Chess v. Widmar
Decision Date | 11 December 1979 |
Docket Number | No. 77-0756-W-2.,77-0756-W-2. |
Citation | 480 F. Supp. 907 |
Parties | Florian Frederick CHESS, Dale Rhoton, Ronald Barnes, Glenn P. Garrison, Kathleen Anne Aguirre, Douglas Neef, Vincent Clark and James S. Colmer, Jr., Plaintiffs, v. Gary E. WIDMAR, the Board of Curators of the University of Missouri, Barbara Berkmeyer, Daniel L. Brenner, Robert A. Demptster, William T. Doak, C. R. Johnston and Marian Oldham, Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Missouri |
James M. Smart, Jr., William H. Pickett, Kansas City, Mo., for plaintiffs.
Jackson A. Wright, Marvin E. Wright, James S. Newberry and Ted D. Ayres, Columbia, Mo., for defendants.
This action was filed on October 13, 1977 by eleven students at the University of Missouri-Kansas City (hereinafter university). The eleven students are part of a religious group called Cornerstone, which is an officially recognized student group at the university. The students' complaint alleges that university officials have refused to allow the students involved in Cornerstone to conduct their regular religious services in university-owned buildings. The students contend that the university's refusal to permit their group to use university facilities violates their rights guaranteed by the first and fourteenth amendments to the United States Constitution. On July 18, 1978, the students filed an amended complaint in which they request both a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief.
The parties have filed cross-motions for summary judgment and have stipulated that the following facts are not in dispute.
1. Cornerstone is an officially recognized student organization at the campus of the University of Missouri—Kansas City (UMKC). UMKC is a part of the University of Missouri system which is governed by the Board of Curators of the University of Missouri, which is an official body established by the state constitution of Missouri for the government of the University and its affairs.
2. The individuals named as plaintiffs were enrolled as students at UMKC at the time this action was commenced and were involved in Cornerstone. Plaintiffs Garrison, Aguirre, Colmer and Cyman are not presently enrolled as students at UMKC. The balance of the named plaintiffs are still presently enrolled at UMKC, and still participate in Cornerstone activities.
3. Under past and current policy of the University of Missouri, one of the benefits afforded recognized student organizations is the privilege of using the student center and certain other facilities of the University as a place in which to meet, subject to certain limitations as to time, place and conduct of the proposed meeting.
4. Each student enrolling at the University of Missouri-Kansas City pays a "Center Activities—Athletic Fee." This fee is $35.00 for all those enrolling for at least ten credit hours of instruction, and is something less for those taking fewer hours of instruction. The proceeds from the "Center Activities —Athletic Fee" go, in part, to fund the operation of the student center (referred to at many schools as a student union).
5. The following regulations are presently in effect at UMKC and throughout all campuses of the University and have been in effect since sometime in 1972:
6. In early January, 1977, pursuant to established University procedures, Cornerstone applied for the privilege of using the University facilities, on a regular basis, for holding Cornerstone meetings.
7. Said application of Cornerstone was rejected on or about February 4, 1977, because the University, after asking for clarification as to the activities to be conducted at the proposed meetings, concluded that the conduct of the proposed meetings would be in violation of regulations 4.0314.0107 and 4.0314.0108. In reaching such conclusions, the University relied primarily on the letter of one of plaintiffs' attorneys, which was written on behalf of Cornerstone to Mr. Gary E. Widmar, Dean of Students, UMKC. The letter states:
Very truly yours James M. Smart, Jr.
8. As a result of said rejection of the application of Cornerstone to use University facilities, Cornerstone has not been permitted to use the University facilities as a place in which to hold meetings of the type described in their application since the date of the rejection of said application. In addition, Cornerstone has not been permitted to hold small group Bible studies on the University lawn or in other University facilities.
9. Although various religious groups, including Cornerstone, have been permitted to meet in the facilities of the University in the past, neither the Chancellor nor the Dean of Students of the University of Missouri —Kansas City have ever authorized a student organization to utilize a University facility for a meeting where they had full knowledge that the purposes of the meeting include religious worship or religious teaching.
10. The University has only one physical facility designated as a chapel and it is located on the Columbia campus of the University and was built and paid for totally by private donations and funds.
11. If Florian Frederick Chess were summoned to testify of his personal knowledge as to matters pertinent to the issues of this case, his testimony would be the same as the content of his affidavit dated September 29, 1977, and filed with the Motion for Preliminary Injunction in this case. In that affidavit, Mr. Chess states:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Widmar v. Vincent
...of the United States. Upon cross-motions for summary judgment, the District Court upheld the challenged regulation. Chess v. Widmar, 480 F.Supp. 907 (1979). It found the regulation not only justified, but required, by the Establishment Clause of the Federal Constitution. Id., at 916. Under ......
-
Chess v. Widmar
...religious activities in university-owned buildings is required by the establishment clause of the first amendment." Chess v. Widmar, 480 F.Supp. 907, 914 (W.D. Mo. 1979). Using the familiar establishment clause analysis, 3 the district court determined that a neutral policy accommodating al......
-
Brandon v. BOARD OF ED. OF GUILDERLAND
...the right to the free exercise of religion found in Sherbert and Yoder is present herein as a result of defendants' actions. Accord Chess v. Widman, supra. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals in Stein v. Oshinsky, 348 F.2d 999 (2d Cir. 1965), cert. denied, 382 U.S. 957, 86 S.Ct. 435, 15 L.E......
-
Alabama Student Party v. Student Government Ass'n of the University of Alabama
...of religion, and freedom of speech. The district court upheld the restriction, granted UMKC summary judgment, see Chess v. Widmar, 480 F.Supp. 907 (W.D.Mo.1979), and the students appealed. The court of appeals held that the restriction violated the free exercise and free speech clauses of t......
-
A Closer Look at Good News v. Milford: What Are the Implications? (stay Tuned)
...99-2036) (2001) [hereinafter Brief for Theologians]. 55. See, e.g., Widmar v. Vincent, 454 U.S. 263, 281 (1981) (citing Chess v. Widmar, 480 F. Supp. 907, 910 (1979)) (White, J., 56. Brief for Theologians, supra note 54, at 8. 57. Id. at 13-26. 58. Id. at 9. 59. Good News Club, 533 U.S. at ......