463 U.S. 783 (1983)
The State of Nebraska maintains a practice of opening each session of its unicameral legislature with a prayer offered by a chaplain selected and compensated by the state.1 Since 1965, the chaplain has been Robert E. Palmer, a Presbyterian minister, who receives a salary of $319.75 per month during legislative sessions.2 The prayers are recorded in the Legislative Journal and have been collected into prayerbooks published at public expense on several occasions.3
Ernest Chambers is a member of the Nebraska Legislature and a taxpayer of Nebraska. Claiming that the Nebraska Legislature's chaplaincy practice violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, he brought this action under 42. U. S. C. § 1983, seeking to enjoin enforcement of the practice.4 Respondent named as defendants State Treasurer Frank Marsh, Chaplain Palmer, and the members of the Executive Board of the Legislative Council in their official capacity.5
The District Court denied a motion to dismiss based on legislative immunity and held that while the prayers themselves did not breach the Establishment Clause, the use of public funds to pay the chaplain did violate it.6 The court enjoined payment of the chaplain from public funds but declined to enjoin the prayers themselves.7 Cross-appeals followed.8
The Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit rejected Tenth Amendment, legislative immunity, standing, and federalism arguments.9 On the merits, the court applied the Lemon test and concluded that the entire chaplaincy practice violated the Establishment Clause, modifying the injunction to prohibit all aspects of the practice.10 The Supreme Court granted certiorari limited to the question of whether the practice of opening sessions with prayers by a state-employed clergyman violates the Establishment Clause.11
Whether the Nebraska Legislature's practice of opening each legislative day with a prayer by a chaplain paid by the State violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment?12
The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment does not prohibit the practice of legislative prayer.13 That practice has become part of the fabric of our society.14 The Framers did not consider it a violation of the Clause.15 This is demonstrated by the actions of the First Congress in providing for paid chaplains in the same week it approved the Bill of Rights.16
No. Nebraska's practice of opening legislative sessions with prayer by a paid chaplain follows the tradition approved by the First Congress.17 The selection of Reverend Palmer since 1965 and his compensation from public funds align with historical practice that the Framers viewed as consistent with the Establishment Clause.18 The prayers are brief and delivered in the Judeo-Christian tradition without evidence that the opportunity has been exploited to proselytize or disparage any faith.19 These facts confirm that the practice presents no real threat of establishment.20
The Nebraska Legislature's chaplaincy practice does not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.21
Related opinions on this issue
Joined by Justice Marshall
Justice Brennan dissented, arguing that the majority improperly carved out an exception to Establishment Clause doctrine based on history rather than applying the Lemon test, under which legislative prayer has a preeminently religious purpose, advances religion by linking it to state power, and causes excessive entanglement through selection and supervision of chaplains.22 He contended that history cannot validate a practice that violates principles of neutrality and separation, and that the First Congress's actions are not dispositive given later understandings and the need to adapt the Constitution to contemporary society.23
Justice Stevens filed a separate dissent to emphasize that the Nebraska practice violates the Establishment Clause by preferring one religious faith over others.24 In a democratically elected legislature, the chaplain's beliefs reflect the faith of the majority of the lawmakers' constituents.25
Stevens noted that the content of some prayers is clearly sectarian and that the long tenure conditions the chaplain's continuation on the acceptability of that content to the majority.26 Unlike the majority's reliance on history, Stevens stressed the Clause's requirement of government neutrality among religions and between religion and nonreligion.27 He would have affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals.28