Alan is right as a matter of general principles, and as a matter of precedent, see Board of Regents v. Southworth (2000).
From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Alan E Brownstein Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2015 4:51 PM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: RE: Muslim-focused "reflection room" in airport I would hope that no court would hold that allocating access to public property or allocating public funds on the basis of majority approval or votes would constitute neutral criteria for constitutional purposes. A regulation allowing the community to vote on which speakers would be allowed to hold a rally in a public park (the top five get a permit) would not be a content neutral speech regulation. I do not think the problem in Rosenberger would be avoided if the University of Virginia allowed students to vote to determine which students periodicals would receive support from the University and no religious periodicals received sufficient votes to receive funds. If funds are to be allocated according to neutral criteria between religious and non-religious uses, asking the majority how it would allocate funds should not satisfy that standard. If the room is designated for expressive purposes without any special regard for religious uses, then majority ranking might be acceptable. I know no constitutional constraint preventing majorities from favoring expressive uses over fast food restaurants. Alan From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu> [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Justin Butterfield Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2015 2:35 PM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: Muslim-focused "reflection room" in airport The former, but not that rooms are provided for a wide range of expressive groups so much as that the use of the funds is grounded in neutral criteria (the Sixth Circuit goes on to explain that they upheld Detroit's downtown refurbishment program, which provided funds to refurbish churches, because the funds were given out according to facially neutral criteria and there was no evidence that the facially neutral criteria were chosen to "stack the deck in favor of groups that engage in religious indoctrination." Am. Atheists, 567 F.3d at 291, 302. For example (and assuming that the airport's funds are governmental funds), suppose that the airport polled frequent fliers in a terminal as to what accommodations the terminal was lacking and promised to provide $250,000 each to build the top 5 most-requested accommodations. The results are two fast-food restaurants, the reflection room, a gym, and a luxury seating area, each of which is provided $250,000. This dispersement would be based on neutral criteria, even though there is only one "expressive group." Justin
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
