Good News Club, et al. v. Milford Central School (06/11/2001)

By: Jennifer Ruiz, Medill News Service

Questions presented

(1) Whether Milford Central School violated the free speech rights of the Good News Club when it excluded the Club from meeting after hours at the school? (2) Whether any such violation is justified by Milfords concern that permitting the Clubs activities would violate the Establishment Clause.

Brief

Described by both sides as a ""friendly disagreement,"" a feud in the tight-knit farming community of Milford, N.Y., began in September 1996 after a decision to end school bus service provided by the public school district to transport children to Good News Club meeting facilities at the Milford Center Community Church.

The Good News Club, a community based youth group with national support from the Christian missionary organization Child Evangelism Fellowship, ministers to children between the ages of six and 12.

Good News Club officials applied under a school policy called a District Use of Facilities Request for space to meet in the school to accommodate children unable to get out to the church.

Interim Superintendent Robert C. McGruder denied the request in October, stating in a letter to Good News representatives that he understood the request to be ""the equivalent of religious worship ... rather than the expression of religious views or values on a secular subject matter.""

Three months later, Good News' attorney contacted the school to inform officials that by denying the club access to a public building that admits clubs such as the Girl Scouts, the Boy Scouts and the 4-H Club violated the Good News civil rights.

Milford School officials decided to reconsider the request and asked for more information detailing daily activities during Good News Clubs one-hour after-school sessions. School officials reviewed the newly submitted information and again denied the request to use school facilities. Board of Education members chose to put an end to the ongoing discussion by adopting a resolution in February 1997 denying Good News access once and for all.

In March, the club filed suit in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York, alleging violations of the clubs right to free speech under the 1st and 14th Amendments, to equal protection under the 14th Amendment and to religious freedom under the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

On April 14, 1997, U.S. District Judge Thomas J. McAvoy issued a preliminary injunction preventing the school from keeping Good News members from meeting in its facilities. But during the discovery portion of the case, questions as to the clubs religious content were answered and the judge vacated the injunction and dismissed Good News case on cross-motions for summary judgment, finding that the school was ""a limited public forum"" and had never allowed religious groups to meet on campus in the past.

The judge supported his decision by noting that the club indeed aimed to teach religious instruction, not morals and values in a religious context, like the Boy Scouts, as the club claimed.

In a 2-1 opinion, the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, ruling the school did not discriminate against the club because of their Christian beliefs but rather rejected their application because the subject matter of the meetings violated the limited public forum clause of the District Use Facilities Request policy by teaching religious instruction rather than secular subjects from a religious viewpoint.

In so holding, the majority rejected Good News' claim that school officials were engaging in viewpoint discrimination in violation of the 1st Amendment because the group is Christian.

In his dissent, Appeals Judge Dennis G. Jacobs said he agreed with many aspects of the majoritys opinion, but believed the clubs aim was to teach morals and values from a religious perspective rather than engaging in religious instruction.

""Even if one could not say whether the Clubs message conveyed religious content or religious viewpoints on otherwise permissible content, we should err on the side of free speech,"" Jacobs wrote. ""The concerns supporting free speech greatly outweigh those supporting regulation of limited public forum.""

Frank W. Miller, the attorney representing the school, said Milford officials have no interest in settling a national debate.

""From the schools perspective, we did not want this fight,"" Miller said. ""They (school officials) are not trying to be the champions of church and state, they are just trying to follow the law.""

In seeking review by the U.S. Supreme Court, Good News Club says the 2nd Circuit's opinion is in conflict with a 1994 opinion of the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals in Good News/Good Sports Club v. School District.

""The citizens of Missouri cant have rights that the people of New York do not possess,"" Good News Club attorney Thomas J. Marcelle said. ""Here we have some of the most brilliant legal minds who cant agree and we are asking school superintendents who are not lawyers to make these decisions, so you can appreciate the bind they are in. We dont know what the law is right now. We need the Supreme Court to clarify it.""

On Oct. 10, 2000, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in the case, and on June 11, 2001, the Court held 6-3 that religious groups should be allowed to meet in public schools after class hours.

The Court split was atypical, in that Justice Stephen Breyer joined the ideologically conservative justices in the majority opinion, written by Clarence Thomas, arguably the Court's most conservative member.

The Court resolved both the free exercise and establishment clause issues of the 1st Amendment, in holding that excluding the club was unconstitutional discrimination based on the club's views, and permitting the meeting to take place would not be an unconstitutional government endorsement of religion.

By letting other groups use the school after hours, school officials created a public forum, the court noted.

""When Milford denied the Good News Club access to the school's limited public forum on the ground that the club was religious in nature, it discriminated against the club because of its religious viewpoint in violation of the free-speech clause of the First Amendment,"" Thomas wrote for the majority.

Justice John Paul Stevens wrote the dissent for himself and Justices David Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.