LAMB'S CHAPEL ET AL. v. CENTER MORICHES UNION FREE SCHOOL DISTRICT ET AL.

Decision Date07 June 1993
Citation508 U.S. 384
CourtU.S. Supreme Court
Syllabus

LAMB'S CHAPEL ET AL. v. CENTER MORICHES UNION FREE SCHOOL DISTRICT ET AL.

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

No. 91-2024. Argued February 24, 1993-Decided June 7, 1993

New York law authorizes local school boards to adopt reasonable regulations permitting the after-hours use of school property for 10 specified purposes, not including meetings for religious purposes. Pursuant to this law, respondent school board (District) issued rules and regulations allowing, inter alia, social, civic, and recreational uses of its schools (Rule 10), but prohibiting use by any group for religious purposes (Rule 7). Mter the District refused two requests by petitioners, an evangelical church and its pastor (Church), to use school facilities for a religious oriented film series on family values and child rearing on the ground that the film series appeared to be church related, the Church filed suit in the District Court, claiming that the District's actions violated, among other things, the First Amendment's Freedom of Speech Clause. The court granted summary judgment to the District, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. It reasoned that the school property, as a "limited public forum" open only for designated purposes, remained nonpublic except for the specified purposes, and ruled that the exclusion of the Church's film was reasonable and viewpoint neutral.

Held: Denying the Church access to school premises to exhibit the film series violates the Freedom of Speech Clause. Pp. 390-397.

(a) There is no question that the District may legally preserve the property under its control and need not have permitted after-hours use for any of the uses permitted under state law. This Court need not address the issue whether Rule 10, by opening the property to a wide variety of communicative purposes, has opened the property for religious uses, because, even if the District has not opened its property for such uses, Rule 7 has been unconstitutionally applied in this case. Access to a nonpublic forum can be based on subject matter or speaker identity so long as the distinctions drawn are reasonable and viewpoint neutral. Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Defense and Ed. Fund, Inc., 473 U. S. 788, 806. That Rule 7 treats all religions and religious purposes alike does not make its application in this case viewpoint neutral, however, for it discriminates on the basis of viewpoint by permitting school property to be used for the presentation of all views about family issues and child rearing except those dealing with the subject from a religious

385

standpoint. Denial on this basis is plainly invalid under the holding in Cornelius, supra, at 806, that the government violates the First Amendment when it denies access to a speaker solely to suppress the point of view he espouses on an otherwise includible subject. Pp. 390-394.

(b) Permitting District property to be used to exhibit the film series would not have been an establishment of religion under the three-part test articulated in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U. S. 602. Since the series would not have been shown during school hours, would not have been sponsored by the school, and would have been open to the public, there would be no realistic danger that the community would think that the District was endorsing religion or any particular creed, and any benefit to religion or the Church would have been incidental. Widmar v. Vincent, 454 U. S. 263, 271-272. Nor is there anything in the record to support the claim that the exclusion was justified on the ground that allowing access to a "radical" church would lead to threats of public unrest and violence. In addition, the Court of Appeals' judgment was not based on the justification proffered here that the access rules' purpose is to promote the interests of the general public rather than sectarian or other private interests. Moreover, that there was no express finding below that the Church's application would have been granted absent the religious connection is beside the point for the purposes of this opinion, which is concerned with the validity of the stated reason for denying the application, namely, that the film series appeared to be church related. Pp.395-397.

959 F. 2d 381, reversed.

WHITE, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which REHNQUIST, C. J., and BLACKMUN, STEVENS, O'CONNOR, and SOUTER, JJ., joined. KENNEDY, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, post, p. 397. SCALIA, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which THOMAS, J., joined, post, p. 397.

Jay Alan Sekulow argued the cause for petitioners. With him on the briefs were Keith A. Fournier, Mark N. Troobnick, James M. Henderson, Sr., Jordan W Lorence, Thomas Patrick Monaghan, Walter M. Weber, and John Stepanovich.

John W Hoefling argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief for respondents Center Moriches Union Free School District et al. was Ross Paine Masler. Respondent Robert Abrams, Attorney General of New York, filed a brief pro se. With him on the brief were Jerry Boone, Solic-

386

itor General, and Lillian Z. Cohen and Jeffrey 1. Slonim, Assistant Attorneys General. *

JUSTICE WHITE delivered the opinion of the Court.

New York Educ. Law §414 (McKinney 1988 and Supp. 1993) authorizes local school boards to adopt reasonable regulations for the use of school property for 10 specified purposes when the property is not in use for school purposes. Among the permitted uses is the holding of "social, civic and recreational meetings and entertainments, and other uses pertaining to the welfare of the community; but such meetings, entertainment and uses shall be non-exclusive and shall be open to the general public." §414(c).1 The list of permitted uses does not include meetings for religious purposes, and a New York appellate court in Trietley v. Board of Ed. of Buffalo, 409 N. Y. S. 2d 912, 915 (App. Div. 1978), ruled that local boards could not allow student bible clubs to meet

*Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed for the United States by Solicitor General Starr, Assistant Attorney General Gerson, Deputy Solicitor General Roberts, Edward C. DuMont, Anthony J. Steinmeyer, and Lowell V. Sturgill, Jr.; for the American Civil Liberties Union et al. by David H. Remes, T. Jeremy Gunn, Steven R. Shapiro, John A. Powell, and Elliot M. Mincberg; for the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations by Robert M. Weinberg, Laurence Gold, and Walter A. Kamiat; for the Christian Legal Society et al. by Kimberlee Wood Colby, Steven T. McFarland, Bradley P. Jacob, and Karon Owen Bowdre; for Concerned Women for America et al. by Wendell R. Bird and David J. Myers; for the National Jewish Commission on Law and Public Affairs by Nathan Lewin and Dennis Rapps; and for the Rutherford Institute by James J. Knicely and John W Whitehead.

Jay Worona, Pilar Sokol, and Louis Grumet filed a brief for the New York State School Boards Association et al. as amici curiae urging affirmance.

1 Section 414(e) authorizes the use of school property "[f]or polling places for holding primaries and elections and for the registration of voters and for holding political meetings. But no meetings sponsored by political organizations shall be permitted unless authorized by a vote of a district meeting, held as provided by law, or, in cities by the board of education thereof."

387

on school property because "[r]eligious purposes are not included in the enumerated purposes for which a school may be used under section 414." In Deeper Life Christian Fellowship, Inc. v. Sobol, 948 F. 2d 79, 83-84 (1991), the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit accepted Trietley as an authoritative interpretation of state law. Furthermore, the Attorney General of New York supports Trietley as an appropriate approach to deciding this case.

Pursuant to § 414's empowerment of local school districts, the Board of Center Moriches Union Free School District (District) has issued rules and regulations with respect to the use of school property when not in use for school purposes. The rules allow only 2 of the 10 purposes authorized by § 414: social, civic, or recreational uses (Rule 10) and use by political organizations if secured in compliance with § 414 (Rule 8). Rule 7, however, consistent with the judicial interpretation of state law, provides that "[t]he school premises shall not be used by any group for religious purposes." App. to Pet. for Cert. 57a.

The issue in this case is whether, against this background of state law, it violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment, made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment, to deny a church access to school premises to exhibit for public viewing and for assertedly religious purposes, a film series dealing with family and child-rearing issues faced by parents today.

I

Petitioners (Church) are Lamb's Chapel, an evangelical church in the community of Center Moriches, and its pastor John Steigerwald. Twice the Church applied to the District for permission to use school facilities to show a six-part film series containing lectures by Doctor James Dobson.2 A bro-

2 Shortly before the first of these requests, the Church had applied for permission to use school rooms for its Sunday morning services and for Sunday School. The hours specified were 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. and the time

388

chure provided on request of the District identified Dr. Dobson as a licensed psychologist, former associate clinical professor of pediatrics at the University of Southern California, best-selling author, and radio commentator. The brochure stated that the film series would discuss Dr. Dobson's views on the undermining influences of the media that could only be counterbalanced by returning to traditional, Christian family values instilled at an early stage. The brochure went on to describe the contents of each of the six parts of the series.3 The District denied the first...

To continue reading

Request your trial
449 cases
  • Hinojosa Eng'g, Inc. v. Lopez (In re Treyson Dev., Inc.), CASE NO: 14-70256
    • United States
    • United States Bankruptcy Courts. Fifth Circuit. U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Southern District of Texas
    • 19 de abril de 2016
    ...*8 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. March 11, 2016) (also declining to play judicial Mad Libs); Lamb's Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free School Dist., 508 U.S. 384, 398 (1993) (Scalia, J., dissenting). As Plaintiff has failed to establish either of the alternative requisites under Espinosa for relief p......
  • O.T. ex rel. Turton v. Frenchtown Elementary, Civil Action No. 05-2623(FLW).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. District of New Jersey
    • 11 de dezembro de 2006
    ......v. . FRENCHTOWN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF EUCATION, et al., Defendants. . ... Barocas, Esq., American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey, Newark, NJ, Wan J. Kim, Esq., Eric ... that Frenchtown's action violated the Free Exercise Clause, the Equal Protection Clause and ...2093, 150 L.Ed.2d 151 (2001); Lamb's Chapel v. . Page 382 . Center Moriches Union Free Sch. ......
  • DOES 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 v. Enfield Pub. Sch., Civil Action No. 3:10-CV-685 (JCH).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court (Connecticut)
    • 31 de maio de 2010
    ......3:10-CV-685 (JCH). United States District Court,D. Connecticut. May 31, 2010. . 716 ...Staub, American Civil Liberties Union, Washington, DC, David J. McGuire, American Civil ...McCarthy, American Center for Law & Justice, Litchfield, CT, Carly F. ... 1 and Doe 3, are students at Enfield High School. They brought this action on May 14, 2010, ... of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..” U.S. Const. amend. I. 17 ... See, e.g., Lamb's Chapel v. Ctr. Moriches Union Free School District, 508 ......
  • Smith v. Dunn
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. Middle District of Alabama
    • 2 de fevereiro de 2021
    ...the Lemon test in claims involving religiously expressive monuments, symbols, and displays); Lamb's Chapel v. Center Moriches Sch. Dist. , 508 U.S. 384, 395 n. 7, 113 S.Ct. 2141, 124 L.Ed.2d 352 (1993) (noting that despite heavy criticism of the Lemon test, it has not been overruled).25 Mur......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 firm's commentaries
  • CAS Legal Mailbag Question of the Week – 12/23/2021
    • United States
    • LexBlog United States
    • 23 de dezembro de 2021
    ...on public land of a forty-foot-tall Peace Cross in Bladensburg, Maryland). In Lamb’s Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free School District, 508 U.S. 384 (1993), in dissent Justice Scalia famously commented on the Lemon test as follows: As to the Court’s invocation of the Lemon test: Like som......
  • CAS Legal Mailbag Question of the Week – 12/23/2021
    • United States
    • LexBlog United States
    • 23 de dezembro de 2021
    ...on public land of a forty-foot-tall Peace Cross in Bladensburg, Maryland). In Lamb’s Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free School District, 508 U.S. 384 (1993), in dissent Justice Scalia famously commented on the Lemon test as follows: As to the Court’s invocation of the Lemon test: Like som......
  • CAS Legal Mailbag Question of the Week –3/10/22
    • United States
    • LexBlog United States
    • 10 de março de 2022
    ...once again, frightening the little children and school attorneys . . . . Lamb’s Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free School District, 508 U.S. 384 (1993) (Scalia, J. dissenting). As we consider whether your coach has crossed the line, we must first ask whether his participation in the playe......
40 books & journal articles
  • THE DISEMBODIED FIRST AMENDMENT.
    • United States
    • Washington University Law Review Vol. 100 No. 3, February 2023
    • 1 de fevereiro de 2023
    ...we focus on the political speech cases. For cases involving religious groups, see Lamb's Chapel v. Ctr. Moriches Union Free Sch. Dist., 508 U.S. 384 (1993) and Good News Club v. Milford Cent. Sch., 533 U.S. 98 (280.) Police Dep't of Chi. v. Mosley, 408 U.S. 92, 94 (1972). (281.) Id. at 95, ......
  • CONTENT UNDER PRESSURE.
    • United States
    • Washington University Law Review Vol. 100 No. 1, September 2022
    • 1 de setembro de 2022
    ...(1995). Rosenberger expanded upon the Court's decision two years earlier in Lamb's Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free School District, 508 U.S. 384 (1993), which dealt with the denial of permission to display a film series that addressed a particular set of issues from a religious perspec......
  • Nonbelievers and Government Speech
    • United States
    • Iowa Law Review No. 97-2, January 2012
    • 1 de janeiro de 2012
    ...See, e.g. , Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of Univ. of Va., 515 U.S. 819 (1995); Lamb’s Chapel v. Ctr. Moriches Union Free Sch. Dist., 508 U.S. 384 (1993); Widmar v. Vincent, 454 U.S. 263 (1981). 419. Under forum-analysis doctrine, viewpoint restrictions are always subject to strict scrut......
  • Religion in the military: navigating the channel between the religion clauses.
    • United States
    • Air Force Law Review No. 59, March 2007
    • 22 de março de 2007
    ...Sch. Dist. v. Grumet, 512 U.S. 687, 718-21 (1994) (O'Connor, J., concurring); Lamb's Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free Sch. Dist., 508 U.S. 384, 398-99 (1993) (Scalia, J., concurring) (collecting criticisms of Lemon (55) See, e.g., Thomas C. Marks, Jr. & Michael Bertolini, Lemon Is a......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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