On The Front Lines
Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals Declares Practice of Legislative Prayers at County Board Meetings to be Unconstitutional
RICHMOND, Va. — Dealing a blow to the historic practice of legislative prayer, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that a county board may not open its meetings with clergy-led prayer. The case at issue, Joyner, et al. v. Forsyth County, N.C., involves a challenge to the Forsyth County Board of Commissioners' tradition and policy of hosting a variety of religious leaders to open its meetings with prayer. Attorneys for The Rutherford Institute filed an amicus brief with the Fourth Circuit, defending the county's historic practice of legislative prayer and asking the court to reverse a district court ruling that found the practice of legislative prayer to be unconstitutional. However, as Justice Paul Niemeyer noted in his dissent, "[I]n a stated sensitivity to references that might identify the religion practiced by the religious leader, the majority has dared to step in and regulate the language of prayer--the sacred dialogue between humankind and God."
"Prayers before legislative bodies are as old as the republic and were authorized by those who wrote the Constitution," stated John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute. "In this case, all religions are represented and, thus, it is clearly a constitutional practice."
The Forsyth County Board of Commissioners has a tradition of opening their bimonthly meetings with an invocation by local clergy. In March 2007, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit on behalf of three county residents seeking to stop this practice, alleging that it violated the First Amendment's Establishment Clause. In response, the Board adopted a written policy on its invocations which affirmed that the invocations were meant to solemnize the proceedings and offered for the benefit of the Board. Under the policy, the prayer is to be delivered by an invited local member of the clergy or religious leader. Invitations are sent to all religious congregations in the County as identified by research using telephone directories, the Internet and information from the local chamber of commerce. Any religious leader who accepts the invitation is allowed the opportunity to offer the invocation "according to the dictates of [the leader's] own conscience." The policy asks that those offering the invocation neither exploit the opportunity by attempting to convert others, nor disparage any faith or belief.
Notwithstanding the ecumenical and inclusive nature of the policy, the federal district court ruled that the policy was unconstitutional because the majority of prayers offered were from Christian clergy, a position the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed in its 2-1 ruling. The Institute's amicus brief argued that the district court's ruling constituted an unprecedented restriction upon the well-established authority of local legislative bodies to open meetings with solemnizing prayers. In offering the dissenting opinion in the Fourth Circuit decision, Justice Niemeyer echoed The Rutherford Institute's arguments that religious leaders should be able to offer invocations after their own conscience: "[W]e now 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."
