Ed: Is this based on specific knowledge of how Orlando
International runs these things, or based on an inference about how other
airports do it. According to the Orlando Sentinel story, it is the airport
that is publicly taking credit for the reflection room, as well as for another
planned chapel. (“In addition to the reflection room, airport spokeswoman
Carolyn Fennell said, Orlando International also intends to build another
chapel and place in the main terminal, where it can be reached without going
through security.”) Is that mistaken? Is it that the airlines actually get
together and decide such construction questions between them, and the airport
just takes credit for it.
As to this being “non-tax money,” I’m still not sure what the
constitutional significance of that is. The great bulk of UCLA law school’s
operating expenses, for instance, come from students. Does that mean that
there’s no Establishment Clause scrutiny if we build a chapel at the law
school? I don’t of any authority for any difference in treatment between
government funds raised through taxes and government funds raised through user
fees, though I’d be happy to be enlightened if I’m missing it.
Eugene
From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Ed Darrell
Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2015 1:59 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Muslim-focused "reflection room" in airport
Orlando is managed by the Greater Orlando Aviation Authority, which does not
make decisions on allocating space in the terminals. It's the airlines that
make those decisions, and the money spent is not from taxes, but comes
exclusively from airline and concession rentals (generally the concession
rentals offset the high costs of the airlines; still no tax money involved).
Not sure how non-tax money gets put into a pool labeled "government." I can
tell you terminals like O'Hare probably couldn't get built were a government
making the decisions -- just as Grand Central Station was built with private
money (is it government now?).
A better analogy might be the great sports stadia, which have bonds nominally
issued by a municipality, but generally with no tax contributions; and the
management of the stadium is left to a semi-governmental entity, or to the
biggest lease holder (like Cowboy Stadium -- AT&T Stadium -- in Arlington,
Texas).
Does government have a say in whether the New York Giants gather for prayer at
midfield before or after a game?
It's not a First Amendment-free zone, but it's not the same as government
speech, nor the same as government accommodation of speech or religion.
Ed Darrell
Dallas
________________________________
From: "Volokh, Eugene" <vol...@law.ucla.edu<mailto:vol...@law.ucla.edu>>
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
<religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>>
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2015 7:53 PM
Subject: RE: Muslim-focused "reflection room" in airport
I much appreciate the background on how airports make their
money, but I don’t think this matters for Establishment Clause purposes, so
long as the decisions are made by a government entity, using money at the
disposal of government entity (whether it comes from taxes or user fees). The
Orlando airport is managed by a government entity, the Greater Orlando Aviation
Authority, http://www.orlandoairports.net/about.htm, and as best I can tell
from the stories, it’s making the decision to create the reflection room, using
money that is in its fisc. I don’t think that’s any different from, say, a
public university using student fees to build such a room – perhaps
permissible, but very far removed from “religious verse citations listed on the
soft-drink cups at In-n-Out Burgers.”
Eugene
From:
religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu>
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Ed Darrell
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2015 2:31 PM
To: Alan E Brownstein; Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Muslim-focused "reflection room" in airport
Alan, there's a difference between public space and the space people pay rent
on. Every chapel I know of falls into the private area (there may be others);
the questions tend to revolve around whether the public spaces of terminals are
truly public like a public street. At O'Hare we had secular war over whether
the Chicago newspapers could put boxes up to sell newspapers outside the
newsstands (airline issue was that newsstands pay very high rents, newspapers
argued they had a First Amendment right to sell anywhere without paying rent .
. .). Many of those issues fell away after the first magnetometers went in,
and I suspect the rest went away after 9/11 and the advent of TSA.
Some airports successfully put up boxes from which the Hare Krishnas could
sing, dance, and ask for converts. I am unaware that any other faiths ever
used the boxes.
I'm working from memory, but my recollection is that the airlines agreed to put
up $200,000 to build and furnish a couple of chapels, nominally under the
direction of a Catholic priest who somehow wangled O'Hare as his area of
influence. One of the questions the airlines had was whether those chapels
would be open to all faiths, and Father Jamnicky assured us they would be.
When I checked later that's what I found.
Generally it's the airport committee of airlines that sets those policies.
Most major airports have a "board" to oversee the administration of the airport
apart from the terminals and runways, and to coordinate activities, and those
boards, made up of people from the community (as at DFW, and MCO if I read that
news article correctly). The community boards generally rubber stamp decisions
of the airport committee, if they do anything at all.
When the suing starts, it's the airlines that bear the burden of costs,
usually. Sometimes those suits are done with coordination of the local
municipality, but the airlines pay the lawyers and are named in the suits.
If Emirates Air has a sizable presence, they may have some influence; I think
most airports would go out of their way to accommodate reasonable requests of
airlines who pay massive landing fees.
All commercial airports in the U.S. are built with bond money, the bonds issued
on guarantee the airlines will be paying rents for a long time -- most of the
agreements are 30-years to start out. European airports are usually
nationally-managed. Canada has a little greater control on the airport, but
the structure is much the same as the U.S.
Airlines are generally too cheap to put up a facility for just one faith.
Would it be constitutional? Probably, but it makes little commercial sense
because of the possibility of offense to someone. Airlines like to keep
customers happy and coming back often. In Orlando (MCO), this seems pretty
clearly a concession for Islam that matches concessions already made to other
faiths.
Maybe we can find some airport people who know better what's going on in Europe
now, and in the Middle East.
I came through Beijing a couple of weeks ago, and I looked for a chapel there,
and found none. Considering how heavily used most of the Buddhist shrines in
China are, as religious practice locations, I thought that a little surprising.
I don't speak Chinese at all, and couldn't find anyone to ask. All other
public spaces I saw have signs of codes of conduct, which prohibit
"superstitious activities."
Perhaps we could all call our local airports, and ask about chapels. We might
discover something that way.
Ed Darrell
Dallas
________________________________
From: Alan E Brownstein
<aebrownst...@ucdavis.edu<mailto:aebrownst...@ucdavis.edu>>
To: Ed Darrell <edarr...@sbcglobal.net<mailto:edarr...@sbcglobal.net>>; Law &
Religion issues for Law Academics
<religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>>
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2015 3:28 PM
Subject: RE: Muslim-focused "reflection room" in airport
Ed knows much more about the ownership and management of airports than I do –
although it’s not hard to satisfy that standard. But I recall several cases
where airport governing authorities were sued for violating the free speech
rights of people using the airport terminals for expressive purposes. Is the
entity that adopts airport terminal regulations different than the one that
determines whether chapels should be located in the terminal or perhaps some
airports are more clearly government owned and managed than others. I’m just
curious. If there is no state action here, would it be constitutional for an
airport to have a denominational chapel that conduct services for only one
faith?
From:
religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu>
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Ed Darrell
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2015 11:29 AM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Muslim-focused "reflection room" in airport
Again I note, airport terminals are not buildings that state pays for nor pays
to maintain (though title often falls to a governmental entity if the facility
is abandoned). I just don't think our usual "what can government do" analysis
applies, any more than it would apply to the religious verse citations listed
on the soft-drink cups at In-n-Out Burgers.
Ed Darrell
Dallas
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to
Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu<mailto: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.
_______________________________________________
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.
