Goulart v. Meadows

Decision Date26 September 2003
Docket NumberNo. 02-1962.,02-1962.
Citation345 F.3d 239
PartiesLydia Goulart; Kyle Travers, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Paul D. Meadows, in his official capacity as Division Chief of the Calvert County Parks and Recreation Department; Board of County Commissioners of Calvert County, Defendants-Appellees.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit

Michael Paul Farris, Home School Legal Defense Association, Purcellville, Virginia, for Appellants. Daniel Karp, Allen, Karpinski, Bryant & Karp, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

BRIEF:

James R. Mason, III, Home School Legal Defense Association, Purcellville, Virginia; Jordan W. Lorance, Alliance Defense Fund Law Center, Scottsdale, Arizona, for Appellants. Victoria Shearer, Allen, Karpinski, Bryant & Karp, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and Joseph R. GOODWIN, United States District Judge for the Southern District of West Virginia, sitting by designation.

Affirmed by published opinion. Judge GOODWIN wrote the opinion, in which Judge DIANA GRIBBON MOTZ joined. Judge NIEMEYER wrote an opinion concurring in part, dissenting in part, and concurring in the judgment.

OPINION

GOODWIN, District Judge.

The Board of County Commissioners of Calvert County, Maryland (Calvert County or the Board) has a policy in place prohibiting the use of its community centers for private educational instruction intended to meet state educational requirements. Pursuant to that policy, the Board denied the applications of two homeschooling mothers, Lydia Goulart and Kyle Travers, to use space at the Calvert County Northeast Community Center in Chesapeake Beach, Maryland, for meetings of a geography club and a fiber arts club. Goulart and Travers brought suit against Calvert County, alleging that the denial of their applications violated their free speech rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments and also violated their right to equal protection of the law under the Fourteenth Amendment. The district court granted summary judgment to Calvert County, holding that the plaintiffs' proposed use of the community centers was not a form of expressive activity protected by the First Amendment. We disagree, and hold that the plaintiffs' proposed use is afforded First Amendment protection. We also conclude, however, that the Board's exclusion of the plaintiffs from the community centers, which we classify as limited public fora, is viewpoint-neutral and reasonable in light of the purpose of the centers. It is reasonable for the Board to limit use of the community centers to recreational and community enrichment activities, and formal private education is not a use that is consistent with those purposes. We conclude that Calvert County's exclusion of the plaintiffs' proposed uses does not violate the plaintiffs' right to free speech or to equal protection under the First or Fourteenth Amendments. We affirm the order of the district court granting summary judgment to Calvert County, although under different reasoning.

I.

Calvert County operates four community centers directly supervised by the Division of Parks and Recreation.1 Upon application and approval, Calvert County residents may use the centers for various purposes set forth in a written Community Center Use Policy (Use Policy). The Use Policy generally states that Calvert County has "provided each district with community centers to afford its citizens a place to participate in activities which benefit the community as a whole." The Use Policy states that the purpose of the community centers is to provide a place for: (1) Park and Recreation programs; (2) meetings of community organizations; (3) large community events; (4) teen gatherings; and (5) fitness activities. The Use Policy states that the community centers are available for: (a) recreational uses (birthday parties, baby showers, receptions); (b) meetings of community organizations; and (c) non-profit fundraising events. The Use Policy prohibits: (a) business or for-profit activities; (b) any activity that is illegal, may incite riot or disturbance, or is in violation of the County's rules and regulations; and (c) possession and consumption of alcoholic beverages.2

The Use Policy requires written applications for use to be submitted through the Recreation Coordinator. The Recreation Coordinator has "the right to refuse or revoke any application not in accordance with the provisions [of the Use Policy]." Meeting space is allocated on an annual basis and groups are limited to one meeting per week for a maximum of two hours. The Use Policy has been modified over time to prohibit private parties, dances, and weddings in the gymnasiums, which are reserved for athletic purposes, and to establish "Policies to Facilitate Exclusion of Non-County Residents."

Calvert County offers a myriad of courses at the community centers on a wide variety of topics sponsored by the Parks and Recreation Department, including: (1) sewing, crochet, knitting, and basket-making (2) porcelain doll making; (3) sign language for the deaf; (4) drawing, scratch board art, and oil painting; (5) math tutoring; (6) guitar; and (7) cooking. Calvert County also has permitted private individuals to teach courses and offer instruction in the community centers. These activities include: (1) classes teaching English to non-English speaking people; (2) courses in magnets and ceramic technology; (3) a workshop on music teaching techniques sponsored by the Music Teachers Association of Southern Maryland; (4) skin care and nail care classes; (5) baton twirling classes; (6) a church-sponsored marriage and parenting enrichment seminar; (7) violin lessons; (8) lessons on reading by the Literacy Council; (9) theater and drama instruction for youth ages 9-16; (10) CPR and first aid training; (11) Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, Cub Scouts, and Brownies meetings; and (12) Boys and Girls Club activities.

Calvert County's policy prohibiting private educational activities intended to meet state educational requirements first began in late 1994 as a result of an application for use of the Mt. Hope Community Center by a for profit private school called Benjamin Franklin Academy (BFA). Specifically, BFA requested the use of a room with a chalk board, chairs and desks for at least twenty people, and separate gender bathroom facilities, for four hours per day, three days per week. The arrangement was to be temporary until the group could obtain its own facility for school instruction.

On September 9, 1994, Paul Meadows, the Division Chief of the Parks and Recreation Department, sent an memorandum to the Board regarding BFA's application to use the Mt. Hope Community Center. In that correspondence, Meadows recommended that the proposed use be denied on the basis that the purpose of the center was "to provide recreational opportunities to the community not to function as a school." Meadows expressed concern that permitting the proposed use would lead to potential conflicts between "noisy recreation activities and the need for quiet in a school setting." He also cautioned that the arrangement could turn out to be a permanent one and that the school's enrollment might grow and "restrict[] community and recreational use." Finally, Meadows noted that allowing a private school to operate in the community center would "send[] the wrong message to the [County] Board of Education." At its September 1994 meeting, the Board formally denied the school's application for use of the center, reasoning that "[t]he function of the facility is to provide recreational activities to the community."

Following the Board's refusal to permit BFA to use the community centers for private educational instruction, individual homeschooling parents began to apply for use of the community centers for instructional classes for homeschooled children. After consulting with the County Administrator, Richard Holler, Meadows began interpreting the Board's decision regarding the BFA application as precedent for rejecting any application which sought to use the space for private educational activities for state educational credit. The first formal articulation of the ban on private educational activities was in an interoffice memorandum dated October 24, 1995, from Meadows to the Recreation Coordinators at each center. The memorandum, titled "Policy — Home Tutoring," stated that "home schooling groups are not permitted to use the community centers," and clarified that the exclusion applied to all "non-Board of Education affiliated/sponsored schools."

On two occasions after October 1995, homeschooling instructional classes used to fulfill state educational requirements accidentally were permitted in the community centers. Groups were approved to use the facilities at Northeast Community Center and Southern Community Center.3 When Meadows became aware of these approvals, he advised the Recreation Coordinators that the uses were impermissible and directed them to terminate the use at the end of the approval cycle.

Homeschool groups and private schools are permitted to use Calvert County's community centers for any purpose unrelated to fulfilling state educational requirements. For example, Calvert County has permitted the following uses of the community centers: (1) a formal Christmas dinner for homeschoolers; (2) membership meetings once a month for parents of homeschoolers; (3) a Valentine's Day party for homeschooled students; (4) a planning meeting of the Christian Home Educators Network; and (5) fundraising events for private schools. The record shows that private, independent, and homeschooled children are permitted to participate in the activities offered at the Calvert County community centers. Moreover, private school, independent school, and homeschooled children have claimed school credit for their participation in these activities. That is to say, the Board does...

To continue reading

Request your trial
61 cases
  • White Coat Waste Project v. Greater Richmond Transit Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia
    • 30 May 2020
    ...the public, and a municipal auditorium and city-leased theater designed for and dedicated to expressive activities." Goulart v. Meadows , 345 F.3d 239, 249 (4th Cir. 2003) (citations omitted). In a designated public forum, regulations on speech are subject to two different levels of scrutin......
  • Wood v. Arnold
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Maryland
    • 26 March 2018
    ...raised, and assess whether the justifications for exclusion from the relevant forum satisfy the requisite standard. Goulart v. Meadows , 345 F.3d 239, 246 (4th Cir. 2003) (citing Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Def. & Educ. Fund, Inc. , 473 U.S. 788, 797, 105 S.Ct. 3439, 87 L.Ed.2d 567 (1985) ). T......
  • St. Michael's Media, Inc. v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Maryland
    • 12 October 2021
    ...must undertake when a First Amendment claim is asserted is whether the plaintiff has engaged in ‘protected speech.’ " Goulart v. Meadows , 345 F.3d 239, 246 (4th Cir. 2003) (quoting Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Def. & Educ. Fund, Inc. , 473 U.S. 788, 797, 105 S.Ct. 3439, 87 L.Ed.2d 567 (1985) )......
  • Mitchell v. Md. Motor Vehicle Admin.
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • 28 October 2016
    ...have noted the confusion surrounding the use of the terms ‘designated public forum’ and ‘limited public forum.’ ”); Goulart v. Meadows , 345 F.3d 239, 249 (4th Cir. 2003) (“There is some confusion over the terminology used to describe this third category [the designated public forum], as th......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Table of Cases
    • United States
    • The Path of Constitutional Law Suplemmentary Materials
    • 1 January 2007
    ...of Del., 381 F.Supp. 718 (D. Del. 1974), 604 Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565, 95 S.Ct. 729, 42 L.Ed.2d 725 (1975), 1309 Goulart v. Meadows, 345 F.3d 239 (4th Cir. 2003), Grace, United States v., 461 U.S. 171, 103 S.Ct. 1702, 75 L.Ed.2d 736 (1983), 181 Grady v. United States, 495 U.S. 508, 110 S......
  • Freedom of Speech and of The Press
    • United States
    • The Path of Constitutional Law Part IV: The Final Cause Of Constitutional Law Sub-Part Four: The First Amendment
    • 1 January 2007
    ...teach moral values, viewpoint discrimination). [105] Wishnatsky v. Rovner, 433 F.3d 608, 609-13 (8th Cir. 2006). [106] Goulart v. Meadows, 345 F.3d 239, 251-55, 257-59 (4th Cir. 2003). [107] 515 U.S. 819, 828 (1995). [108] 505 U.S. 377, 382 (1992). [109] 485 U.S. 312, 318-22 (1988). See als......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT