In Marsh v. Chambers, the Supreme Court held that legislative prayer was not unconstitutional per se, due mostly to the fact that prayer during legislative sessions was commonplace when the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution was adopted and ratified. However, the Marsh Court realized that not all forms of legislative prayer were constitutional and held that such prayers violated the Establishment Clause if they advanced, disparaged, or proselytized a particular religion. Although the prayers at issue in Marsh did not contain sectarian references—references to tenets of a particular religion—the Court did not rely solely on that fact in upholding the prayer policy at issue.

Recent decisions from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit have misapplied Marsh’s holding in determining that any legislative prayer containing sectarian references is a violation of the Establishment Clause because it advances a particular religion. Specifically, in Joyner v. Forsyth County, North Carolina, the Fourth Circuit held that a legislative prayer policy was unconstitutional solely because most of the prayers given contained brief references to Jesus Christ, despite the fact that the policy contained several procedural safeguards to ensure that no one could exploit it for an improper purpose. This Note argues that courts should conduct a holistic examination of legislative prayer policies, taking into account the identities of the prayer-givers, the method by which they are chosen, the purpose of the policy, and the content of the prayers, when determining whether those policies violate the Constitution. This holistic examination will enable courts to better determine when prayer policies violate the test established in Marsh, and its adoption will ensure that courts set proper boundaries on the right to begin legislative sessions with prayer