Marsh v. Chambers

1983-07-05

Headline: Legislative prayers upheld: Court allows state-paid chaplains to open legislative sessions with prayer, reversing lower courts and letting Nebraska continue chaplain-led invocations that affect legislators and taxpayers.

Holding: The Court held that Nebraska’s practice of opening legislative sessions with prayers by a state-paid chaplain does not violate the Constitution, reversing the appeals court and allowing the chaplain-led invocations to continue.

Real World Impact:

Allows states to keep and pay legislative chaplains.
Permits opening prayers at legislative sessions without automatic injunctions.
Limits court review of prayer content absent proof of coercion or proselytizing.

Topics: legislative prayer, religion in government, government-paid chaplains, taxpayers and religion

Summary

Background

A Nebraska legislator and taxpayer sued to stop the Legislature’s long practice of opening each day with a prayer led by a state-selected chaplain. The chaplain, Robert E. Palmer, a Presbyterian, had served since 1965 and was paid a monthly stipend while the legislature was in session. Lower courts split: the District Court barred state payment but allowed prayers to continue; the Court of Appeals struck down the whole practice.

Reasoning

The Supreme Court considered whether the practice amounted to an unconstitutional government establishment of religion. The majority pointed to two centuries of history and tradition of legislative prayer, including the Continental and First Congresses’ use of paid chaplains, and concluded that opening legislative sessions with prayer is a tolerated practice. The Court held that long tenure, state payment, and predominantly Judeo‑Christian content did not by themselves show an unconstitutional establishment, absent proof of proselytizing or improper coercion. The Court reversed the Eighth Circuit and allowed the chaplain-led openings to continue.

Real world impact

The ruling lets Nebraska continue its chaplaincy practice and limits the scope of similar challenges elsewhere absent specific proof of coercion, proselytizing, or impermissible government entanglement. The Court did not decide the prior District Court order about publishing prayers because that issue was not before the Justices.

Dissents or concurrances

Justices Brennan (joined by Marshall) and Stevens dissented. They argued legislative prayer violates core separation and neutrality principles, would coerce or favor religion in practice, and that history should not override those constitutional limits.