Bronx Household of Faith v. Community School District No. 10
Docket: No. 1669, Docket 96-9633
Court: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit; September 15, 1997; Federal Appellate Court
Plaintiffs-appellants The Bronx Household of Faith, an evangelical Christian church, along with its pastors, Jack Roberts and Robert Hall, appeal a summary judgment from the Southern District of New York that favored defendants-appellees, including Community School District No. 10 and the Board of Education for the City of New York. The plaintiffs challenged the refusal to allow the use of the gymnasium-auditorium of Anne Cross Mersereau Middle School for weekly religious services. Initially filed in the New York Supreme Court, the case involved claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and New York's declaratory judgment statute, asserting violations of the First Amendment's Free Speech, Free Exercise, and Establishment Clauses, the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
The district court ruled in favor of the defendants, determining that the Board of Education had established a limited public forum and that the restrictions on its use were justifiable for legitimate government interests, primarily preserving access for educational purposes. The court dismissed the other claims without detailed analysis. On appeal, the plaintiffs reiterated their prior arguments. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the Free Speech claim but disagreed with the district court’s interpretation of "nonexclusive use," while also rejecting the other claims that were not addressed by the district court.
The background indicates that New York state law does not permit school property to be used for religious worship, although it allows for various other uses such as educational instruction and community activities, provided they are "non-exclusive and open to the general public." The New York City Board of Education has established regulations governing school facility use, prioritizing Board activities and community group activities.
The SOP outlines specific permitted uses of school premises in New York City, including:
- **Educational Purposes (5.6.1)**: Instruction, examinations, and graduations in any educational discipline.
- **Community Activities (5.6.2)**: Social, civic, and recreational meetings that benefit the community, open to the general public.
- **Voting and Political Events (5.6.3)**: Polling places for elections and political meetings, with restrictions on political organization sponsorship unless authorized by the Board of Education.
- **Civic Forums (5.6.4)**: Allowed in compliance with applicable laws.
- **Recreation (5.6.5)**: Use for athletics, including competitive events for nonpublic, nonprofit school students.
Notably, **SOP 5.9** prohibits outside organizations from conducting religious services or instruction on school premises after school hours, but allows discussions and distribution of religious material.
The document identifies District 10, a public school district in the Bronx, NYC, under the jurisdiction of the NYC Board of Education, specifically M.S. 206B, which serves students aged 9-12. Several organizations were permitted to use District 10 facilities during the 1994-95 school year for various educational and community programs, including:
- **ACAP, Inc.**: Youth training programs.
- **Alliance for Education**: Tutoring in math and English.
- **Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts**: Skills training.
- **Bronx YMCA**: After-school tutoring.
- **Bronx School of Music**: Student concerts.
- **Community Workshops**: Topics on drug prevention and health.
- **Cultural Programs**: Such as Greek language classes and Black History Month events.
- **Job Preparation and Adult Education**: Programs for teenagers and adults, respectively.
Each organization’s activities were conducted in compliance with the SOP guidelines.
In 1994 and 1995, the Church rented the M.S. 206B building for sports programs and once for a banquet. However, their request to use the gymnasium for Sunday worship services was denied by District 10 official Frank Pagliuca, citing a policy (SOP 5.9) that prohibits the use of school facilities for religious services by outside organizations. Pastor Hall appealed the decision, asserting the Church's Christian identity and claiming the policy was unconstitutional, while arguing that the facility was needed due to overcrowding at their current location. His request was again denied, leading to an appeal. The parties involved stipulated that Community School District 10 has consistently enforced Policy 5.9, denying facility rentals for religious worship to all non-school groups, including Bronx Household of Faith.
The legal discussion introduces the Freedom of Speech claim, emphasizing that the right to speak on government property depends on the forum type—traditional public, designated public (limited), or nonpublic. Traditional public forums face the highest scrutiny for speech restrictions, which must serve a compelling state interest. Limited public forums allow certain speech but require that restrictions be reasonable and viewpoint neutral. If the proposed use is outside the limited forum, only minimal constitutional scrutiny applies.
A nonpublic forum is defined as government property that has not been designated for public discourse, allowing the government to restrict access based on subject matter and speaker identity. Appellants argue that M.S. 206B constitutes an open public forum, asserting that their religious activities cannot be excluded without a compelling state interest. They reference the case of Lamb’s Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free School District, where the Supreme Court implied that the prior ruling against an open forum might have been incorrect, highlighting the diverse use of the District's property by private organizations. Despite this implication, the Supreme Court did not definitively rule on the open forum issue, instead reversing the lower court's decision based on the unconstitutionality of denying a religious group’s request to use public school facilities for a film series on family values. The Court found the denial unreasonable as the subject matter was otherwise permitted, emphasizing that the refusal was solely due to the religious context. In District 10, while religious services or instruction are prohibited, organizations are allowed to discuss religious material, suggesting that similar film presentations may be permitted under existing rules.
SOP 5.9 prohibits the use of school property for worship or religious instruction, a restriction agreed upon by the parties involved, confirming that District 10 has never rented school property for such purposes. This limitation characterizes a limited public forum, allowing certain restrictions on speakers and subjects, acknowledging that certain speech types may be prohibited in public schools, even after hours. M.S. 206B is not a traditionally open public assembly space, contrasting with cases like Gregoire v. Centennial Sch. Dist., which recognized a high school facility as an open forum for religious speech due to indiscriminate access. The Supreme Court's decision in Widmar v. Vincent, which addressed a public university's restriction on religious group use of facilities, does not apply here. The Court found that the university created a generally open forum and required a compelling state interest for content-based exclusions, a standard not met in that case. Additionally, the Court has noted the unique characteristics of public university campuses as public forums, emphasizing academic freedom. In Rosenberger v. Rector, the Court held that while viewpoint discrimination against speech within a limited forum is impermissible, SOP 5.9 appropriately distinguishes between prohibiting religious worship and allowing religious viewpoint speech relating to the forum's purpose. The Equal Access Act, which mandates public secondary schools receiving federal aid to recognize student religious groups for non-curricular activities, does not apply to this case.
The excerpt addresses the legal considerations surrounding the prohibition of an outside religious organization from using a middle school for worship. It distinguishes this case from the Mergens line of cases and from the Tenth Circuit's ruling in Church on the Rock v. City of Albuquerque, which found a similar prohibition discriminatory due to the city's allowance of other religious presentations. The court notes that, unlike the senior citizen center in that case, the middle school has not been opened to any religious presentations, thus making the circumstances different.
The court emphasizes the reasonableness of the regulation barring religious services in a middle school context, highlighting the need to avoid associating the school with a specific church and considering the impact on middle school children. It asserts that the state and school authorities have a legitimate interest in maintaining a separation between church and school, particularly for regular worship services.
The regulation allows for speech from a religious viewpoint but explicitly prohibits religious worship services, maintaining viewpoint neutrality. Furthermore, the middle school has not been used for worship services by any outside group, indicating that it has not been opened to general public use for such purposes. The broader civic and social uses permitted in District 10 schools support the notion that the regulation is reasonable and consistent with the intended use of school facilities.
Worship and religious instruction are classified as forms of speech protected in public forums, such as public universities, as referenced in Widmar. However, this case examines the distinction between religious services and other permitted religious viewpoints in District 10’s limited forum at a public middle school. Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) 5.9 explicitly prohibits outside groups from conducting religious services or instruction on school premises after hours, while allowing discussions and distribution of religious material. The New York City Board of Education appears to follow the precedent set by Lamb’s Chapel in this regulation. The Church, represented by Pastor Hall, sought to conduct traditional worship services involving hymns, communion, and Bible teachings, which District 10 has not permitted.
District 10 has allowed discussions of religious material in a secular context but has maintained a clear distinction between such discussions and formal religious services. The distinction is considered reasonable and viewpoint neutral. The court found no relevance in the requirement for non-exclusive use of school premises for meetings, as religious services do not fall under the categories of social, civic, or recreational meetings as defined by law. Furthermore, there was no evidence indicating that the Church's services were not open to the public or that admission fees would apply. Since state law and SOP explicitly exclude religious services from permitted uses of school property, the limitations imposed by the district are constitutional. Finally, the First Amendment prohibits any law establishing religion, which neither the State of New York nor the New York City Board of Education has enacted concerning the use of M.S. 206B.
Appellants argue that the Board of Education improperly used the Establishment Clause to justify its ban on religious services and instruction in public schools. However, the Board's limitations are deemed reasonable and viewpoint neutral, as supported by relevant case law. The appellants' cited cases relate to traditional public forums or instances where viewpoint neutrality was violated, which do not apply here. They also assert a violation of the Free Exercise Clause, claiming the School District excludes religious services. However, cited cases, such as Employment Division v. Smith and Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, involved specific religious practices that were either neutrally applied or targeted. The current statute and SOP do not prohibit any particular religious practice and do not hinder the free exercise of religion, as individuals are free to practice their religion elsewhere. Furthermore, the Equal Protection claim is supported by Police Department v. Mosley, which emphasizes that content-based restrictions in traditional public forums must be narrowly tailored to serve a compelling interest.
Appellants argue for the application of strict scrutiny regarding rules that prohibit religious worship services in a limited public forum, claiming violations of their freedom of speech and religion. However, the court finds that there is no fundamental right to free speech or exercise of religion in a limited forum where certain speakers or subjects can be excluded. The court cites relevant case law, stating that restrictions in a traditional public forum only violate rights if the forum is opened to assembly or speech by some groups without allowing others.
Regarding the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), appellants assert that the School District's actions impose a significant burden on their religious beliefs by denying access to public property for religious services. However, the court notes that a denial of such use does not constitute a substantial burden on religious exercise, as defined by the RFRA. Moreover, the RFRA claim is considered moot since the Act has been ruled unconstitutional in City of Boerne v. Flores, where the Court determined that Congress overstepped its Fourteenth Amendment authority by enacting the RFRA. The court emphasizes that New York's authority to regulate health and welfare allows it to establish limited forums in schools that can exclude religious services. Consequently, the district court's judgment is affirmed.
