Nancy Lund v. Rowan County, North Carolina
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 12623
4th Cir.2017Background
- Rowan County Board of Commissioners (five elected members) opened twice-monthly public meetings with an invocation composed and delivered by a commissioner on a rotating basis; no outside prayer-givers were permitted.
- Over the available five-plus year record, 97% of the invocations referenced Jesus/Christian concepts; some prayers included confession, exclusive-salvation language, or exhortations that could be read as proselytizing.
- Commissioners routinely asked attendees to stand and often invited the public to “pray with me”; meetings then proceeded to pledge and public business, including quasi‑judicial matters.
- Three non‑Christian residents (Lund, Montag‑Siegel, Voelker) sued under the Establishment Clause seeking declaratory and injunctive relief; district court enjoined the practice and entered judgment for plaintiffs.
- A Fourth Circuit panel reversed, but the court granted rehearing en banc; the en banc majority affirmed the district court, holding the county’s practice unconstitutional in light of Marsh and Town of Greece and the practice’s totality.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Board’s prayer practice violated the Establishment Clause | Rowan: exclusive, sectarian, lawmaker‑led prayers affiliated government with Christianity, coerced participation, and excluded non‑Christians | Rowan Cty: legislative prayer tradition (Marsh/Town of Greece) allows sectarian invocations; identity of speaker irrelevant; no coercion | Held unconstitutional — the totality (lawmaker‑only, repeated sectarian content, public invitations to pray, local setting) conveyed government endorsement of Christianity |
| Relevance of identity of prayer‑giver (legislator vs. guest minister/chaplain) | Rowan: commissioners’ official status magnified endorsement and risk of coercion | Rowan Cty: speaker identity immaterial; many legislatures permit lawmaker prayers; practice fits history | Court: identity matters contextually; lawmaker‑led, exclusive rotation increased Establishment risks and was relevant to analysis |
| Whether sectarian content alone is dispositive | Rowan: sectarian content, esp. when recurring and proselytizing, shows advancement of religion | Rowan Cty: Town of Greece permits sectarian prayer; courts must not police content alone | Court: content not dispositive by itself, but cumulative pattern of sectarian/proselytizing invocations contributed to endorsement finding |
| Whether audience participation requests/coercion rendered practice unconstitutional | Rowan: requests to stand and follow‑on Pledge produced pressure to conform and chilled participation | Rowan Cty: invitations were typical, noncoercive; attendees could remain seated, arrive late, or leave | Court: context matters; here invitations by elected officials combined with sectarian content and local setting increased coercion risk and supported invalidation |
Key Cases Cited
- Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783 (1983) (upholding legislative prayer tradition and explaining historical practice limits)
- Town of Greece v. Galloway, 572 U.S. 565 (2014) (plurality: sectarian legislative prayer not per se unconstitutional; analyze practice as a whole)
- Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577 (1992) (coercion principle in Establishment Clause analysis)
- Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962) (government may not compose or prescribe official prayers)
- Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668 (1984) (Establishment Clause requires accommodation without hostility)
- Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971) (historical statement of Establishment Clause concerns; political division risk)
- Larson v. Valente, 456 U.S. 228 (1982) (government cannot officially prefer one religious denomination)
- West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943) (no official imposition of orthodoxy)
- Van Orden v. Perry, 545 U.S. 677 (2005) (context‑sensitive Establishment Clause inquiries)