October Term 2013 · Docket 12-696

Does the First Amendment ban town board prayers?

The dispute centers on whether town board prayers violate the Establishment Clause.

Official caption
Town of Greece v. Galloway
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Argued
Sources analyzed through
Official Transcript

Verified source milestones

  1. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  2. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.

The arguments, in order

This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.

  1. Argument 1 ·

    What happened at the argument

    Mr. Hungar argued the Second Circuit's approach is flawed.

    Mr. Gershengorn argued the lower court required excessive judicial review.

    Mr. Laycock argued the town's answer is entirely formalistic.

    Mr. Hungar cited the Senate brief on prayer history.

    Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details

    Sources used for this argument breakdown

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

The Town of Greece argues its opening prayers are constitutional. Galloway argues the prayers exclude non-Christians and violate the law.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on November 6, 2013.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

The town wants the Court to uphold its prayer practice.

Galloway wants the Court to strike down the prayer practice.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

The town argues legislative prayers have a long historical tradition.

Galloway argues the prayers exclude non-Christians and coerce participation.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Justice Kagan asked if the distinction applies to congressional hearings.

Justice Scalia questioned the town's stance on the marshal's announcement.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

This case defines the limits of government-sponsored religious speech. It determines whether local boards can open meetings with sectarian prayers. The outcome shapes the daily experience of citizens attending public meetings. It clarifies the boundary between state and religion in local governance.

Official sources for this section

What happens next

This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.

Official sources for this section

Official Court provenance

Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.

  2. Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.

Download this sanitized case as JSON