Investigated
What was the Boston ruling about invocations?
Short answer
Image: boston.com
The First Circuit upheld Boston’s victory after the Satanic Temple challenged its exclusion from City Council invocations. The court held that TST had not shown the practice violated either the federal Establishment Clause or the Massachusetts Free Exercise Clause. The ruling accepted that councilors generally chose speakers through personal and community connections, without evidence that religious bias drove the selections.
The views on this question
Two lenses on the same evidence. Source weight and the primary source ratio show what each rests on.
Alternative
Source weight 45%Lens adapted to this topic: TST’s discrimination challenge
TST argued that Boston’s practice effectively opened a government-sponsored invocation forum to selected faith representatives while denying access to its organization. It said the pattern of inviting mostly Christian clergy, while refusing its request, showed that council members approved some faiths but not others. The court rejected that inference because TST did not establish intentional religious discrimination on the evidence presented.
- TST argued that inviting representatives of other faiths while denying its request amounted to religious discrimination.
- TST claimed Boston’s process allowed council members to decide which faiths were acceptable speakers.
- The group also challenged the district court’s protective order preventing the deposition of Michelle Wu.
- The appellate court concluded that TST had not produced sufficient evidence of intentional discrimination, despite the disparate outcome.