Lamb's Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free School District
508 U.S. 384 (1993)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The government violates the Free Speech Clause when it permits discussion of a given topic in a limited public forum but denies access to a speaker solely to suppress a religious point of view on that otherwise permissible subject. Such an exclusion constitutes impermissible viewpoint discrimination, not a permissible subject-matter limitation.
Facts:
- A New York state law authorized local school boards to regulate the after-hours use of school property for several purposes, including social, civic, and recreational meetings.
- The Center Moriches Union Free School District (District) adopted a rule permitting the use of its property for social, civic, or recreational purposes, but explicitly prohibited its use by any group for 'religious purposes.'
- Lamb's Chapel, an evangelical church, twice applied for permission to use the District's facilities to show a six-part film series by Dr. James Dobson.
- The film series addressed family and child-rearing issues, presenting them from a 'traditional, Christian' perspective.
- The District denied both of Lamb's Chapel's applications on the grounds that the film series 'appear[s] to be church related' and was therefore prohibited by the rule against religious uses of school property.
- The District had previously allowed a wide variety of other private organizations, including a 'New Age religious group' and a gospel choir, to use its facilities for events it deemed social, civic, or recreational.
Procedural Posture:
- Lamb's Chapel sued the Center Moriches Union Free School District in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York.
- The District Court granted summary judgment for the District, holding that the denial was a reasonable and viewpoint-neutral restriction in a limited public forum.
- Lamb's Chapel, as appellant, appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment in all respects.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted Lamb's Chapel's petition for a writ of certiorari.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a school district, which opens its property for a wide range of social, civic, and recreational uses, violate the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment by denying a church access to the property solely to show a film series on family values from a religious viewpoint?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice White
Yes. Denying a church access to school property to show a film on an otherwise permissible subject (family values) solely because the film presents the topic from a religious perspective constitutes unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination. The District opened its property for social and civic uses, and the subject of child-rearing and family values clearly falls within that category. By permitting presentations on this topic from all perspectives except a religious one, the District engaged in viewpoint discrimination, which is forbidden by the Free Speech Clause. The District's argument that allowing the film would violate the Establishment Clause is unfounded; under the test from Lemon v. Kurtzman, the after-hours, non-school-sponsored event, open to the public in a forum used by many diverse groups, posed no realistic danger that the community would perceive the District as endorsing religion.
Concurring - Justice Kennedy
Yes. The District's action is overt, viewpoint-based discrimination that contradicts the Free Speech Clause. While I agree with the Court's conclusion, I find its citation of Lemon v. Kurtzman to be both 'unsettling and unnecessary.' The Court's reliance on the 'endorsing religion' phrase is also problematic and is not a sufficient rule of decision for Establishment Clause jurisprudence.
Concurring - Justice Scalia
Yes. The District’s refusal to allow the film viewing violates the Free Speech Clause. I agree with the judgment but cannot join the majority's reasoning regarding the Establishment Clause. The Court’s invocation of the Lemon test is particularly egregious; like a 'ghoul in a late-night horror movie,' the Lemon test continually stalks Establishment Clause jurisprudence despite having been repeatedly criticized and functionally abandoned by many Justices. I decline to apply Lemon and also reject the notion that the Constitution forbids government endorsement of 'religion in general,' as the Framers believed religion inculcated public virtues beneficial to society. Allowing Lamb's Chapel nondiscriminatory access to school facilities simply cannot violate the Establishment Clause.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarified the line between permissible subject-matter restrictions and impermissible viewpoint discrimination in limited public forums. It established that religion can be a viewpoint on a secular subject, rather than merely a standalone subject matter, making it much harder for government entities to exclude religious perspectives from forums open to secular views on the same topics. The case also famously highlighted the deep divisions on the Court regarding the viability of the Lemon test for Establishment Clause analysis, with Justice Scalia's concurrence memorably attacking its continued use even as the majority applied it.
