508 U.S. 384, 398-399 (1993)
Lamb’s Chapel, an evangelical church in Center Moriches, New York, and its pastor John Steigerwald twice applied to the Center Moriches Union Free School District for permission to use school facilities after hours to show a six-part film series containing lectures by Dr. James Dobson.1 A brochure provided to the District described Dr. Dobson as a licensed psychologist, former associate clinical professor of pediatrics at the University of Southern California, best-selling author, and radio commentator, and outlined the series’ focus on returning to traditional Christian family values to counter media influences, with each of the six parts addressing specific family and child-rearing topics.2
The District denied both applications, stating that the film appeared to be church related.3 The District operated under New York Education Law § 414, which authorized local boards to permit after-hours uses of school property for social, civic, and recreational meetings open to the public, and had adopted rules allowing such uses as well as political uses while barring religious purposes.4 Shortly before these applications, the Church had also sought permission to use the facilities for Sunday morning services and Sunday School, which the District denied on the same religious-purpose ground, though that denial was not challenged in court.5
The Church filed suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York against the District and the New York Attorney General.6 The complaint alleged that the denials violated the Free Speech and Assembly Clauses, the Free Exercise Clause, the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, all under color of state law pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.7 The District Court granted summary judgment for the defendants on all claims.8
The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the District Court’s judgment in all respects.9 The Supreme Court granted certiorari in 1992.10
Whether 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?11
Control over access to a nonpublic forum can be based on subject matter and speaker identity so long as the distinctions drawn are reasonable in light of the purpose served by the forum and are viewpoint neutral.12
Yes. The District permitted after-hours use of school property for social, civic, and recreational meetings under its Rule 10, and the film series on family and child-rearing issues addressed a subject matter otherwise includible under that rule as it was not placed off limits to any speakers.13 The denial occurred solely because the presentation would have been from a religious standpoint, which amounts to viewpoint discrimination forbidden by the First Amendment.14
The denial of access to the school premises violates the Free Speech Clause.15
Related opinions on this issue
Justice Kennedy concurred in part and in the judgment.16 He agreed with the conclusion that this overt, viewpoint-based discrimination contradicts the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment and that there has been no substantial showing of a potential Establishment Clause violation.17 Justice Kennedy found the Court’s citation of Lemon v. Kurtzman unsettling and unnecessary.18
The same can be said of the Court’s use of the phrase endorsing religion, which cannot suffice as a rule of decision consistent with precedents and traditions.19 With these observations, he concurred in part and concurred in the judgment.20
Joined by Justice Thomas
Justice Scalia, joined by Justice Thomas, concurred in the judgment.21 He joined the Court’s conclusion that the District’s refusal to allow use of school facilities for petitioners’ film viewing, while generally opening the schools for community activities, violates petitioners’ First Amendment free-speech rights.22 He also agreed that N.Y. Educ.
Law § 414, to the extent it compelled the District’s denial, violates those rights.23 Justice Scalia emphasized that the statute itself, by compelling the exclusion of religious speech, ran afoul of the Free Speech Clause in the same manner as the District’s application of its rules.24
Whether permitting the exhibition of the film series on school property would violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment?25
Permitting use of school property for religious purposes under an open access policy is not incompatible with the Establishment Clause when the use is not during school hours, not sponsored by the school, open to the public, and any benefit to religion is incidental.26
No. The showing of the film series would not have been during school hours, would not have been sponsored by the school, and would have been open to the public, not just to church members.27 Under these circumstances, there would have been no realistic danger that the community would think that the District was endorsing religion or any particular creed.28 Any benefit to religion or to the Church would have been no more than incidental.29
Permitting the exhibition of the film series on school property would not violate the Establishment Clause.30
Related opinions on this issue
Joined by Justice Thomas
Justice Scalia agreed that allowing Lamb’s Chapel to use school facilities poses no realistic danger of a violation of the Establishment Clause.31 He could not accept most of the Court’s reasoning in this regard, particularly the invocation of the Lemon test and the endorsement analysis.32 Justice Scalia would hold simply and clearly that giving Lamb’s Chapel nondiscriminatory access to school facilities cannot violate the Establishment Clause because it does not signify state or local embrace of a particular religious sect.33
He criticized Lemon as an unworkable standard repeatedly buried yet revived, and argued that the Constitution’s own preferential treatment of religion under the Free Exercise Clause makes a general prohibition on endorsement of religion in general untenable.34