Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783 (1983), was a landmark court case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that government funding for chaplains was constitutional because of the "unique history" of the United States. Three days before the ratification of the First Amendment in 1791, containing the Establishment Clause, the federal legislature authorised hiring a chaplain for opening sessions with prayer.

Background

Nebraska state senator Ernie Chambers sued in federal court, claiming that the legislature's practice of opening sessions with a prayer offered by a state-supported chaplain was in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The district court held that the prayer did not violate the Constitution, but that state support for the chaplain did. The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals held that both practices violated the Constitution. The court of appeals applied the "Lemon test" from Lemon v. Kurtzman to evaluate the Establishment Clause challenge. This test requires a government practice to (1) have a secular purpose, (2) have a primary effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion, and (3) not foster excessive government entanglement with religion.

The court found that Nebraska's chaplaincy practice failed all three prongs:

  1. Purpose and Effect: By selecting the same minister for 16 years and publishing his prayers, the practice had the purpose and primary effect of promoting a particular religious expression (specifically, Christianity).
  2. Entanglement: Using state funds to pay the chaplain and publish the prayers constituted excessive entanglement between government and religion.

Question presented

The question presented is whether paying a chaplain for religious services using taxpayer dollars violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

Decision of the Court

In a 6–3 decision in favor of Marsh, Chief Justice Burger wrote the opinion for the majority. The Chief Justice begins the analysis by grounding the practice of legislative prayer in "history and tradition". He notes that opening public deliberative sessions with prayer has been a consistent feature of American government since the founding. The Court makes an original intent argument: since the First Congress authorized paid chaplains they obviously "saw no real threat to the Establishment Clause arising from a practice of prayer similar to that now challenged."</blockquote>

Citing Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971), Justice Brennan points out that the circumstances in the present case clearly do not meet the three-point Lemon test:

<blockquote>Every analysis in this area must begin with consideration of the cumulative criteria developed by the Court over many years. Three such tests may be gleaned from our cases. First, the statute [at issue] must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion; finally, the statute must not foster "an excessive government entanglement with religion."</blockquote>

Justice Stevens also wrote a dissenting opinion, where he essentially argues that religious minorities of any particular region will be disenfranchised by the majority ruling, stating:

<blockquote>Prayers may be said by a Catholic priest in the Massachusetts Legislature and by a Presbyterian minister in the Nebraska Legislature, but I would not expect to find a Jehovah's Witness or a disciple of Mary Baker Eddy or the Reverend Moon serving as the official chaplain in any state legislature. Regardless of the motivation of the majority that exercises the power to appoint the chaplain, it seems plain to me that the designation of a member of one religious faith to serve as the sole official chaplain of a state legislature for a period of 16 years constitutes the preference of one faith over another in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment."</blockquote>

Subsequent history

In Town of Greece v. Galloway (2014) the Court held that the Establishment Clause is not violated when a town board begins their sessions with a sectarian prayer, so long as the town does not discriminate against minority faiths in determining who may offer a prayer.

See also

  • List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 463

References