Download - SC Public Prayer Amicus Brief
-
7/30/2019 SC Public Prayer Amicus Brief
1/69
NO. 11-546
In theIn theIn theIn theIn the
Supreme Court of the United StatesSupreme Court of the United StatesSupreme Court of the United StatesSupreme Court of the United StatesSupreme Court of the United States
FORSYTH COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA,Petitioner,
v.
JANET JOYNERAND CONSTANCE LYNNE BLACKMON,Respondents.
On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
BRIEF OF SENATOR GEORGE E. CHIP CAMPSEN
AND 26 OTHER SENATORS OF THE STATE OF
SOUTH CAROLINA ASAMICI CURIAE
IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER
Becker Gallagher Cincinnati, OH Washington, D.C. 800.890.5001
November 30, 2011
J.R. MURPHYCounsel of Record
TIMOTHYJ. NEWTONMURPHY& GRANTLAND, P.A.4406-B Forest DriveColumbia, SC 29206(803) 782-4100
Counsel for Amici Curiae
-
7/30/2019 SC Public Prayer Amicus Brief
2/69
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ..................................... iiiINTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE ............................... 1SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT .................................... 2
ARGUMENT .............................................................. 4
Legal Background ...................................................... 5
I. THE FOURTH CIRCUITS OPINION CREATES A
SPLIT IN THE CIRCUITS. ......................................... 8II. IMPOSITION OF A NONSECTARIAN
STANDARD CREATES A HOST OF PROBLEMS IN
IMPLEMENTING AND ENFORCING SUCH A
POLICY. .................................................................. 9A. Inappropriateness of state direction of
the content of invocational prayers ............. 10B. Lack of a clear standard as to what
constitutes sectarian prayer...................... 13C. Uncertainty in enforcement of a ban on
sectarian prayers ...................................... 19D. How many sectarian references are
too many? ..................................................... 22III. QUESTIONS EXIST AS TO THE APPLICABILITY
OF PRINCIPLES OF GOVERNMENT SPEECH AND
LIMITED PUBLIC FORUM. ...................................... 23
-
7/30/2019 SC Public Prayer Amicus Brief
3/69
ii
CONCLUSION ......................................................... 26APPENDIX:
Appendix A: List of Senators joining as amici ........ 1a
Appendix B: Challenges to Public Invocations ....... 3a
-
7/30/2019 SC Public Prayer Amicus Brief
4/69
iii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases:
Adler v. Duval County Sch. Bd.,
250 F.3d 1330 (11th Cir. 2000) .......................... 10, 24
Bacus v. Palo Verde Unified Sch. Dist. Bd. of
Educ., 52 Fed. Appx. 355 (9th Cir. 2002) ................ 16
Berman v. U.S., 156 F.2d 377 (9th Cir. 1946),
cert. denied, 329 U.S. 795 (1946), rehg denied,
329 U.S. 833 (1947) .................................................. 20
Blackhawk v. Pennsylvania, 381 F.3d 202
(3rd Cir. 2004) .......................................................... 24
Bd. of Educ. of Westside Cmty. Sch. v.
Mergens By & Through Mergens, 496 U.S. 226
(1990) ........................................................................ 24
Coles v. Cleveland Bd. of Educ., 171 F.3d 369
(6th Cir. 1999) .......................................................... 15
County of Allegheny v. American Civil
Liberties Union Greater Pittsburgh Chapter,
et al., 492 U.S. 573 (1989) ...................................... 7, 8
Doe v. Indian River Sch. Dist., 685 F. Supp.
2d 524 (D. Del. 2010), revd on other grounds,
653 F.3d 256 (3rd Cir. 2011) ................................ 8, 15
-
7/30/2019 SC Public Prayer Amicus Brief
5/69
iv
Doe v. Tangipahoa Parish Sch. Bd., 473 F.3d
188 (5th Cir. 2006), revd on rehearing en
banc on other grounds, 494 F.3d 494 (5th Cir.
2007) ......................................................................... 15
E.E.O.C. v. Roman Catholic Diocese of
Raleigh, N.C., 48 F. Supp. 2d 505 (E.D.N.C.
1999) ......................................................................... 17
Employment Div., Dept. of Human Res. of
Oregon v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990) ..................... 24
Galloway v. Town of Greece, 732 F. Supp. 2d
195 (W.D.N.Y. 2010) ...................................... 8, 11, 14
Hinrichs v. Bosma, 440 F.3d 393 (7th Cir.
2006), revd on hearing en banc on other
grounds, 506 F.3d 584 (7th Cir. 2008)..................... 15
Joyner v. Forsyth County, N.C., 653 F.3d 341
(4th Cir. 2011) ..................................................passim
Joyner v. Forsyth County, No. 1:07-CV-243,
2009 WL 3787754 at *5 (M.D.N.C. Nov. 9,
2009) ......................................................................... 23
Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577 (1992) ...............passim
Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971) ................. 7
Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668 (1984) ............ 21, 25
Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783 (1983) ........passim
-
7/30/2019 SC Public Prayer Amicus Brief
6/69
v
Pelphrey v. Cobb County, Georgia, 547 F.3d
1263 (11th Cir. 2008) .......................................passim
Pleasant Grove City, Utah v. Summum, 555
U.S. 460 (2009) ................................................... 23, 25
Rubin v. City of Burbank, 101 Cal. App. 4th
1194 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002) ............................. 14, 15, 16
Rubin v. City of Lancaster, No. CV 10-4046-
DSF (JCx), 2011 WL 2790273 (C.D. Cal. July
13, 2011) ..................................................... 8, 9, 11, 14
Sch. Dist. of Abington Twp., Pa. v. Schempp,
374 U.S. 203 (1963) ...................................... 15, 19, 20
Simpson v. Chesterfield County Bd. of Suprs,
404 F.3d 276 (4th Cir. 2005) .................................... 18
Snyder v. Murray City Corp., 159 F.3d 1227
(10th Cir. 1998) .................................................. 11, 19
State v. Weedman, 226 N.W. 348 (S.D. 1929) ......... 15
Stein v. Plainwell Community Schools, 822
F.2d 1406 (6th Cir. 1987) ......................................... 15
Turner v. City Council of the City of
Fredericksburg, Virginia, 534 F.3d 352 (4th
Cir. 2008) ................................................ 12, 16, 22, 23
Van Orden v. Perry, 545 U.S. 677 (2005) ............ 6, 19
-
7/30/2019 SC Public Prayer Amicus Brief
7/69
vi
Walz v. Tax Commn of City of New York, 397
U.S. 664, 669 (1970) ........................................... 11, 17
Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972) ................. 21
Wynne v. Town of Great Falls, South
Carolina, 376 F.3d 292, 300 (4th Cir. 2004) ........... 15
Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U.S. 306 (1952) ............ 16, 17
Constitutional Provisions:
U.S.CONST. amend. I ............................. 10, 12, 18, 20
Legislative Materials:
S.C. Code Ann. 6-1-160 (Supp. 2010)...................... 5
S.C. Code Ann. 6-1-160(B)(3) .................................. 9
Other Authorities:
John 16:23 ................................................................ 12
John 14:13-14 ........................................................... 13
John 15:16 ................................................................ 13
Ephesians 5:20 ......................................................... 13
Colossians 3:17 ......................................................... 13
-
7/30/2019 SC Public Prayer Amicus Brief
8/69
vii
Meriam-Webster online, available at
http://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/sect..................................... 15
WXII12.com, Republicans, Democrats
Disagree With Sectarian Prayer Ban, Poll
Says, available at
http://www.wxii12.com/news/24424727/detail.
html .......................................................................... 18
EDWARD D.RE, THE ROMAN CONTRIBUTION TO
THE COMMON LAW, 29 Fordham L. Rev. 447,
474 (1961) ..................................................... 19, 20, 21
MIKE MACNAIR, EQUITY AND CONSCIENCE, 27
Oxford J. Legal Stud. 659, 669 (2007) ..................... 20
-
7/30/2019 SC Public Prayer Amicus Brief
9/69
1
INTEREST OF THEAMICI1
SENATOR GEORGE E. CHIP CAMPSEN,
III is the state senator for District 43 in the State of
South Carolina. SENATOR CAMPSEN authored
the South Carolina Public Invocation Act, which
provides authority for state boards and commissions
to adopt ordinances allowing invocations to open
public meetings. The provisions of the South
Carolina Public Invocation Act are substantially
similar to the policy adopted by the Forsyth County.
The Public Invocation Act was enacted to provideguidance for state legislative bodies to comply with
applicable law governing invocations.
The legislative intent of the Public Invocation
Act was to help deliberative bodies become aware of
both the settled and unsettled issues in the law
governing legislative invocations, and to assist them
in making informed decisions so the policies they
adopt will pass constitutional scrutiny.
The interests of the senators, as named inAppendix A to this brief, joining as amici in this
brief are consistent with the interests of SENATOR
CAMPSEN.
1Counsel of record for all parties received timely notice of theamici curiaes intention to file this brief. All parties of record
consented to the filing ofamicus briefs in support of either or
neither party. Amici state that no portion of this brief was
authored by counsel for a party and that no person or entity
other than amici or their counsel made a monetary contribution
to the preparation or submission of this brief.
-
7/30/2019 SC Public Prayer Amicus Brief
10/69
2
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT
This Court has recognized the long history
and tradition of legislative invocations and allowed
them, provided they are not exploited to proselytize
or advance any one, or to disparage any other, faith
or belief. Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783, 794-95
(1983). The Fourth Circuit in this case imposed an
additional requirement that the prayers must be
nonsectarian in nature. The Fourth Circuits
opinion highlights a circuit split and confusion as to
the applicable standard.
Legislative bodies are facing an onslaught of
legal challenges which are forcing many legislative
bodies to curtail their practice of invocations or
abandon the practice altogether. In the past ten
years, over 100 such legal challenges have been
reported in the news media. (See Appendix B.)
Amici would show that this Court should
grant certiorari due to the split in the circuits as to
the standard for legislative invocations. Amiciwould further show that imposition of a
nonsectarian standard creates a host of problems
for implementing and enforcing such a policy.
This Court has recognized that it is not the
business of the government to control the content of
invocational prayers. Not only does this create
Establishment Clause problems, it interferes with
the rights of the people to recognize and pray to a
Supreme Being over which human government
exercises no authority.
-
7/30/2019 SC Public Prayer Amicus Brief
11/69
3
The split in the circuits illustrates thedifficulty in defining a nonsectarian standard.
Efforts to impose such a standard have focused on
particularized censorship of the name of Jesus
Christ. This creates a perception of government
hostility to a particular group of religious adherents
and entangles the state in religious discrimination.
Other efforts at such line-drawing have failed to
reach a consensus, and some courts have expressed
dismay at the thought of attempting to determine
what is sectarian and what is not.
Imposing a nonsectarian standard also
creates problems in enforcing such a ban. Devout
religious believers may perceive a nonsectarian
standard as infringing on their religious liberty,
inviting civil disobedience. Moreover, there is no
clear standard as to how sectarian references are
to be counted and how many such references would
violate the Fourth Circuits frequency test.
Finally, questions exist as to the relationship,
if any, between legislative invocations and principles
relating to limited public fora, private speech, and
government speech. Invocations most likely trigger
at least some measure of constitutional protection of
the freedoms of speech and free exercise of religion,
but recent cases have called the parameters of these
liberties into doubt. Guidance is needed to resolve
these questions in the face of a continuing barrage of
legal challenges.
-
7/30/2019 SC Public Prayer Amicus Brief
12/69
4
ARGUMENT
Beginning in colonial times and continuing
through the foundation of the United States of
America, legislative bodies have begun meetings
with invocations. The practice of legislative
invocations is firmly established in American history
and has been upheld by this Court. But in recent
years this well-established tradition has come under
attack.
Around the country legislative bodies arefacing a barrage of challenges to invocations. (See
CHALLENGES TO PUBLIC INVOCATIONS, Appendix B.)
Over 100 challenges to legislative invocations have
been reported in the news media since 2002. (Id.)
Of these, many have resulted in litigation or forced
legislative bodies to change their policies regarding
invocations. (Id.) The uncertainty in the law has led
some legislative bodies to simply abandon the
practice of having invocations altogether. (Id.)
Attempting to craft legislation and policies regarding
invocations is difficult because of the split in the
circuits. Moreover, questions have arisen as to
whether the same standard applies to legislative
bodies at all governmental levels.
South Carolinas Public Invocation Act,
reflected an attempt by the State of South Carolina
to offer guidance to legislative bodies and political
subdivisions due to the number of legal challenges.
It was enacted in a good faith attempt to comply
with constitutional law. The goal of the PublicInvocation Act is to help assure state deliberative
bodies desiring invocations to implement a procedure
-
7/30/2019 SC Public Prayer Amicus Brief
13/69
5
that passes constitutional scrutiny, and to avoidEstablishment Clause litigation.
Legislative bodies need clarity in the law in
order to frame their policies for legislative
invocations. The uncertainty in the law needlessly
involves legislative bodies in disputes, burdening the
taxpayers. Additionally, the wave of challenges has
a nuisance value function which serves to effectively
align government policy with those who would
discourage the process, despite the well-established
constitutionality of legislative invocations. ThisCourt should grant certiorari to resolve the
applicable standard.
Legal background
Since 1983 constitutional law on the subject of
legislative invocations has been defined by Marsh v.
Chambers, 463 U.S. 783 (1983). The procedure
adopted by Forsyth County in this case reflected an
attempt to comply with the Marsh standard.
Likewise, the State of South Carolina has enactedthe Public Invocation Act, authored by SENATOR
CAMPSEN, which is substantially similar to the
procedure adopted by Forsyth County. See S.C. Code
Ann. 6-1-160 (Supp. 2010).
Because the Fourth Circuit opinion in this
case implicates South Carolinas Public Invocation
Act, SENATORS GEORGE E. CHIP CAMPSEN,
III and other South Carolina senators join as Amici
Curie in support of Forsyth Countys Petition for a
Writ ofCertiorari. The undersigned Senators would
show that granting certiorari in this case would
-
7/30/2019 SC Public Prayer Amicus Brief
14/69
6
serve to resolve a split in the circuits and to clarifythe legal standard for legislative invocations.
The Fourth Circuit required that legislative
invocations must be nonsectarian in nature, a
requirement upon which courts are split. The Marsh
opinion expressly held that it is not for courts to
parse the content of prayer so long as there is no
indication that the prayer opportunity has been
exploited to proselytize or advance any one, or to
disparage any other, faith or belief. Marsh, 463
U.S. at 794-95.
In Marsh, the majority did not base its
holding on a determination that the prayers at issue
were nonsectarian in nature. SeePelphrey v. Cobb
County, Georgia, 547 F.3d 1263, 1271 (11th Cir.
2008). The Court noted that all references to Christ
had been removed after a complaint from a Jewish
legislator a year after suit was filed, but before that
the invocations were Christian in nature. Marsh,
463 U.S. at 793 n.14; Van Orden v. Perry, 545 U.S.
677, 688 n.8 (2005). This Court rejected the
argument that the presence of explicitly Christian
prayers in the Judeo-Christian tradition violated the
Establishment clause. Id. This Court has not
addressed the outer limits of the freedom of
conscience of clergymen when leading in invocations
at legislative sessions. Indeed, this Court has not
directly addressed legislative invocations at all since
Marsh.
The Fourth Circuit has imposed anonsectarian standard, particularly indicating that
such prayers must not mention the name of Jesus
-
7/30/2019 SC Public Prayer Amicus Brief
15/69
7
or Christ. Joyner v. Forsyth County, N.C., 653 F.3d341, 348 (4th Cir. 2011) (explaining that under the
Fourth Circuits standard, legislative prayer is
approved only when it is nonsectarian in both policy
and practice). The Fourth Circuits standard is
derived from dicta in County of Allegheny v.
American Civil Liberties Union Greater Pittsburgh
Chapter, et al., 492 U.S. 573, 603 (1989).
Allegheny did not concern legislative prayer.
It was decided under the more stringent standard
set forth in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971),a test which was not applied to legislative
invocations in Marsh. SeePelphrey, 547 F.3d at
1269 (explaining that the majority in Marsh rejected
the Eighth Circuits application of the Lemon
standard). Moreover, a careful reading ofAllegheny
does not indicate an attempt to limit Marshs
holding. This Court merely pointed out that the
prayers in Marsh did not have the effect of affiliating
the government with any one specific faith or belief
because all references to Christ had been removed.
Allegheny, 492 U.S. at 603. Thus,Allegheny did not
address the question of whether invocational prayers
by clergymen which refer to Christ could nonetheless
result in something less than effectively affiliating
the government with a particular faith or belief.
Accordingly, the Fourth Circuits holding imposes a
stricter standard and has created confusion through
a strained reading ofAllegheny.
-
7/30/2019 SC Public Prayer Amicus Brief
16/69
8
I. The Fourth Circuits opinion creates a splitin the Circuits.
Forsyth County is not alone in finding the
Fourth Circuits holding contradictory to the rule in
other circuits. The confusion in the law with regard
to the imposition of a nonsectarian standard on
legislative invocations has been ably documented by
several courts. SeePelphrey, 547 F.3d at 1271-74
(11th Cir. 2008) (canvassing the law in other circuits
and concluding that there is no clear consensus
among our sister circuits about sectarian referencesin legislative prayer); Galloway v. Town of Greece,
732 F. Supp. 2d 195, 225-38 (W.D.N.Y. 2010).
(reviewing the case law at length and concluding
that no Supreme Court precedent addressed the
precise issue before the court and that the circuit
courts are divided); Rubin v. City of Lancaster, No.
CV 10-4046-DSF (JCx), 2011 WL 2790273 at *6
(C.D. Cal. July 13, 2011) (explaining that cases since
Marsh have not reached a consensus); Doe v.
Indian River Sch. Dist., 685 F. Supp. 2d 524, 534 (D.
Del. 2010), revd on other grounds, 653 F.3d 256 (3rd
Cir. 2011) (recognizing that other courts have
reached different conclusions on the issue). In
Galloway, the court specifically opined that it
disagreed with the Fourth Circuit standard.
Galloway, 732 F. Supp. 2d at 243.
The opposing positions are set forth in Rubin.
On the one hand are those who interpret Allegheny
to impose a blanket prohibition on sectarian
prayer, if prayer is permitted at all. Rubin, 2011 WL2790273 at *6. In the opposing camp are those who
interpret Marsh to allow sectarian prayers, so long
-
7/30/2019 SC Public Prayer Amicus Brief
17/69
9
as they are not exploited to proselytize or advance ordisparage a particular religious belief. Id. The
Fourth Circuits opinions place it in the former
camp, as discussed below. Id.
The bright-line rule of nonsectarianism
conflicts with the Marsh mandate that courts should
not embark on a sensitive evaluation or . . . parse
the content of a particular prayer. Marsh, 463 U.S.
at 794. It is therefore appropriate for this Court to
grant certiorari to resolve the split among the
circuits.
II. Imposition of a nonsectarian standard
creates a host of problems in implementing
and enforcing such a policy.
Setting aside the technical distinctions
involved in viewing the question in the abstract, it is
appropriate to consider the practical realities in
attempting to implement and enforce a
nonsectarian standard. Assuming that a state
entity engages in a constitutionally neutral selectionprocess, it is faced with a series of thorny questions
under the standard adopted by the Fourth Circuit.
The invocational speakers are not necessarily state
agents; they are often professionals who have been
invited based upon a list of clergymen in the area.
See S.C. Code Ann. 6-1-160(B)(3). First of all, is it
appropriate for a civil authority to instruct a
clergyman as to how to pray to the Deity? Secondly,
what exactly is a nonsectarian prayer? Thirdly,
what if the clergyman refuses to follow the standard,or includes sectarian content after agreeing to
-
7/30/2019 SC Public Prayer Amicus Brief
18/69
10
comply with the standard? Fourth, how manysectarian prayers are too many?
A. Inappropriateness of state direction ofthe content of invocational prayers
In Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577 (1992), this
Court held that states may not control the content of
invocational prayers because such control violates
the Establishment Clause. Id. at 588. This Court
held that a directive from the state that prayers
must be nonsectarian constitutes governmentcontrol. Id. Government control of the content of
prayers violates the Establishment Clause. Id. The
government entanglement resulting from having the
state control the content of prayers creates greater
Establishment clause problems than simply allowing
a clergyman to pray according to his or her freedom
of conscience. Id. at 589 (But though the First
Amendment does not allow the government to stifle
prayers which aspire to these ends, neither does it
permit the government to undertake the task for
itself.); see alsoAdler v. Duval County Sch. Bd., 250
F.3d 1330, 1337 (11th Cir. 2000) (The ability to
regulate the content of speech is a hallmark of state
involvement.).
This Courts holding in Lee supports the view
that Marsh should not be construed to require
parsing of invocational prayers by the state. In fact,
Lee rejected the whole notion of a distinction
between sectarian and nonsectarian prayers if
mandated by the government. This Court found thatthe danger of a state-created orthodoxy
threatening freedom of belief and conscience was
-
7/30/2019 SC Public Prayer Amicus Brief
19/69
11
too great. Id. at 592. Other courts have agreed thatneither state legislators nor the federal judiciary
should be in the business of composing official
prayers for clergymen. Pelphrey, 547 F.3d at 1278;
Galloway, 732 F. Supp. 2d at 225; Rubin, 2011 WL
2790273 at *6.
Judge Niemeyer has identified another
concern for states if they are required to mandate
the language of invocational prayers. Prayer is the
sacred dialogue between humankind and God.
Joyner, 653 F.3d at 356 (Niemeyer, J., dissenting).Imposing a state-mandated ban on nonsectarian
prayers has two important effects. It treats prayer
agnostically and reduces it to a civil nicety.
The effect of treating prayer agnostically is
produced by the failure of a state-mandated ban on
sectarian references to recognize that prayer is a
communication with the Divine Being over which
the state exercises no authority. Id. at 366; see also
Snyder v. Murray City Corp., 159 F.3d 1227, 1234
n.10 (10th Cir. 1998) (The very act of praying to a
supreme power assumes the existence of that
supreme power). This countrys first President
recognized that prayer is directed to a supreme
authority in his first official act as President. See
Lee, 505 U.S. at 633 (Scalia, J., dissenting) (quoting
Washingtons prayer to that Almighty Being who
rules over the universe, who presides in the councils
of nations). By acting to regulate the content of
prayer, courts take sides with those who do not
believe in a Divine or Supreme Being, thus violatingthe Establishment Clause. Walz v. Tax Commn of
City of New York, 397 U.S. 664, 669 (1970)
-
7/30/2019 SC Public Prayer Amicus Brief
20/69
12
(explaining that one of the general principles of theFirst Amendment is that this Court will not tolerate
. . . governmental interference with religion).
The effect of reducing prayer to a civil nicety
is produced by imposition of a government-controlled
orthodoxy. It is not for courts to legislate, based on
the imprecise notion of nonsectarianism, bowing to
political correctness or universal inoffensiveness . . .
without regard to the dangers of governmental
censorship of religious expression. Joyner, 653 F.3d
at 367 (Niemeyer, J., dissenting); see alsoMarsh, 463U.S. at 794-95 (refusing to parse the content of
invocations).
One of the manifest purposes of legislative
invocations is to invoke Divine guidance. Marsh,
463 U.S. at 792. Washington, in his first official act
as President, sought from the Divine Being whose
providential aids can supply every human defect,
that His benediction may consecrate to the liberties
and happiness of the people of the United States a
Government instituted by themselves for these
essential purposes. Lee, 505 U.S. at 633 (Scalia, J.,
dissenting). Washington thus expressed his belief
that invocational prayer invokes divine benefits on
the legislative body.
Many Christians believe prayers must be
offered in the name of Jesus Christ to be effective.
See Turner v. City Council of the City of
Fredericksburg, Virginia, 534 F.3d 352, 354 (4th Cir.
2008). This view is derived from a number ofScriptural references which are taken as
authoritative and to be followed literally. See John
-
7/30/2019 SC Public Prayer Amicus Brief
21/69
13
16:23 (quoting Jesus as stating, Truly, truly, I sayto you, if you ask the Father for anything in My
name, He will give it to you.); see also John 14:13-14
and 15:16; Eph. 5:20; Col. 3:17. Denying these
people the freedom to pray according to the dictates
of their consciences infringes on their religious
liberty and results in disparate treatment as
compared to those who believe nonsectarian prayers
are sufficient.
But at a deeper level, a government mandate
that legislative prayers be nonsectarian runs therisk of undermining a recognized purpose of
legislative prayer, which is to invoke divine
guidance. Marsh, 463 U.S. at 792. Government is
not in a position to make judgments on the religious
issue of what constitutes an effective prayer or to
pass on the truth or falsity of religious beliefs. It
therefore should refrain from interfering with the
professional judgment of religious leaders on the
subject. By mandating nonsectarian invocations,
courts may be denying legislatures the benefit of
invocations, thus reducing them to a civil nicety.
B. Lack of a clear standard as to whatconstitutes a sectarian prayer
The Eleventh Circuit articulated its difficulty
in defining the difference between sectarian and
nonsectarian prayers. Pelphrey, 547 F.3d at 1272.
The court explained, We would not know where to
begin to demarcate the boundary between sectarian
and nonsectarian expressions. The court furtherrecognized that this confusion will be experienced by
state entities as they attempt to implement a ban on
-
7/30/2019 SC Public Prayer Amicus Brief
22/69
14
nonsectarian prayers. Id. This Court also hasrecognized the difficulty in attempting to formulate
such a standard. Marsh, 463 U.S. at 819 n.42
(Brennan, J., dissenting) (explaining that fashioning
nonsectarian prayers may not be possible and
would likely be offensive to devout members of all
religions).
As the court warned in Lee, courts are not in a
position to determine what is sectarian and what is
not. The Eleventh Circuit expressly declined this
role of ecclesiastical arbiter. Pelphry, 547 F.3d at1274. Justice Souter has written that courts are not
competent to distinguish between what is sectarian
and what is ecumenical and that this practice
should be avoided where possible. Lee, 505 U.S. at
616-17 (Souter, J., dissenting). Two lower courts
have also abstained from embarking on such a
perilous process. Galloway, 732 F. Supp. 2d at 242-
43; Rubin, 2011 WL 2790273 at *6.
The attempts by courts to formulate a
standard have underscored this difficulty. The
Fourth Circuit required legislative invocations to
embrace a nonsectarian ideal and make efforts at
ecumenism. Joyner, 653 F.3d at 347-48. This
smacks of the very government-controlled orthodoxy
that Lee warned against.
Moreover, the meaning of sectarian is
elusive. The term sectarian has been defined as
relating to or characteristic of a sect. Rubin v. City
of Burbank, 101 Cal. App. 4th 1194, 1205 (Cal. Ct.App. 2002). But what is a sect? The Rubin court
quotes one component of the definition, an
-
7/30/2019 SC Public Prayer Amicus Brief
23/69
15
organized ecclesiastical body, or a religiousdenomination. Id. (quoting Websters 10th
Collegiate Dictionary (2001), p. 1053). However,
Merriam-Webster defines sect as a dissenting or
schismatic religious body, especially: one regarded as
extreme or heretical. Meriam-Webster online,
available at http://www.merriam-webster.com/
dictionary/sect. The legal definition of sectarian is
something of a moving target, meaning different
things at different times. See, e.g., State v.
Weedman, 226 N.W. 348 (S.D. 1929) (holding that
the King James Version of the Bible was notsectarian, but instruction based on Protestant or
Catholic doctrine was sectarian in nature); Sch. Dist.
of Abington Twp., Pa. v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203, 210
(1963) (citing expert testimony that the Bible is not
sectarian). By implication, a state becomes
entangled in religious disputes as to what is
orthodox and what is heretical or schismatic by
labeling a particular prayer sectarian.
The courts finding a particular prayer
sectarian in nature have agreed on only one point:
that mentioning the name of Jesus Christ infuses a
prayer with a sectarian character. SeeDoe v.
Indian River Sch. Dist., 653 F.3d 256, 285 (3rd Cir.
2011); Joyner, 653 F.3d at 349; Wynne v. Town of
Great Falls, South Carolina, 376 F.3d 292, 300 (4th
Cir. 2004); Doe v. Tangipahoa Parish Sch. Bd., 473
F.3d 188, 204 (5th Cir. 2006), revd on rehearing en
banc on other grounds, 494 F.3d 494 (5th Cir. 2007);
Stein v. Plainwell Community Schools, 822 F.2d
1406, 1410 (6th Cir. 1987); Coles v. Cleveland Bd. ofEduc., 171 F.3d 369, 385 (6th Cir. 1999); Hinrichs v.
Bosma, 440 F.3d 393, 399 (7th Cir. 2006), revd on
-
7/30/2019 SC Public Prayer Amicus Brief
24/69
16
hearing en banc on other grounds, 506 F.3d 584 (7thCir. 2008); Bacus v. Palo Verde Unified Sch. Dist.
Bd. of Educ., 52 Fed. Appx. 355, 356 (9th Cir. 2002);
Rubin, 101 Cal. App. 4th at 1203-04. This
understanding is not only inconsistent with
historical notions of what is considered sectarian, it
appears to evidence a government policy of singling
out a particular historical/religious figure, Jesus
Christ, for particularized disapproval and
censorship.
In Turner, 534 F.3d at 354, the City Attorneyconcluded that invocations should not mention Jesus
Christ. The Fourth Circuits opinion in this case
continues down this road of discrimination against
believers in Christ. Yet this Courts cases have not
required such a result.
In Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U.S. 306 (1952),
this Court held that the Constitution does not
require government hostility to religion:
When the state . . . cooperates withreligious authorities . . . it follows the
best of our traditions. For it then
respects the religious nature of our
people and accommodates the public
service to their spiritual needs. To hold
that it may not would be to find in the
Constitution a requirement that the
government show a callous indifference
to religious groups. That would be
preferring those who believe in noreligion over those who do believe. [W]e
find no constitutional requirement
-
7/30/2019 SC Public Prayer Amicus Brief
25/69
17
which makes it necessary forgovernment to be hostile to religion and
to throw its weight against efforts to
widen the effective scope of religious
influence.
Id. at 314. Under Zorach, government should
respect and accommodate religious observances and
traditions, but may not endorse them. Government
may not interfere with religion. Walz, 397 U.S. at
669. Additionally, many founding fathers cautioned
against the separation of principles expounded byreligion from the governance of the state:
Of all the dispositions and habits which
lead to political prosperity, religion and
morality are indispensable supports. In
vain would that man claim the tribute
of patriotism who should labor to
subvert these great pillars of human
happinessthese firmest props of the
duties of men and citizens. The mere
politician, equally with the pious man,
ought to respect and to cherish them. A
volume could not trace all their
connections with private and public
felicity.
E.E.O.C. v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Raleigh, N.C.,
48 F. Supp. 2d 505, 509-10 (E.D.N.C. 1999) (quoting
George Washingtons Farewell Address, September
26, 1796).
Singling out Jesus Christ for particularized
disapproval does not constitute neutrality. Instead,
-
7/30/2019 SC Public Prayer Amicus Brief
26/69
18
it promotes the view among the general public thatcourts are taking sides in a religious debate or
exhibiting hostility toward religion. Moreover, most
people disagree with a policy of government
censorship of the name of Jesus Christ in legislative
invocations in the state from which this case arises.
See WXII12.com, Republicans, Democrats Disagree
With Sectarian Prayer Ban, Poll Says, available at
http://www.wxii12.com/news/24424727/detail.html
(finding that 70% of voters disagreed with a policy of
banning mentioning Jesus in opening prayers at the
North Carolina House of Representatives).
Whatever sectarian means, the use of it to
focus on the name of Jesus Christ for disapproval
violates the constitutional mandate of government
neutrality. SeeLee, 505 U.S. at 590 (explaining that
the central meaning of the Religion Clauses of the
First Amendment, which is that all creeds must be
tolerated and none favored). Since no other
workable standard has been found, the Fourth
Circuits mandate that legislative prayers be
nonsectarian should not stand.
Furthermore, questions exist as to whether
other religious names, terms, and means of
addressing the Deity should be considered
sectarian. What about references to God,
Jehovah, or Allah? See, e.g., Simpson v.
Chesterfield County Bd. of Suprs, 404 F.3d 276, 284
(4th Cir. 2005) (commending the board for using
wide and embracive religious terms but not
Christ). A possible solution is to allow invocationsin my saviors name. Would prayers of this type
pass constitutional muster? Guidance from this
-
7/30/2019 SC Public Prayer Amicus Brief
27/69
19
Court is needed to resolve these perplexingquestions.
C. Uncertainty in enforcement of a ban on
sectarian prayers
Attempts to enforce a ban on sectarian
references present another dilemma for legislative
bodies. Instructing a religious leader not to say
certain things during legislative invocations invites
civil disobedience because of the conflict it produces
between civil and religious authority.
As this Court has recognized, religious people,
including the Founding Fathers, believe in a
Supreme Deity in whom are rooted the very
unalienable rights of man upon which the Bill of
Rights is based. Schempp, 374 U.S. at 213. If this
countrys institutions presuppose a Supreme
Being, then by what authority does a court impose
restrictions within the religious sphere? See Van
Orden, 545 U.S. at 683; Snyder, 159 F.3d at 1234
n.10.
The concept of divine supremacy over civil
government has deep roots in the law. EDWARD D.
RE, THE ROMAN CONTRIBUTION TO THE COMMON LAW,
29 Fordham L. Rev. 447, 474 (1961). The principles
of natural law underlying both the Declaration of
Independence and the Magna Carta derive from civil
law as informed by canon law of the Christian
Church. Id. at 452, 474-77, 484-85. It was through
the influence of Christianity that the concept of
equity developed in ecclesiastical courts. Id. at 460-
-
7/30/2019 SC Public Prayer Amicus Brief
28/69
20
62. The law therefore recognizes the idea that civilauthority may not exercise control of religion.
Ironically, the injunction requested in this
case is based on the equitable power of the
ecclesiastical court to mitigate the rigors of the
common law. Id. at 478-80. The chancellors power
as the keeper of the Kings conscience can be traced
to the denunciation evangelica procedure of the
canon law, which had its roots in the Gospel of
Matthew. Id. at 482-83; see also MIKE MACNAIR,
EQUITY AND CONSCIENCE, 27 Oxford J. Legal Stud.659, 669 (2007). The existence of injunctive relief
presupposes the sovereignty of religious authority
over civil law when the government tramples on the
fundamental rights of man. It was an equitable
appeal to the Deity in the Declaration of
Independence due to the abuse of power by the King
that lead to the religious liberty the First
Amendment embodies. Schempp, 374 U.S. at 213.
Courts have held that it is belief in a supreme
authority that separates a religious belief from a
mere philosophy or personal belief not entitled to
constitutional protection. Berman v. U.S., 156 F.2d
377, 381 (9th Cir. 1946) (The essence of religion is
belief in a relation to God involving duties superior
to those arising from any human relation.)
(citations omitted). This makes sense, since
avoidance of the military draft implies exemption
from a basic duty to secular government.
Government interference into the content ofprayers invites civil disobedience because it forces a
conflict between religious and civil authority.
-
7/30/2019 SC Public Prayer Amicus Brief
29/69
21
Religion does not allow itself to be confined withinthe mind of its adherents, but seeks expression
through obedience to God. SeeLee, 505 U.S. at 645
(Scalia, J. dissenting); see also Wisconsin v. Yoder,
406 U.S. 205, 219-20 (1972) (holding that conduct
based on religious convictions is entitled to
constitutional protection). Those who have spoken
out to maintain the balance of power between church
and state have faced the wrath of the state,
including imprisonment and execution. RE, infra at
474. Governmental encroachments on religion led to
the signing of the Magna Carta. Id. at 475-76.Accordingly, governmental attempts to control the
content of prayer create more Establishment Clause
difficulties than the sectarian strife feared by those
who seek to avoid governmental recognition of
religious observances. SeeJoyner, 653 F.3d at 347.
Similarly, if the purpose of an invocation is to
seek Divine guidance in its deliberations and
pronouncements, may a civil court interfere in such
an appeal any more than a state government may
interfere in an appeal to this Court on a federal
matter? See Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668, 675
(1984). Because prayer is the articulation of words
addressed to the Divine Being which cannot be
determined by a civil court of law, a state-mandated
limit on sectarian references places courts and
legislative bodies in the untenable role of regulating
the content of religious expression. Joyner, 653
F.3d at 366 (Niemeyer, J. dissenting).
Secondly, what is a legislative body to dowhen sectarian references are made? Despite the
fact that legislative invocations have been held to be
-
7/30/2019 SC Public Prayer Amicus Brief
30/69
22
government speech, this Court has held that stateentities may not control the content of invocations.
Turner, 534 F.3d at 354; Lee, 505 U.S. at 588. This
places legislative bodies in the difficult position of
being held responsible for something over which they
have no control. States surely cannot punish
religious leaders for expressing their faith. To
comply with the Fourth Circuits directive,
legislative bodies must either refrain from allowing
invocations altogether or impose sectarian quotas.
See Joyner, 653 F.3d at 366 (Niemeyer, J.
dissenting). Once a sectarian reference is made, alegislative body will now have to actively seek for
religious leaders who will either offer nonsectarian
prayers or pray to some other deitysomething the
government is prohibited from doing. Lee, 505 U.S.
at 590.
D. How many sectarian references are too
many?
The Fourth Circuit held that sectarian
references in approximately 80% of the invocations
violated the Constitution. Joyner, 653 F.3d at 349-
50. On the other hand, courts have refused to enjoin
legislative invocations when 68 to 70% of the
invocations contained Christian references.
Pelphrey, 547 F.3d at 1267. The Fourth Circuit
majority recognizes that courts should not be in the
business of policing prayers for the occasional
sectarian reference. Joyner, 653 F.3d at 351.
At what point does the occasional sectarianreference become one too many? Must legislative
bodies keep a running total of sectarian references
-
7/30/2019 SC Public Prayer Amicus Brief
31/69
23
and take action when a certain percentage isreached? How is such a percentage to be calculated?
Must this percentage have a relationship to the
percentage of individuals of various religions in the
community? These and other questions are raised
by the Fourth Circuits frequency test, and
necessitate guidance from this Court.
III. Questions exist as to the applicability of
principles of government speech and
limited public forum.
Forsyth County argued that the legislative
invocations given by outside speakers constitutes
private speech, rather than government speech.
Joyner v. Forsyth County, No. 1:07-CV-243, 2009 WL
3787754 at *5 (M.D.N.C. Nov. 9, 2009). The District
Court rejected this argument based on prior Fourth
Circuit precedent. See Turner, 534 F.3d at 354-55.
The Fourth Circuit ignored this issue. However, the
rationale for the characterization of invocations as
government speech is not apparent. A prayer does
not seem to fit within the parameters of government
speech, which has been defined as the government
speaking for itself. Pleasant Grove City, Utah v.
Summum, 555 U.S. 460, 467-68 (2009).
An invocational speaker is not making a
statement on behalf of the government. Rather, a
purpose of invocations is to invoke Divine guidance
on a public body entrusted with making the laws.
Marsh, 463 U.S. at 792. This implies communication
with the Deity, in addition to others present in theroom. Thus, the freedoms of speech and free exercise
of religion are implicated, potentially triggering
-
7/30/2019 SC Public Prayer Amicus Brief
32/69
24
strengthened constitutional protections for thespeakers. See Employment Div., Dept. of Human
Res. of Oregon v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872, 881-82 (1990)
(noting that when Free Exercise concerns are
implicated in conjunction with other fundamental
rights, courts have applied heightened scrutiny);
Blackhawk v. Pennsylvania, 381 F.3d 202, 209 (3rd
Cir. 2004) (holding that laws that target religiously
motivated conduct violate the Free Exercise clause).
Moreover, governmental control over the content of
invocations has not been permitted. Lee, 505 U.S. at
588.
When the government does not control the
content of the speech, religious statements in a
limited public forum have been upheld even in the
public school context. Adler, 250 F.3d at 1332-33,
cert. denied 534 U.S. 1065 (2001); Bd. of Educ. of
Westside Cmty. Sch. v. Mergens By & Through
Mergens, 496 U.S. 226, 250 (1990) (explaining the
difference between government speech endorsing
religion, which is forbidden, and private speech
endorsing religion, which is protected). An
invocation is not a limited public forum in the sense
that a soapbox is created for the public to express its
views. However, due to the constitutional
prohibition on government control of the content of
invocations, they may partake of the nature of a
limited public forum in the sense that once an
invocational speaker has been selected, the free
exercise and free speech of that speaker should be
respected. SeeLee, 505 U.S. at 588.
Marsh can be read to imply that legislative
invocations present a special kind of forumnot a
-
7/30/2019 SC Public Prayer Amicus Brief
33/69
25
forum for the free debate on specific issues, but aforum for prayers offered for a particular purpose
and within certain limits. The purpose of
invocations is to invoke Divine guidance, as well as
to solemnize the proceeding. Marsh, 463 U.S. at 792;
Lynch, 465 U.S. at 693 (OConnor, J., concurring).
The content-based limits have also been set forth in
Marsh. First, the prayers are offered for the benefit
of the legislative body. Id. at 792. Second, they
must not be exploited to proselytize. Id. at 794.
Within these limits, the Free Exercise and Free
Speech clauses should permit invocational speakersto pray within the dictates of their own consciences.
However, the application of these principals is
uncertain without a ruling from this Court.
Even in the context of government speech,
this Court has upheld government support of
monuments containing incidental religious
messages. Summum, 555 U.S. at 466-67. Like
monuments, invocations have deep roots in the
history of this country and legislatures should not be
forced to either impose government censorship or
abandon the practice altogether. See id. at 479-80.
However, the application of this Courts government
speech jurisprudence to invocations is also unclear.
Courts analyzing constitutional implications
of legislative invocations have employed the concepts
of limited public forum, government speech, and
private speech in analyzing the law under the Free
Speech Clause, the Free Exercise Clause, as well as
the Establishment Clause. In doing so, they havereached contradictory results. Therefore, this Court
-
7/30/2019 SC Public Prayer Amicus Brief
34/69
26
should grant certiorari and provide guidance as tohow these rights should be protected.
CONCLUSION
The more stringent nonsectarian standard
imposed by the Fourth Circuit has confused the law
regarding legislative invocations. As they face an
increasing number of legal challenges, legislative
bodies need clarification of the standard to apply.
Furthermore, the problems created by imposition
and enforcement of a nonsectarian standard oninvocations cry out for guidance from this Court.
The above-referenced Senators respectfully join in
Petitioners request that this Court grant certiorari
in this matter.
Respectfully submitted,
J.R. MurphyCounsel of Record
Timothy J. Newton
Co-CounselMURPHY&GRANTLAND,P.A.
4406-B Forest Drive
Columbia, SC 29206
(803) 782-4100
Counsel for Amici Curiae
November 30, 2011
-
7/30/2019 SC Public Prayer Amicus Brief
35/69
APPENDIX
-
7/30/2019 SC Public Prayer Amicus Brief
36/69
i
APPENDIX
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Appendix A: List of Senators joining as amici . . 1a
Appendix B: Challenges to Public Invocations . . 3a
-
7/30/2019 SC Public Prayer Amicus Brief
37/69
1a
APPENDIX A
A total of 27 Senators of the State of SouthCarolina have joined in this brief as amici curiae.
These Senators are:
George E. Chip Campsen, III
Hugh K. Leatherman, Sr.
Glenn F. McConnell, President Pro Tempore
Harvey S. Peeler, Jr.
John E. Courson
David L. Thomas
William H. ODell
Robert W. Hayes, Jr.
Larry A. Martin
Luke A. Rankin
W. Greg Ryberg
Thomas C. Alexander
Michael L. Fair
Lawrence K. Larry Grooms
-
7/30/2019 SC Public Prayer Amicus Brief
38/69
2a
Daniel B. Danny Verdin, III
John M. Jake Knotts, Jr.
Ronnie W. Cromer
Kevin L. Bryant
Raymond E. Cleary, III
Paul G. Campbell, Jr.
A. Shane Massey
Lee Bright
Tom Davis
Shane R. Martin
Michael T. Rose
Phillip W. Shoopman
Chauncey K. Gregory
-
7/30/2019 SC Public Prayer Amicus Brief
39/69
3a
APPENDIX B
CHALLENGES TO PUBLIC INVOCATIONS
-
7/30/2019 SC Public Prayer Amicus Brief
40/69
4a
Date Media/Press City State
August 23,
2002
Los Angeles Times Burbank California
November
7, 2002
Associated Press Murray City Utah
May 5,
2004
ACLU.org La Mesa California
November
22, 2004
Associated Press Culpeper
County
Virginia
April 14,
2005
ReligionNewsBlog/
Associated Press
Chesterfield Virginia
June 9,
2005
ABC News.go.com Amite Louisiana
July 2,
2005
World Net Daily Great Falls South
Carolina
August 21,
2005
Atlanta Journal
Constitution
Cobb County Georgia
December
1, 2005
Covenantnews.
com
Indianapolis Indiana
-
7/30/2019 SC Public Prayer Amicus Brief
41/69
5a
DeliberativeBody Status Notes
City Council Resulted in
Litigation
http://articles.latimes.com/2
002/aug/23/local/me-rubin23
City Council Resulted in
Litigation
http://www.freedomforum.o
rg/templates/document.asp?
documentID=17220
City Council Unknown http://www.aclu.org/religion-
b e l i e f / a c l u - s a n - d i e g o -
challenges-sectarian-prayers
-city-council-meetings-behalf
-resident
Town Council Abandoned
Practice
http://www.firstamendment
center.org/ruling-limiting-
prayers-at-public-meetings-
causes-stir-in-bible-belt
Board of
Supervisors
Resulted in
Litigation
http://www.religionnewsblo
g.com/10930/appeals-court-
rules-against-wiccan-in-
virginia-prayer-lawsuit
Tangipahoa
Parish SchoolBoard
Resulted in
Litigation
http://abcnews.go.com/US/B
eliefs/story?id=1028366&page=1
City Council Resulted in
Litigation
http://www.wnd.com/?pageI
d=31129
County
Commission
Resulted in
Litigation
http://www.aren.org/news/d
arla/SC-towns-prayers-
provoke-lawsuits.html
Indiana House
of Represen-
tatives
Resulted in
Litigation
http://www.covenantnews.c
om/newswire/archives/0165
78.html
-
7/30/2019 SC Public Prayer Amicus Brief
42/69
6a
Date Media/Press City State
February
6, 2007
Independentmail
.com
Oconee
County,
Walhalla
South
Carolina
January 3,
2008
Ccn-usa.net Delaware
County
Ohio
March 9,
2008
The Grand Rapids
Press
Grand
Rapids
Michigan
May 6,
2008
Journal news.net Charles
Town
West
Virginia
June 30,
2008
Onenewsnow.com Greenfield Ohio
July 22,
2008
Wspa.com Clemson
Council
South
Carolina
August 30,
2008
World Net Daily Mesa County Colorado
December
2, 2008
Journaltimes.com Racine City Wisconsin
January 6,
2009
Roanoke.com Roanoke City Virginia
January
16, 2009
USA Today Newton New Jersey
-
7/30/2019 SC Public Prayer Amicus Brief
43/69
7a
DeliberativeBody Status Notes
County
Commissioners
Abandoned
Practice
http://www.independentmai
l.com/news/2007/feb/06/ocon
ee-county-open-meetings-
silence
County
Commissioners
Permits
Uncensored
Prayer
http:/ /www.ccn-usa.net/
contents.php?typeid=5&id=
526
City
Commissioners
Unknown http://www.mlive.com/news/
index.ssf/2008/03/most_loca
l_governments_practic.html
City Council Abandoned
Practice
http://www.mlive.com/news/
index.ssf/2008/03/most_loca
l_governments_practic.html
City Council Permits
Uncensored
Prayer
http://www.onenewsnow.co
m/Legal/Default.aspx?id=15
7778
City Council Permits
Uncensored
Prayer
http://www2.wspa.com/news
/2008/jul/22/clemson_city_co
uncil_discusses_prayer_at_
monday_me-ar-8439County
Commissioners
Unknown http://www.wnd.com/?pageI
d=73757
City Council Unknown http://www.journaltimes.co
m/news/local/article_3ddd6a
2 1 - 8 8 7 4 - 5 7 b 2 - b 0 c 4 -
f1cabb06e5b6.html
City Council Unknown http://www.roanoke.com/ne
ws/roanoke/wb/190130
Town Council Abandoned
Practice
http://www.usatoday.com/n
ews/religion/2009-01-16-atheist-prayer_N.htm
-
7/30/2019 SC Public Prayer Amicus Brief
44/69
8a
Date Media/Press City State
February
11, 2009
One News Now Juneau
(Dodge
County)
Wisconsin
February
23, 2009
Christian News
Wire
Richmond Virginia
March 24,
2009
BCNN1.com Accomack
County
Virginia
March 25,
2009
Washingtonpost
.com
Annapolis Maryland
April 24,
2009
Fredericksburg.com Stafford Virginia
July 9,
2009
Clickability.com Tracy City California
July 10,
2009
Smmercury.com San Marcos
City
Texas
August 22,
2009
The Modesto Bee Turlock California
August 24,
2009
Examiner La Crosse Wisconsin
-
7/30/2019 SC Public Prayer Amicus Brief
45/69
9a
DeliberativeBody Status Notes
Board of
Supervisors
Abandoned
Practice
http://www.onenewsnow.co
m/Legal/Default.aspx?id=41
5572
State Police
Chaplains
Abandoned
Practice
http://www.christiannewswi
re.com/news/869929530.html
Board of
Supervisors
Mandate
Censorship
of Sectarian
Reference
Not Available Any Longer
General
Assembly
Unknown http://voices.washingtonpos
t.com/annapolis/2009/03/sco
lded_pastor_this_is_how_i_
p.html
School Board Abandoned
Practice
http://fredericksburg.com/N
ews/FLS/2009/042009/0424
2009/461600
City Council Unknown http://www.nbcbayarea.com
/news/local /Foundation-
Protests-Prayer-in-Tracy-
City-Council.htmlCity Council Permits
Uncensored
Prayer
http://smmercury.com/4037
2/san-marcos-council-to-
continue-prayers
City Council Permits
Uncensored
Prayer
http://www.modbee.com/200
9/08/21/826074/turlock-
council-prayers-targeted.
html
City Council Permits
Uncensored
Prayer
http://www.examiner.com/e
vangelical-in-national/city-
o f f i c i a l s - a d o p t - r e c o mmended-invocations-policy-
despite-threats
-
7/30/2019 SC Public Prayer Amicus Brief
46/69
10a
Date Media/Press City State
August 25,
2009
Pegasus News North
Richland
Hills
Texas
August 27,
2009
WTOL 11 Toledo Ohio
September
9, 2009
Turnto23.com Tehachapi
City
California
September
13, 2009
Commercialappeal.
com
Memphis
City
Tennessee
September
21, 2009
Gainesville.com Alachua
County
Florida
October 2,
2009
The New York
Times
Lodi California
October
15, 2009
Ohio Votes 2011 Shelby Ohio
October
23, 2009
Hampton Roads Chesapeake Virginia
October26, 2009 Houston AreaPastor Council Houston Texas
-
7/30/2019 SC Public Prayer Amicus Brief
47/69
11a
DeliberativeBody Status Notes
City Council Permits
Uncensored
Prayer
http://www.pegasusnews.co
m/news/2009/aug/25/north-
richland-hills-city-council-
called-out-prayi
City Council Mandate
Censorship
of Sectarian
References
http://www.wtol.com/Global/
story.asp?S=11005823
City Council Abandoned
Practice
http://www.turnto23.com/m
ountain/20821439/detail.html
City Council Permits
Uncensored
Prayer
http://www.commercialappe
al.com/news/2009/sep/13/co
uncil-prayers-draw-protest
County
Commissioners
Unknown http://www.gainesville.com/
article/20090921/COLUMN
ISTS/909211003
City Council Mandate
Censorship
of SectarianReferences
http://www.nytimes.com/20
09/10/02/us/02lodi.html
City Council Unknown http://www2.ohiovotes2011.
com/news/2009/oct/15/mayo
r_vetoes_city_council_praye
rs-ar-18501
City Council Mandate
Censorship
of Sectarian
References
http://hamptonroads.com/20
09/10/chesapeake-council-
meeting-invocations-be-
nonsectarian
City Council Resulted inLitigation http://www.imakenews.com/hapc/e_article001578349.cf
m?x=bgkKfSm,b11,w
-
7/30/2019 SC Public Prayer Amicus Brief
48/69
12a
Date Media/Press City State
November
9, 2009
FFRF.org Wheaton CityIllinois
November
28, 2009
Richmond Register Richmond Kentucky
December8, 2009
Bakersfield.com BakersfieldCity
California
January
12, 2010
Hesperia Star Hesperia California
February
4, 2010
St. Petersburg
Times
Tampa Florida
February
5, 2010
Mysuburbanlife
.com
Elmhurst
City
Illinois
March 4,
2010
Lompoc Record Lompoc California
-
7/30/2019 SC Public Prayer Amicus Brief
49/69
13a
DeliberativeBody Status Notes
City Council Permits
Uncensored
Prayer
http://ffrf.org/publications/fr
eethought-today/articles/ffrf-
protests-illinois-city-council-
prayers
City
Commission
Mandate
Censorship
of Sectarian
References
http://richmondregister.com
/localnews/x546340955/Com
missioner-stands-up-to-
ACLU-s-concerns-about-
prayer
City Council PermitsUncensored
Prayer
http://richmondregister.com/localnews/x546340955/Com
missioner-stands-up-to-
ACLU-s-concerns-about-
prayer
School Board Abandon
Practice
http://www.hesperiastar.co
m/articles/board-3125-school-
invocation.html
City Council Unknown http://www.tampabay.com/n
ews/localgovernment/atheis
ts-object-again-to-tampa-
city-council-prayer/1070731
City Council Unknown http://www.mysuburbanlife.
com/elmhurst/newsnow/x64
4559574/Foundation-joins-
residents-aldermen-in-
opposition-to-public-prayer
City Council Mandate
Censorship
of Sectarian
References
http://www.lompocrecord.co
m/news/ loca l /govt -and-
politics/article_7a4a367c-
2758-11df-bf60-001cc4c
03286.html
-
7/30/2019 SC Public Prayer Amicus Brief
50/69
14a
Date Media/Press City State
March 13,
2010
The Mountain
Press
Sevier
County
Tennessee
March 19,
2010
Examiner.com Manteca, San
Joaquin
County
California
March 23,
2010
Akroncitycouncil
.org
Akron Ohio
April 8,
2010
FFRC.com Birmingham
City
Alabama
April 12,2010
Arkansasnews.com North LittleRock
Arkansas
April 14,
2010
Star News Online Brunswick
County
North
Carolina
April 21,
2010
Examiner.net IndependenceMissouri
-
7/30/2019 SC Public Prayer Amicus Brief
51/69
15a
DeliberativeBody Status Notes
County
Commissioners
Unknown http://www.themountainpre
ss.com/view/full_story/6671
9 4 8 / a r t i c l e - - W a t e r s -
standing-up-for-prayer--
Despite-threat-of-lawsuit--
mayor-says-meeting-will-
have-invocation
City Council Permits
Uncensored
Prayer
http://www.examiner.com/a
t h e i sm- i n - l o s -an g e l e s /
another-cali fornia-city-trouble-over-sectarian-
prayer
Akron City
Council
Mandate
Censorship
of Sectarian
References
http://www.akroncitycouncil
.org/News/entry/Council_ch
anges_opening_prayer_proc
edures
City Council Unknown http://ffrf.org/news/releases/
f f r f -ob jects - to -counc i l -
prayers-in-birmingham-ala
City Council MandateCensorship
of Sectarian
References
http://arkansasnews.com/2010/04/12/aclu-wants-end-to-
nlr-city-council-prayers
County
Commissioners
Permits
Uncensored
Prayer
http://www.starnewsonline.
com/article/20100414/ARTI
CLES/100419842
City Council Unknown http://www.examiner.net/ne
ws/news_columnists/x57962
951/Deweese-City-Council-
remains-firm-on-issue-of-
prayer-at-meetings
-
7/30/2019 SC Public Prayer Amicus Brief
52/69
16a
Date Media/Press City State
April 23,
2010
The Suburbanite Hartville Ohio
April 25,
2010
Honoluluadvertiser
.com
Honolulu
City
Hawaii
April 28,
2010
Jacsonville.com Jacksonville
City
Florida
May 5,
2010
Los Angeles Times Lancaster California
May 18,
2010
Digtriad.com Greensboro North
Carolina
July 12,
2010
Star News Online Raleigh North
Carolina
July 14,
2010
Foundation for
Moral Law
Hoover Alabama
July 20,
2010
News Channel Augusta City Georgia
July 27,
2010
Breaking Christian
News
Wichita Kansas
-
7/30/2019 SC Public Prayer Amicus Brief
53/69
17a
DeliberativeBody Status Notes
Village Council Permits
Uncensored
Prayer
http://www.thesuburbanite.
com/communities/x1394806
430/Hartville-battles-with-
prayer-and-religious-issues
City Council Mandate
Censorship
of Sectarian
Reference
http://the.honoluluadvertise
r.com/article/2010/Apr/25/ln
/hawaii4250358.html
City Council Permits
UncensoredPrayer
http://jacksonville.com/news
/metro/2010-04-28/story/counci lmans-use- jesus-
prayer-leads-legal-questions
City Council Resulted in
Litigation
http://articles.latimes.com/2
010/may/05/local /la-me-
lancaster-prayer-20100505
City Council Permits
Uncensored
Prayer
http://www.digtriad.com/ne
ws/story.aspx?storyid=1423
51
General
Assembly
Mandate
Censorshipof Sectarian
Reference
http://divine.blogs.starnews
online.com/12307/praying-in-jesus-name-controversy-
reaches-general-assembly
Board of
Education
Abandoned
Practice
http://morallaw.org/blog/201
0/07/foundation-supports-
school-board-prayer/
City
Commissioners
Permits
Uncensored
Prayer
http://www2.wjbf.com/news/
2010/jul/20/augusta-gets-
stop-prayer-letter-ar-603418/
City Council Permits
UncensoredPrayer
http://www.breakingchristia
nnews.com/articles/display_art.html?ID=8074
-
7/30/2019 SC Public Prayer Amicus Brief
54/69
18a
Date Media/Press City State
August 4,
2010
GoUpstate.com Woodruff South
Carolina
August 7,
2010
World Net Daily Greece New York
August 9,
2010
CNS News Aiken South
Carolina
August 15,
2010
GoUpstate.com Spartanburg South
Carolina
August 20,
2010
The Ledger.com Lakeland Florida
September
12, 2010
Thecabin.net Searcy City Arkansas
October 5,
2010
MPNnow.com Canandaigua
City
New York
October
14, 2010
Star Local News Rowlett Texas
November
3, 2010
Isuvoice.com Pocatello Idaho
-
7/30/2019 SC Public Prayer Amicus Brief
55/69
19a
DeliberativeBody Status Notes
City Council Permits
Uncensored
Prayer
http://www.goupstate.com/a
rticle/20100804/articles/804
1024
Town Board Resulted in
Litigation
http://www.wnd.com/?pageI
d=188617
City Council Mandate
Censorship
of Sectarian
References
http://cnsnews.com/node/70
784
County Council Mandate
Censorship
of Sectarian
References
http://www.goupstate.com/a
rticle/20100815/articles/815
1035
City
Commission
Resulted in
Litigation
http://www.theledger.com/a
rticle/20100820/NEWS/8205
042
City Council Permits
Uncensored
Prayer
http://thecabin.net/news/20
10-09-12/group-asks-searcy-
council-not-pray-meetings
City Council PermitsUncensored
Prayer
http://www.mpnnow.com/canandaigua/x1616324528/Pr
ayer-at-meetings-to-be-
considered-by-Canandaigua-
City-Council
City Council Permits
Uncensored
Prayer
http://www.lakeshoretimes.
com/articles/2010/10/28/row
lett_lakeshore_times/news/
8305.txt
City Council Permits
UncensoredPrayer
http://isuvoice.com/?p=3613
65
-
7/30/2019 SC Public Prayer Amicus Brief
56/69
20a
Date Media/Press City State
November
19, 2010
Roanoke-Chowan
News-Herald
Jackson
(Northamp-
ton County)
North
Carolina
November
22, 2010
NBC-2.com Cape Coral Florida
December
7, 2010
nbc4i.com Chillicothe Ohio
December
10, 2010
San Antonio
Express
Bulverde
City
Texas
December
16, 2010
WXII12.com High Point North
Carolina
December
17, 2010
CBSNewYork.com Point
Pleasant
Beach City,
Toms River
New Jersey
December
25, 2010
Tulsa World Tulsa Oklahoma
January 5,
2011
KJCT8.com Grand
Junction
Colorado
-
7/30/2019 SC Public Prayer Amicus Brief
57/69
21a
DeliberativeBody Status Notes
County Board
of
Commissioners
Permits
Uncensored
Prayer
http://www.roanoke-chowan
newsherald.com/2010/11/19/
commissioners-reinstate-
prayer/
City Council Permits
Uncensored
Prayer
http://www.nbc-2.com/Glo
bal/story.asp?S=13553302
City Council Permits
Uncensored
Prayer
http://www2.nbc4i.com/new
s / 2 0 1 0 / d e c / 0 7 / p r a y e r -
chillicothe-council-meetings-ar-318666/
City Council Permits
Uncensored
Prayer
http://www.mysanantonio.c
om/community/bulverde/art
icle/Prayer-controversy-
distracts-City-Counci l -
926496.php
City Council Mandate
Censorship
of Sectarian
References
http://www.wxii12.com/r/26
157885/detail.html
City Council Resulted in
Litigation
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/
2010/12/17/judge-voids-new-
jersey- towns-policy-on-
council-prayers/
City Council Mandate
Censorship
of Sectarian
Reference
http://www.tulsaworld.com/
news/article.aspx?subjectid
=11&articleid=20101225_18
_A11_InAnni21488
City Council Permits
Uncensored
Prayer
http://www.kjct8.com/news/
26370618/detail.html
-
7/30/2019 SC Public Prayer Amicus Brief
58/69
22a
Date Media/Press City State
January
10, 2011
FFRF.org Des Moines Iowa
January
13, 2011
Freedom From
Religion
Foundation
El Paso
County
Colorado
January
16, 2011
NorthJersey.com Ocean
County
New Jersey
January
27, 2011
Secular News Daily Madison Wisconsin
January
28, 2011
thenewamerican
.com
Honolulu Hawaii
January29, 2011
fredericksburg.com Fredericks-burg
Virginia
January
30, 2011
GJ Sentinel Garfield
County
Colorado
February
5, 2011
The Ledger.com Polk County Florida
February
5, 2011
Yakima Herald
Republic
Yakima Washington
-
7/30/2019 SC Public Prayer Amicus Brief
59/69
23a
DeliberativeBody Status Notes
State
Legislature
Unknown http://ffrf.org/news/ajax-
releases/
County
Commission
Unknown http://ffrf.org/news/ajax-
releases/
Borough
Council
Abandoned
Practice
http://www.northjersey.com/
news/113835669_local_issu
e__Prayer_at_Public_Meeti
ngs_Councils_reviewing_tra
dition.html
State Assembly Unknown http://www.secularnewsdail
y . c o m / 2 0 1 1 / 0 1 / 2 7 / f f r f -
wisconsin-state-assembly-
shouldn%E2%80%99t-have-
a-prayer-2
Hawaii Senate Abandoned
Practice
http://thenewamerican.com/
usnews/politics/6085-despite-
ban-hawaii-senators-open-
session-with-prayer
City Council Resulted inLitigation http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2011/012011/0129
2011/603881
County
Commissioners
Permits
Uncensored
Prayer
http://www.gjsentinel.com/n
ews/articles/garfield_prayer
_debate_begins
School Board Permits
Uncensored
Prayer
http://www.theledger.com/a
rticle/20110205/NEWS/1020
55024
City Council Permits
UncensoredPrayers
h t t p : / / w w w . y a k i m a -
herald.com/stories/2011/02/05/legal-issues-abound-over-
city-s-prayer-policy-proposal
-
7/30/2019 SC Public Prayer Amicus Brief
60/69
24a
Date Media/Press City State
February
7, 2011
Suwannee
Democrat
Live Oak Florida
February
7, 2011
Wsau.com Marshfield
City
Wisconsin
February
22, 2011
The Oregonian Damascus Oregon
February
23, 2011
Freedomblogging.
com
Denver City Colorado
February
25, 2011
FFRF.org Brazo County Texas
March 1,2011
Corning Observer Corning California
March 2,
2011
Wcax.com Franklin
Town
Vermont
-
7/30/2019 SC Public Prayer Amicus Brief
61/69
25a
DeliberativeBody Status Notes
City Council Permits
Uncensored
Prayer
http://suwanneedemocrat.co
m/x2072624126/Suwannee-
C o u n t y - C o m m i s s i o n -
Prayers-will-continue
City Council Unknown http://wsau.com/news/articl
es/2011/feb/07/marshfield-
faces-lawsuit-over-city-
council-prayer
City Council Unknown http://www.oregonlive.com/
h a p p y - v a l l e y / i n d e x .ssf/2011/02/post_2.html
House of
Representative
Unknown http://thebroadside.freedom
blogging.com/2011/02/23/in-
the-separation-of-church-
a n d - s t a t e - t i m i n g - i s -
important
County
Commissioners
Permits
Uncensored
Prayer
City Council Unknown h t t p : / / w w w . c o r n i n g -observer.com/articles/invoca
tion-9270-council-city.html
Town Council Resulted in
Litigation
http://www.wcax.com/Globa
l/story.asp?S=14171934
http://www.acluvt.org/blog/2
011/03/02/aclu-sues-over-
town-meeting-prayer
-
7/30/2019 SC Public Prayer Amicus Brief
62/69
26a
Date Media/Press City State
April 2,
2011
Carroll County
Times
Carroll
County
Maryland
April 19,
2011
Orlando Sentinel Lady Lake Florida
April 20,
2011
Leadertelegram
.com
Eau Claire
County
Wisconsin
May 4,
2011
Orange County
Register
Los Alamitos California
May 14,
2011
Baltimore Sun Salisbury Maryland
July 22,
2011
YubaNet.com Colton City California
July 22,
2011
YubaNet.com Highland
County
California
-
7/30/2019 SC Public Prayer Amicus Brief
63/69
27a
DeliberativeBody Status Notes
Board of
Commissioners
Permits
Uncensored
Prayer
http://www.carrollcountyti
mes.com/news/local/commis
sioners-say-prayers-before-
meetings-adhere-to-their-
o w n - b e l i e f s / a r t i c l e
_51a57072-5d87-11e0-a646-
001cc4c002e0.html
Town
Commissioners
Permits
Uncensored
Prayer
http://www.orlandosentinel.
com/news/local / lake/os-
prayer-controversy-lady-l a k e - 2 0 1 1 0 4 1 9 , 0 ,
4683000.story
County
Commissioners
Abandoned
Practice
http://www.leadertelegram.
com/news/front_page/article
_cd248420-6b0d-11e0-8ea1-
001cc4c002e0.html
City Council Permits
Uncensored
Prayer
http://www.leadertelegram.
com/news/front_page/article
_cd248420-6b0d-11e0-8ea1-
001cc4c002e0.html
City Council Abandoned
Practice
http://articles.baltimoresun.
com/2011-05-14/news/bs-md-
public-prayer-20110514
_1_invocations-lord-s-prayer-
prayer-at-public-meetings
City Council Unknown http://yubanet.com/californi
a/Southern-California-full-of-
prayin-politicians.php
County
Commissioners
Unknown http://yubanet.com/californi
a/Southern-California-full-of-
prayin-politicians.php
-
7/30/2019 SC Public Prayer Amicus Brief
64/69
28a
Date Media/Press City State
July 25,
2011
Ardemgaz.com Conway Arkansas
July 25,
2011
Secular News Daily San
Bernadino
California
July 25,2011
Orange CountyRegister
Yorba Linda California
July 29,
2011
Dailypress.com Newport
News City
Virginia
August 3,
2011
SandSspringsLeade
r.com
Sand Springs
City
Oklahoma
August 8,
2011
Fayobserver.com Fayetteville
City
North
Carolina
August 15,
2011
The New American Selbyville Delaware
-
7/30/2019 SC Public Prayer Amicus Brief
65/69
29a
DeliberativeBody Status Notes
City Council Permits
Uncensored
Prayer
http://epaper.ardemgaz.com
/webchannel/ShowStory.asp
?Path=ArDemocratNW/201
1/07/25&ID=Ar00802
Board of
Supervisors
Mandate
Censorship
of Sectarian
References
http://www.secularnewsdail
y.com/2011/07/25/southern-
california-full-of-prayin
%E2%80%99-politicians
City Council PermitsUncensored
Prayer
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/city-309460-council-
religion.html
City Council Mandate
Censorship
of Sectarian
Reference
http://articles.dailypress.co
m/2011-07-29/news/dp-nws-
nn-council-prayers-20110729
_1_council-meetings-generic-
prayer-government-prayer
City Council Permits
Uncensored
Prayer
http://sandspringsleader.co
m/news/prayers-at-council-
m e e t i n g s - c h a l l e n g e d /article_a7293d26-bde0-11e0-
b9e8-001cc4c002e0.html
City Council Unknown http://www.fayobserver.com
/articles/2011/08/07/110973
4?sac=Home
Indian River
School Board
Resulted in
Litigation
http://thenewamerican.com/
usnews/constitution/8582-
federal-court-outlaws-school-
board-prayers-in-delaware-
district
-
7/30/2019 SC Public Prayer Amicus Brief
66/69
30a
Date Media/Press City State
August 16,
2011
Sanford Herald Lee County North
Carolina
August 16,
2011
JDNews.com Onslow
County,
Jacksonville
North
Carolina
August 18,
2011
WBNG-TV Broome
County
New York
August 21,
2011
BlueRidgeNow.com Henderson North
Carolina
August 22,
2011
Richmond Times
Dispatch
Chatham
(Pittsylvania
County)
Virginia
August 22,
2011
11 Alive.com Peachtree
City
Georgia
September
14, 2011
Delaware Law
Weekly
Sussex
County
Delaware
September
26, 2011
KTBS.com Bowie
County
Texas
-
7/30/2019 SC Public Prayer Amicus Brief
67/69
31a
DeliberativeBody Status Notes
Board of
Commissioners
Mandate
Censorship
of Sectarian
References
http://sanfordherald.com/bo
okmark/15115426-OUR-
VIEW-Board- forced- to-
address-prayer
County
Commissioner
Mandate
Censorship
of Sectarian
Reference
http://www.jdnews.com/arti
cles/county-94072-invocation
-commissioners.html
County
Legislature
Mandate
Censorshipof Sectarian
References
http://www.wbng.com/news/
local/Invocation-to-Include-All-Faiths-128038498.html
Board of
Commissioners
Mandate
Censorship
of Sectarian
References
http://www.blueridgenow.co
m/article/20110821/ARTICL
ES/108211009
Board of
Supervisors
Permits
Uncensored
Prayer
http://www2.timesdispatch.
com/news/virginia-politics/
2011/aug/22/tdmet01-aclu-
letter-doesnt-stop-pittsyl
vania-count-ar-1253289/
City Council Permits
Uncensored
Prayer
http://www.11alive.com/new
s/article/202575/40/PEACH
TREE-CITY-Public-prayers-
attacked
County Council Resulted in
Litigation
http://www.delawarelawwee
kly.com/news.php?news_id=
3786
County
Commissioners
Permits
Uncensored
Prayer
http://www.ktbs.com/news/2
9307822/detail.html
-
7/30/2019 SC Public Prayer Amicus Brief
68/69
32a
Date Media/Press City State
October 4,
2011
Christian Post Sumner
County
Tennessee
October
06, 2011
ENCToday.com La Grange
Town
North
Carolina
October
10, 2011
The Chestertown
Spy
Rock Hall
City
Maryland
October
21, 2011
San Antonio
Express
San Antonio Texas
October
26, 2011
BCNNI.com Laguna
Niguel
California
October28, 2011
New-record.com ForsythCounty
NorthCarolina
November
6, 2011
Ashland Current Ashland Wisconsin
November
15, 2011
Bradenton.com Manatee
County
Florida
-
7/30/2019 SC Public Prayer Amicus Brief
69/69
33a
DeliberativeBody Status Notes
County Board
of Education
Resulted in
Litigation
http://www.christianpost.co
m/news/tenn-residents-
express-their-frustration-
with-faith-attacks-57279/
Town Council Permits
Uncensored
Prayer
http://www.kinston.com/arti
cles/grange-76803-prayer-
bring.html
City Council Unknown http://www.chestertownspy.
com/to-the-editor-rock-hall-
should -copy -us-senate -prayer-policy/
City Council Resulted in
Litigation
http://www.mysanantonio.c
om/news/local_news/article/
Mayor-sued-over-council-
prayers-2228850.php
City Council Permits
Uncensored
Prayer
http://blackchristiannews.co
m/news/2011/10/california-
city-lifts-prayer-ban-at-
council-meetings.html
Board ofCommissioners Resulted inLitigation h t t p : / / w w w . n e w s -record.com/content/2011/10/
28/article/forsyth_files_petit
ion_to_take_prayer_case_to
_the_us_supreme_court
City Council Permits
Uncensored
Prayer
http://ashlandcurrent.com/a
rticle/11/11/06/councilors-
consider-ending-prayer-
meetings
County
Commission
Permits
Uncensored
Prayer
http://www.bradenton.com/
2011/11/15/3652554/manate
e-county-commissioners-asked html