Town of Greece Case--Question Presented

Here is how the Supreme Court described the question presented when it granted cert in the Town of Greece case:



"12-696 GREECE, NY V. GALLOWAY
DECISION BELOW: 681 F.3d 20
CERT. GRANTED 5/20/2013
QUESTION PRESENTED:
In Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783 (1983), this Court upheld the practice of starting
legislative sessions with an invocation, based on an "unambiguous and unbroken history” of
legislative prayer dating back to the First Congress. Id. At 792. The prayers in Marsh were
offered for sixteen years by the same paid Presbyterian minister and frequently contained
explicitly Christian themes. See id. at 785, 793 n.14. Nonetheless, this Court held that such
prayers are "simply a tolerable acknowledgment of beliefs widely held among the people of
this country," and constitutional unless the selection of prayer-givers "stem[s] from an
impermissible motive" or "the prayer opportunity has been exploited to proselytize or
advance any one, or to disparage any other, faith or belief." Id. at 792, 793, 794-95. The Court
declined to apply the test from Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971).

In this case, the court of appeals held that the Town of Greece violated the
Establishment Clause by allowing volunteer private citizens to open town board meetings
with a prayer. Though the Town had never regulated the content of the prayers, had
permitted any citizen from any religious tradition to volunteer to be a prayer-giver, and did
not discriminate in selecting prayer-givers, the court struck down the Town's prayer practice,
applying an "endorsement"test derived from Lemon. See App. 17a.

The question presented is:

Whether the court of appeals erred in holding that a legislative prayer practice violates
the Establishment Clause notwithstanding the absence of discrimination in the selection of
prayer-givers or forbidden exploitation of the prayer opportunity."

  
 How do you interpret the question presented? Which side does it seem to favor?