town of greece v. galloway oral argument

8/14/2019 Town of Greece v. Galloway Oral Argument

1/71

1

Official - Subject to Review

1 I N THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNI TED STATES

2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

3

4

TOWN OF GREECE, NEWYORK,

Pet i t i oner

:

: No. 12- 696

5 v . :

6

7

SUSAN GALLOWAY, ET AL. :

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

8

9

10

Washi ngt on, D. C.

Wednesday, November 6, 2013

11 The above- ent i t l ed mat t er came on f or or al

12

13

argument bef ore the Supr eme Cour t of t he Uni t ed St ates

at 10: 04 a. m.

14 APPEARANCES:

15

16

THOMAS G. HUNGAR, ESQ. , Washi ngt on, D. C. ; on behal f of

Pet i t i oner .

17

18

19

20

21

22

I AN H. GERSHENGORN, ESQ. , Deput y Sol i ci t or General ,

Depar t ment of J ust i ce, Washi ngt on, D. C. ; f or Uni t ed

St at es, as ami cus cur i ae, suppor t i ng Pet i t i oner .

DOUGLAS LAYCOCK, ESQ. , Char l ot t esvi l l e, Vi r gi ni a; on

behal f of Respondent s.

23

24

25

Alderson Reporting Company


2/71

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

2


C O N T E N T SORAL ARGUMENT OF PAGETHOMAS G. HUNGAR, ESQ.

On behal f of t he Pet i t i oner 3ORAL ARGUMENT OFI AN H. GERSHENGORN, ESQ.

For Uni t ed St at es, as ami cus cur i ae, suppor t i ng t he Pet i t i oner 19

ORAL ARGUMENT OFDOUGLAS LAYCOCK, ESQ.

On behal f of t he Respondent s 29REBUTTAL ARGUMENT OFTHOMAS G. HUNGAR, ESQ.

On behal f of t he Pet i t i oner 56



3/71

Official - Subject to Review3

1 P R O C E E D I N G S2 ( 10: 04 a. m. ) 3 CHI EF J USTI CE ROBERTS: We' l l hear ar gument 4 f i r st t hi s mor ni ng i n case 12- 696, t he Town of5 Gr eece v. Gal l oway. 6 Mr . Hungar . 7 ORAL ARGUMENT OF THOMAS G. HUNGAR8 ON BEHALF OF THE PETI TI ONER9 MR. HUNGAR: Thank you, Mr . Chi ef J ust i ce,

10 and may i t pl ease t he Cour t : 11 The cour t of appeal s cor r ect l y hel d t hat t he12 l egi sl at i ve pr ayer s at i ssue i n t hi s case wer e not 13 of f ensi ve i n t he way i dent i f i ed as pr obl emat i c i n Mar sh, 14 but t he cour t t hen commi t t ed l egal er r or by engr af t i ng15 t he endorsement t est ont o Marsh as a new barr i er t o t he16 pr acti ce of l egi sl at i ve pr ayer . 17 J USTI CE KAGAN: Mr . Hungar , I ' m wonder i ng18 what you woul d t hi nk of t he f ol l owi ng: Suppose t hat as19 we began t hi s sessi on of t he Cour t , t he Chi ef J ust i ce20 had cal l ed a mi ni st er up t o t he f r ont of t he cour t r oom, 21 f aci ng the l awyer s, maybe t he par t i es, maybe t he22 spect at or s. And t he mi ni st er had asked ever yone t o23 st and and t o bow t hei r heads i n pr ayer and t he mi ni st er 24 sai d t he f ol l owi ng: He sai d, we acknowl edge t he savi ng25 sacr i f i ce of J esus Chr i st on t he cross. We dr aw



4/71

4


1 st r engt h f r om Hi s r esur r ect i on. Bl essed ar e you who has2 r ai sed up t he Lor d J esus. You who wi l l r ai se us i n our 3 t ur n and put us by Hi s si de. The members of t he Cour t 4 who had st ood r esponded amen, made t he si gn of t he5 cross, and t he Chi ef J ust i ce t hen cal l ed your case. 6 Woul d that be per mi ssi bl e?7 MR. HUNGAR: I don' t t hi nk so, Your Honor . 8 And, obvi ousl y, t hi s case doesn' t pr esent t hat quest i on9 because what we have her e i s a case of l egi sl at i ve

10 pr ayer i n t he Mar sh doct r i ne, whi ch r ecogni zes t hat t he11 hi st or y of t hi s count r y f r om i t s ver y f oundat i ons and12 f oundi ng, r ecogni ze t he pr opr i et y of l egi sl at i ve pr ayer 13 of t he t ype t hat was conduct ed here. 14 J USTI CE GI NSBURG: Wel l , t he quest i on -

15 J USTI CE KAGAN: The ext ensi on j ust bet ween16 t he l egi sl at ur e and any ot her of f i ci al pr oceedi ng; i s17 that correct?18 MR. HUNGAR: Wel l , cl ear l y, Mar sh i nvol ves19 l egi sl at i ve pr ayer , t he t r adi t i on t hat we r el y on20 i nvol ves l egi sl at i ve pr ayer , and t hi s case i nvol ves21 l egi sl at i ve pr ayer . Whet her - - what r ul e mi ght appl y i n22 other cont ext s woul d depend on t he cont ext . 23 J USTI CE KAGAN: Suppose I ask t he exact same24 quest i on, same ki nds of st atement s, same sor t of25 cont ext , except i t ' s not i n a cour t r oom. I nst ead, i t ' s



5/71

5


1 i n a congr essi onal hear i ng r oom. Maybe i t ' s a2 conf i r mat i on hear i ng, maybe i t ' s an i nvest i gat or y3 hear i ng of some ki nd, and t hat a per son i s si t t i ng at a4 t abl e i n f r ont of t he member s of a commi t t ee, r eady t o5 t est i f y, r eady t o gi ve hi s t est i mony i n suppor t of hi s6 nomi nat i on. The mi ni st er says t he exact same t hi ng. 7 MR. HUNGAR: I t hi nk t hat ' s a - - t hat ' s a8 cl oser quest i on because of t he congr essi onal hi st or y, 9 but , of cour se, at l east as f ar as I ' m awar e, t hey have

10 t hi s hi st or y as i t appl i es t o t he l egi sl at i ve body as a11 whol e, not t o commi t t ees, but i t woul d be a di f f er ent 12 quest i on. One, obvi ousl y, i mpor t ant di st i ngui shi ng13 f actor t her e, i n addi t i on t o t he f act t hat i t ' s not t he14 l egi sl at i ve body as a whol e -

15 J USTI CE SCALI A: We shoul d - - we shoul d -

16 MR. HUNGAR: - - i s t hat peopl e ar e compel l ed17 t o at t end and t est i f y under oat h, whi ch i s a di f f er ent 18 si t uat i on f r om t he one her e. 19 J USTI CE KAGAN: Wel l , why -

20 J USTI CE SCALI A: We shoul d assume - - t o, t o21 make i t par al l el t o what occur r ed her e t hat t he next day22 bef ore the same commi t t ee a Musl i m woul d l ead t he23 i nvocat i on and t he day af t er t hat an or t hodox J ew. I 24 mean -

25 MR. HUNGAR: Yes, Your Honor .



6/71


1 J USTI CE SCALI A: - - i t makes a di f f erence2 whet her i t ' s j ust one - - one denomi nat i on t hat i s bei ng3 used as - - as chapl ai n or open t o var i ous denomi nat i ons. 4 MR. HUNGAR: That ' s cor r ect , Your Honor . 5 That ' s why we bel i eve t hi s case i s act ual l y an easi er 6 case t han Marsh because i n Marsh, t here was a pai d7 chapl ai n f r om t he same denomi nat i on f or 16 year s. 8 J USTI CE GI NSBURG: But t he quest i on, 9 Mr . Hungar -

10 J USTI CE KAGAN: Suppose you ar e cor r ect , Mr . 11 Hungar , f or 11 years t he pr ayers sounded al most 12 excl usi vel y l i ke t he ones t hat I r ead, and one year on13 f our occasi ons, t her e was some at t empt s t o var y i t up, 14 t o have a Baha' i mi ni st er or a - - a Wi ccan, but f or t he15 most par t , not out of any mal i ce or anyt hi ng l i ke t hat , 16 but because t hi s i s what t he peopl e i n t hi s communi t y17 knew and were f ami l i ar wi t h and what most of t he18 mi ni st er s wer e, most of t he pr ayer s sounded l i ke t hi s. 19 MR. HUNGAR: Wel l , no. I mean, i t ' s cl ear l y20 not cor r ect t hat most of t he pr ayer s sounded l i ke t he21 one you j ust r ead. 22 J USTI CE GI NSBURG: But your posi t i on i s t hat 23 woul dn' t mat t er , as I under st and, because you have -

24 you have - - you have t wo l i mi t at i ons, pr osel yt i zi ng and25 di spar agi ng. And - - but I t hi nk J ust i ce Kagan' s



7/71

7


1 quest i on j ust set pl ace - - pl ace l i mi t at i ons. One coul d2 r ead your br i ef and say, wel l , i t doesn' t mat t er ; i t 3 coul d be an execut i ve body, i t coul d be a cour t , i t 4 coul d be a town meet i ng, a school boar d, a zoni ng boar d, 5 a ut i l i t i es boar d. That ' s - - i s t hi s case about pr ayer 6 at t he begi nni ng of a l egi sl at i ve sessi on or i s i t about 7 pr ayer i n al l t hr ee br anches of gover nment ?8 MR. HUNGAR: Thi s case i s about pr ayer at 9 t he begi nni ng of a l egi sl at i ve sessi on. That ' s exact l y

10 what t he meet i ngs at i ssue her e ar e - - ar e about . 11 That ' s what t he board of t he Town of Gr eece i s. I n12 f act , Respondent s t r y to argue t hat t hi s i s somehow what 13 t hey cal l coer ci ve because t her e ar e publ i c hear i ngs14 t hat ar e hel d. But t he publ i c hear i ngs ar e hel d at 15 l east 30 mi nut es af t er t he pr ayer and anyone comi ng f or 16 t he pur pose of t he publ i c hear i ng can easi l y show up17 af t er t he pr ayer i f t hey don' t want t o be t her e. 18 J USTI CE KENNEDY: Why - - why was i t t hat you19 so pr ompt l y answer ed J ust i ce Kagan' s quest i on t o t he20 ef f ect t hat t hi s woul d be a vi ol at i on? What / why woul d21 t her e be a vi ol at i on i n t he i nst ance she put ?22 MR. HUNGAR: I ' m sor r y. Whi ch i nst ance, 23 Your Honor ?24 J USTI CE KENNEDY: The f i r st quest i on J ust i ce25 Kagan asked you, t he hypot het i cal about t he pr ayer i n



8/71

8


1 t hi s Cour t . You seemed r eadi l y t o agr ee t hat t hat woul d2 be a Fi r st Amendment vi ol at i on. Why?3 MR. HUNGAR: Wel l , per haps I conceded t oo4 much, but I t hi nk t he i mpor t ant di st i nct i on i s bet ween5 t he - - bot h t he j udi ci al cont ext and t he l egi sl at i ve6 cont ext on t he one hand and t he - - t he absence of a -

7 of a compar abl e hi st or y t hat shows t hat i t di d not -

8 J USTI CE KENNEDY: Wel l , i s i t - - i s i t 9 si mpl y hi st or y t hat makes - - t her e' s no r at i onal

10 expl anat i on? I t ' s j ust a hi st or i cal aber r at i on?11 MR. HUNGAR: No, i t ' s not - - i t ' s not a12 quest i on of hi st or i cal aber r at i on. I t ' s a quest i on13 of -

14 J USTI CE KENNEDY: Wel l , what ' s - - what ' s t he15 j ust i f i cat i on f or t he di st i nct i on?16 MR. HUNGAR: I t ' s a quest i on of what t he17 Est abl i shment Cl ause has under st ood, bot h at t he t i me18 and t hr oughout hi st or y, t o f or bi d and not t o f or bi d. 19 The j udi ci ary i s di f f er ent t han a l egi sl at ure. 20 Legi sl at ur es can be par t i san, t he j udi ci ar y shoul d not 21 be. Peopl e ar e compel l ed t o t est i f y under oat h. 22 J USTI CE SCALI A: But you - - but you - - you23 had no pr obl em, Mr . Hungar , wi t h t he mar shal ' s24 announcement at t he - - at t he begi nni ng of t hi s sessi on. 25 God save t he Uni t ed St ates and t hi s Honorabl e Cour t .



9/71

9


1 Ther e - - t her e ar e many peopl e who don' t bel i eve i n God. 2 MR. HUNGAR: That ' s cor r ect , Your Honor . 3 And cl ear l y -

4 J USTI CE SCALI A: So t hat ' s okay?5 MR. HUNGAR: Yes. 6 J USTI CE SCALI A: Why - - why i s t hat okay?7 MR. HUNGAR: Whet her - - i f - - per haps I 8 mi sunder st ood t he hypot het i cal . I f t he hypot het i cal i s9 as you descr i bed wi t h a di f f er ent mi ni st er , wi t h - - wi t h

10 an open pr ocess, a nondi scr i mi nat or y pr ocess l i ke t he11 one we have here, I t hi nk i t woul d be a much cl oser case12 t han t hi s one, but i t mi ght be const i t ut i onal . But 13 whet her t hat case i s const i t ut i onal or not , t hi s case i s14 f ar f r om t he const i t ut i onal l i ne, f ur t her f r om t he15 const i t ut i onal l i ne t han t he St at e l egi sl at ur e' s16 pr act i ce i n Marsh. Because t here, Nebr aska had one17 chapl ai n f r om one denomi nat i on f or 16 year s and yet , 18 t hat was const i t ut i onal l y per mi ssi bl e, and hi s pr ayer s19 wer e not di st i ngui shabl e i n cont ent f r om t he pr ayer s at 20 i ssue her e dur i ng t he t i me t hat was r el evant t o t he21 case. 22 CHI EF J USTI CE ROBERTS: Woul d i t make a23 di f f er ence i n your anal ysi s i f i nst ead of , as I 24 under st and t he hypot het i cal , t her e was a poi nt of25 sayi ng, al l r i se or somet hi ng of t hat sor t ? Woul d i t



10/71

10


1 make a di f f er ence i f t he hypot het i cal J ust i ce Kagan2 posed were t he same except peopl e weren' t t ol d t o r i se3 or i nvi t ed t o r i se or , i n f act, wer e t ol d t o st ay4 seat ed, somet hi ng l i ke t hat , so t her e woul d be no5 i ndi cat i on of who was par t i ci pat i ng i n t he pr ayer ? I s6 t hat a - - i s t hat a gr ound of di st i nct i on t hat you' r e7 wi l l i ng t o accept or not ?8 MR. HUNGAR: I don' t t hi nk t hat i s9 const i t ut i onal l y si gni f i cant , unl ess - - I mean, i t mi ght

10 be di f f er ent i f peopl e ar e compel l ed t o st and, but 11 whet her t hey ar e or not - - I mean, i n t he Mar sh case12 i t sel f , Senat or Chamber s t est i f i ed t hat t he pr act i ce i n13 t he Nebr aska l egi sl at ur e was f or peopl e t o st and and he14 f el t coer ced t o st and. Because when he was t her e - - he15 t r i ed t o avoi d i t - - but when he was t her e, he f el t he16 needed t o st and because ever ybody el se was doi ng i t and17 he needed t o have deal i ngs wi t h t hese peopl e as a f el l ow18 l egi s l at or . 19 The Cour t , nonet hel ess, hel d t hat he' s an20 adul t and he - - he i s expect ed t o be abl e t o di sagr ee21 wi t h t hi ngs t hat he di sagr ees wi t h and t hat i s not a22 const i t ut i onal vi ol at i on. 23 CHI EF J USTI CE ROBERTS: I wonder how f ar you24 can car r y t he - - your hi st or i cal ar gument and whet her 25 some of t hese t hi ngs ar e pr oper l y r egarded as mor e



11/71


1 hi st or i cal ar t i f act s, r i ght ? I mean, our mot t o i s " I n2 God we t r ust , " r i ght ? That ' s t he mot t o. I t ' s been t hat 3 f or a l ong t i me, r i ght ?4 MR. HUNGAR: Yes, s i r . 5 CHI EF J USTI CE ROBERTS: But woul dn' t we l ook6 at i t di f f er ent l y i f t her e were - - suddenl y i f t her e7 wer e a pr oposal t oday f or t he f i r st t i me, t o say l et ' s8 adopt a mot t o " I n God we t r ust "? Woul d we vi ew t hat t he9 same way si mpl y because i t ' s - - i n ot her wor ds, t he

10 hi st or y doesn' t make i t cl ear t hat a par t i cul ar pr act i ce11 i s okay goi ng on i n t he f ut ur e. I t means, wel l , t hi s i s12 what t hey' ve done - - t hey have done, so we' r e not goi ng13 t o go back and r evi si t i t . J ust l i ke we' r e not goi ng t o14 go back and t ake t he cr oss out of ever y ci t y seal t hat ' s15 been t here si nce, you know, 1800. But i t doesn' t mean16 t hat i t woul d be okay t o adopt a seal t oday t hat woul d17 have a cross i n i t , does i t ?18 MR. HUNGAR: Not necessar i l y. But - - but I 19 t hi nk hi st or y i s cl ear l y i mpor t ant t o t he Est abl i shment 20 Cl ause anal ysi s under t hi s Cour t ' s pr ecedence i n t wo21 si gni f i cant r espect s, bot h of whi ch appl y her e, one of22 whi ch mi ght not appl y i n your - - wi t h r espect t o your 23 hypot het i cal . 24 The f i r st bei ng t he hi st or y shows us t hat 25 t he pr act i ce of l egi sl at i ve pr ayer , j ust l i ke t he mot t o,



12/71

12


1 has not , i n f act , l ed t o an est abl i shment and, 2 t her ef or e, we can be conf i dent i t i s not i n danger of3 doi ng so. And secondl y, t he hi st or y of l egi sl at i ve4 pr ayer , unl i ke your hypot het i cal , goes back t o the ver y5 f r ami ng of t he Fi r st Amendment . The f act t hat - - t hen6 t hi s i s what t he Cour t sai d i n Mar sh - - t he f act t hat at 7 t he ver y t i me t he Fi r st Congr ess was wr i t i ng and sendi ng8 t he - - t he Fi r st Amendment out t o t he St at es t o be9 r at i f i ed, t hey adopt ed t he pr act i ce of havi ng a

10 congr essi onal chapl ai n. And t he congr essi onal 11 chapl ai n - - t he record - - t he hi stor i cal record i s12 cl ear - - gave pr ayer s t hat wer e al most excl usi vel y13 sectar i an, as Respondent s def i ne t hat wor d. 14 J USTI CE SCALI A: I don' t r eal l y under st and15 your - - your answer . How can i t be t hat i f t he pr act i ce16 exi st ed i n t he past , i t was const i t ut i onal ? Was i t 17 const i t ut i onal i n t he past ?18 MR. HUNGAR: Yes, Your Honor . 19 J USTI CE SCALI A: I f i t was const i t ut i onal i n20 t he past , why - - why woul d i t be unconst i t ut i onal i f t he21 same thi ng i s done today, even wi t hout any past par al l el 22 pr act i ce. That ' s a ni ce al l i t er at i on. I s past par al l el 23 pr act i ce essent i al ?24 MR. HUNGAR: I t hi nk t hi s Cour t ' s pr ecedent s25 have al so i ndi cat ed, at l east i n some cases, t hat i f - -



13/71

13


1 i f a pr act i ce i s const i t ut i onal , as we know i t t o be t he2 case because of t he f act t hat i t has been under st ood t o3 be const i t ut i onal and consi st ent wi t h our r el i gi on4 cl auses f r om t he f oundi ng, ot her pr act i ces t hat have no5 gr eat er i mpact , no gr eat er t endency t o est abl i sh6 r el i gi on, ar e equal l y const i t ut i onal . And we bel i eve7 t hat i s an appr opr i at e doct r i ne. 8 J USTI CE GI NSBURG: I s t her e - - i s t her e any9 const i t ut i onal hi st or i cal pr act i ce wi t h r espect t o t hi s

10 hybr i d body? I t ' s not si mpl y a l egi sl at ur e. I t has a11 number of admi ni st r at i ve f unct i ons. Somet i mes i t 12 convenes as a t own meet i ng. Somet i mes i t ent ert ai ns13 zoni ng appl i cat i ons. I s t her e a hi st or y f or t hat ki nd14 of hybr i d body, as t her e i s f or t he ki nd of l egi sl at ur e15 we had i n Nebr aska or our Congr ess?16 MR. HUNGAR: Yes, Your Honor , i n t wo17 r espect s. Fi r st of al l , t he Becket Fund ami cus br i ef18 i dent i f i es var i ous exampl es of - - of muni ci pal 19 gover nment pr ayer over t he cour se of our f oundi ng, whi ch20 i s - - over t he cour se of our hi st or y, whi ch i s not 21 sur pr i s i ng gi ven t hi s - - t he l egi s l at i ve pr act i ce at t he22 St at e and Feder al l evel as wel l . 23 And secondl y, Congr ess f or much of i t s - - of24 much of our hi st or y ent er t ai ned pr i vat e bi l l s, whi ch25 woul d be t he equi val ent i n t er ms of l egi sl at i ve or



14/71


1 non- pur el y l egi sl at i ve f unct i ons you' r e t al ki ng about , 2 wi t h what t he Town of Gr eece does here. 3 J USTI CE KENNEDY: Wel l , i f we had a - - i f we4 had a ser i es of cases, what - - what i s a - - a ut i l i t y5 r at e- maki ng boar d woul d come t o t he Supreme Cour t . We6 say, wel l , i t ' s enough l i ke a l egi s l at i ve t hat i t ' s l i ke7 Mar sh. But I don' t t hi nk t he publ i c woul d under st and8 that. 9 MR. HUNGAR: Wel l , Your Honor , what ever -

10 what ever l i ne mi ght be dr awn bet ween non- l egi sl at i ve11 bodi es and l egi sl at i ve bodi es, what we ar e t al ki ng about 12 her e i s a l egi sl at i ve meet i ng of a l egi sl at i ve body, and13 i t woul d be - - i t woul d be i ncongr uous, as t hi s Cour t 14 sai d i n Mar sh, i f Congr ess coul d have l egi sl at i ve15 pr ayer s and t he St at es coul dn' t . I t woul d be equal l y16 i ncongr uous -

17 J USTI CE KENNEDY: Wel l , t he essence of t he18 argument i s we' ve al ways done i t t hi s way, whi ch has19 some - - some f or ce t o i t . But i t seems t o me t hat your 20 argument begi ns and ends t her e. 21 MR. HUNGAR: No, Your Honor . I mean, as22 we - - as we sai d i n our br i ef , t he pr i nci pl es t hat 23 under gi r d the Est abl i shment Cl ause ar e equal l y24 consi st ent wi t h t he posi t i on we' r e advanci ng her e. As25 t he - - as your opi ni on i n t he Count y of Al l egheny case



15/71


1 i ndi cat es, t he f undament al - - t he cor e of Est abl i shment 2 Cl ause concer n i s coer ci on or conduct t hat i s so ext r eme3 t hat i t l eads t o t he est abl i shment of a r el i gi on because4 i t i s put t i ng t he gover nment squar el y behi nd one f ai t h5 t o t he excl usi on of ot her s, and t hat ' s cl ear l y not -

6 not what ' s goi ng on here. 7 J USTI CE ALI TO: May I ask you about t he8 i ndi vi dual pl ai nt i f f s her e. And what do we know about 9 t hem? They obvi ousl y have appear ed at pr oceedi ngs and

10 t hey obj ect t o t he pr oceedi ngs. Does the r ecor d show11 t hat t hey had mat t er s bef or e t he t own counci l dur i ng t he12 hear i ngs par t of t he pr oceedi ng?13 MR. HUNGAR: No, Your Honor . There i s -

14 t her e' s no evi dence of t hat . Ther e' s no - - t he15 Respondent s have no st andi ng t o asser t t he i nt er est s of16 chi l dr en or pol i ce of f i cer s or awar d r eci pi ent s or - - or 17 per mi t appl i cant s. They don' t even cl ai m t o be i n - - i n18 any of t hose cat egor i es. 19 J USTI CE ALI TO: Wel l , what about t he publ i c20 f or um par t ? They di d speak occasi onal l y t hen; i sn' t 21 t hat r i ght ?22 MR. HUNGAR: Yes, Your Honor . 23 J USTI CE ALI TO: Do we know what t hey spoke24 about ?25 MR. HUNGAR: Wel l , on at l east one occasi on



16/71


1 one of t hem spoke about t he pr ayer - - or on one or t wo2 occasi ons; and then on mul t i pl e occasi ons spoke about a3 cabl e access channel i ssue. 4 J USTI CE ALI TO: And what di d t hey - - what 5 was t he i ssue t her e?6 MR. HUNGAR: Somet hi ng about - - she was7 expr essi ng vehement di sagreement wi t h t he t own' s8 deci si on t o awar d a cabl e access channel t o one ent i t y9 as opposed t o another .

10 J USTI CE BREYER: Do you have any obj ect i on11 t o - - t o doi ng one t hi ng t hat was suggest ed i n t he12 ci r cui t cour t opi ni on, whi ch i s t o publ i ci ze r at her 13 t hor oughl y i n - - i n t he ar ea t hat t hose who wer e not 14 Chr i st i ans, and per haps not even r el i gi ous, ar e al so15 wel come to appear and t o have ei t her a pr ayer or t he16 equi val ent i f t hey' r e not r el i gi ous? Do you have an17 obj ect i on t o t hat ?18 MR. HUNGAR: Cert ai nl y not . There' d be -

19 J USTI CE BREYER: Wel l , t hen - - t hen t her e -

20 i s t her e a di sagr eement on t hat poi nt , because21 cer t ai nl y, t hat was one of t he concer ns. I t wasn' t on22 anyone' s websi t e. Ther e ar e - - Gr eece i s a smal l t own23 ver y near Rochest er , and t her e ar e, at l east i n24 Rochest er , l ot s of peopl e of di f f er ent r el i gi ons, 25 i ncl udi ng qui t e a f ew of no r el i gi on.



17/71

17


1 So - - so coul d you wor k t hat out , do you2 t hi nk, i f t hat wer e t he onl y obj ect i ng poi nt ?3 MR. HUNGAR: I - - I don' t know what t he4 t own' s posi t i on woul d be on t hat , but i t - - cer t ai nl y, 5 t her e woul d be no const i t ut i onal pr obl em wi t h doi ng6 t hat . I mean, her e as a pr act i cal mat t er , si nce -

7 J USTI CE BREYER: No, no. I ' m not sayi ng8 i t ' s a const i t ut i onal pr obl em I got f r om t he opi ni on of9 doi ng t he opposi t e, of - - of not maki ng an ef f or t t o

10 make peopl e who ar e not Chr i st i an f eel , al t hough t hey11 l i ve near i n or near t he t own or ar e af f ect ed t her eby, 12 par t i ci pant s over t i me. 13 MR. HUNGAR: But , Your Honor , i t ' s a14 per f ect l y rat i onal appr oach when - - when any l egi sl at i ve15 body i s goi ng t o have a pr act i ce of l egi sl at i ve pr ayer , 16 t o go to the houses of worshi p i n t he communi t y. 17 J USTI CE BREYER: I ' m not sayi ng i t ' s not . I 18 want t o know i f you have any obj ect i on. I -

19 MR. HUNGAR: Wel l , I cer t ai nl y don' t t hi nk20 i t i s const i t ut i onal l y r equi r ed, al t hough I woul d not e21 t hat as a pr act i cal mat t er t hat has happened her e i n22 2007. 23 J USTI CE BREYER: Do you - - woul d you have -

24 i f al l t hat wer e l ef t i n t he case wer e t he quest i on of25 you' r e maki ng a good f ai t h ef f or t t o t r y t o i ncl ude



18/71

18


1 ot her s, woul d you obj ect t o doi ng i t ?2 MR. HUNGAR: I don' t know what t he t own' s3 posi t i on i s on t hat . As I sai d, as a pr act i cal mat t er , 4 t hat has al r eady happened here. The t own deput y5 supervi sor was quoted i n t he newspaper sayi ng anyone can6 come i n pr ayer , anyone can -

7 J USTI CE BREYER: Yes. That ' s di f f erent f r om8 put t i ng i t on a websi t e. That ' s di f f er ent f r om maki ng9 an or gani zed ef f or t t o see t hat peopl e get t he wor d.

10 MR. HUNGAR: As I say -

11 J USTI CE SCALI A: Mr . Hungar , what - - what i s12 t he equi val ent of pr ayer f or somebody who i s not 13 r el i gi ous?14 MR. HUNGAR: I woul d -

15 J USTI CE SCALI A: What woul d somebody who i s16 not r el i gi ous -

17 MR. HUNGAR: I n t he Rubi n -

18 J USTI CE SCALI A: - - what i s t he equi val ent 19 of pr ayer ?20 MR. HUNGAR: I t woul d be some i nvocat i on of21 gui dance and wi sdom f r om -

22 J USTI CE SCALI A: Fr om what ?23 MR. HUNGAR: I don' t know. I n - - i n t he24 Rubi n case -

25 ( Laught er . )



19/71

19


1 MR. HUNGAR: I n t he Rubi n case, a2 nonr el i gi ous per son del i ver ed i nvocat i ons on mul t i pl e3 occasi ons. 4 J USTI CE SCALI A: I suppose a moment -

5 J USTI CE BREYER: Perhaps he' s aski ng me t hat 6 quest i on and I can answer i t l at er . 7 ( Laught er . ) 8 MR. HUNGAR: I ' d l i ke t o r eserve t he9 r emai nder of my t i me.

10 CHI EF J USTI CE ROBERTS: Yes. Thank you, 11 counsel . 12 Mr . Gershengor n. 13 ARGUMENT OF I AN H. GERSHENGORN, 14 FOR UNI TED STATES, AS AMI CUS CURI AE, 15 SUPPORTI NG THE PETI TI ONER16 MR. GERSHENGORN: Mr . Chi ef J ust i ce, and may17 i t pl ease t he Cour t : 18 The Second Ci r cui t ' s deci si on her e r equi r es19 cour t s t o det er mi ne when a l egi sl at ur e has per mi t t ed t oo20 many sect ar i an r ef er ences i n i t s pr ayer s or has i nvi t ed21 t oo many Chr i st i an pr ayer - gi ver s. That appr oach i s22 f l awed f or t wo reasons. 23 Fi r st , i t cannot be squar ed wi t h our 24 nat i on' s l ong hi st or y of openi ng l egi sl at i ve sessi ons25 not onl y wi t h a pr ayer , but a pr ayer gi ven i n t he



20/71

20


1 pr ayer - gi ver ' s own r el i gi on i di om. And second, i t 2 i nvi t es exact l y the sor t of par si ng of pr ayer t hat Mar sh3 sought t o avoi d and t hat Feder al cour t s ar e i l l - equi pped4 t o handl e. 5 J USTI CE SOTOMAYOR: And what was t he pur pose6 of Mar sh sayi ng t hat pr osel yt i zi ng or damni ng anot her 7 r el i gi on woul d be a const i t ut i onal vi ol at i on?8 MR. GERSHENGORN: So we agr ee wi t h -

9 J USTI CE SOTOMAYOR: So unl ess you par se t he10 pr ayer s, you can' t det er mi ne whet her t her e' s11 pr osel yt i zi ng or damnat i on. That i s J udge Wi l ki nson' s12 poi nt when he was f aced wi t h t hi s quest i on, whi ch i s, 13 you have t o, t o do some parsi ng. 14 MR. GERSHENGORN: So, Your Honor , you have15 t o l ook at - - at t he pr ayer t o det er mi ne pr osel yt i zi ng. 16 But i t ' s a ver y di f f er ent ser i es of j udgment s, we17 submi t , t han det er mi ni ng whet her somet hi ng i s sect ar i an. 18 The ki nds of debat es we' r e havi ng, I t hi nk, ar e19 r ef l ected i n t he di f f er ences -

20 J USTI CE SOTOMAYOR: Now, ser i ousl y, 21 counsel or . You can' t ar gue t hat t he quot e t hat J ust i ce22 Kagan r ead i s not sect ar i an. I t i nvokes J esus Chr i st as23 t he savi or of t he wor l d. Ther e ar e many r el i gi ons who24 don' t bel i eve t hat . Let ' s get past t hat . 25 MR. GERSHENGORN: So, Your Honor - -



21/71

21


1 J USTI CE SOTOMAYOR: Thi s i s sect ar i an. 2 MR. GERSHENGORN: We agr ee t hat t hese ar e3 sect ar i an. But t he ki nds of debat es that you' r e seei ng4 among t he par t i es, whet her , f or exampl e, 15 per cent , 505 per cent , 60 per cent of t he congr essi onal pr ayer s ar e6 sectar i an. Those ar e debat es about whet her "Hol y7 Spi r i t " i s sect ar i an. A cour t - - a di str i ct cour t has8 hel d t hat "Al l ah" i s not sectar i an. 9 J USTI CE SOTOMAYOR: So l et ' s t al k about t he

10 cont ext i nst ead of pr ayer . I f t he Chi ef J ust i ce got up11 at t he begi nni ng of t hi s sessi on and sai d "Al l r i se f or 12 a pr ayer , " woul d you si t down?13 MR. GERSHENGORN: Your Honor , whet her I 14 woul d si t or not , we don' t t hi nk that t hat woul d be15 const i t ut i onal . 16 J USTI CE SOTOMAYOR: Do you t hi nk - - how many17 peopl e i n t hi s r oom do you t hi nk woul d si t , t al ki ng18 t rut hf ul l y?19 MR. GERSHENGORN: I don' t t hi nk - - I don' t 20 t hi nk many woul d si t , Your Honor . 21 J USTI CE SOTOMAYOR: Al l r i ght . 22 M R. GERSHENGORN: But we don' t t hi nk t hat 23 that -

24 J USTI CE SOTOMAYOR: So why do you t hi nk t hat 25 someone who i s s i t t i ng i n a smal l r oom wher e hear i ngs of



22/71

22


1 t hi s nat ur e are bei ng hel d, when t he guy who' s about , 2 t he chai r man of t hi s l egi sl at i ve body, i s about t o r ul e3 on an appl i cat i on you' r e br i ngi ng t o hi m or her , why do4 you t hi nk any of t hose peopl e woul dn' t f eel coer ced t o5 st and?6 MR. GERSHENGORN: So, Your Honor , I ' d l i ke7 t o addr ess the coer ci on poi nt t hi s way: Wi t h r espect t o8 t own counci l s, i t ' s our vi ew t hat as a gener al mat t er 9 t hat t he muni ci pal l egi sl at ur es can i nvoke t he same

10 t r adi t i on of sol emni zi ng and i nvoki ng di vi ne gui dance as11 Feder al and St at e l egi sl at ur es. We r ecogni ze t her e ar e12 di f f er ences, however , and Your Honor has poi nt ed to one13 and t hat ' s t he - - what was cal l ed t he publ i c f or um her e. 14 And we t hi nk i t ' s ver y - - because those ar e t he ones15 wher e t he - - i s adj udi cat ed l i cense appl i cat i ons, l i quor 16 appl i cat i ons. And we do t hi nk i t i s i mpor t ant on t hi s17 r ecor d t hat t hose ar e separ at ed i n t i me. I t ' s at t he18 cour t of appeal s Appendi x 929 and 1120. So t hat t he19 meet i ng st ar t s at 6: 00, whi ch i s i n t he pr ayer - - when20 t he pr ayer i s, but t he boar d meet i ngs t o adj udi cat e21 t hose types of i ssues are at 6: 30 or 6: 32. 22 And so t he t ype of concer n t hat Your Honor 23 has r ai sed i s not pr esent ed on t hi s r ecor d and we thi nk24 t hat ' s si gni f i cant . We t hi nk some of t he ot her 25 f act or s - -



23/71

23


1 J USTI CE KAGAN: Mr . Ger shengor n, do you2 t hi nk t hat i f t he l egi s l at ure - - excuse me - - i f t he3 t own boar d her e j ust , you know, st ar t ed i t of f wi t h a4 pr ayer and t hen kept on goi ng, do you t hi nk t hat t hat 5 woul d be a si gni f i cant l y di f f er ent case and you woul d6 swi t ch si des?7 MR. GERSHENGORN: I don' t know t hat we woul d8 swi t ch si des, Your Honor . But I do t hi nk i t mi t i gat es9 t he coer ci on t hat t he - - t hat t he Respondent s have

10 i dent i f i ed. And we t hi nk i t - - t hat t hat i s one of t he11 si gni f i cant di f f er ences bet ween t he t own, t he - - t he12 t own l egi sl at ur e and a - - and t he l egi sl at ur e -

13 J USTI CE SCALI A: You agr ee t hat coer ci on i s14 t he t est , however ?15 MR. GERSHENGORN: We don' t agr ee t hat 16 coer ci on i s t he t est , Your Honor . 17 J USTI CE SCALI A: I f i t i s t he t est -

18 MR. GERSHENGORN: We t hi nk i t ' s t he19 hi stor y - - we t hi nk t he hi story i s the - - t he pr i nci pal 20 gui dance of Mar sh i s - - we t hi nk t her e ar e t hr ee pi l l ar s21 i n Mar sh: Fi r st of al l , t hat t he hi st or y i s what t he22 Cour t l ooks t o f i r st . And her e t her e was a l ong hi st or y23 of l egi sl at i ve pr ayer . Second, t hat t he Cour t shoul d be24 ver y wary of parsi ng pr ayer t o make sectar i an j udgment s. 25 And t hi r d, what Mar sh sai d i s t hat adul t s ar e l ess



24/71


1 suscept i bl e t o r el i gi ous doct r i ne - - i ndoct r i nat i on and2 peer pr essur e. 3 J USTI CE KAGAN: Mr . Ger shengor n, coul d you4 r espond t o t hi s? Her e' s what our - - our count r y5 pr omi ses, our Const i t ut i on pr omi ses. I t ' s t hat , however 6 we wor shi p, we' r e al l equal and f ul l ci t i zens. And I 7 t hi nk we can al l agr ee on t hat . 8 And t hat means t hat when we approach t he9 government , when we pet i t i on t he government , we do so

10 not as a Chr i st i an, not as a J ew, not as a Musl i m, not 11 as a nonbel i ever , onl y as an Amer i can. And what 12 t r oubl es me about t hi s case i s t hat her e a ci t i zen i s13 goi ng t o a l ocal communi t y boar d, supposed to be t he14 cl osest , t he most r esponsi ve i nst i t ut i on of gover nment 15 t hat exi st s, and i s i mmedi at el y bei ng asked, bei ng16 f or ced t o i dent i f y whet her she bel i eves i n t he t hi ngs17 t hat most of t he peopl e i n t he r oom bel i eve i n, whet her 18 she bel ongs t o t he same r el i gi ous t eam as most of t he19 peopl e i n t he room do. 20 And i t st r i kes me t hat t hat mi ght be21 i nconsi st ent wi t h t hi s under st andi ng t hat when we r el at e22 t o our government , we al l do so as Amer i cans, and not as23 J ews and not as Chr i st i ans and not as nonbel i evers. 24 MR. GERSHENGORN: So, J ust i ce Kagan, I t hi nk25 we agr ee wi t h much of what you say. But - - but wi t h t he



25/71

25


1 di f f er ence her e i s t hat t hi s appr oachi ng of t he2 government body occur s agai nst t he backdr op of 240 years3 of hi st or y, whi ch makes t hi s di f f er ent . 4 From t he ver y begi nni ng of our l egi sl at ur e, 5 f r om t he Fi r st Cont i nent al Congr ess, and t hen f r om6 t he - - f r om t he f i r st Congr ess, t her e have been7 l egi sl at i ve pr ayer s gi ven i n t he r el i gi ous i di om of8 ei t her t he of f i ci al chapl ai n or a guest chapl ai n, t hat 9 have r egul ar l y i nvoked t he - - t he dei t y and t he - - t he

10 l anguage of t he pr ayer - gi ver . And t hat -

11 J USTI CE GI NSBURG: Mr . Ger shengor n, your -

12 your br i ef i s t he one who br ought up - - and you wer e13 qui t e candi d about i t - - t he hybr i d nat ur e of t hat body. 14 I t hi nk i t ' s on pages 22 t o 24 of your br i ef . And you15 say i t woul d be pr oper t o have cer t ai n checks i n t hat 16 set t i ng. So f or one, make sure t hat t he ent r ance and17 t he exi t i s easy. For anot her , i nf or m t he peopl e i n18 t own of t he t r adi t i on so t hey won' t be conf used. 19 But you r ecogni ze on t he one hand t hat t hi s i sn' t 20 l i ke Congr ess or t he Nebr aska l egi sl at ur e, and t hen you21 say t hese woul d be ni ce t hi ngs t o do. Ar e you sayi ng22 j ust t hat i t woul d be good and proper or ar e you sayi ng23 i t woul d be necessary gi ven t he hybr i d nat ur e of t hi s24 body?25 MR. GERSHENGORN: So, Your Honor , wi t h



26/71

26


1 r espect t o some of t he t hi ngs we i dent i f y whi ch ar e2 si mi l ar t o t he ones t hat J ust i ce Br eyer r ecommended, I 3 t hi nk our vi ew i s t hey' r e mor e aki n t o saf e har bor s, 4 t hat t here ar e undoubt edl y advancement chal l enges t hat 5 coul d be br ought . And t o t he ext ent t hat t he t own can6 poi nt t o t hi ngs such as - - such as publ i c cri t er i a and7 t hi ngs l i ke t hat , t hat i s hel pf ul . 8 Wi t h r espect t o t he - - t he publ i c f or um9 aspect , I don' t t hi nk we have a posi t i on as t o whet her

10 i t i s r equi r ed, but we do t hi nk that t hat makes t hi s11 case t he much easi er case, because of t hat separat i on of12 t he one par t t hat i s t he st r ongest ar gument f or t he13 ot her si de, t hat t her e i s an el ement of coer ci on, t hat 14 your appl i cat i on i s - - i s bei ng r ul ed on, t hat t he15 separat i on t he t own has adopted makes t hat much l ess 16 per suasi ve. 17 We t hi nk t he other el ement s t hat t he18 Respondent s have poi nt ed t o f or coer ci on are ones t hat 19 t r oubl e us because they ar e t hi ngs t hat have anal ogs i n20 our hi st or y. So, f or exampl e, t hey poi nt t o t he21 pr esence of chi l dr en. But , of cour se, on t he Senat e22 f l oor ar e t he Senat e pages, who ar e al l hi gh school 23 j uni or s. And as t he r epl y br i ef poi nt s out , t her e ar e24 of t en chi l dr en i n t he gal l er i es at St at e l egi sl at ur es25 bei ng acknowl edged. And so some of t hose - - t hose



27/71

27


1 el ement s t hat t he Respondent s have poi nt ed t o f or 2 coer ci on we t hi nk ar e not ones t hat t he Cour t shoul d -

3 shoul d adopt . 4 J USTI CE KENNEDY: Of cour se, your - - your 5 t est i s whet her or not - - part of your t est - - i s 6 whet her or not i t advances rel i gi on. I f you ask a7 chapl ai n f or t he St at e assembl y i n Sacrament o, 8 Cal i f or ni a, who' s goi ng t o go t o t he assembl y t o del i ver 9 a pr ayer , ar e you goi ng t o advance your r el i gi on t oday,

10 woul d he say oh, no?11 MR. GERSHENGORN: So, Your Honor , I t hi nk12 i t ' s a much nar r ower t est . What t hi s Cour t sai d i n13 Mar sh was t hat t he l i mi t on l egi sl at i ve pr ayer s i s14 pr osl e - - does i t pr osel yt i ze, advance, or deni gr at e any15 one r el i gi on. We t hi nk wi t h r espect t o t he cont ent of16 t he pr ayer , t hat t he Second Ci r cui t got i t j ust about 17 r i ght , t hat t he quest i on i s does i t pr each conver si on, 18 does i t t hr eat en damnat i on t o nonbel i ever s, does i t 19 bel i t t l e a part i cul ar -

20 J USTI CE KENNEDY: So - - so you - - you use21 t he wor d "advance" onl y as modi f i ed by "pr osel yt i ze"? 22 MR. GERSHENGORN: What Mar sh sai d was 23 "pr osel yt i ze, advance, or deni gr at e. " 24 J USTI CE KENNEDY: Because t hat ' s - - t hat ' s25 not what your - - your br i ef says "does not pr osel yt i ze



28/71


1 or advance. " 2 MR. GERSHENGORN: That - - t hat ' s t he3 l anguage f r om Mar sh, Your Honor , i s t o pr osel yt i ze or -

4 "pr osel yt i ze, advance, or deni gr at e. " 5 J USTI CE KENNEDY: But t hat ' s t hat t he t est 6 you want us t o adopt and -

7 MR. GERSHENGORN: I t i s, Your Honor . 8 J USTI CE KENNEDY: - - I ' m aski ng whet her or 9 not i t i s, i n f act , honest and candi d and f ai r t o ask

10 t he mi ni st er or - - or t he pr i est or t he chapl ai n or t he11 r abbi i f by appear i ng t her e, he or she seeks t o advance12 t hei r r el i gi on?13 MR. GERSHENGORN: So, Your Honor , I don' t 14 t hi nk t hat ' s what Marsh meant by advance. 15 J USTI CE KENNEDY: I f not , I ' m not qui t e sure16 why t hey' r e t her e. 17 MR. GERSHENGORN: You' r e not qui t e sure why18 "advance" i s t her e, or why t he r abbi i s t her e. We don' t 19 t hi nk t hat t he mer e pr esence of t he r abbi - - t hat ' s what 20 Mar sh hel d, t hat Mar sh - - what Mar sh says i s " advance" 21 does not mean havi ng a si ngl e - - a si ngl e chapl ai n - - a22 chapl ai n of a si ngl e denomi nat i on or l ooki ng at t he23 cont ent of t he sect ar i an pr ayer i n l i ght of t hat 24 hi st or y. 25 Thank you, Your Honor .



29/71


1 CHI EF J USTI CE ROBERTS: Thank you, counsel . 2 Mr . Laycock. 3 ORAL ARGUMENT OF DOUGLAS LAYCOCK4 ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS5 MR. LAYCOCK: Mr . Chi ef J ust i ce, and may i t 6 pl ease t he Cour t : 7 Pet i t i oner ' s answer t o J ust i ce Kagan' s8 openi ng quest i on i s ent i r el y f or mal i st i c. Ther e i s no9 separ at i on i n t i me bet ween t he publ i c hear i ng and t he

10 i nvocat i on. Peopl e appear bef or e t hi s t own boar d t o ask11 f or per sonal and speci f i c t hi ngs. Our cl i ent s put shows12 on t he cabl e channel . They were concerned t he cabl e13 channel was about t o be abol i shed or made much l ess 14 usabl e. Peopl e appear t o ask f or a gr oup home, parent s15 of a Down syndr ome chi l d. There ar e many per sonal 16 pet i t i ons pr esent ed at t hi s - - i n t he i mmedi at e wake of17 t he pr ayer . 18 J USTI CE ALI TO: But t hat ' s dur i ng t he publ i c19 - - t hat ' s dur i ng t he publ i c f or um par t . 20 MR. LAYCOCK: That ' s i n t he publ i c f orum. 21 J USTI CE ALI TO: Whi ch i s not r eal l y - - i t ' s22 not t he same t hi ng as t he hear i ng. 23 MR. LAYCOCK: I t ' s not t he same t hi ng as t he24 hear i ng and t hat ' s t he poi nt , Your Honor . 25 J USTI CE ALI TO: Ther e' s anot her - - t her e' s



30/71

30


1 anot her par t of t he pr oceedi ng t hat i s t he hear i ng. 2 MR. LAYCOCK: Yes. 3 J USTI CE ALI TO: And t hat ' s when somebody has4 a speci f i c pr oposal . They want t o - - somet hi ng5 speci f i cal l y bef or e t he boar d and t hey want r el i ef . 6 They want a var i ance. 7 MR. LAYCOCK: The - - t he hear i ng i s a8 par t i cul ar ki nd of pr oposal . 9 J USTI CE ALI TO: And t hat i s separ at ed i n

10 t i me. 11 MR. LAYCOCK: That i s - - t hat i s somewhat 12 separ at ed i n t i me. The f or um i s not . And peopl e make13 qui t e per sonal pr oposal s t her e. They ask f or boar d14 act i on. They of t en get boar d act i on. 15 J USTI CE ALI TO: But t hat i s a l egi sl at i ve16 body at t hat poi nt . I t ' s cl ear l y a l egi sl at i ve body, i s17 i t not ? The onl y - - t he di f f er ence i s i t ' s a t own18 r at her t han - - t han Congr ess or a St at e l egi sl at ur e19 where you have more f ormal i zed pr ocedur es. Thi s i s -

20 t hi s i s more di r ect democr acy. Or i t ' s l i ke a - - i t ' s a21 t own meet i ng. 22 MR. LAYCOCK: I t i s - - i t i s di r ect 23 democracy. When a ci t i zen appear s and says, sol ve t he24 t r af f i c pr obl em at my cor ner , sol ve t hi s nui sance f ami l y25 t hat commi t s a l ot of cr i mes i n my bl ock, t hat ' s not



31/71


1 aski ng f or l egi sl at i on or pol i cymaki ng. That ' s aski ng2 f or admi ni st r at i ve act i on. Thi s boar d has l egi sl at i ve, 3 admi ni st r at i ve, and execut i ve f unct i ons. 4 J USTI CE ALI TO: Wel l , i f t hat i s your 5 argument , t hen you ar e r eal l y sayi ng you can never have6 pr ayer at a t own meet i ng. 7 MR. LAYCOCK: That ' s - - t hat ' s not what 8 we' r e sayi ng. We' r e sayi ng -

9 J USTI CE ALI TO: How coul d you do i t ?10 Because t hat ' s t he ki nd of t hi ng t hat al ways comes up at 11 t own meet i ngs. 12 MR. LAYCOCK: We' r e sayi ng you cannot have13 sectar i an pr ayer . The t own shoul d i nst r uct - - shoul d14 have a pol i cy i n t he f i r st pl ace, whi ch i t doesn' t , 15 i nst r uct t he chapl ai ns keep your pr ayer nonsect ar i an, do16 not addr ess poi nt s of -

17 J USTI CE ALI TO: Al l r i ght . Gi ve me an18 exampl e. Gi ve me an exampl e of a prayer t hat woul d be19 accept abl e t o Chr i st i ans, J ews, Musl i ms, Buddhi st s, 20 Hi ndus. Gi ve me an exampl e of a prayer . Wi ccans, 21 Baha' i . 22 CHI EF J USTI CE ROBERTS: And athei st s. 23 J USTI CE SCALI A: And at hei st s. Thr ow i n24 at hei st s, t oo. 25 ( Laught er . )



32/71


1 MR. LAYCOCK: We - - we t ake Mar sh t o - - t o2 i mpl y t hat at hei st s cannot get f ul l r el i ef i n t hi s3 cont ext , and t he McCr ear y di ssent er s sai d t hat 4 expl i ci t l y. So poi nt s on whi ch bel i ever s ar e known t o5 di sagr ee i s a - - i s a set t hat ' s i n t he Amer i can6 cont ext , t he Amer i can ci vi l r el i gi on, t he7 J udeo- Chr i st i an t r adi t i on -

8 J USTI CE ALI TO: Gi ve me an exampl e t hen. I 9 t hi nk t he poi nt about at hei st s i s a good poi nt . But

10 excl ude t hemf or pr esent pur poses and gi ve me an exampl e11 of a pr ayer t hat i s accept abl e t o al l of t he gr oups t hat 12 I ment i oned. 13 MR. LAYCOCK: About a t hi r d of t he pr ayers14 i n t hi s r ecor d, Your Honor , ar e accept abl e. 15 J USTI CE ALI TO: Gi ve me an exampl e. 16 MR. LAYCOCK: Can I have t he j oi nt appendi x?17 The prayers t o t he al mi ght y, prayers t o t he18 creat or . 19 J USTI CE ALI TO: To " t he al mi ght y. " 20 MR. LAYCOCK: Yes. 21 J USTI CE ALI TO: So i f - - i f a par t i cul ar 22 r el i gi on bel i eves i n mor e t han one god, t hat ' s23 accept abl e to t hem?24 MR. LAYCOCK: Wel l , some r el i gi ons that 25 bel i eve i n mor e t han one god bel i eve t hat al l t hei r many



33/71

33


1 gods ar e mani f est at i ons of t he one god. But t he t r ue2 pol yt hei st s I t hi nk ar e al so excl uded f r om t he McCr ear y3 di ssent . 4 J USTI CE SCALI A: What about devi l 5 wor shi ppers? 6 ( Laught er . ) 7 MR. LAYCOCK: Wel l , i f devi l wor shi pper s8 bel i eve t he devi l i s t he al mi ght y, t hey mi ght be okay. 9 But t hey' r e pr obabl y out -

10 ( Laught er . ) 11 CHI EF J USTI CE ROBERTS: Who i s goi ng t o make12 t hi s det er mi nat i on? I s i t - - i s i t an ex ant e13 det ermi nat i on? You have t o r evi ew t he pr oposed pr ayer?14 MR. LAYCOCK: I ' m j ust f l i ppi ng t hr ough. 15 Ther e ar e a number of exampl es, but i f you l ook at page16 74a of t he j oi nt appendi x, t he pr ayer f r om August 13, 17 2003 - - no I ' m sor r y. That ends "i n Chr i st ' s name. " 18 But t her e ar e - - t he count was about , about 19 t wo- t hi r ds, one- t hi r d. So t her e ar e pl ent y of t hem i n20 here. 21 J USTI CE ALI TO: 74a, "Heavenl y f at her , " 22 t hat ' s accept abl e t o al l r el i gi ons?23 MR. LAYCOCK: "Heavenl y Father" i s ver y24 br oadl y accept abl e. And you know, t he t est cannot be25 unani mi t y, because t hat ' s i mpossi bl e, r i ght ? That ' s why



34/71

34


1 t he at hei st s ar e - - t hat ' s why t he at hei st s ar e2 excl uded. 3 I ' m sor r y, J ust i ce Scal i a; woul d you r epeat 4 your quest i on?5 CHI EF J USTI CE ROBERTS: Wel l , I ' l l r epeat 6 mi ne. I t was: Who was supposed t o make t hese7 det er mi nat i ons? I s ther e supposed t o be an of f i cer of8 t he t own counci l t hat wi l l r evi ew? Do pr ayer s have t o9 be revi ewed f or hi s appr oval i n advance?

10 MR. LAYCOCK: No. Pr i nci pal l y t he cl er gy11 make t hi s det er mi nat i on. Ther e i s a 200- year t r adi t i on12 of t hi s ki nd of ci vi c pr ayer . The cl er gy know how t o do13 i t . I f t he ci t y has a pol i cy, t hen an occasi onal 14 vi ol at i on by one cl er gy i s not t he ci t y' s15 r esponsi bi l i t y. 16 So - - so t hi s i s l ef t pr i nci pal l y t o t he17 cl er gy by si mpl y gi vi ng t hem i nst r uct i ons. They r ecei ve18 no i nst r uct i on of any ki nd about t he pur pose of t hi s19 pr ayer or -

20 CHI EF J USTI CE ROBERTS: So t here i s an21 of f i ci al i n t he t own counci l t hat i s t o i nst r uct cl er gy22 about what ki nd of pr ayer t hey can say?23 MR. LAYCOCK: That ' s r i ght . 37 St at e24 l egi sl at i ve bodi es, t he House of Repr esent at i ves have25 t hese ki nds of gui del i nes. They i ssue t hem t o t he guest



35/71

35


1 cl er gy bef or e they appear . 2 J USTI CE KENNEDY: And i f I ' m - - i f I ' m t hat 3 of f i ci al and I t hi nk a pr ayer was over t he t op f or bei ng4 pr osel yt i zi ng and par t i cul ar l y sectar i an, I woul d say I 5 r at her not - - you not come back next week; I am goi ng t o6 l ook f or somebody el se?7 MR. LAYCOCK: Wel l , you mi ght have a8 conver sat i on wi t h hi m f i r st and -

9 J USTI CE KENNEDY: Wel l , so i n ot her wor ds10 t he gover nment i s now edi t i ng t he cont ent of pr ayer s? 11 MR. LAYCOCK: Edi t i ng t he cont ent of12 gover nment - sponsor ed pr ayers. Of cour se t hese cl ergy13 can pr ay any way they want on t hei r own t i me wi t h thei r 14 own audi ence. But t hi s i s an of f i ci al gover nment event . 15 And i t ' s par t of t he boar d' s meet i ng. I t ' s sponsor ed by16 t he government . And t hey del egate t he t ask t o t hese17 cl er gy and t hey can def i ne the scope of t hat -

18 J USTI CE SCALI A: Your poi nt i s t hat i t 19 coer ces, i t ' s bad because i t coer ces?20 MR. LAYCOCK: I t coer ces t he peopl e who are21 about t o st and up and ask f or t hi ngs f r om t he boar d22 and -

23 J USTI CE SCALI A: I f t her e i s - - i f coer ci on24 i s t he test of t he Fr ee Exer ci se Cl ause, why do we need25 a Fr ee Exer ci se Cl ause? I f t her e' s coer ci on - - I ' m



36/71

36


1 sor r y - - of t he Est abl i shment Cl ause, why do we need t he2 Est abl i shment Cl ause? I f t her e' s coer ci on, I assume i t 3 woul d vi ol at e t he Free Exer ci se Cl ause, woul dn' t i t ?4 MR. LAYCOCK: Wel l , I t hi nk t hat ' s r i ght . 5 And t hat ' s why -

6 J USTI CE SCALI A: So i t seems t o me very7 unl i kel y t hat t he t est f or t he Est abl i shment Cl ause i s8 i dent i cal t o t he t est f or t he Free Exer ci se Cl ause. 9 MR. LAYCOCK: Wel l , i t seems t o me unl i kel y

10 as wel l . Coer ci on i s one t est f or t he Est abl i shment 11 Cl ause, but t her e i s al so br oad agr eement on t he Cour t , 12 and t here has been, t hat sect ar i an endor sement s ar e13 pr ohi bi t ed by t he Est abl i shment Cl ause. 14 CHI EF J USTI CE ROBERTS: What exact l y -

15 si nce you ar e adopt i ng t he coer ci on t est , what exact l y16 i s coer ci ve i n t hi s envi r onment ? Havi ng t o si t and17 l i st en t o t he pr ayer ?18 MR. LAYCOCK: There ar e many coer ci ve19 aspect s her e of var yi ng degr ees of i mpor t ance. Ci t i zens20 ar e asked t o par t i ci pat e, t o j oi n i n t he pr ayer . 21 They' r e of t en asked t o -

22 CHI EF J USTI CE ROBERTS: They ar e asked t o23 par t i ci pat e, and - - but not i n any t angi bl e way. They24 say: Wel l , I ' m not goi ng t o par t i ci pat e, and25 ever ybody' s j ust si t t i ng t her e.



37/71

37


1 MR. LAYCOCK: They are of t en asked t o2 physi cal l y par t i ci pat e, t o st and or t o bow t hei r heads. 3 The t est i mony i s most of t he ci t i zens bow - - most of t he4 ci t i zens bow t hei r heads whet her t hey ar e asked t o or 5 not . So peopl e who ar e not par t i ci pat i ng ar e6 i mmedi at el y vi si bl e. The past or s t ypi cal l y say: 7 "Pl ease j oi n me i n pr ayer . " They of f er t he pr ayer on8 behal f of ever yone t her e. They t al k about "our 9 Chr i st i an f ai t h. "

10 J USTI CE SCALI A: Thi s i s coer ci on? He says, 11 you know - - he says, "May we pr ay, " and somebody doesn' t 12 want t o pr ay, so he st ays seat ed. 13 MR. LAYCOCK: What ' s coer ci ve about i t i s i t 14 i s i mpossi bl e not t o par t i ci pat e wi t hout at t r act i ng15 at t ent i on t o your sel f , and moment s l at er you st and up t o16 ask f or a gr oup home f or your Down syndr ome chi l d or f or 17 cont i nued use of t he publ i c access channel or whatever 18 your pet i t i on i s, havi ng j ust , so f ar as you can t el l , 19 i r r i t at ed t he peopl e t hat you wer e t r yi ng t o per suade. 20 J USTI CE ALI TO: Let me gi ve you an exampl e21 of a pr act i ce t hat ' s a l i t t l e bi t di f f er ent . Maybe22 you' l l say i t ' s a l ot di f f er ent f r om what t he Town of23 Gr eece does. Fi r st of al l , t hi s t own st ar t s out by24 maki ng - - by pr oceedi ng i n a mor e syst emat i c and25 compr ehensi ve way i n r ecr ui t i ng chapl ai ns f or t he mont h



38/71

38


1 or what ever i t i s. So i nst ead of j ust l ooki ng t o al l 2 t he houses of wor shi p wi t hi n t he t own, i t i dent i f i es3 pl aces of worshi p t hat may be out si de the t own4 boundar i es t hat peopl e wi t hi n t he t own who adhere t o a5 mi nor i t y r el i gi on may at t end. 6 And i t makes i t cl ear t hat i t ' s open t o7 chapl ai ns of any r el i gi ous - - of any r el i gi on on a8 r ot at i ng basi s. And t hen t hey have - - t hey st r uct ur e9 t hei r pr oceedi ngs so t hat you have t he pr ayer , and t hen

10 t he l egi sl at i ve par t of t he t own meet i ng. 11 And t hen t her e' s a cl ear separ at i on i n t i me12 and access between that part of t he pr oceedi ng and the13 hear i ng wher e var i ances and t hi ngs of t hat nat ur e ar e14 hel d. 15 Now, you woul d st i l l say t hat ' s16 unconst i t ut i onal because you have t o add on t hat a17 pr ayer t hat i s accept abl e t o ever ybody; i s t hat i t ? I s18 t her e any ot her pr obl em wi t h what I ' ve j ust out l i ned?19 MR. LAYCOCK: Wel l , i f t he separ at i on i n20 t i me real l y wor ks, t hat ' s par t of t he remedy t hat we' ve21 suggest ed t hat i s possi bl e her e. We st i l l bel i eve t hat 22 pr ayer s shoul d be nonsect ar i an. 23 J USTI CE GI NSBURG: On t he r emedy, t hi s case24 was r emanded by t he Second Ci r cui t f or t he part i es25 t oget her wi t h t he cour t t o wor k out appr opr i at e r el i ef .



39/71

39


1 And i f you coul d t el l us what you t hi nk t hat r el i ef2 woul d be, because t hen t hat i s a measure of t he3 const i t ut i onal i nf r act i on. 4 So what woul d - - you put your sel f bef or e the5 di st r i ct j udge and pr opose t he changes t hat you t hi nk6 woul d be necessar y t o br i ng t hi s pr act i ce wi t hi n t he7 const i t ut i onal boundar y. 8 MR. LAYCOCK: Wel l , we t hi nk the t own has t o9 have a pol i cy.

10 CHI EF J USTI CE ROBERTS: Wel l , j ust t o be11 cl ear , ar e you t al ki ng about what woul d be sat i sf act or y12 t o t he Second Ci r cui t or sat i sf act or y t o you? Because13 you don' t accept t he Second Ci r cui t ' s appr oach. 14 MR. LAYCOCK: Wel l , we' ve t r i ed t o sor t out 15 t he t ot al i t y of t he ci r cumst ances t o make i t cl ear er . 16 J USTI CE GI NSBURG: What my quest i on was -

17 MR. LAYCOCK: I ' m t al ki ng about what woul d18 be -

19 J USTI CE GI NSBURG: - - your t heor y, and you20 say exi st i ng si t uat i on vi ol at es t he Const i t ut i on. So21 what changes do you t hi nk woul d need t o be made -

22 MR. LAYCOCK: We t hi nk -

23 J USTI CE GI NSBURG: - - t hat woul d br i ng t hi s24 wi t hi n t he const i t ut i onal boundar y?25 MR. LAYCOCK: We t hi nk t he t own needs a



40/71


1 pol i cy. The pol i cy shoul d gi ve gui del i nes to chapl ai ns2 t hat say: St ay away f r om poi nt s i n whi ch bel i ever s ar e3 known t o di sagr ee. And we t hi nk t he t own shoul d do what 4 i t can t o amel i or at e coer ci on. I t shoul d t el l t he5 cl er gy: Don' t ask peopl e t o physi cal l y par t i ci pat e. 6 That ' s t he most i mpor t ant t hi ng. 7 The gover nment suggest s di scl ai mer s mi ght hel p. 8 We t hi nk t hat ' s r i ght . The gover nment suggest s9 separ at i ng t he pr ayer a bi t mor e i n t i me. Some St at es

10 put t hei r pr ayer bef or e t he cal l t o or der . The pr ayer 11 coul d even be f i ve mi nut es bef or e the begi nni ng of t he12 meet i ng. 13 The coer ci on can' t be ent i r el y el i mi nat ed, 14 but t he gr at ui t ous coer ci on, t he t hi ngs t hat ar e done15 t hat don' t have to be done i n order t o have a pr ayer 16 coul d be el i mi nat ed. And we t hi nk t hose t wo pi eces ar e17 t he components of a r emedy. 18 J USTI CE SCALI A: Mr . Laycock, i t seems t o me19 t hat you' r e mi ssi ng her e i s - - and t hi s i s what 20 di st i ngui shes l egi sl at i ve pr ayer f r om ot her ki nds - - t he21 peopl e who ar e on the t own boar d or t he repr esent at i ves22 who ar e i n Congr ess, t hey' r e ci t i zens. They ar e t her e23 as ci t i zens. The j udges her e ar e not - - we' r e not her e24 as ci t i zens. And as ci t i zens, t hey br i ng, t hey br i ng t o25 t hei r j ob al l of - - al l of t he predi spos i t i ons that



41/71


1 ci t i zens have. 2 And these peopl e perhaps i nvoke the dei t y at 3 meal s. They shoul d not be abl e t o i nvoke i t bef or e t hey4 undert ake a ser i ous gover nment al t ask such as enact i ng5 l aws or or di nances? 6 Ther e i s a ser i ous r el i gi ous i nter est on t he7 ot her si de of t hi s thi ng t hat - - t hat - - t hat peopl e who8 have r el i gi ous bel i ef s ought t o be abl e t o i nvoke t he9 dei t y when t hey ar e act i ng as ci t i zens, and not - - not

10 as j udges or as exper t s i n - - i n t he execut i ve br anch. 11 And i t seems t o me that when t hey do t hat , so l ong as12 al l gr oups ar e al l owed t o be i n, t her e seems t o me - - i t 13 seems t o me an i mposi t i on upon t hem t o - - t o st i f l e t he14 manner i n whi ch t hey - - t hey i nvoke t hei r dei t y. 15 MR. LAYCOCK: We haven' t sai d t hey can' t 16 i nvoke t he dei t y or have a pr ayer , and t hey can17 cer t ai nl y pr ay any way they want si l ent l y or j ust bef or e18 t he meet i ng. We' ve sai d t hey cannot i mpose sect ar i an19 pr ayer on t he ci t i zenr y, and t hat i s ver y di f f er ent f r om20 what Congr ess does, i t i s ver y di f f er ent f r om what t hi s21 Cour t does. Maybe t he cl osest anal ogy i s l egi sl at i ve22 commi t t ee hear i ngs wher e t he ci t i zens i nt er act . We23 don' t have a t r adi t i on of pr ayer t her e. 24 What - - what - - what t he t own boar d i s doi ng25 her e i s ver y di f f er ent f r om anyt hi ng i n t he t r adi t i on



42/71

42


1 t hat t hey appeal t o. 2 J USTI CE BREYER: Ar e you - - I woul d l i ke you3 t o t ake i nt o account an aspect of t hi s. I mean, i n my4 own opi ni on, I don' t know of anyone el se' s, I ' m not 5 t al ki ng f or ot her s. But one - - a maj or pur pose of t he6 r el i gi on cl auses i s t o al l ow peopl e i n t hi s count r y of7 di f f er ent r el i gi on, i ncl udi ng t hose of no r el i gi on, t o8 l i ve har moni ousl y t oget her . 9 Now, gi ven that basi c pur pose, what do we do

10 about t he pr obl em of pr ayer i n t hese ki nds of11 l egi sl at i ve sessi ons? One possi bi l i t y i s say, you j ust 12 can' t do i t , i t ' s secul ar . But t hat i s not our 13 t radi t i on. 14 MR. LAYCOCK: That ' s cor r ect . 15 J USTI CE BREYER: Al l r i ght . The second16 possi bi l i t y i s t he one t hat you ar e advocat i ng. And i t 17 has much t o recommend i t , t r y t o keep18 non- denomi nat i onal , t r y t o keep i t as i nof f ensi ve t o t he19 ot her s as possi bl e. That ' s t he upsi de. 20 The downsi de i s seei ng supervi sed by a j udge21 dozens of gr oups, and t oday, t here ar e 60 or 70 gr oups22 of di f f er ent r el i gi ons comi ng i n and sayi ng, no, t hat 23 doesn' t wor k f or us, t hi s doesn' t wor k f or us, and24 t hat ' s t he ni ght mar e t hat t hey ar e af r ai d of . 25 I mean, even i n t hi s t own or i n t he ar ea,



43/71

43


1 t her e ar e si gni f i cant number s, as wel l as Chr i st i ans, of2 J ews, of Musl i ms, of Baha' i s, of Hi ndus, and ot her s. 3 Al l r i ght . So t her e' s a t hi r d appr oach, and4 t hat i s say, wel l , you can' t have t hem i f t her e' s any5 aspect of coer ci on. But we j ust saw peopl e wal ki ng i nt o6 t hi s r oom, "God save t he Uni t ed St ates" and you want t o7 wi n your case. I di dn' t see peopl e si t t i ng down. 8 Al l r i ght . Then t he f our t h appr oach, whi ch9 i s t he ot her t hat has - - makes i t s appear ance her e, i s

10 t o say l et ' s t r y t o be i ncl usi ve. Now, was enough - - i n11 ot her wor ds, so you di dn' t get t he r i ght pr ayer t oday, 12 but you - - and even wi t h the nonr el i gi ous, you know many13 bel i eve i n t he bet t er angel s of our nat ur e and t he14 spi r i t ual si de of humanki nd; i t ' s not i mpossi bl e t o15 appeal t o t hem. So you say, you' l l have your chance. 16 And t hat ' s t he t hi ng I - - I woul d l i ke you17 t o expl or e. I mean, i s t her e a way of doi ng t hat or i s18 t hat pr ef er abl e to the ot her ways or do we get i nt o19 t r oubl e?20 MR. LAYCOCK: We t hi nk t hat r otat i on does21 not wor k. Fi r st of al l , because - - f or sever al r easons, 22 but most ci t i zens come f or a si ngl e i ssue to one or t wo23 meet i ngs. They get t he pr ayer t hey get t hat ni ght . 24 They don' t benef i t f r om t he r ot at i on scheme. Any25 r ot at i on scheme wi l l be domi nat ed by t he l ocal maj or i t y,



44/71


1 maybe even di spropor t i onat e t o i t s number s. Rel i gi ous2 mi nor i t i es - - unf ami l i ar mi nor i t i es gi ve t he pr ayer . 3 Ther e ar e of t en pol i t i cal prot est s; t her e ar e of t en4 t hr eat s and hat e mai l . They don' t want t o gi ve t he5 pr ayer . And many ci t y counci l s won' t st and up t o t he6 pol i t i cal pr essur e and enabl e t hose peopl e t o gi ve t he7 pr ayer . 8 So ther e ar e mul t i pl e reasons why rot at i on9 does not sol ve t he pr obl em her e.

10 We t hi nk nonsect ar i ani sm has a ver y l ong11 t r adi t i on. The gover nment i s not a competent j udge of12 r el i gi ous t r ut h, Madi son sai d, t hat was not a13 cont r over si al pr oposi t i on i n t he f oundi ng. And even i n14 t he f i r st Congr ess, i n t he pr ayer s t hey poi nt t o, t her e15 wer e no pr ayer s t her e t hat vi ol at e our pr i nci pl e, 16 i nvoki ng det ai l s i n whi ch bel i ever s di sagr ee. Because17 t hen, 98- 1/ 2 per cent of t he popul at i on was Prot est ant , 18 Chr i st was not yet a poi nt t hat di sbel i ever s di sagr eed. 19 J USTI CE ALI TO: Wel l , t hat get s exact l y t o20 t he - - t hat get s exact l y t o t he pr obl em wi t h your 21 ar gument about nonsect ar i an pr ayer . Yes, when - - at t he22 begi nni ng of t he count r y, t he popul at i on was23 98 per cent - pl us Prot est ant . Then i t became24 pr edomi nant l y Chr i st i an. Then i t became pr edomi nant -

25 al most excl usi vel y Chr i st i an and J ewi sh.



45/71


1 And i t - - but now, i t ' s not t hat - - i t ' s -

2 i t ' s gone much f ur t her t han t hat . So we have a ver y3 r el i gi ousl y di ver se count r y. Ther e ar e a l ot of4 Musl i ms, t her e ar e a l ot of Hi ndus, t her e ar e Buddhi st s, 5 t her e ar e Baha' i s, t her e ar e al l sor t s of ot her 6 adher ent s to al l sor t s of ot her r el i gi ons. And t hey al l 7 shoul d be t r eat ed equal l y, and - - but I don' t - - I j ust 8 don' t see how i t i s possi bl e t o compose anythi ng t hat 9 you coul d cal l a pr ayer t hat i s accept abl e t o al l of

10 t hese gr oups. 11 MR. LAYCOCK: We -

12 J USTI CE ALI TO: And you haven' t gi ven me an13 exampl e. 14 MR. LAYCOCK: We - - we cannot t r eat - - I ' m15 not a past or - - we cannot t r eat ever ybody, l i t er al l y16 ever ybody equal l y wi t hout el i mi nat i ng pr ayer al t oget her . 17 We can t r eat t he gr eat maj or i t y of t he peopl e equal l y18 wi t h t he t r adi t i on of pr ayer t o t he al mi ght y, t he19 gover nor of t he uni ver se, t he cr eat or of t he wor l d -

20 J USTI CE SCALI A: You want t o pi ck t he groups21 we' r e goi ng t o excl ude?22 MR. LAYCOCK: I t hi nk you pi cked t hem, Your 23 Honor . 24 J USTI CE SCALI A: The Baha' i , who el se?25 These - - t hese groups ar e t oo smal l t o - -



46/71

46


1 CHI EF J USTI CE ROBERTS: We' ve al r eady2 excl uded t he at hei st s, r i ght ?3 J USTI CE SCALI A: Yeah, t he at hei st s ar e out 4 al r eady. 5 MR. LAYCOCK: We' ve excl uded t he athei st s. 6 I don' t t hi nk t he Baha' i ar e excl uded, but I ' m not 7 cer t ai n. 8 J USTI CE SCALI A: Okay. So who el se? I 9 mean, you suggest - - you say j ust t he vast maj or i t y i s

10 al l t hat we have t o cat er t o. 11 MR. LAYCOCK: Wel l , I - - I t hi nk t he - - t he12 at hei st s ar e i nevi t abl y excl uded. We can' t hel p -

13 J USTI CE SCALI A: Okay. Good. Got t hat . 14 Number 1, at hei st s. Who el se?15 MR. LAYCOCK: Tr ue pol y - - t r ue pol yt hei st s16 who don' t under st and t hei r gods as mani f est at i ons of t he17 one god ar e pr obabl y excl uded. I ' m not sure many ot her s18 ar e. 19 And you have al l t hese l awyer l y20 hypot het i cal s, but t he f act i s we' ve done t hi s ki nd of21 pr ayer i n t hi s count r y f or 200 year s. Ther e' s a l ong22 t r adi t i on of ci vi c pr ayer and t he cl er gy know how t o do23 i t . When i n Gr eece, no one has t ol d t hem t hat ' s what we24 want you t o do. And - - and I woul d say t he one t i me t he25 count r y i n a maj or way got i nvol ved i n



47/71

47


1 gover nment - sponsored, sect ar i an pr ayer s t hat peopl e2 di sagreed about was when we i mposed Protest ant r el i gi ous3 exer ci ses on Cat hol i c chi l dr en i n t he 19t h cent ur y. And4 t hat pr oduced mob vi ol ence, chur ch bur ni ngs, and peopl e5 dead i n t he st r eet s. 6 J USTI CE KAGAN: Mr . -

7 CHI EF J USTI CE ROBERTS: We' ve al r eady8 separ at ed out , I t hought , i n our j ur i spr udence, chi l dr en9 and adul t s.

10 MR. LAYCOCK: Wel l , Lee v. Wei sman t wi ce11 r eserves t he quest i on of whet her adul t s mi ght be subj ect 12 t o si mi l ar pr essur es. 13 CHI EF J USTI CE ROBERTS: Wel l , you do accept 14 t he f act t hat chi l dr en may be subj ect t o subt l e coer ci on15 i n a way that adul t s ar e not , r i ght ?16 MR. LAYCOCK: I n some ways t hat adul t s are17 not . But t her e' s - - t her e' s no doubt t hat bef or e you18 st and up t o ask f or r el i ef f r om a gover ni ng body, you19 don' t want t o of f end t hat body. Adul t s ar e subj ect t o20 coer ci on her e. And - - and no compet ent at t or ney woul d21 t el l hi s cl i ent , i t doesn' t mat t er whet her you vi si bl y22 di ssent f r om t he pr ayer or not . You t r y t o have your 23 cl i ent make a good i mpr essi on. 24 J USTI CE KENNEDY: Wel l , I j ust want t o make25 sur e what your posi t i on - - your posi t i on i s t hat t own



48/71

48


1 counci l s l i ke Gr eece can have pr ayer s i f t hey ar e2 non- pr ovocat i ve, modest , decent , qui et , 3 non- pr osel yt i zi ng. That ' s your posi t i on?4 MR. LAYCOCK: I woul dn' t use al l t hose5 adj ect i ves, but yes. And we don' t t hi nk t hat ' s6 di f f i cul t t o do. 7 J USTI CE KAGAN: Mr . -

8 J USTI CE BREYER: Congress has a set of9 gui del i nes whi ch you' ve r ead and ar e her e i n the paper s

10 and so f or t h. Ar e t hose sat i sf act or y t o you?11 MR. LAYCOCK: We' d l i ke t o be a l i t t l e mor e12 expl i ci t , but t hose ar e vast l y bet t er t han -

13 J USTI CE BREYER: I f t hose are sat i sf act or y14 t o you, t hen I wonder , ar e t hey sat i sf act or y t o15 ever yone. And - - and you wi l l f i nd al l ki nds of16 di f f er ent bel i ef s and t hought s i n t hi s count r y, and17 t her e wi l l be peopl e who say, but I cannot gi ve such a18 prayer i f I am a pr i est i n t hat part i cul ar - - or a19 mi ni st er or what ever i n t hat par t i cul ar r el i gi on. I 20 must r ef er t o the God - - t o God as I know t hat God by21 name. And what do we do wi t h t hem?22 That ' s what - - I mean, we can r ecommend i t , 23 but can we say t hat t he Const i t ut i on of t he Uni t ed24 St at es r equi r es i t ?25 MR. LAYCOCK: You know, t her e ar e such



49/71


1 peopl e and I r espect t hat and t hey shoul d not be gi vi ng2 government pr ayers. They' r e t aki ng on a government 3 f unct i on when t hey agr ee to gi ve t he i nvocat i on f or t he4 t own boar d. 5 J USTI CE KAGAN: Mr . Laycock -

6 J USTI CE SCALI A: Wel l , t hat ' s - - t hat ' s -

7 t hat ' s r eal l y par t of t he i ssue, whet her t hey' r e8 undert aki ng a government f unct i on or whether t hey' r e9 act i ng as ci t i zens i n a l egi sl at i ve body, r epr esent at i ve

10 of t he peopl e who br i ng - - who br i ng t o t hat t hei r -

11 t hei r own per sonal bel i ef s. 12 I t hi nk t he aver age per son who - - who - - who13 par t i ci pat es i n a l egi sl at i ve pr ayer does not t hi nk t hat 14 t hi s i s a gover nment al f unct i on. I t ' s a per sonal 15 f unct i on. And - - and t hat ' s why we separ at e out t he16 l egi sl at i ve pr ayer f r om ot her ki nds of pr ayer s. 17 MR. LAYCOCK: They' r e - - t hey' r e not pr ayi ng18 f or t hei r congr egat i on. They ar e - - t hey ar e i nvi t ed by19 t he boar d, t he pr ayer - gi ver i s sel ect ed by t he boar d, 20 t he boar d deci des t o have t he pr ayer , t he boar d gi ves21 t hi s one person and onl y one person t i me on the agenda22 t o pr ay. Thi s i s cl ear l y gover nment al as you hel d i n23 Sant a Fe -

24 J USTI CE SCALI A: I f you had an at hei st 25 boar d, you woul d not have any pr ayer .



50/71

50


1 MR. LAYCOCK: Preci sel y. 2 J USTI CE SCALI A: I guar ant ee you, because i t 3 i s a per sonal pr ayer t hat t he member s of t he l egi sl at ur e4 desi r e t o make. 5 J USTI CE SOTOMAYOR: Counsel , assumi ng t hat 6 we don' t -

7 J USTI CE KAGAN: Mr . Laycock, woul d you -

8 CHI EF J USTI CE ROBERTS: J ust i ce Sotomayor . 9 J USTI CE SOTOMAYOR: Assumi ng - - you hear t he

10 r esi st ance of some member s of t he Cour t t o si t t i ng as11 ar bi t er s of what ' s sect ar i an and nonsect ar i an, and I 12 j oi n some skept i ci sm as t o knowi ng exact l y wher e t o j oi n13 t hat l i ne. Assumi ng you accept t hat , what woul d be t he14 t est t hat you woul d pr of f er , t aki ng out your pr ef er r ed15 announcement t hat t hi s pr ayer has t o be nonsect ar i an?16 MR. LAYCOCK: Wel l , t he t est t hat we have17 pr of f er ed i s t he t est f r om t he McCr ear y di ssent , poi nt s18 on whi ch bel i evers ar e known t o di sagr ee. So you don' t 19 have t o be a t heol ogi an. Poi nt s on whi ch peopl e ar e20 commonl y known t o di sagree, and t he Four t h Ci r cui t has21 had no di f f i cul t y admi ni st er i ng t hi s r ul e. The cases22 t hat come t o i t ar e cl ear l y sectar i an or cl ear l y23 nonsect ar i an. 24 J USTI CE KENNEDY: I t j ust seems t o me t hat 25 enf or ci ng t hat st andar d and t he st andar d I suggest ed



51/71

51


1 i nvol ves t he St at e ver y heavi l y i n t he censor shi p and -

2 and t he appr oval or di sappr oval of pr ayer s. 3 MR. LAYCOCK: But i t ' s not censor shi p when4 i t ' s t he gover nment al -

5 J USTI CE KENNEDY: That may pl ay ul t i mat el y6 i n your posi t i on i f we say t hat t hat ' s why t her e7 shoul dn' t be any pr ayer at al l . But t hen you have t he8 pr obl em ment i oned by J ust i ce Scal i a t hat we ar e9 mi sr epr esent i ng who we r eal l y are.

10 MR. LAYCOCK: I f you r eal l y bel i eve11 gover nment can' t dr aw l i nes her e, t hen your al t er nat i ves12 ar e ei t her pr ohi bi t t he pr ayer ent i r el y or per mi t 13 absol ut el y anythi ng, i ncl udi ng t he pr ayer at t he end of14 our br i ef , where t hey ask f or a show of hands, how many15 of you bel i eve i n pr ayer? How many of you f eel 16 per sonal l y i n need of pr ayer ? I f t her e ar e no l i mi t s, 17 you can' t dr aw l i nes. 18 J USTI CE SCALI A: That ' s not a prayer . 19 That ' s not a prayer . 20 MR. LAYCOCK: Wel l , i t was how -

21 J USTI CE SCALI A: "How many of you have been22 saved?" That ' s not a pr ayer . 23 MR. LAYCOCK: I t was how he i nt r oduced hi s24 pr ayer , and i f you can' t dr aw l i nes I don' t know why he25 can' t say t hat .



52/71

52


1 J USTI CE KAGAN: Mr . Laycock, sor t of , al l 2 hypot het i cal s asi de, i sn' t t he quest i on most l y her e i n3 most communi t i es whether t he ki nd of l anguage that I 4 began wi t h, whi ch r ef er s r epeat edl y t o J esus Chr i st , 5 whi ch i s l anguage t hat i s accept ed and admi r ed and6 i ncr edi bl y i mpor t ant t o t he maj or i t y member s of a7 communi t y, but i s not accept ed by a mi nor i t y, whether 8 t hat l anguage wi l l be al l owed i n a publ i c t own sessi on9 l i ke t hi s one. That ' s r eal l y t he questi on, i sn' t i t ?

10 MR. LAYCOCK: That ' s t he i ssue t hat act ual l y11 ar i ses i n t he case. 12 J USTI CE KAGAN: That ' s t he i ssue t hat 13 act ual l y ar i ses. Her e' s what - - I don' t t hi nk t hat t hi s14 i s an easy quest i on. I t hi nk i t ' s har d, because of15 t hi s. I t hi nk i t ' s har d because t he Cour t l ays down16 t hese rul es and ever ybody t hi nks t hat t he Cour t i s bei ng17 host i l e t o rel i gi on and peopl e get unhappy and angr y and18 agi t at ed i n var i ous ki nds of ways. Thi s goes back t o19 what J ust i ce Br eyer suggest ed. 20 Par t of what we ar e t r yi ng t o do her e i s t o21 mai nt ai n a mul t i - r el i gi ous soci et y i n a peacef ul and22 harmoni ous way. And every t i me t he Cour t get s i nvol ved23 i n t hi ngs l i ke t hi s, i t seems t o make t he pr obl em wor se24 r at her t han bet t er . What do you t hi nk?25 MR. LAYCOCK: Wel l , I don' t - - I don' t t hi nk



53/71

53


1 t hat ' s t r ue. Ther e ar e peopl e who di st or t your 2 deci si ons. There are peopl e who mi sunderst and your 3 deci si ons honest l y and - - and i nnocent l y. But keepi ng4 gover nment neut r al as between r el i gi ons has not been a5 cont r over si al pr oposi t i on i n t hi s Cour t . And I don' t 6 t hi nk t he Four t h Ci r cui t has made i t wor se. They' ve got 7 a workabl e r ul e and t he pr ayers ar e no l onger 8 excl usi vel y Chr i st i an pr ayer s i n t he Four t h Ci r cui t and9 t hey have been abl e t o most l y enf orce that and t here

10 hasn' t been l i t i gat i on at t he mar gi ns because al l t he11 pr ayer s wer e cl ear l y -

12 J USTI CE BREYER: Suppose you di d t hi s. You13 combi ned your t wo appr oaches. The t own has t o - - i t 14 cannot - - i t must make a good f ai t h ef f or t t o appeal t o15 ot her r el i gi ons who ar e i n t hat ar ea. And t hen you have16 t hese wor ds f r om t he House: "The chapl ai n shoul d keep17 i n mi nd t hat t he House of Repr esent at i ves, or you woul d18 say whatever r el at i ve gr oup, " i s compr i sed of members of19 many di f f er ent f ai t h t r adi t i ons, " per i od, end of mat t er . 20 I s t hat suf f i ci ent , t hose t wo t hi ngs?21 MR. LAYCOCK: That woul d hel p i mmensel y. We22 t hi nk some of t he cl er gy need mor e det ai l ed expl anat i on23 of what t hat means, but yes, t hat woul d hel p i mmensel y. 24 J USTI CE KENNEDY: Shoul d we wr i t e t hat i n a25 concur r i ng opi ni on?



54/71

54


1 ( Laught er . ) 2 J USTI CE KENNEDY: I mean, I ' m ser i ous about 3 t hi s. Thi s i nvol ves gover nment ver y heavi l y i n4 r el i gi on. 5 MR. LAYCOCK: Wel l , government became ver y6 heavi l y i nvol ved i n r el i gi on when we deci ded t her e coul d7 be pr ayer s t o open l egi sl at i ve sessi ons. Mar sh i s t he8 sour ce of gover nment i nvol vement i n r el i gi on. And now9 t he quest i on i s how t o manage the pr obl ems t hat ar i se

10 f rom t hat . 11 J USTI CE ALI TO: Wel l , Mar sh i s not t he12 sour ce of gover nment i nvol vement r el i gi on i n t hi s 13 r espect . The Fi r st Congr ess i s t he sour ce. 14 MR. LAYCOCK: Fai r enough. The t r adi t i on t o15 whi ch Marsh poi nt s. 16 J USTI CE ALI TO: The Fi r st Congress t hat al so17 adopt ed t he Fi r st Amendment . 18 MR. LAYCOCK: That - - t hat ' s cor r ect , and19 t hat had pr ayer s t hat di d not addr ess predest i nat i on or 20 havi ng t o accept J esus as your savi or or any poi nt on21 whi ch l i st ener s di sagr ee. 22 J USTI CE ALI TO: Many of t hem wer e very23 expl i ci t l y Chr i st i an, wer e t hey not ?24 MR. LAYCOCK: They were ver y expl i ci t l y25 Chr i st i an, but t hat was not a poi nt of di sagr eement at



55/71

55


1 t he t i me. They st ayed away f r om any i ssue t hat 2 Pr ot est ant s di sagr eed on. 3 J USTI CE KENNEDY: I n a way i t sounds qui t e4 el i t i st t o say, wel l , now, we can do t hi s i n Washi ngt on5 and Sacr ament o and Aust i n, Texas, but you peopl e up6 t her e i n Gr eece can' t do t hat . 7 MR. LAYCOCK: Wel l , i t ' s not t hat t he peopl e8 i n Gr eece can' t do i t . I t ' s j ust t hat t hi s boar d i s9 f unct i oni ng i n a f undament al l y di f f er ent way f r om what

10 Congr ess or t he St at e l egi sl at ur e f unct i ons. And11 al so -

12 J USTI CE ALI TO: My under st andi ng i s t hat t he13 f i r st chapl ai n of t he Senat e was t he Epi scopal bi shop of14 New Yor k; i sn' t t hat cor r ect ? And he used t o r ead - - he15 t ook hi s pr ayers f r om t he Book of Common Prayer . That 16 was accept abl e t o Bapt i st s at t he t i me, Quaker s? 17 MR. LAYCOCK: Wel l , i t woul dn' t have been18 t hei r choi ce. But di d he t al k about t he choi ce bet ween19 bi shops and pr esbyt ers and congr egat i ons as a way of20 gover ni ng t he chur ch? They have not of f er ed a si ngl e21 exampl e of a pr ayer i n the f oundi ng er a t hat addr essed22 poi nt s on whi ch Protest ant s wer e known t o di sagr ee. And23 I don' t t hi nk t her e i s one. The f oundi ng gener at i on24 kept gover nment out of r el i gi ous di sagr eement s. And25 what has changed i s not t he pr i nci pl e. What has changed



56/71

56


1 i s t hat we have a wi der r ange of r el i gi ous di sagr eement s2 t oday. 3 I f t her e ar e no f ur t her quest i ons, we ask4 you t o af f i r m. 5 CHI EF J USTI CE ROBERTS: Thank you, 6 Mr . Laycock. 7 Mr . Hungar , you have 3 mi nut es r emai ni ng. 8 REBUTTAL ARGUMENT OF THOMAS G. HUNGAR9 ON BEHALF OF THE PETI TI ONER

10 MR. HUNGAR: Thank you, Mr . Chi ef J ust i ce. 11 Fi r st I woul d l i ke t o cor r ect one f actual 12 mi si mpr essi on, t he asser t i on t hat onl y non- Chr i st i an13 pr ayer - gi ver s del i ver ed t he pr ayer af t er 2008. I t ' s not 14 i n t he r ecor d, but t he of f i ci al web si t e of t he Town of15 Gr eece shows t hat at l east f our non- Chr i st i an16 pr ayer - gi ver s del i ver ed pr ayer s t her eaf t er i n 2009, ' 10, 17 ' 11 and ' 13. 18 On t he sectar i an poi nt s, cl ear l y t he l i ne -

19 J USTI CE SOTOMAYOR: Counsel . 20 MR. HUNGAR: I ' m sor r y?21 J USTI CE SOTOMAYOR: One a year . 22 MR. HUNGAR: I ' m sor r y, Your Honor?23 J USTI CE SOTOMAYOR: Four addi t i onal peopl e24 af t er t he sui t was f i l ed. 25 MR. HUNGAR: Yes, Your Honor .



57/71


58/71

58


1 t o deal wi t h t hi s. " 2 Wi t h r espect t o t he hi st or y, as wel l , I 3 t hi nk t he debat e i n t he Cont i nent al Congr ess, when t hi s4 i ssue was f i r st r ai sed, shows what t he Amer i can5 t r adi t i on has been. That i s Amer i cans ar e not bi got s6 and we can st and t o hear a pr ayer del i ver ed i n a7 l egi sl at i ve f orum by someone whose vi ews we do not agr ee8 wi t h. That i s t he t r adi t i on i n t hi s count r y, and t hat ' s9 why i t doesn' t vi ol at e t he Est abl i shment Cl ause.

10 And f i nal l y, wi t h r espect t o t he f act t hat 11 t hi s i s a muni ci pal i t y r at her t han a st at e or l ocal -

12 Federal government . That can' t possi bl y make a13 di f f er ence as an Est abl i shment Cl ause mat t er . I t makes14 no sense t o suggest t hat a pr ayer at t he l ocal l evel i s15 more dangerous f or Est abl i shment Cl ause pur poses t han16 what Congr ess i s doi ng. Onl y Congr ess coul d est abl i sh a17 r el i gi on f or t he ent i r e nat i on, whi ch i s t he cor e18 pr event i ve pur pose of t he Est abl i shment Cl ause. To19 suggest t hat t her e ar e gr eat er r est r i ct i ons on20 muni ci pal i t i es makes no sense at al l . 21 We thi nk t hat t he dangerousl y over br oad22 t heor i es advanced by r espondent s are at odds wi t h our 23 hi st or y and t r adi t i ons, whi ch we r ef l ect t hi s t r adi t i on24 of t ol er ance f or r el i gi ous vi ews t hat we don' t agr ee25 wi t h i n t he l egi sl at i ve cont ext .



59/71

59


1 Respondent ' s t heor i es al so conf l i ct wi t h t he2 r el i gi on cl auses mandat e, t hat i t ' s not t he busi ness of3 gover nment t o be r egul at i ng t he cont ent of pr ayer and4 r egul at i ng t heol ogi cal or t hodoxy. 5 Thank you. 6 CHI EF J USTI CE ROBERTS: Thank you, counsel . 7 The case i s submi t t ed. 8 ( Wher eupon, at 11: 04 a. m. , t he case i n t he9 above- ent i t l ed mat t er was submi t t ed. )

10111213141516171819202122232425



60/71

OOffffiicciiaall -- SSuubbjjeecctt ttoo RReevviieeww60

A 50:21 alliteration appendix 22:18 assertion 56:12

a.m 1:13 3:2 administrative 12:22 32:16 33:16 assume 5:20

59:8 13:11 31:2,3 allow 42:6 applicants 15:17 36:2

aberration 8:10 admired 52:5 allowed 41:12 application 22:3 assuming 50:5,9

8:12 adopt 11:8,16 52:8 26:14 50:13

able 10:20 41:3 27:3 28:6 almighty 32:17 applications atheist 49:2441:8 53:9 adopted 12:9 32:19 33:8 13:13 22:15,16 atheists 31:22

57:25 26:15 54:17 45:18 applies 5:10 31:23,24 32:2

abolished 29:13 adopting 36:15 alternatives apply 4:21 11:21 32:9 34:1,1

above-entitled adult 10:20 51:11 11:22 46:2,3,5,12,14

1:11 59:9 adults 23:25 altogether 45:16 approach 17:14 attempts 6:13

absence 8:6 47:9,11,15,16 ameliorate40:4 19:21 24:8 attend 5:17 38:5

absolutely 51:13 47:19 57:25 amen 4:4 39:13 43:3,8 attention 37:15

absurd 57:23 advance 27:9,14 Amendment 8:2 approaches attorney 47:20

accept 10:7 27:21,23 28:1 12:5,8 54:17 53:13 attracting 37:14

39:13 47:13 28:4,

town of greece v. galloway oral argument

Documents