Judge Wayne Mack is a justice of the peace and the county coroner in Montgomery County, Texas. In his role as the justice of the peace, Mack is an elected official who presides over low-profile, small civil disputes and misdemeanors in court. Judge Mack created a program to open court sessions with prayers from volunteer chaplains. The volunteer chaplains' religions have included representation from Protestantism, Catholicism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism, and Islam.
The organization, Freedom from Religion Foundation (FFRF), filed a complaint against Judge Mack in 2014 citing his volunteer chaplain program as a breach in the Establishment Clause. The case is making it up the chain of appeals and is currently hearing oral arguments in the US 5th Circuit Court. The prior Texas federal district court ruled it was a violation of the Establishment Clause based on the argument of coercion in a government building. The court concluded, "The structure of the ceremony, combined with the defendant's attendant statements about the ceremony's purpose, is designed to give attendees 'a sense of being in the presence of something...holy and sacred'...Such a magnanimous goal flies in the face of historical tradition, and makes a mockery of both, religion and law."
The question that will be asked to the appellate court is simple: Does Judge's Mack program of voluntary chaplains presenting a prayer/statement in the courtroom violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment?
In the case of Mack, the chaplains are unpaid and are therefore not financially entangled with the state's financial benefits. Since they are voluntary it denies the notion of entanglement between the government and religion since there is no direct funds aiding religious speech. Coercion is also carefully avoided since the signs, TV screen, bailiffs' actions and words create an environment which gives and reminds court-goers of their option to step out. Since there are three separate opportunities for those in the court to understand the opportunity to not hear and participate in the chaplains' message and the pledge of allegiance, the already fragile argument of coercion cannot be applied. It is also important to note that this case is in the setting of a court and not a school like in Engel v. Vitale. Therefore it should be noted that the audience would most likely be made up of adults who would not have the pressure of coercion to the same effect of children. Lastly in comparison to past cases, diversity of religion is an important factor in comparison to the Town of Greece case. Since many different religious ministers spoke to the courtroom, it voids the argument of unconstitutional preference of religion. Although not a point that I necessarily agree with but is valuable to the court is the historical background of prayers in the courtroom. The Marsh majority writes, the "practice of legislative prayer has coexisted with the principles of disestablishment and religious freedom...it is simply a tolerable acknowledgment of beliefs widely held among the people of this country." Therefore the weight of historical precedent and recent judicial precedent supports the notion that there wasn't a violation of the Establishment Clause. I personally disagreed with the majority opinions of Marsh and Town of Greece, but I believe the key difference and the purposeful actions to avoid breaking the Establishment Clause prove that Judge Mack's volunteer ministry program is constitutional.
Works Cited
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2021/jul/12/texas-justice-peace-can-open-sessions-chaplains-pr/
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca5/21-20279/21-20279-2021-07-09.html
http://religionclause.blogspot.com/2022/04/5th-circuit-hears-oral-arguments-in.html
Great analysis, I Agree with you in that this case is not a break/violation of the Establishment Clause. first, because there is no money exchanging hands between the government and any religion, which would constitute excessive entanglement. Further, the court is being natural and fair among religions, showing no preference for any one over another. Also, the ceremonies are entirely voluntary and optional, priests/clergymen are volunteers who are not being forced, mandated, or even asked to come. It practically opens up a limited public forum, allowing them to exercise their First Amendment right to freedom of speech through a ceremony.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your analysis. The volunteer chaplain program created by Mack is not a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The argument regarding coercion holds no validity for two reasons. First, the chaplains performing the prayer were all voluntary. Second, the chaplains were inclusive to multiple religions. Based on the facts of this case, the chaplains represented Protestantism, Catholicism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism, and Islam. Mack also made his best effort to advertise the opening prayer as completely optional. No one was required to participate, nor were they required to be present at all. As Sophia states, this case differs from Marsh v. Chambers because the chaplains were not paid with public funds. Instead, they were unpaid volunteers. Overall, this case appears to be the most obvious in my opinion. There was no coercion because there were ample options to leave the room before the prayers began and the chaplains represented various religious viewpoints. There was also no excessive entanglement between church and state because the chaplains were unpaid volunteers.
ReplyDeleteYour analysis and citation of previous cases is extremely strong. I also agree that this practice is Constitutional. He makes it very clear that participating is optional, and that the events will not occur until individuals who decide to step out are notified. Additionally, it is important that the volunteer chaplains are not being paid. This helps minimize entanglement with the government, ensuring that religion is allowed but not promoted. Similarly, the inclusion of a variety of religions is not necessarily required, but definitely helps with the neutrality of the practice. Overall, I think the practice can continue under the law.
ReplyDeleteI found your analysis to be very insightful. The Marsh v. Chambers precedent is crucial here, as it makes clear the distinction that differentiates these two cases. The lack of public funds being utilized for the chaplain is significant, as it makes the Entanglement issue minimal. Further, as brought up in Marsh, the age of the audience is important. It lends to the lack of coercion, as the audience is also allowed to leave during the prayer. I agree that this is constitutional, however I do struggle with the fact that the primary purpose of the prayer is religious.
ReplyDeleteI agree with this post in every aspect. This is not a violation of the clause due to the fact it was made very clear that the opening ceremonies are optional and that the chaplain is not being paid with state dollars. Comparing this case to the Marsh v Chambers case is the perfect comparison, and I admire how you managed to contrast them. I disagree with Emily's comment because her point reminds me of the Lee v Weisman case. Just because the religions rotate does not make it Constitutional or religiously neutral. Rotating through religious can still coerce others to participate in other religious practices and forces those who are not religious to participate with religion. The Constitutional aspects of this case is that fact that there are no state funds and that it is optional.
ReplyDeleteyou have provided a very good summary and analysis here. I think that you and the previous commenters are likely to correct that the court would not find this to be an unconstitutional establishment. I do want to push back against this, however. Granted that if there is an establishment, it is certainly a minor one. The judge has taken many steps to make the ceremony inclusive and voluntary. My only question is, why have it at all. In my mind, there is definitely a chance it could be perceived as an establishment and serves no purpose related to procedures of the court so why risk it. right, a speech about the importance of the legal system in the US that is recited before preceding in order to establish the solemnity of the space. The only conceivable secular purpose could easily be accomplished with other words and poses no risk of an establishment. I think there is a legitimate interest in keeping religion out of a courtroom altogether regardless of the precautions one takes to make it inclusive.
ReplyDeleteI do not think that Mack violated the Establishment Clause because Mack clearly stated that the prayer was not mandatory and people may leave. I understand here that this is a court room, and a place ruled by the government. With that understanding, this case may not be so cut and dry. Although the prayers were universal, and not mandatory, I can see why it may be an issue of the state establishing religion as a whole. I agree with your analysis in stating previous cases where the same issue arose and how it was previously covered.
ReplyDelete