Town of Greece v. Galloway, 134 S. Ct. 1811

Background

Town of Greece, NY began opening monthly town-board meetings (1999–2007) with volunteer clergy invocations; selection was informal from a local directory and a volunteer list.
Nearly all invited chaplains were Christian and many prayers used explicitly Christian language (e.g., invoking Jesus, Holy Spirit); town did not review or edit prayers but said it would welcome any faith.
Plaintiffs Galloway and Stephens, who attended meetings to speak on local issues, sued claiming the practice violated the Establishment Clause by privileging Christianity and coercing participation; they sought an injunction requiring inclusive, nonsectarian prayers.
District Court upheld the practice under Marsh v. Chambers, finding no unconstitutional preference or proselytizing; Second Circuit reversed, finding the totality of facts conveyed endorsement of Christianity and potential coercion.
Supreme Court (Kennedy plurality) reversed the Second Circuit, holding the town’s ceremonial, historical-style legislative prayer practice did not violate the Establishment Clause absent coercion or a pattern of proselytizing or denigration.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Greece's opening prayers violated the Establishment Clause by endorsing Christianity	Greece argued the predominantly Christian content and selection process conveyed governmental endorsement and pressured nonadherents	Town argued Marsh permits legislative prayer; content need not be nonsectarian if practice is historical, nondiscriminatory, and not coercive	Held for Town: legislative prayer consistent with Marsh unless coercive or exploited to proselytize/denigrate
Whether legislative prayer must be nonsectarian	Plaintiffs: prayers must be generic/nonsectarian to avoid government identification with a sect	Town: requirement would force government to censor religious speech and is inconsistent with historical practice	Held: Court rejects a constitutional requirement of nonsectarian content; courts should not police devotional content absent proselytizing or disparagement
Whether the town’s selection process (predominantly local Christian clergy) created an impermissible endorsement	Plaintiffs: selection method “all but ensured” Christian invocations and town should seek broader inclusivity	Town: selection reflected local demographics and nondiscriminatory policy; Constitution does not require seeking nonresidents to achieve balance	Held: Town’s nondiscriminatory process permissible; no constitutional duty to pursue religious balancing beyond nondiscrimination
Whether the setting coerced participation by constituents who come to address the board	Plaintiffs: intimate town-meeting setting and audience participation create subtle coercion to conform	Town: no evidence of penalties, adverse treatment, or compelled participation; adults can opt out or leave	Held: Offense alone is not coercion; no unconstitutional coercion shown on this record; Lee v. Weisman distinguishes school/ceremonial coercion contexts

Key Cases Cited

Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783 (legislative prayer with historical pedigree permissible; content not for courts to police absent proselytizing)
County of Allegheny v. American Civil Liberties Union, 492 U.S. 573 (addressing endorsement test and limits on sectarian government displays)
Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577 (school graduation clergy-led prayer coercion analysis)
Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (government may not prescribe official prayers in public institutions)
Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (Establishment Clause test and concerns about government entanglement)
Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290 (school-sponsored student prayer unconstitutional)
McCreary County v. American Civil Liberties Union, 545 U.S. 844 (government endorsement and neutrality between religion and nonreligion)
Van Orden v. Perry, 545 U.S. 677 (contextual, historical approach to religious displays)