Brian Fields v. Speaker of the Pennsylvania, 936 F.3d 142

Background

Pennsylvania House opens most sessions with a guest-delivered opening prayer; guest chaplains must be “a member of a regularly established church or religious organization,” a rule that excludes nontheists whose proposed invocations do not appeal to a higher power.
Plaintiffs are leaders/members of nontheist organizations (Secular Humanists, Unitarian Universalists, Freethinkers) who sought to deliver non-theistic invocations and were denied.
The House historically used mostly theistic chaplains (predominantly Christian), but has invited some non‑Abrahamic theists; plaintiffs proposed secular uplifting invocations and were rejected solely for lack of a higher‑power appeal.
The House historically posted a sign and the Speaker requested visitors to “please rise” for prayers; pre-2017 wording was broader and a 2012 security-guard incident pressured two seated visitors to stand.
The district court found the guest‑chaplain policy violated the Establishment Clause and enjoined it, but held legislative prayer claims under Free Speech, Free Exercise, and Equal Protection were dismissed as government speech; both sides appealed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether excluding nontheists from serving as guest chaplains violates the Establishment Clause	Exclusion discriminates on the basis of religion or belief and violates Establishment Clause neutrality and nondiscrimination	Theists-only policy fits historical practice of legislative prayer (invoking divine guidance) and is therefore permissible	Court upheld theists-only guest‑chaplain policy under the Establishment Clause as consistent with history and tradition
Whether legislative prayer is subject to Free Speech, Free Exercise, Equal Protection challenges	Plaintiffs argue those Clauses prohibit exclusion and control over who may speak/pray	Defendant: legislative prayer is government speech, so those constitutional claims do not apply	Court held legislative prayer is government speech; Free Speech, Free Exercise, and Equal Protection claims fail
Whether the Speaker’s request and signage asking visitors to “please rise” for prayer are unconstitutionally coercive	Plaintiffs argue the pre-2017 sign/Speaker statement coerced participation and singled out dissenters	Defendants argue the requests were polite, noncoercive, adults are not susceptible like students, and context matters	Court held the pre-2017 sign and Speaker request were not coercive under Town of Greece’s fact‑sensitive test
Whether the 2012 security‑guard incident is ripe for relief / mootness	Plaintiffs rely on the guard incident as coercion evidence	Defendant disavowed the guard’s conduct and changed practices; argues moot	Court held the single 2012 guard incident is moot because House disavowed and will not defend it; but broader sign/statement claim not moot

Key Cases Cited

Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783 (1983) (upholding longstanding practice of legislative prayer and using historical‑tradition analysis)
Town of Greece v. Galloway, 572 U.S. 565 (2014) (applying history-and-tradition test to legislative prayer; coercion inquiry is fact‑sensitive)
American Legion v. American Humanist Ass’n, 139 S. Ct. 2067 (2019) (endorsing reliance on historical practices and presumption of constitutionality for longstanding traditions)
Barker v. Conroy, 921 F.3d 1118 (D.C. Cir. 2019) (upholding U.S. House practice excluding nontheists; applied history-and-tradition framework)
Williamson v. Brevard County, 928 F.3d 1296 (11th Cir. 2019) (addressing scope of inclusion in invocation policies; declined to decide whether nontheists must be allowed invocations)
Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577 (1992) (distinguishing coercion in school‑prayer context; legislative prayer coercion analysis differs)
Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962) (government may not prescribe official prayers; principle against directing prayer content)
Pleasant Grove City v. Summum, 555 U.S. 460 (2009) (government‑speech doctrine: the Free Speech Clause does not regulate government speech)
Kurtz v. Baker, 829 F.2d 1133 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (dissent arguing Congress’s chaplain practice was constitutionally permissible)