith preferences, or of no faith, to take part, and may not criticize them if they do not take part.
The Council must give access to all religious faiths.