No, the law is constitutional. First, the school opened its doors to all kinds of clubs by allowing groups like the Chess Club and Scuba Club, which aren't tied to any specific class. Because of a law called the Equal Access Act, once the school did that, it had to be fair and let religious clubs in too. Second, just letting a religious club meet isn't the same as the school endorsing that religion. Teenagers are smart enough to know the difference between the school allowing something and the school approving of it. The school isn't starting the club or leading it; it's just giving students a place to meet.

No, the law is okay, but we should test it differently. Instead of asking if the school 'endorses' religion, we should just ask two things: 1) Is the government forcing students to be religious? and 2) Is the government giving so much help to religion that it's basically setting one up? The answer to both questions is no. Students aren't forced to join, and just giving them a room to meet in is not a huge benefit.

No, the law is constitutional, but it's a close call. High schools are different from colleges; they have more control over students and promote clubs as part of their educational program. This makes it look more like the school approves of the clubs' messages. To make sure no one thinks the school is pushing religion, the school needs to make it super clear that it is neutral and does not support the Christian club's specific religious goals.

Yes, the law as the majority reads it is a problem. The Equal Access Act was meant to apply only when a school allows really controversial or political clubs, not harmless ones like a chess club. Westside High School only had normal, school-friendly clubs. So, the Act shouldn't have applied to them at all. The majority's decision forces schools to either ban all fun clubs or allow every kind of controversial group, which is not what the law was supposed to do.

Yes to both questions. The school has to let the Christian club meet just like the other clubs. This is fair and doesn't mean the school is pushing religion on students. The school can make it clear it's not agreeing with the club's views.

The dissent said the majority read the law wrong. The law should only make schools allow religious clubs if they also allow controversial political clubs. Since Westside's clubs aren't controversial, it shouldn't have to allow the Christian club because it might look like the school favors religion.

Justice Kennedy agreed with the majority but for a different reason. He said the key question is whether the law pressures students to join religious activities, not whether it looks like the school supports religion. He found the law doesn't pressure students.

Justice Marshall agreed the Christian club should be allowed but said the school needs to make extra sure it doesn't seem to be agreeing with the club's views, since the school usually supports the messages of its clubs.

"There is a crucial difference between government speech endorsing religion, which the Establishment Clause forbids, and private speech endorsing religion, which the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses protect."

"Under the Equal Access Act, a public secondary school with a `limited open forum'is prohibited from discriminating against students who wish to conduct a meeting within that forum on the basis of the `religious, political, philosophical, or other content of the speech at such meetings.'"

—the Equal Access Act required a high school to grant "official recognition" to a student Christian club.

—explaining even if some legislators were motivated by a purpose to favor religion, that would not invalidate the legislation "because what is relevant is the legislative purpose of the statute, not the possibly religious motives of the legislators who enacted the law

A "curriculum related student group" is one that directly relates to a school's curriculum if the subject matter of the group is actually taught, or will soon be taught, in a regularly offered course; if the subject matter of the group concerns the body of courses as a whole; if participation in the group is required for a particular course; or if participation in the group results in …

"We think that secondary school students are mature enough and are likely to understand that a school does not endorse or support student speech that it merely permits on a nondiscriminatory basis."

The Supreme Court has explained that by placing religious student clubs on equal footing with similar non-religious student organizations the Act "allows student clubs to be part of the student activities program and carries with it access to the school newspaper, bulletin boards, the public address system, and the annual Club Fair."

The Government's legislative history argument in this case—which relies on pieces of legislative history unconnected to the key language in the statute—is a good example of misusing snippets of legislative history from a dynamic and evolving legislative drafting process.

These terms meet the requirement of Justice Marshall's concurrence in Mergens (which, of the three opinions finding no Establishment Clause violation, was the one most worried about the tension between the Clause and the Equal Access Act, see supra note 23), that the School must "disassociate itself from the Club's religious speech" by, for example, "affirmatively …

No, the Equal Access Act does not violate the Establishment Clause. First, a school creates a 'limited open forum' under the Act if it allows even one 'noncurriculum related student group' to meet, which Westside did by permitting clubs like the Chess Club and Subsurfers. Therefore, the school must provide equal access to the Christian club. Second, applying the Act does not violate the Establishment Clause under the Lemon test. The Act has a secular purpose of preventing discrimination against student speech. It does not have the primary effect of advancing religion, as high school students are mature enough to distinguish between private student speech that the school must tolerate and official school endorsement. Finally, it does not create excessive entanglement, as faculty monitors act in a nonparticipatory, custodial role, and prohibiting the club could lead to greater entanglement by requiring officials to monitor meetings to censor religious speech.

No, the Equal Access Act does not violate the Establishment Clause. While agreeing with the judgment, the plurality's 'endorsement' test is flawed. The proper analysis should focus on two principles: 1) the government cannot give direct benefits to religion to a degree that it establishes a religious faith, and 2) the government cannot coerce any student to participate in a religious activity. The Act does not violate these principles, as the benefits are incidental and there is no state-sponsored coercion to participate in the religious club's activities.

No, the Act as applied here does not violate the Establishment Clause, but the risk of perceived endorsement is significant. The highly structured environment of a secondary school, where clubs are promoted as part of the educational mission, differs greatly from the university forum in *Widmar v. Vincent*. To avoid an Establishment Clause violation, Westside must take affirmative steps to disassociate itself from the Christian club's religious speech and goals, such as by discontinuing its general endorsement of clubs or issuing an explicit disclaimer of endorsement for the religious club.

Yes, the Act as interpreted by the majority leads to a constitutionally suspect result. Congress intended the term 'noncurriculum related' to apply only to groups that advocate for partisan theological, political, or ethical views, similar to the student groups in *Widmar v. Vincent*. Clubs like chess and scuba diving are not of this controversial or partisan nature and are consistent with a school's educational mission. Because Westside did not permit any such advocacy groups, it had not created a limited open forum, and the Equal Access Act should not have been triggered. The Court's broad interpretation forces schools to either eliminate all extracurricular activities or welcome every controversial group, an outcome Congress did not intend.

Yes to both questions. The Court held that Westside created a limited open forum under the Equal Access Act by allowing noncurriculum related student groups to meet on school premises. Because the Act prohibits denial of equal access based on the content of the speech, Westside cannot exclude the Christian club. The Court also held that the Act does not violate the Establishment Clause because it serves the secular purpose of preventing discrimination, does not have the primary effect of advancing religion, and does not excessively entangle government with religion. The school can avoid endorsing the club's views by disassociating itself from the speech and having faculty take only a nonparticipatory role.

The dissent argued that the majority's broad interpretation of 'noncurriculum related' contradicts the Act's purpose of extending Widmar v. Vincent to high schools. The dissent would interpret the Act to only require equal access for religious clubs when a school allows other controversial political or philosophical clubs to meet. Since Westside only allows noncontroversial clubs, the dissent believed the Act should not apply and requiring access for the Christian club risks endorsing religion.

The concurrence agreed with the majority's interpretation of the Act and that it does not violate the Establishment Clause. However, Justice Kennedy believed the relevant Establishment Clause test is not endorsement but rather whether the Act has the unlawful effect of coercing students to participate in religious activity. The concurrence found no coercion here because the Act limits school officials' involvement and meetings are voluntary.

The concurrence agreed that the Act requires equal access for the Christian club but emphasized the school must take steps to disassociate itself from the club's speech to avoid Establishment Clause problems. Unlike the open forum in Widmar, Westside's clubs are part of its educational mission, so the school endorses their speech. To allow the religious club, Westside must disclaim endorsement of its views.

Board of Education of Westside Community Schools v. Mergens

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot