Good News Club v. Milford Central School

Good News Club v. Milford Central School

Freedom of Religious Expression

Background (cont.)

District Court

The District Court ultimately decided in favor of Milford, finding that the Club’s subject matter was religious in nature, and not just a discussion of secular matters from "a religious perspective" that Milford would have permitted. Since the school had not approved other religious organizations access to its "limited public forum", the court held that Milford could reject the Club's access.

The Second Circuit affirmed the first ruling, rejecting the Club’s issue that Milford’s denial was "unreasonable", and held that, because the Club’s subject matter was religious and its activities fell outside the bounds of pure moral and character development, they were not eligible to meet at Milford.

The Facts

The Issue

• According to N.Y. Education Law § 414, Milford Central School District instituted a policy which permitted residents of Milford's district use of school facilities for “instruction…or social, civic, and recreational meetings, entertainment events, or other uses pertaining to the welfare of the community.” The policy was nonexclusive and open to the general public.
• The Fourniers, two sponsors of the Good News Club (a private Christian organization for kids) requested use of Milford's facilities for weekly after school meetings.Their request was denied on the grounds that the activities proposed were religious in nature and the policy of use excluded religious worship.
• Darleen Fournier, club leader, filed suit against the Milford school district, citing a violating of free speech rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, and the right to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment, requesting an injunction “to prevent the school from enforcing its religious exclusion policy.” An injunction was granted on April 14, 1997.

The Supreme Court was faced with the decision of whether the Milford Central School District violated the Constitutional rights of the members of the Good News Club as laid out by the First Amendment by prohibiting access to their facilities for the club’s after school activities.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

In addition, the Court had to decide whether Milford’s action violated the establishment clause of the First Amendment.

Sarah D. Dormady

George Washington University

EDUC6236: School Law and Policy

Good News Club v. Milford Central School (2001)

533 U.S. 98

Freedom of Religious Expression in a Public Forum

Background

Case Assessment & Reflections

An important United States Supreme Court Case, protecting the freedom of religious expression in a public forum as laid out in the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.

"When the government establishes a "limited public forum," it is not required to permit any and all speech within that forum. It may "reserve its forum for certain groups or for the discussion of certain topics". However, the government may not discriminate against speech on the basis of its viewpoint, and any restriction it imposes must be reasonable in light of the purpose served by the forum."

February 28, 2001, Argued

June 11, 2001, Decided

Under New York law, Milford Central School enacted a policy authorizing district residents to use its facilities after school for, among other things,

• instruction in education, learning, or the arts
• social, civic, recreational, and entertainment uses pertaining to the community welfare

Stephen and Darleen Fournier, residents of the district that were eligible to use the school’s facilities upon approval of their proposed use, are members of the Good News Club, a private Christian organization for children ages 6 to 12. They submitted a request to hold the Club’s weekly after school meetings in the school. Milford denied the proposal on the grounds that the requested use–"to sing songs, hear Bible lessons, memorize scripture, and pray"–was the synonymous of religious worship which was prohibited by the community use policy.

The Court saw no distinction between the viewpoint discrimination in this case and the viewpoint discrimination in two earlier cases: Lamb's Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free School District (1993) and Rosenberger v. University of Virginia (1995)

Lamb's Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free School District (1993)

• Held that a public school may not prohibit showing films that come from a religious perspective on school property.

Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia (1995)

• Held that the University violated the Free Speech Clause when they refused to fund a student publication of a particular religious viewpoint.

The Ruling

Personal Reflections

6 to 3 decision

I feel conflicted with this case as I can see both sides of the argument. Looking strictly at the law and the Constitution, the First Amendment clearly protects the freedom of religious expression, specifically when access was granted to other organizations that promote similar missions. That being said, this organization can be viewed as one participating in "religious worship", which laid out by the community use policy was prohibited.

I believe the strongest argument made for the Good News Club is that other organizations, such as the Boys Scouts of America, who has a similar mission, were permitted to use the space, thus proving the theory of viewpoint discrimination, and a violation of the First Amendment. In addition, the club was not infringing upon the rights of others in the community.

• The Supreme Court held that Milford violated the Good News Club’s free speech rights under the First Amendment when it excluded the Club from meeting after school at the school's facilities because the School District's prohibition of their meetings constituted viewpoint discrimination under the First Amendment.
• Permitting the Club to meet on the school’s premises would not have violated the Establishment Clause. Because Milford did not present a valid Establishment Clause claim, this Court does not address whether such a claim could excuse Milford’s viewpoint discrimination.

References

• Alexander, K., & Alexander, M.D. (2011). American public school law. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.
• Good News Club v. Milford Central School (2001). Retrieved from http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-2036.ZS.html
• U.S. Constitution, Amendment I.