Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Lund v. Rowan County

United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawEstablishment ClauseLegislative PrayerCoercionFirst AmendmentEstablishment Clauselegislative prayercoercion

Facts

Rowan County's Board of Commissioners regularly opened meetings with an invocation delivered by a commissioner, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance, and the chair typically asked everyone present to stand. From November 5, 2007 until suit was filed, 139 of 143 meetings opened with a commissioner-delivered sectarian Christian prayer, and no invocation referenced a deity specific to any faith other than Christianity. Plaintiffs, who were not Christian and had attended multiple meetings, stated that they felt excluded and coerced to stand and participate so as not to stand out or diminish their effectiveness as advocates before the Board. The Board had no written prayer policy, used only commissioners as prayer-givers on a rotating basis, and claimed the invocations were for solemnizing meetings and for the Board's benefit.

Issue

Whether Rowan County's practice of having commissioners themselves exclusively deliver opening prayers at board meetings, while directing the public to stand and join, is protected legislative prayer under Town of Greece and Marsh or instead violates the Establishment Clause as an unconstitutionally coercive religious exercise. The court also considered whether legislative immunity shielded the County from suit.

Rule

A municipality is not protected by legislative immunity for the acts of its legislative body. A legislative prayer practice falls within the tradition recognized in Marsh and Town of Greece only when it fits that historical tradition and remains nondiscriminatory rather than being exploited to advance, proselytize, disparage, or denigrate a faith; when lawmakers themselves are the exclusive prayer-givers and direct the public to participate, the practice may fall outside that tradition and constitute unconstitutional coercion under the Establishment Clause.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Cedar Rapids, Iowa, the county board opens each meeting with a prayer. The five supervisors rotate as the only prayer-givers, and each offers prayers from his or her own faith tradition; no outside clergy or residents are ever invited, though the board says the practice is meant to solemnize proceedings.

A resident challenges the practice under the Establishment Clause. Under the court's reasoning, which is the strongest argument against the board?

Explanation. The court stressed that the practice approved in the relevant tradition involved chaplains, clergy, or volunteers distinct from the legislative body, not legislators acting as exclusive prayer-givers. It rejected any rule requiring prayers to be nonsectarian, but held that exclusive lawmaker-led prayer may fall outside the protected tradition, especially because the government itself is effectively delivering and controlling the prayers. (Derived from Lund v. Rowan County (n.d.).)