WASHINGTON — Republican Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida wants the Senate to keep praying before lawmakers get down to business. Texas legislators, too, want their daily prayers.
And in an unexpected pew-sharing, the Obama administration has joined conservative state and federal lawmakers in urging the Supreme Court to tolerate prayers during government meetings.
“For a few minutes each morning, politics and party are set aside,” Rubio and 33 other senators advised the Supreme Court in a legal brief. “Instead of debate, senators reflect on their duty … mindful of the nation’s core values and their need for divine assistance in carrying out their responsibilities.”
In truth, few senators are usually present during their chaplain’s daily prayer. But on Wednesday, they’ll be paying heed as the future of such legislative prayers comes before the Supreme Court. Starting in a modest-sized city in upstate New York, the case has grown into a potential First Amendment thunderbolt.
“I think that this is such an important and interesting case; really, really important,” said Pamela Harris, a visiting professor at Georgetown University Law Center. “This is a court that’s been very receptive to the claim that there needs to be more room for religion in the public square.”
The case called Town of Greece v. Galloway, though, almost certainly won’t be a simple referendum on whether legislative prayers violate the First Amendment’s prohibition against the government establishing a religion. Prayers by political bodies, which in the United States date several centuries, seem safe.
“The reason legislative prayer is constitutional is because it’s been done since the (nation’s) founding, including by the Congress that promulgated the First Amendment,” former Solicitor General Paul Clement noted.
At the same time, the case gives the closely divided court its first opportunity in three decades to clarify the rules governing legislative prayers, potentially in a way that affects other public religious expressions, as well. Justices might resolve when public religious expressions become coercive or construed as an endorsement. They also might decide whether coercion or endorsement provides the right test for evaluating public religious expressions.