Each day of official meetings, the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate begin with a public prayer. This tradition goes back to the very beginning of their work. In fact, before that. The Rev. Jacob Duché of Philadelphia offered a prayer at one of the very first meetings of the Continental Congress on Sept. 7, 1774. State legislatures and municipal governments also routinely open with prayer.

Is this continued practice even legal?

Arguments on this point center on the meaning of the First Amendment provision that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” This provision clearly establishes a jurisdictional limit on Congress’ ability to designate a particular entity as the national religion. Over time, religious organizations, politicians, and others have proposed more expansive interpretations under the slogan of a separation of church and state. Thus, in 1971, the U.S. Supreme Court proposed that a law would violate the Establishment Clause if (1) it did not have a secular purpose, (2) had the primary effect of promoting or inhibiting religion, or (3) entangles government and religion. The Court has since abandoned this approach.

Even after Lemon, the Court upheld the practice of prayer in state legislative gatherings. In Marsh v. Chambers, the Court held that the longstanding historic practice of chaplain-led prayer meant it was not unconstitutional for Nebraska to employ the practice.

The most recent U.S. Supreme Court decision on prayer in government meetings, Town of Greece v. Galloway, was issued in 2014. Town residents challenged the town’s practice of beginning town board meetings with prayers, but the Court held that the context of a long history of prayer in these settings gives context to the Establishment Clause. Unless the practice of prayer was coercive or involved proselyting or denigrating of other beliefs it was not unconstitutional. The Court also explained that the government could not be involved in determining the content of the prayers.

Utah’s Supreme Court, too, has upheld the practice of prayer in city council meetings. In a challenge to the Salt Lake City Council tradition of prayer at its meetings, Society of Separationists v. Whitehead, the court held the Utah Constitution did not require hostility toward religion, so a religious observance that does not require one faith to dominate government is constitutional.

Not all courts are unanimous on these points. Two U.S. courts of appeals have come to differing conclusions on whether local legislative bodies can open with prayer delivered by legislators. One determined that the Town of Greece decision clearly allows for such prayers, and another distinguished that decision, relying on the court’s perception that the prayers being challenged were particularly sectarian.

Even where these types of prayers are allowed, there could be additional constitutional concerns with the way the practice is applied. Even one of the narrowest Supreme Court opinions on free exercise protections notes that a government cannot exclude religious practice (like prayer) because it is religious. So, a policy of allowing prayers of only one faith in public meetings would be unconstitutional.

Court decisions establishing these principles are important, but legislatures also need to proactively protect religious freedom. This signals the importance of the right to the people of the state, but it also can reduce the risk of costly and protracted litigation.

At least one state has done this. In 2008, South Carolina enacted a “Public Invocation Act.” The law specifies that prayers offered by members of the public body, chaplains, or religious leaders from the community are allowed in public meetings. The prayers are to avoid proselytization and denigrating other beliefs. Participants cannot be coerced to participate. When invocations are offered by members of the community, selection must be objective so people of different faiths can participate.

Religion appropriately holds an honored place in our nation and in Utah. It has strengthened and continues to strengthen our communities. As representative bodies demonstrate their recognition of the significance of faith, they honor the continued vitality of religious faith to Americans. Even those representatives who do not have a particular religious commitment can recognize the importance of religious exercise to the people of the state and nation and signaling that the government harbors no hostility to that exercise.

Plus, in this current political moment, we can use whatever help we can get, including help from above.