April 20, 2011

Mayor Jim Richards

Commissioners Ruth Kussard, Paul Hannan, Tony Holden, and Ty Miller
Town Attorney Derek Schroth
409 Fennell Boulevard
Lady Lake, Florida 32159

Re: Prayer at Lady Lake Town Commission Meetings

Ladies and Gentlemen:

In response to my letter to you dated March 7, 2011, the Lady Lake Town Commission
reconsidered its practice of beginning its meetings with an official public prayer. Your practice
previously had been to invite exclusively Christian clergy to deliver Christian prayers, which
resulted in the perception that Christianity was endorsed by the town as its officially preferred
and promoted religion in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the
U.S. Constitution.

As the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals noted in its decision in Pelphrey v. Cobb
County, Ca., 547 F.3d 1263 (11th Cir. 2008) (upholding the particular legislative prayer practice
at issue in that case), the Constitution requires that a local government, if it chooses to offer an
invocation before its meetings, must invite a variety of speakers to do so to ensure that it not
“advance any particular faith” in violation of the Establishment Clause. The town involved in
the Pelphrey case, for example, had invited Muslim, Jewish and Unitarian Universalist speakers
in addition to Christians. Having opened up the role of beginning meetings with an appropriate
solemnizing speech to private citizens, the Lady Lake Town Commission cannot discriminate
against any citizen who would like to perform the role previously performed solely by Christian
clergy in offering an invocation on the basis of the religious views of such citizen without
violating the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech rights (and Pelphrey).1

1
The Lady Lake Town Commission has, by opening up a time slot at the beginning of its meetings to private
citizens (such as the Christian clergy and Jewish rabbi previously invited) to offer a short speech solemnizing the
opening of the legislative meeting, created a “designated public forum” for private speech. It would be a violation
of the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment for the town to refuse to permit any speaker to offer an
invocation (or appropriately solemn and topical secular speech) because of the particular religious views of that
speaker. This would amount to unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination. See e.g. Rosenberger v. Rector and
Visitors of Univ. of Va., 515 U.S. 819, 828-30 (1995) and Gay Lesbian Bisexual Alliance v. Pryor, 110 F. 3d 1543,
1548 (11th Cir. 1997). Such discrimination would also of course be a violation of the Establishment Clause under

1
 I have been informed that a rabbi was invited to deliver a prayer before the commission’s
meeting on March 21, 2011, marking the first time that a non-Christian undertook this role.

Although it appears that the town may have decided to change course and cease violating
the Pelphrey decision in response to our letter by beginning to diversify your invocation
speakers, we will remain vigilant and continue to monitor your activities to ensure that you do
not revert to promoting Christianity through your invocation practices in violation of the
Constitution.

I note with concern that the agendas for the two regular meetings that followed the March
21, 2011, meeting indicate that it was at each a Christian clergy member who was chosen to offer
the invocation.

Sincerely,

William J. Burgess
Appignani Humanist Legal Center
American Humanist Association

Pelphrey, which rested on permitting a variety of invocation speakers to avoid a finding that a legislative prayer
practice promoted any one religious view.