Marsh v. Chambers
77 L. Ed. 2d 1019 · Supreme Court of the United States · 1983
Facts
The Nebraska Legislature opens each legislative day with a prayer offered by a chaplain chosen biennially and paid from public funds. Robert E. Palmer, a Presbyterian minister, has served as chaplain since 1965, receiving a monthly salary during legislative sessions. Ernest Chambers, a member of the Nebraska Legislature and a taxpayer, filed an action claiming this chaplaincy practice violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. He sought to enjoin the practice. The prayers are recorded in the Legislative Journal and published in prayerbooks at public expense.
Procedural history
Ernest Chambers brought an action in District Court, which held that while the prayers did not breach the Establishment Clause, paying the chaplain from public funds did, enjoining only the payment. Cross-appeals were taken to the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, which, applying the Lemon test, held the entire chaplaincy practice violated the Establishment Clause and prohibited all aspects of it. The Supreme Court granted certiorari, limited to the challenge to the practice of opening sessions with prayers by a state-employed clergyman.
Issue
Whether the Nebraska Legislature’s practice of opening each legislative day with a prayer by a chaplain paid by the State violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
Holding
The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals, holding that the Nebraska Legislature's practice of opening sessions with prayers by a state-employed clergyman does not violate the Establishment Clause.
Rule
The practice of opening legislative sessions with prayer is deeply embedded in the history and tradition of the United States, dating back to the Continental Congress and the First Congress. The First Congress, which drafted the First Amendment, adopted and paid for legislative chaplains, indicating that the framers did not view this practice as an Establishment Clause violation. This unbroken historical practice, consistent for over two centuries nationally and over a century in Nebraska, is weighty evidence of the Clause's meaning. The Court found no real threat of establishment from this practice, viewing invocations as harmonizing with religious tenets rather than proselytizing, and specific features like a chaplain's long tenure or public payment do not invalidate it given this historical context.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener
Case brief last reviewed . Prepared by CaseReader from the published opinion.