2 4 4 [8 6 O p
. A tt ’y
CONS TI TU TI ONAL LA W
E STABL I SHM ENT C LAUSE

– F RE E DOM OF S PE E CH

– W HE T HE R P UB L I C L I B RA RY R E AD I NG P R OG R A M M AY D I STRI BUTE C OUPON C ONT AI NI NG B I BLI CAL R E FE RE NC E

O ct ober2, 2001 The H onor abl e Lar r

y E. H ai nes Ma ry la n d

S e n a te Y ou have a s ked forouropi ni on on t w o i ssues r el at ed t o t he del et i on of a bi bl i cal r efe r ence fr om a comm er ci al bus i nes s coupon th a t w a s in c lu d e d in a p a c k a g e d istrib u ted b yth e C a rro ll C o u n ty P u b l i c L i b r a r y a s p a r to f i t s s u m m e rr e a d i n g p r o g r a m
. S p e c i f i c a l l y, y o u h a v e a sk e d : ( 1) W as t he r emoval of t he bi bl i cal r efe r ence r equi r ed byt he Es t a b l i s h me n tCl a u s e o f t h e Uni t e d St a t e s Con s t i tu t i o n ? ( 2) D i d r emoval of t he bi bl i cal r efe r ence vi ol at e t he r i ghtof fr ee s peec h undert he Fi r s tA m endm entof t he U ni t ed St at es Con s t i tu t i o n o rAr t i c l e 4 0 o f t h e M a r y l a n d Dec l a r a t i o n o f Ri g h t s ? I n ouropi ni on, i ncl us i on of t he coup o n w i t h t he bi bl i cal r efe r ence i nt act w oul d not have vi ol at ed t he Est abl i s hm entC l aus e. B e c a u s e t h e c i r c u ms t a n c e s o f t h e d e l e t i o n o f

t h e b i b l i c a l r e f

e r ence ar e a mat t erof di s put e, w e addr es s y ours econd quest ion as if t he l i br aryhad s i m pl yexcl uded the coupon w i t h t he bi bl i cal r efe r ence fr om t he pac ket

. I n ourvi ew , excl us i on of the co u p o n w oul d not h a v e v io la te d c o n s titu tio n a l g u a ra n te e s o f f re e s p e e c h

.

I Backg r ound Y our ques t i ons conce r n t he cont ent s of t he “goodi e bag” t hat w a s g iv e n to c h ild re n w h o sig n e d u p f o r th e C a rro ll C o u n tyP u b lic L i br ary ’ s s um m err eadi ng pr ogr am. T h e packet s , w hi ch var i ed acc or di ng t o age gr oup, cont ai ned mat er i al s r el at ing t o t he r eadi ng pr ogr am i t s el f, a s m al l m agaz i ne for ol der chi l dr en, and thr ee orfour coupons offe r i ng di s count s atvari o u s busi nes s es
. For exampl e,G en. 244] 245

The fish sy

mbol is recognized as a Christian sy mbol, W e bb v . Ci ty 1 of R e pu bli c , 55 F.Supp.2d 994, 995 (W.D. Mo. 1999), as, of cour se, is the c ro ss. The ve rse appea

rs in the L etter of St. Paul to the Ephesians: “And 2 take the he lmet of salvation and the sw ord of the Spirit, which is the word of God.”Ephesians, 6:17, Oxford Ann o tated B ible, Revised Standard Edition (1965). Criti cs acc use library director of religious discriminati on , Ca rroll 3 County Ti me s ( July

1, 20 01 ); Reading f

reebie finds flashpoint , Baltimore Sun (June 30, 2001). packe t s i ncl uded coupon s fo ra l ocal fas tfood r es t aur ant , an amusement par k, and the B al t i m or e Zoo. O n e o f th e c o u p o n s d istri b u ted in the p ac k ets w as f o r S h ea ’s M aze , a maze cr eat ed i n a corn fi el d i n G et t y s bur g, Penns y lvan i a. T he coupon of

fe rs $ 1 off the pr i ce of admi s s i on and cont ai ns t he n a m e , a d d re ss , a n d p h o n e n u m b e r of th e b u sin e ss a n d d ire c tio n s to th e m a z e . T h e c o u p o n sta tes th a t S h e a ’s M a z e is “ th e o n lym a z e in c o rn to s tan d y e a r ro u n d .” A p p ro x im a telyh a lf o f th e c o u p o n is take n u p b ya c artoo n fig u re of a m o u se n am ed “K ern el M az einc o rn Shea, ” w hi ch s er ves as t he t r ademar k of t he maze. T he mouse ha s a f ish sy m b o l o n h is h a t an d a c r o s s o n a b a d g e o r b u tto n o n h is co at. T h e m o u se h o lds a sw o rd i n h is ri g h t h an d

. O v er th e m o u se’s 1 l efthand, i n very s m al l t ype, i s “Eph. 6: 17” – a r efe r ence t o a N ew T es t ament ver s e. T he r ever s e s i de of the coupon l i s t s t he hour s of 2 o p e ra tio n o f

th e m a z e a n d a d m is s io n p ri c e s
. W hen the Shea’ s M aze coupon w as ori g ina l l ys ubm i t t ed for i ncl us i on i n t he packet , t he hea d of t he l i br arypr ogr am i nfor m ed the bus i nes s ow n ert hatt he bi bl i cal r efe r ence w oul d have t o be r emoved, b u t did n o t r eq u est d eleti o n o f the fish sy m b o l or t h e c ross
. L ibrary s t a f f i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e o wne r a g r e e d t o ma k e t h i s c h a nge, but su b se q u e n tlyd e liv e re d th e c o u p o n s w ith th e re f e re n c e in tac t. L i br arys t aff

t hen del et ed the r efe r ence byhand f rom t he coupons b e f o re in c lu d in g th e m in th e p a c k e t f o r d istrib u tio n . A c c o rd in g to publ i s hed r epor t s , t he ow nerof t he bus i nes s has s t at ed thatt he bi bl i cal r efe r ence i s par tof t he bus i nes s t r ademar k and t hats he neve r agr eed t o del et i on of t he bi bl i cal r efe r ence
. 32 4 6 [8 6 O p
. A tt ’y

Therehas been some confusion about whe ther, in foc using on the 4 question o f g o v er nment endorseme nt, the Supreme Court wa s establishing an entire ly

new test, or simply

expli catingthe second prong of the Lemon test – i.e. , whether

a g overnme nt action has a primary eff ect of advanc ing or inhibiting re ligion. Com pa re Altman v. Bedford Cent. School District , 245 F.3d 49, 75 ( 2d Cir. 2001) and W e bb v . Ci ty

of R e pu bli c , 55 F.Supp.2d 994, 997 (W.D. Mo. 1999) with A.C.L.U. of O hio v. Capitol Square Rev iew , 243 F.3d 289, 306 ( 6 Cir. 2001) (en ba nc) and Gaylor v. th United States , 74 F.3d 214, 217 (10 Cir.), cert. de nied, 116 S.Ct . 1830 th (1996). II A n a ly sis A . E stab lishm en t

Clau se T h e F ir s tA m endment t o t he U ni t ed St at es C ons t i tut i on pr ovi des i n par tt hat “C o n g res s s hal l m ake no l aw r es pect i ng an es t abl i s hm entof r el i gi on. ” Thi s pr ovi s i on, comm onl y know n as t he E s t abl i s hm entC l ause, al s o appl i es t o t he s t at es byvi r tue of the F o u rt e e n th A m e n d m e n t. E ver s on v. B oar d of

E ducat i on , 33 0 U. S. 1 (1 9 4 7 ). T h e E stab li sh m en t C laus e m ea n s, at the l ea st, that “[ n ]eith er a s t at e nor t he F eder al G overnm ent can se t up a chur ch. N ei t hercan pas s l aw s w hi ch ai d one r el i gion, ai d al l r el i gi ons , orpr efe rone r el i gi on overanother

. ” E ver s on, 33 0 U

. S

. at15 -16. T he C l ause al so pr event s t he governm entfr om “appe ar i ng t o t ake a pos i t i on on ques t i ons of r el i gi ous bel i ef orfr om ‘ m aki ng adher ence t o a r el i gi on r el evanti n anyw ayt o a per s on’ s s t anding i n t he pol i t i cal comm un it y . ’ ” C ount

y of A l l egheny v. A m er i can C i vi lLi ber t i es U ni on , 4 9 2 U .S . 5 7 3 , 5 9 4 (1 9 8 9 ). T h e S u p re m e C o u rt h a s lo n g a p p lied a th re e -p a rt a n a ly sis to t es tgovernm entpr act i ces agai ns tt he Est abl i s hm en t Cl aus e: t he pr act i ce m us thave a s ecul arpurpos e; i tm us tnei t heradvanc e nor in h ib it relig io n ; an d it m u st n o t f o ste r e x c e ss iv e e n tan g lem e n t w ith re lig io n
. Lem on v. Kur t z m an , 40 3 U

. S

. 60 2 (1971 ). In recent y ears , anal y s i s of E s t abl i s hm ent C l aus e i s s ues has focus ed on w hethert he chal l enged a ct i on has t he purpos e oref fe ct of e ndor s i ng r el i gi on. C o u n ty o f A l l e g h e ny , 492 U

. S. at592- 94. U ndert hi s t es t , t he 4 q u e stio n o f

w h e th e r in c lu d in g a c o u p o n w ith a b ib lica l re f e re n c e in t he s um m err eadi ng packa ge w oul d have vi ol at ed the Est abl i s hm entG en. 244] 247 C l aus e depe nds on w hether a “r eas onabl e obs er ver ” w oul d per cei ve it a s a s ta te e n d o rs e m e n t o f re lig io n
. Sant a Fe Inde pendent School D is tr i ct v. D oe , 5 3 0 U

. S

. 2 9 0 , 3 0 6 -8 (2 0 0 0 ). T he Su prem e C ou rt m ost recent l y app l i ed the en do rs em ent t est i n G ood N

ew s C l ub v. Mi l

f or d C entr alSchool , 12 1 S. C t

. 2093 (20 01) and Sant a Fe I

ndepende ntSchool

D is t r i ct , supra . I n G ood N ew s C l ub , t he courth eld t hatt he Est abl i s hm entC l aus e di d not r equi r e a publ i c s chool t o excl ude a r el i gi ous chi l dr en’ s cl ub fr om aft er- ho urs use of scho ol faci l i t i es. In conc l ud i ng t hat s uch use w oul d notcons t i tut e an endor s ement of re l i gi on, t he C our tr eas oned t hatpr o v iding r el i gi ous gr oups w i t h t he s ame acce s s t o s chool faci l i t i es as ot her group s w ou l d n ot offend t he n eutr al i t ypri ncip le under l y i ng t he Fi r s t A m endment , t hat par ent s w oul d not fee l coer ced t o have thei rchi l dr en j oi n t he cl ub, and thati tw as unl i kel yt hat chi l dr en w oul d m i s per cei ve us e of t he fa ci l i t i es as endor s ement of r el i gi on. 121 S. C t

. at2103- 7. T he Sa n t e Fe cas e conc erned w hethe r pra y er s del i ver ed by s tudent s atvar s i t yfootbal l games vi ol at ed t he Est abl i s hm entC l aus e. W hi l e r ecogni zi ng t hatpr i vat e sp eec h t hatt akes pl ace i n a g o v ern m en t fo rum is no t th e g o v ern m en t’ s sp ee ch , the C o u rt c o n c lu d e d th a t th e p re -g a m e s tu d e n t in v o c a tio n w a s n o t p riv a te speech becau se i t w as deli vered over t he school’ s pu bli c a dd res s s y s t em, t he s y s t em w as not gener al l y open t o pr i vat e s peake r s , and t he school r et ai ned som e cont r ol over t he cont ent of t he s peec h. 530 U

. S. at306- 8. M or eover , t he hi s t or yof th e pr act i ce de m ons t r at ed t hati tw as s i m pl ya cont i nuat i on of t he school ’ s pr evi ous pol i cyof s a n c tio n in g s tu d e n t- le d p ra y e r a t a th le tic e v e n ts

. Id

. at 30 9 -10

. In t hos e c ir cumst ance s , a “s tudentw i l l unques t i onabl yper cei ve the i nevi t abl e pr egame pr ay eras s t am p ed w ith hers chool ’ s s eal of appr oval

. ” Id . a t 3 0 8

. W hethera r eas onabl e obs erverwou l d per cei ve endor s ement of r el i gi on i n a governm entact i on depends on t he cont ext , as w ell as t he cont ent , of t he governm entact i on. I n C ount y of A l l eg h eny v. A m er i can C i vi lLi ber t i es U ni on , 4 9 2 U .S

. 5 7 3 (1 9 8 9 ), th e C o u rt h e ld t hatdi s pl ayof a c r eche i n a ce nt r al por t i on of a co u n t ybui l di ng vi ol at ed the Est abl i s hm ent C l aus e. B uti n L y n c h v . D o n n e lly , 465 U .S . 6 6 8 (1 9 8 4 ), th e C o u rt f o u n d th a t in c lu d in g a n a tiv itysc e n e in a ci ty ’ s C hr i s t m as di s pl aydi d notvi ol at e the Est abl i s hm entC l aus e, w her e the na t i vi t ys cene w as i ncl uded w i t h a Sant a C l aus hous e, r ei ndeerpul l i ng Sant a’ s s l ei gh, candys t r i ped pol es , a C hr i s tma s t r ee, c a ro ler s, c u to u t f

ig u re s o f c h a ra c ter s s u c h a s a c lo w n , an e lep h a n t, and a t eddybear , hundr eds of col or ed l i ght s , and a l ar ge banne rt hat2 4 8 [8 6 O p
. A tt ’y

We do not mean to imply that we would rea ch the same c onclusion 5 if thec onte nt o f t

hec ou po n w e re m arke dl y

dif ferent ( e.g., a church’s adver tising of its vac ation bible school). s ai d “Seas ons G r eet i ngs
. ” Si m i l ar l y , i n Ca p i t olSq u a r e Re v i e w & A dv iso ry B o a rdv . P in e tte , 515 U

. S. 753 ( 1995) , t he C our t found t hat al l ow i ng t he K u K l ux K l an t o er ect a cr os s i n a park w oul d nothave v io late d th e E sta b lish m e n t C la u se , w h e n th e p a rk w a s o p e n to s p e e c h b y m a n y g ro u p s o n e q u a l te rm s
. See a l so D o e v . Sm a ll , 964 F. 2d 611 ( 7 C i r
. 1992) ( ci t y coul d notexcl ude pr i vat e as s oci at i on

th fr om di s pl ay i ng pai nti n g s i n publ i c park m er el ybeca us e of the re lig io u s c o n te n t o f

th e p a in tin g s ). T h u s, th e E sta b lish m e n t C lau se d o e s n o t re q u ire th a t p riv a te rel i gious spee c h b e excluded enti rel yfrom go vernm ent forum s. C h a n d le rv. Si egelm an , 2 3 0 F .3 d 1 3 1 3 (1 1 C ir. 2 0 0 0 ) (p u b lic th pr ay erby student s w oul d notvi ol at e Est abl i s hm entC l aus e i f not sp o n so re d b ysc h o o l); C o n c e rn e d W o m e n fo r A m e ric a v . L a fa y e tte C o u n ty , 883 F. 2d 32 ( 5 C i r
. 1989) ( publ i c l i br arycoul d notexcl ude th re lig io u s g ro u p f

ro m u se o f its a u d ito riu m , w h e n it h a d m a d e f a c ili ty av ail ab le t o w ide v arietyo f o ther g rou p s). In th is in sta n c e , the c o u p o n s f o r S h e a ’s M a z e w e re in c lu d e d in m a te ri a ls d is tr ib u t e d b yth e C a rr o ll C o u n ty P u b lic L ib ra ry, a go vernm ent ent i t y . H ow ever, t ho se coup on s )l i ke ot heri ncent i ve m at eri al s provi ded bypri vate busi nesses )w e re c lea rl y n o t a g o v e rn m e n t p u b lica tio n , b u t m a ter ial typ ica llyp re p a re d b yp riv a te bu si nesses for dis t ri bu t i on by m ai l , new spaper, and other m eans. M or eover , t he coupons w er e i ncl ud ed n o tas t he s peec h of t he governm ent , but as a “pr i ze” for t hos e w ho s i gned up for t he r eadi ng pr o g ram
. T he bas i s fort hei rs el ect i on w as pr es um abl ynot endor s ement of any par t i cul ar pr oduct orm es s age a s s oci at ed w i t h a produ ct , bu t rather t he need t o i nclude a vari et yof it em s of i nter est t o chi l dren. In our op i nion, t he incl usi on of a c ou po n fo r a busi ness t hatempl oy s r el i gi ous r eferen ce s i n i t s t r ademar k w oul d not cons t i tut e governm entendor s ement of r el i gi on. 5
B . Fr eedom of

Speech Y ou have a s ked w hether t he del et i on of t he bi bl i cal r efe r ence from t he coupon vi ol at ed fr ee s peec h r i ght s
. W e under s t and that t her e i s s om e di s agr eementabout t he ci r cumst ance s of t he del et i on

– i

. e. , w hetherShea’ s M aze cons ent ed t o t he al t er at i on of t he coupon, orw hethert he l i br arys t aff rea s onabl ybel i eved thatt heG en. 244] 249 bus i nes s had agr eed t o al l ow di s t r i but i on of t he coupon w i t houtt he bi bl i cal r efe r ence
. A n A t t or neyG ener al ’ s opini on i s notan ap p rop ri ate f

o rum to reso lve s u ch fa ctua l qu esti o n s. H o w ev er, th ere a p p e a rs to b e n o d isp u te th a t th e lib ra rye lec ted n o t to d istrib u te m a ter ial w ith a b ib lica l re f e re n c e . T h u s, w ith o u t atte m p tin g to r es ol ve the ci r cumst ance s of t he del et i on of t he biblical r efe r ence , w e cons i derw hetheri tw oul d have vi ol at ed t he fr ee s peec h r i ght s of t he bus i nes s i f t he l i br aryhad s i m pl ydecl i ned t o i ncl ude i t s coupon i n t he r eadi ng pr ogram p ac k et , on t he bas i s t hatt he coupon c o n ta in e d re lig io u s s u b

je c t m a tte r. T he Fi r s tA m endme n t o f t he U ni t ed St at es C ons t i tut i on pr ovi des t hat“C ongr es s s hal l m ake no l aw
. . . abr i dgi ng t he fr eedom of s p e e c h

. ” M a r y l a n d Dec l a r a t i o n o f Ri g h t s , Ar t i c l e 4 0 , p r o v i d es th a t “e v e ry c it ize n o f

th e S tate o u g h t to b e a llo w e d to sp e a k , w rite and publ i s h hi s s ent i m ent s on al l s ubj ects. ” T he r i ght s gr ant ed by t he M ary l and pr ovi s i on ar e s ubs t ant i al l ythe s ame as t hos e gr ant ed b yth e f re e s p e e c h c la u s e o f

th e f e d e ra l c o n s titu tio n
. Jakanna W o o dw o rk s, In c . v. Mo n tg o m e ry C o u n ty , 344 M d. 58 4, 595, 689 A

. 2 d 6 5 (19 9 7 ). W hethera governm enta g e n cyhas uncons t i tut i onal l yexcl uded a pr i vat e s peake rfr om a governm entforum depends i n par ton t he n a t u r e o f th e f o ru m
. G ood N

ew s C l ub v. Mi l

f or d C entr alSchool , 1 2 1 S .C t. 20 9 3 (2 0 0 1 ). L im itatio n s o n sp e e c h in a tra d iti o n a l p u b lic forum m us tbe narr ow l yt ai l or ed t o acc om pl i s h a compel l i ng g o v e rn m e n ta l in te re s t. C api t ol Squar e Revi ew & Advis or y Board v. P in e tte , 5 1 5 U .S . 7 5 3 , 7 6 1 (1 9 9 5 ). H ow ever , an age ncym ayr es t r i ctacc es s t o a nonpubl i c forum s o lo n g a s th e re stric tio n s a re re a so n a b le a n d a re n o t an e f f o rt to s uppr es s expr es s i o n m er el ybeca us e publ i c off i ci al s oppos e the s p e a k e r’ s v ie w . C or nel i us v. N A A CP LegalD ef

ens e & E ducat i on Fund , 473 U

. S. 778, 803 ( 1985)

. “C ont r ol overacc es s t o a n o n p u b lic f

o ru m c a n b e b a se d o n su b jec t m a tter an d sp e a k e r id e n tity s o l ong as t he di s t inction s dr aw n ar e r eas onabl e i n l i ghtof t he purpos e served by t he for um and ar e vi ew poi nt neutr al

. ” Id

. at806; s ee al s o G ood N

ew s C l ub , 1 2 1 S .C t. a t 2 0 9 9 -1 0 0

. C or nel i us i nvol ved a uni t ed cha r i t ycampai gn oper at ed byt he fede r al governm entamong i t s empl oy ees
. A dvocac yg rou p s t hat s oughtt o benef

i tfr om t he cha r i t ydr i ve cha l l enged ru le s t hat excl uded anygr oup t hatatt empt ed t o i nfl uence t he out come of p o li ti ca l el ec ti o n s o r th e d eterm ination o f p u b li c p o li cy
. T h e C o u rt found t hat t he char i t y dr i ve w as a nonpubl i c forum and ana l y zed the2 5 0 [8 6 O p
. A tt ’y

r eas onabl eness of t he r es t r i ct i on i n l i ghtof t he purpos e of that forum
. I t concl uded t hat t he rul es w er e re as onabl e, s t at i ng t hatt he governm entcoul d r eas onabl yconcl ude thatdol l ar s s penton food for t he poorar e more l i kel yt o be ef fec t i ve than dol l ar s s penton l i t i gat i on, that i ncl udi ng contr over s i al gr oups coul d r educe par t i ci pat i on t o t he detr i m entof t he p rogr am, and thatexcl udi ng s uch advoc acygr oups coul d avoi d t he appe ar ance of pol i t i cal f a v o ritism

. 4 7 3 U .S

. a t 8 0 9 -1 1

. T h e C o u rt n o ted th a t “ [ e ]v e n if s om e i ncompat i bi l i t yw i t h gener al expr es s i ve ac t i vi t yw er e r equi r ed

. . . i tw oul d be admi ni s t r at i vel yunm anage abl e i f ac ces s [t o t he n o n p u b lic f

o ru m ] c o u ld n o t b e c u rt a ile d in a re a s o n a b le m a n n e r.” Id

. at809. T he C our tdecl i ned t o deci de w hethert he exclu si on of pl ai nt i ffs w as m ot i vat ed by a des i r e t o s uppr es s t hei r poi nt of vi ew and l eft t he i s s ue of vi ew poi nt di s cr i m i nat i on for t he l ow ercour ton re m a n d

. Id

. at812- 13. I n s ubs equentcas es t he Supr eme Courthas acknow l edged that t he di s t i nct i on betw een pe r m i s s i bl e s ubj ectm at t err es t r ic t i ons and im p e rm is s ib le v ie w p o in t d is c ri m in a tio n “ is n o t a p re c is e o n e .” R o se n b e rg e r v . R e c to r a n d V isito rs o f th e U n ive rs ity o

f V irg in ia , 515 U

. S. 819, 8341 ( 1995)

. I n R os enber ger , a s tu d e n t p u b lica tio n w ith a r el i gi ous edi t or i al vi ew poi nt chal l enged a s t at e uni ver s i t y ’ s r efus al t o pr ovi de i tw i t h t he s ame f i nanci al s uppor t aff

or ded others tudent p u b lica tio n s. T h e C o u rt c o n c lu d e d th a t th e u n iv e rsity ’s p o licyd id notexcl ude r el i gi on as a s ubj ectm at t er , butr atherdi s favor ed r el i gi ous l y - i ns pi red edi t or i al vi ew poi nt s on ot herw i s e perm i t t ed t op i cs ( e. g. , ra c is m , c ri s is p re g n a n c ie s , e a tin g d is o rd e rs , m u s ic ). Id a t8 2 6 , 8 3 1

. T h u s , t h e p o l i c y d i s c r i m i n a t e d a g a i n s tr e l i g i o u s l ym oti vated vi ew po i nts

. O n t he otherhand, a neutr al g overnm entpol i cyr es t r i ct i ng a nonpubl i c forum t o comm er ci al s peec h butexcl udi ng pol i t i cal and r el i gi ous s peec h h as b een uphe l d, s o l ong as t he pol i cyi s notus ed s i m pl yt o excl ude a di s favor ed per s pect i ve on otherw i s e perm i t t ed t o p i c s
. Fo r e x a mpl e , i n D i Lore t o v. D ow ney U

ni f i ed School D is tr i ct , 1 9 6 F

. 3 d 9 5 8 (9 C ir . 1 9 9 9 ), cer t

. deni ed , 529 U

. S. 1067 th ( 2000) , a s chool di s t r i ctpol i cyper m i t t ed onl yco m m erc i al a d v e rtisin g a t a h ig h sc h o o l b a se b a ll fie ld . T h e N in th C irc u it h e ld t hatt he pol i cydi d not vi ol at e t he fr ee spe ech r i ght s of a pr os pect i ve advert i s erw ho w as deni ed the oppor tuni t yt o di s pl ayt he Ten C om m andment s and a r el i gi ous m es s age. Si m i l ar l y , i n C hi ldr en of th e R o sa ry v . C ity o

f P h o e n ix , 154 F. 3d 972 ( 9 C i r
. 1998) ( W hi t e, th J ., re t.) , cer t

. deni ed , 526 U

. S. 1131 ( 1999) , t he courthel d t hata ban agai ns tnoncomm er ci al advert i s i ng on m uni ci pal bus es , w hi ch eff ect i vel ybarr ed r el igious and pol i t i cal advert i s i ng, di d notG en. 244] 251

Whil e re ligious spee ch ca nnot be excluded from a

pub l ic forum 6 on the grounds that some may find ito ffe nsive, Stewart v. District of Colum biaAr

mo ry Bo ar d, 789 F.Supp. 402 (D.D .C. 1 9 92), Cornelius makes c lear that speec h may be excluded from a nonpublic forum on that basis if it may

adver sely

aff ect pa rticipation in a program. c o n s titu te v ie w p o in t d is c ri m in a tio n
. C f

. Sum m um v. C i t

y of O gden , 152 F. Supp. 2d 1286, 1293- 94 ( D

. U t

. 2001) ( fr ee spe ech gua r ant ee di d notr equi r e ci t yt o acc eptand di s pl ayg ift o f stone t abl et su m m a riz in g ten e ts of S u m m u m re lig io n w ith o th e r m o n u m e n ts in to w n p a rk ); T

e n a fly E ru v A ss ’n , In c . v. B o ro u g h o f T e n a fly , 155 F

. S up p. 2d 14 2 (D

. N

. J. 20 01 ) ( up ho l ding t ow n’s deci si on t o refuse per m i s s i on t o r el i gi ous or gani zat i on t o p lace cer emoni al r el i gi ous d e m a rc a tio n o n te le p h o n e p o le s in to w n ’s ri g h t o f w a y ). A “ g o o d ie b a g ” d istrib u ted b y a p u b lic lib ra rya s p a rt o f its rea d ing p rog ram is no t op en to all sp ea k ers, o r ev en to all spe ak ers on cert ai n t opi cs
. R ather , i ti ncl udes m at er i al s devel o p ed byt he lib ra ryf o r th e p ro g ra m a n d p riz e s s e lec ted b yth e lib ra rysta f f to in d u c e c h ild re n a n d th e ir p a re n ts to p a rticip a te in th e p ro g ra m
. It is m os tappr opr i at el y char act er i zed as a nonpubl i c forum
. A deci s i on nott o i ncl ude ce r t ai n t ypes of s ubj ectm at t eri n t he packet does not v io late f re e sp e e c h g u a ra n tee s, u n les s th a t d e c isio n is u n re a so n a b le i n l i ghtof t he purpos e of t he packe t or i s bas ed on t he vi ew poi ntof th e s p e a k e r. In o u r o p in io n , itw o u ld n o t b e u n re a so n a b le f o r a p u b lic l i br aryt o adopta pol i cy excl udi ng cert ai n s ubj ect s fr om t he r eadi ng pr o g ram p ac k et. F o r ex am p le, the librarym igh t r ea so n ab lyco n clude th a t m a ter ials p ro m o tin g v io len c e , h a v in g se x u a llye x p licit c o n ten t, orext ol l i ng al cohol i c bever ages ar e notappr opr i at el yi ncl uded i n a pac k etdi s t r i but ed t o y oung chi l dr en. For s om ew hatdi ffe r ent re a so n s, th e lib ra rym ig h t a ls o e x c lu d e p a rtisa n p o lit ica l m a ter ial. C f. H az elw ood School

D is t r i ct v. Kuhlm ei er , 484 U

. S. 260, 272 ( 1988) ( p u b li c s chool coul d r efus e t o s pons ors tudents peec h t hat w o u ld “ a ss o c iate th e sc h o o l w ith a n y p o sitio n o th e r th a n n e u tra lity o n m a tte rs o f

p o litic a l c o n tr o v e rs y ” ). T he l i br arycoul d al s o concl ude thati nclus ion of s ect ar i an r el i gi ous r efe r ence s i n t he pac ket , w hi l e ac cept abl e t o m anyi n t he c o m m u n ity , m ig h t d isc o u ra g e so m e c h ild re n f ro m p a rticip a tio n in t he r eadi ng pr ogr am. M o reove r , t he l i br arycoul d r eas onabl ybe 6 conce r ned that the us e of i ncent i ve i t ems al l udi ng t o a part i cul ar r el i gi on m i ght raise a ques t i on as t o t he l i br ary ’ s neutr al i t yon2 5 2 [8 6 O p
. A tt ’y

r el i gi ous i s s ues , even though i ncl us i on of t h at m at er i al w oul d not h a v e v io la te d th e E s ta b lis h m e n t C la u s e
. See C hildren o f the R osary , 154 F. 3d at979 ( apartfr om conce r n aboutE st abl i s hm entC l aus e, ci t y h ad “espe ci al l ys t r ong i nt er es t ” i n “mai nt ai ni ng neutr al i t yon p o li ti ca l and reli g iou s issue s”). Fi nal l y , unl es s t he l i br ary chos e t o i ncl ude m at er i al s pr om ot i ng ot herr el i gi ous gr oups ordi s par agi ng r el i gi on, w e do not bel i eve that excl us i o n o f t he coupons w oul d have c ons t i tut ed vi ew poi nt d i s c r i mi n a t i o n
. U nl i ke R o s enber ger , t he forum i n t hi s cas e – the r eadi ng pr ogr am packe t – w as not cr eat ed t o s uppor tt he expr es s i on o f v a rio u s p riv a te v iew p o in ts, b u t to p ro v id e tan g ib le in c e n tiv e s to s t i m ul at e i nt er es ti n t he r eadi ng pr ogr am. A neutr al pol i cyl i m i t i ng th e su b jec t m a tter o f

th e in c e n tiv e item s w o u ld n o t d is c r im in a te a g a in st re lig io u sly -in sp ire d v iew p o in ts o n o th e rw ise p e rm iss ib le to p ic s
. I n s um , i ti s ouropi ni on t hata l i br aryp o li cynott o i ncl ude c o u p o n s w ith se c tar ian re lig io u s re f e renc es could be co m pati ble w ith t he free speech gu arant ees of the federal and S t at e con st i tuti on s.

III C oncl usi on I n o u r opi ni on, di s t r i but i on of a c oupon w i t h a s cr i ptur al r efe r ence w oul d nothave vi ol at ed the Est abl i s hm ent C l aus e. A tt he s ame t i m e, excl udi ng t he coupon w oul d n o t h ave vi ol at ed cons t i tut i onal guar ant ees of fr ee s peec h.

J. Jo sep h C u rran , Jr. A t t or ney G ener al Ka t h r yn M

. Ro we A ss i s t ant A ttorn eyG en er

al R o b e rt N . M c D o n a ld C hi ef C ouns el O pi ni ons & Advi ce