Re: 4th Circuit rules (again) in favor of the Good News Club
I ask the following question for edification-- How does one square this decision with the 4th Cir's willingness to permit the Wiccan woman to be excluded from delivering prayers at city council meetings? I'm blanking on the name of the latter case, but it would seem that equality is at issue in both cases, and the results would seem at first blush in conflict with each other. And what position did CLS take on the Wiccan case, if any? Marci Marci A. Hamilton Paul R. Verkuil Chair in Public Law Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law Yeshiva University This is the case's second trip to the 4th Circuit, and once again thecourt invalidates the Montgomery County School District's variousmachinations to prevent the Good News Club access on equal terms to theforum of take-home flyers given to the students. http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/051508.P.pdf ___ 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.
Re: 4th Circuit rules (again) in favor of the Good News Club
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I ask the following question for edification-- How does one square this decision with the 4th Cir's willingness to permit the Wiccan woman to be excluded from delivering prayers at city council meetings? I'm blanking on the name of the latter case, but it would seem that equality is at issue in both cases, and the results would seem at first blush in conflict with each other. And what position did CLS take on the Wiccan case, if any? Excellent question. One might add another: what position did the ACLU and/or Americans United take in this most recent case? There might well be hypocrisy on both sides of this one. The earlier case you're referring to was Simpson v Chesterfield Co. Board of Supervisors. That ruling can be found at http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/041045.P.pdf. It appears at first blush that the court did not even consider the question of this being a public forum of any kind, and looked primarily at Marsh v Chambers as the controlling precedent. From that ruling: The parties here differ as to which lines of precedent govern this case. Simpson rejects the Countys argument that the principles of Marsh v. Chambers suffice to resolve the dispute. She instead offers, and the district court accepted, Larson v. Valente, 456 U.S. 228 (1982) (finding "denominational preference" to violate the Establishment Clause), as well as Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 612-13 (1971) (creating a general framework to evaluate Establishment Clause challenges). We think her reliance on these cases is misplaced and conclude that Marsh v. Chambers controls the outcome of this case. The court went on to note that Marsh was more on point and that it post dated both Larson and Lemon, and the court did not apply either of those cases in March. So it appears that the plaintiffs did not raise the public forum issue and the court did not consider it. Ed Brayton ___ 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.
RE: 4th Circuit rules (again) in favor of the Good News Club
In this case, the Fourth Circuit per Judge Motz found no viewpoint discrimination in the reserved power of the school to exclude disruptive materials. Consider this from the dissenting opinion of the same judge in Peck v.Upshur County,155 F.3d___ (4th Cir) where the question was the constitutionality of a rule permitting the distribution of literature to students including religious literature: Third, a reasonable, informed observer would know that theBoard consistently operated the school system as a nonpublicforum, retaining the authority to selectively deny access toinappropriate or harmful groups and affording access only to afew youth activity groups so that they could distributeinformational pamphlets. No amount of obfuscation can change thefact that this case differs dramatically from the cases on whichthe majority so heavily relies. In those cases, the governmentgranted many groups access to a forum, making the forum indeedopen, and then denied access to a similarly situated group solely on the basis of its religious perspective. Marc Stern From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, August 11, 2006 10:59 AM To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Subject: Re: 4th Circuit rules (again) in favor of the Good News Club I ask the following question for edification-- How does one square this decision with the 4th Cir's willingness to permit the Wiccan woman to be excluded from delivering prayers at city council meetings? I'm blanking on the name of the latter case, but it would seem that equality is at issue in both cases, and the results would seem at first blush in conflict with each other. And what position did CLS take on the Wiccan case, if any? Marci Marci A. Hamilton Paul R. Verkuil Chair in Public Law Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law Yeshiva University This is the case's second trip to the 4th Circuit, and once again the court invalidates the Montgomery County School District's various machinations to prevent the Good News Club access on equal terms to the forum of take-home flyers given to the students. http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/051508.P.pdf ___ 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.
RE: 4th Circuit rules (again) in favor of the Good News Club
CLS did not take a position in the Wiccan case. Greg Baylor Gregory S. BaylorDirector, Center for Law Religious FreedomChristian Legal Society8001 Braddock Road, Suite 300Springfield, VA 22151(703) 642-1070 x 3502(703) 642-1075 fax[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.clsnet.org From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Friday, August 11, 2006 10:59 AMTo: religionlaw@lists.ucla.eduSubject: Re: 4th Circuit rules (again) in favor of the Good News Club I ask the following question for edification-- How does one square this decision with the 4th Cir's willingness to permit the Wiccan woman to be excluded from delivering prayers at city council meetings? I'm blanking on the name of the latter case, but it would seem that equality is at issue in both cases, and the results would seem at first blush in conflict with each other. And what position did CLS take on the Wiccan case, if any? Marci Marci A. Hamilton Paul R. Verkuil Chair in Public Law Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law Yeshiva University This is the case's second trip to the 4th Circuit, and once again thecourt invalidates the Montgomery County School District's variousmachinations to prevent the Good News Club access on equal terms to theforum of take-home flyers given to the students. http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/051508.P.pdf ___ 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.
RE: 4th Circuit rules (again) in favor of the Good News Club
This dispute has been to the Fourth Circuit twice. In the first appeal, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, the ACLU of the National Capitol Area, the ACLU Foundation of Maryland, the Anti-Defamation League, People for the American Way, the National Education Association, the National School Boards Association, the Maryland Association of Boards of Education, the National Parent Teacher Association, the American Association of School Administrators,and Montgomery Soccer filed amicus briefs supporting Montgomery County Public Schools. In the second appeal, the National School Boards Association and the Maryland Association of Boards of Education filed an amicus brief supporting the school district. Greg Baylor Gregory S. BaylorDirector, Center for Law Religious FreedomChristian Legal Society8001 Braddock Road, Suite 300Springfield, VA 22151(703) 642-1070 x 3502(703) 642-1075 fax[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.clsnet.org From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ed BraytonSent: Friday, August 11, 2006 11:21 AMTo: Law Religion issues for Law AcademicsSubject: Re: 4th Circuit rules (again) in favor of the Good News Club [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I ask the following question for edification-- How does one square this decision with the 4th Cir's willingness to permit the Wiccan woman to be excluded from delivering prayers at city council meetings? I'm blanking on the name of the latter case, but it would seem that equality is at issue in both cases, and the results would seem at first blush in conflict with each other. And what position did CLS take on the Wiccan case, if any?Excellent question. One might add another: what position did the ACLU and/or Americans United take in this most recent case? There might well be hypocrisy on both sides of this one. The earlier case you're referring to was Simpson v Chesterfield Co. Board of Supervisors. That ruling can be found at http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/041045.P.pdf. It appears at first blush that the court did not even consider the question of this being a public forum of any kind, and looked primarily at Marsh v Chambers as the controlling precedent. From that ruling:The parties here differ as to which lines of precedent govern thiscase. Simpson rejects the Countys argument that the principles ofMarsh v. Chambers suffice to resolve the dispute. She instead offers,and the district court accepted, Larson v. Valente, 456 U.S. 228(1982) (finding "denominational preference" to violate the EstablishmentClause), as well as Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 612-13(1971) (creating a general framework to evaluate EstablishmentClause challenges). We think her reliance on these cases is misplacedand conclude that Marsh v. Chambers controls the outcome of thiscase.The court went on to note that Marsh was more on point and that it post dated both Larson and Lemon, and the court did not apply either of those cases in March. So it appears that the plaintiffs did not raise the public forum issue and the court did not consider it. Ed Brayton ___ 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.
Re: 4th Circuit rules (again) in favor of the Good News Club
Greg Baylor wrote: This dispute has been to the Fourth Circuit twice. In the first appeal, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, the ACLU of the National Capitol Area, the ACLU Foundation of Maryland, the Anti-Defamation League, People for the American Way, the National Education Association, the National School Boards Association, the Maryland Association of Boards of Education, the National Parent Teacher Association, the American Association of School Administrators,and Montgomery Soccer filed amicus briefs supporting Montgomery County Public Schools. In the second appeal, the National School Boards Association and the Maryland Association of Boards of Education filed an amicus brief supporting the school district. Interesting. Does anyone know why the change? Did the ACLU, PAW and AU feel that the new policy from the school board resolved the constitutional questions? Ed Brayton ___ 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.
Re: 4th Circuit rules (again) in favor of the Good News Club
In a message dated 8/11/06 4:32:57 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In the second appeal, the National School Boards Association and the Maryland Association of Boards of Education filed an amicus brief supporting the school district. The ACLU was not aware of the second appeal until the decision came down yesterday. No party (nor the other amici) had alerted us to it. Arthur B. Spitzer Legal Director American Civil Liberties Union of the National Capital Area 1400 20th Street, N.W. #119 Washington, D.C. 20036 T. 202-457-0800 F. 202-452-1868 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ 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.
RE: 4th Circuit rules (again) in favor of the Good News Club
The first appeal addressed (and resolved)the question whether school distribution of Good News Club fliers violated the Establishment Clause. The second appeal did not, instead focusing on whether MCPS's somewhat peculiar new flier distribution policy violated the Free Speech Clause. I suspect that this explains why numerous groups participated in the first but not the second appeal. Greg Baylor CLS From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ed BraytonSent: Friday, August 11, 2006 4:41 PMTo: Law Religion issues for Law AcademicsSubject: Re: 4th Circuit rules (again) in favor of the Good News Club Greg Baylor wrote: This dispute has been to the Fourth Circuit twice. In the first appeal, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, the ACLU of the National Capitol Area, the ACLU Foundation of Maryland, the Anti-Defamation League, People for the American Way, the National Education Association, the National School Boards Association, the Maryland Association of Boards of Education, the National Parent Teacher Association, the American Association of School Administrators,and Montgomery Soccer filed amicus briefs supporting Montgomery County Public Schools. In the second appeal, the National School Boards Association and the Maryland Association of Boards of Education filed an amicus brief supporting the school district. Interesting. Does anyone know why the change? Did the ACLU, PAW and AU feel that the new policy from the school board resolved the constitutional questions?Ed Brayton ___ 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.
