This document discusses the correctness of the ruling of the United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit in Galloway v. Town of Greece, 681 F.3d 20 (2d Cir. 2012) and reversing the district court's decision that a city council's practice of beginning its meetings with an opening prayer violated the Establishment Clause and requires that the decision be correct on the facts of the case. The Establishment Clause is contained in the First Amendment of the Constitution which provides for religious freedom and prohibits Congress from enacting laws to establish any. In other words, there is no way that the State cannot impose the observance of a particular religious practice. The applicants challenged the city council's practice in the district court and the court rejected the application with a summary judgment in favor of the defendant finding that the Establishment Clause was invalid. does not in itself preclude confessional prayers, and that the plaintiffs had failed to demonstrate that the city's prayer practice had the effect of establishing the Christian religion. The district court rejected the plaintiffs' challenge, finding that there was no credible evidence that city employees intentionally excluded representatives of particular faiths with the goal of establishing Christianity and that the Establishment Clause itself did not prohibit confessional prayers. The District Court noted that between the period in question, 1999 to June 2010, of the 120 of the 130 prayers recorded, approximately two-thirds had Christian references and the remaining third also invoked biblical theistic concepts such as "God of all creation," Heavenly Father" and God's "kingdom of heaven" during which the assembled people performed certain acts such as bowing their heads, saying... center of paper ......nton v. Caldor (1985), a Connecticut law allowing a holiday for Sabbath observance was found to be contrary to the Establishment Clause under the Lemon test since its primary effect was to promote Sabbath-keeping Judaism. From the Galloway decision and the other precedents cited above, the litmus test appears to be the effect and not the intent of a particular law or act that determines its validity with respect to the Establishment Clause. It is for this reason that the Circuit Court has held that Establishment Clause cases like Galloway's can be fact-intensive and defy precise legal formulas. Therefore, the general principles identified above must be applied to the particular facts of each case. For the reasons elaborated by the court, the Galloway District Court therefore appears to be in good standing. Works Cited Galloway v. Town of Greece, 681 F.3d 20 (2d Cir. 2012)