Marsh v. Chambers
463 U.S. 783 (1983)
Rule of Law:
A state legislature's practice of opening each session with a prayer by a chaplain paid from public funds does not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, due to the unique, unbroken history of this practice in the United States.
Facts:
- The Nebraska Legislature begins each legislative session with a prayer offered by a chaplain.
- The chaplain is chosen by the Executive Board of the Legislative Council and is paid using public funds.
- Reverend Robert E. Palmer, a Presbyterian minister, served as the legislature's chaplain from 1965.
- Palmer received a salary of $319.75 for each month the legislature was in session.
- Ernest Chambers, a member of the Nebraska Legislature and a taxpayer, objected to this practice.
- The prayers were recorded in the official Legislative Journal and occasionally published in books at public expense.
Procedural Posture:
- Ernest Chambers sued State Treasurer Frank Marsh and other officials in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska, seeking an injunction against the chaplaincy practice.
- The District Court (trial court) held that the prayers themselves were constitutional but that paying the chaplain with public funds violated the Establishment Clause, and it enjoined that practice.
- Both parties cross-appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals (intermediate appellate court) reversed in part, holding that the entire chaplaincy practice, when viewed as a whole, violated all three prongs of the Lemon test and was therefore unconstitutional.
- The State of Nebraska (petitioners) appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which granted certiorari.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Nebraska Legislature's practice of opening each session with a prayer by a chaplain paid from public funds violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Burger
No. The Nebraska Legislature's practice of opening sessions with a prayer by a state-paid chaplain does not violate the Establishment Clause. The Court’s reasoning is grounded in the unique history of legislative prayer in America, which it views as dispositive. The First Congress, in the same week it approved the draft of the First Amendment, authorized the appointment and payment of chaplains for both the House and Senate. This contemporaneous action is 'weighty evidence' that the drafters of the Establishment Clause did not consider the practice to be a violation. The Court holds that this unbroken practice for over 200 years at the federal level, and over a century in Nebraska, has become 'part of the fabric of our society' and is a tolerable acknowledgment of widely held beliefs, rather than an establishment of religion. The Court explicitly declines to apply the three-part Lemon test, finding the historical context sufficient to uphold the practice. It dismisses arguments regarding the chaplain's long tenure, public compensation, and the Judeo-Christian content of the prayers as insufficient to invalidate a practice so deeply embedded in history and tradition.
Dissenting - Justice Brennan
Yes. The practice of official invocational prayer in a legislature is unconstitutional because it violates the core principles of the Establishment Clause. If the Court were to apply its established doctrine, specifically the three-part Lemon test, Nebraska's practice would clearly fail: (1) its purpose is pre-eminently religious, not secular; (2) its primary effect is to advance religion by linking religious observance to the power and prestige of the state; and (3) it fosters excessive government entanglement with religion through the selection of chaplains and monitoring of prayers, creating political division along religious lines. History alone cannot justify a contemporary violation of the Constitution. The dissent argues that the Court is carving out an exception that is inconsistent with the principles of separation and neutrality that underlie the Establishment Clause, which protect individual conscience, prevent government interference in religion, and keep religious issues out of the political arena.
Dissenting - Justice Stevens
Yes. The Nebraska Legislature's chaplaincy practice violates the Establishment Clause by giving preference to one faith over others. The designation of a member of one religious faith (a Presbyterian minister) to serve as the sole official chaplain for a period of 16 years constitutes a clear preference for that faith. This preference is a direct violation of the Establishment Clause. Furthermore, the content of some prayers was clearly sectarian, a fact the majority opinion avoids by refusing to evaluate them. This practice of appointing a single, long-term chaplain from a majority faith is an unconstitutional endorsement of a particular religion.
Analysis:
This case is legally significant because it establishes a 'historical exception' to modern Establishment Clause analysis. Instead of applying the prevailing three-part Lemon test, which likely would have invalidated the practice, the Court relied almost exclusively on the 'unique history' of legislative prayer dating back to the First Congress. This decision effectively creates a separate, more lenient standard for long-standing governmental practices that have religious elements. The ruling insulates certain forms of 'ceremonial deism' from the stricter scrutiny applied in other Establishment Clause contexts, most notably in public schools, leaving a legacy of a two-tiered approach to church-state jurisprudence.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Marsh v. Chambers (1983)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"