Marsh v. Chambers Case Brief

Marsh v. Chambers

463 U.S. 783 | 103 S. Ct. 3330 | 77 L. Ed. 2d 1019 | 1983 U.S. LEXIS 107 | 51 U.S.L.W. 5162

Full access

Unlock the video and quiz

The written brief is free to read below. Subscribe to watch the video explainer and take the quiz.

Takeaway

In short, Marsh held that the longstanding practice of opening legislative sessions with non-proselytizing prayer by a publicly paid chaplain is permitted by the Establishment Clause because of its unique and unbroken historical tradition.

Background

The Nebraska Legislature opened each legislative day with a prayer offered by a chaplain selected every two years by the Legislature’s Executive Board. Since 1965, Robert E. Palmer, a Presbyterian minister, had served as chaplain and received a state-paid salary while the Legislature was in session. His prayers were recorded in the Legislative Journal, and Nebraska had at times published collections of them using public funds.

Ernest Chambers, a Nebraska state legislator and taxpayer, sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that the official prayers and the State’s payment of the chaplain violated the Establishment Clause. The District Court upheld the practice of opening sessions with prayer but enjoined Nebraska from paying the chaplain or publishing prayerbooks at public expense.

On cross-appeals, the Eighth Circuit treated the chaplaincy as a single practice and held it unconstitutional under the three-part test of Lemon v. Kurtzman. It concluded that selecting the same minister for 16 years, paying him with public money, and publishing his prayers advanced a particular religious expression and excessively entangled government with religion. The Supreme Court granted review limited to the challenge to opening legislative sessions with prayers by a state-employed clergyman.

Issues

Issue #1

Whether Chambers had standing to challenge Nebraska’s legislative chaplaincy practice.

Holding

Yes. Chambers had standing as both a state legislator subject to the practice and a taxpayer whose tax funds supported the chaplaincy.

Reasoning

Although the Court granted review only on the prayer practice, it expressly agreed that Chambers could bring the claim. As a Nebraska taxpayer, he alleged that his tax money was used to fund the chaplain’s salary; as a legislator, he was also directly affected by the Legislature’s practice of opening its sessions with official prayer.】【”】【]},{

Dissents

Justice Brennan

Reasoning

Justice Brennan, joined by Justice Marshall, concluded that official legislative prayer violated the Establishment Clause. He emphasized that the Court did not apply its usual Establishment Clause doctrine, particularly the Lemon test, but instead created a history-based exception for legislative prayer. In his view, Nebraska’s practice would plainly fail Lemon: prayer has an inherently religious purpose and effect, and selecting a chaplain and supervising the content of prayers entangles the State in religious affairs.

reasoning?