AP: Religious groups agree to drop suit against USC

The AP in Columbia, South Carolina reports on the favorable settlement in CLS v. Sorenson previously discussed here. The University of South Carolina has rescinded its policy against funding religious student organizations and is working with CLS to create new policies to ensure equal treatment in the future.

U. of S. C. ceases discrimination against religious student organizations in funding and works with CLS to create viewpoint neutral policies

The University of South Carolina, responding to a lawsuit filed by the Center, has lifted its viewpoint discriminatory restriction against granting funds to religious student organizations. This positive change protects the rights of the Christian Legal Society chapter at USC's law school as well as the rights of all other religious student organizations at the University.

Furthermore, the University has agreed to work with CLS to craft policies that protect against the threat of future viewpoint discrimination in funding, consistent with recommendations provided by Center attorneys.

View the press release on these welcome developments and the agreement between CLS and USC as well as other materials on this case.

Department of Justice Religious Freedom in Focus on Bronx Household of Faith

The newest edition of the First Freedom Project Religious Freedom in Focus e-mail newsletter (March/April 2008 Volume 32) highlights the Department of Justice's amicus brief work in Bronx Household of Faith v. Board of Education of the City of New York.

The Bronx Household of Faith, an urban church in New York, has struggled for over ten years to obtain equal access to the after-hours use of school facilities for its worship services. The school board has flung open the doors of its facilities for use by a wide variety of community groups but has shut the door on religious worship.

In the brief filed on April 1, the United States reiterates its prior argument that “excluding religious activity because it is religious is presumptively unlawful.” The brief repeats its objection to the school board’s position that worship is an entirely different mode of speech that falls outside of traditional First Amendment analysis. The United States brief points out that the Supreme Court rejected such an argument more than 25 years ago in Widmar v. Vincent (1981), where the Court held that courts could not, under the First Amendment, distinguish categorically between religious speech generally and religious worship. The Widmar Court found that there was no principled basis to determine when “singing hymns, reading scripture, and teaching biblical principles, . . . cease to be ‘singing, teaching and reading’ – all apparently forms of speech despite their religious subject matter – and become unprotected worship.”

The CLS Center also submitted an amicus brief in the most recent round of litigation in this case, arguing that the school board's use of religion as a factor to exclude the Bronx Household of Faith from its forum also violates the Free Exercise Clause.

Center urges court to protect equal access for religious charities seeking inclusion in Iowa state employee charitable campaign

The CLS Center filed a motion for preliminary injunction today in Association of Faith-Based Organizations v. Anderson to request the enjoining of the Iowa "One Gift" state employee charitable campaign requirements demanding that applying charities certify that they do not engage in religious activity, including advocacy for religious viewpoints.

Such certification requirements effectively exclude AFBO member religious charitable organizations that are honest and truthful about their religious expression; thus, these requirements deny equal treatment to religious charities.

One Gift includes over four hundred charities reflecting a variety of viewpoints to provide a broad range of choices for state employees to make voluntary donations via payroll deduction. The effective exclusion of charities that provide substantial services and also express religious viewpoints is puzzling and unconstitutional because they discriminate against religious viewpoints in violation of the Free Speech Clause and because they single out religion for special disfavor in violation of the Free Exercise Clause.

More information on AFBO v. Anderson will be available soon at the CLS website. See AFBO's website for general information on AFBO's work to protect the rights of faith-based organizations.

"Equal access is the law, and equal access means equal treatment in every respect, including equal cost."

"Equal access is the law, and equal access means equal treatment in every respect, including equal cost," says Mathew D. Staver for Liberty Counsel. Liberty Counsel, representing Child Evangelism Fellowship of Virginia (CEF), challenges the Williamsburg-James City County Public Schools' discriminatory refusal to grant a waiver for the usage fee to CEF for use of its facilities, even though the district grants "grant[s] free use to Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts and other organizations the board has deemed patriotic and community service groups."

In an earlier blog post today, CLS Center Director Greg Baylor set forth the numerous Supreme Court decisions affirming the right of equal access. Following these key cases, the Courts of Appeals have also affirmed the right of equal access in precedent-setting victories obtained by the Center on behalf of other CEF chapters, including CEF of Maryland v. Stafford Township School District in the Third Circuit and CEF v. Montgomery County Public Schools in the Fourth Circuit.

Access to Public Meeting Space for Worship

Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, courts adjudicated numerous disputes between religious speakers and governments. The disputes arose when governments denied religious speakers equal access to public spaces, typically contending that the First Amendment's Establishment Clause required such discriminatory exclusions. Religious speakers argued that other parts of the First Amendment -- especially the Free Speech Clause -- required inclusion. These disputes illustrated the broader conflict between two visions of church-state relations: strict separationism vs. neutrality.

A number of these cases reached the U.S. Supreme Court: Widmar v. Vincent (1981) (student religious groups at public university); Westside Bd. of Educ. v. Mergens (1990) (student religious groups at public secondary schools); Lamb's Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free Sch. Dist. (1993) (after hours use of public school to show religious film series on child rearing); Rosenberger v. Rector of the Univ. of Virginia (1995) (religious student publication access to public university financial support of speech activities); Capitol Square Review & Advisory Bd. v. Pinette (1995) (nongovernmental display of religious symbol in park near state capitol); Good News Club v. Milford Cent. Sch. (2001) (community religious group meeting at public elementary school). In each instance, the Court ruled in favor of the religious speaker, rejecting strict separationists' Establishment Clause arguments.

Despite these decisions, some governments are still reluctant to allow religious speakers to use public property. One such government is the New York City Board of Education, which has been defending its exclusion of the Bronx Household of Faith from meeting space for years. The board attempts to distinguish the Court's precedents by arguing that it is merely excluding a "subject matter" rather than a "viewpoint" on a subject that other speakers are permitted to address when using school meeting space after hours. The board's policy denies access to those wishing to engage in religious "worship." The board contends that "worship" is a "category" of speech that simply isn't permitted in the forum, in an effort to deflect a charge of discrimination on the basis of viewpoint.

The Bronx Household case is once again in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which has a notoriously poor record in equal access cases. (The Supreme Court reversed the Second Circuit in both Lamb's Chapel and Good News Club.) Briefing on the appeal was completed yesterday, when the board filed its reply brief.

The CLS Center filed a friend of the court brief in support of the church, arguing that the board's exclusion violates the Free Exercise Clause.

CLS Sues University of South Carolina

On Friday, CLS's Center for Law & Religious Freedom and ADF commenced litigation against University of South Carolina officials who denied funding to the CLS chapter at the USC law school. USC maintains a categorical ban on funding religious groups.

In our view, such a policy is plainly unconstitutional under the U.S. Supreme Court's 1995 decision in Rosenberger v. Rector of the University of Virginia.

News account here. Complaint here. Press release here.

Stay tuned for more details.

MD School District Won't Charge CEF

Public school officials in Prince George's County, Maryland, were poised to charge Child Evangelism Fellowship a fee to use after-hours meeting space in public school buildings. Other community groups are not charged for such uses.

Center attorney Kim Colby communicated with school officials on CEF's behalf, explaining that such discrimination was unconstitutional. Today, school officials reversed course, informing us that no charge would be levied upon CEF.

In 2001, the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment required public schools to give CEF equal access to after-hours meeting space in public elementary schools. Although most school districts around the country comply with this decision, some of them have not applied its logic to other situations. School districts in Maryland and New Jersey refused to include CEF informational fliers in "backpack mail"; the CLS Center sued and won both cases. Other school districts, like Prince George's, have attempted to charge religious groups a fee while allowing secular groups to meet without charge.



It is certainly encouraging that these school officials eventually did the right thing, although one wonders why they went down the wrong path in the first place.

Supreme Court Won't Review Two Bad Religious Freedom Decisions

The U.S. Supreme Court announced today that it would not review two bad lower court decisions in religious freedom cases.

In Faith Center Church v. Glover, the Ninth Circuit held it was permissible for government to exclude a religious speaker from otherwise available meeting space on the ground that the speaker would engage in "worship."

In Catholic Charities v. Dinallo, the Second Circuit held that it was permissible for New York State for force Catholic Charities to cover contraceptives in its employee health benefit plan.

CLS's Center for Law & Religious Freedom participated as friend of the Court in each case, urging the high Court to review the lower court decisions.

Press Coverage of PFOX Lawsuit Against Arlington (VA) Schools

One place the Associated Press story can be found is here.

The Washington Post story is here. (It's the third story in the "Virginia Briefing.")

The Washington Times item is here.

Center Files Lawsuit Against Arlington Public Schools

The Center filed a lawsuit yesterday against Arlington Public Schools (APS) in Virginia. The lawsuit was brought after APS refused to distribute informational fliers to high school students for a community outreach organization called Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays (PFOX).

APS distributes fliers for a variety of community organizations. The school district's flier distribution policy in fact states that "[a]pproval is normally given to materials submitted from non-profit organizations in Northern Virginia." Surprisingly, APS's policy provides absolutely no criteria to guide school officials in determining whether to approve or disapprove a particular flier.

The law in the Fourth Circuit regarding flier distribution at public schools is particularly well-established. The Fourth Circuit in Child Evangelism Fellowship v. Montgomery County Public Schools I, 373 F.3d 589 (4th Cir. 2004) (subscription required), held that Montgomery County's refusal to distribute Child Evangelism Fellowship's flier was viewpoint discriminatory. Then last year, in Child Evangelism Fellowship v. Montgomery County Public Schools II, 457 F.3d 376 (4th Cir. 2006) (subscription required), the Fourth Circuit held that Montgomery County's second attempt at a flier policy was also unconstitutional because it failed to provide criteria to guide school officials in reviewing fliers.

Regardless of what one may think of PFOX, the law is clear.