Source: http://thewordout.net/pages/page.asp?page_id=56676
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 06:57:24+00:00

Document:
apologized to the Shepard family and reprimanded the teacher.
from passing out invitations to a musical being held at her church due to the religious nature of the event.
superintendent of schools changed the school district’s literature distribution policy.
religious club to use the schoolhouse.
provide students the opportunity to exercise fully their constitutional rights in that environment.
The First Amendment of the United States Constitution provides that “Congress shall make no law . . .
prohibiting the free exercise [of religion].”1 This provision is commonly known as the Free Exercise Clause.
people when it adopts a law or policy, the state does not offend the Free Exercise Clause.
The Smith decision produced outrage among constitutional scholars and religious liberty practitioners.
invoking the Free Speech Clause to defend their religious freedom.
education. Often religious persons face discrimination or outright hostility in the public education system.
themselves and on their own time. Supreme Court precedent, however, dictates otherwise.
impacted the number of cases of religious discrimination in the public schools.
elementary and junior high school students can form religious clubs.
on these issues. The Guidelines do not provide any legal shield for school administrators who follow them.
rights fully in that environment.
appropriate standard for vulgar, lewd, obscene, and plainly offensive speech.35.
pedagogical concerns.”45 In the constitutional scheme, most school decisions easily satisfy this standard.
simply because it conflicts with this objective.58 The court stated that schools cross “the ‘constitutional line . .
classroom. Constitutional common sense suggests that such action on the teacher’s part is unconstitutional.
classroom when such speech is relevant to the subject matter being taught.
Courts have split over the appropriate standard to evaluate distribution of religious literature cases.
material and prohibiting any religious speech that might create the appearance of school sponsorship.
Courts have rejected Establishment Clause defenses to categorical bans like the one in Wauconda.
concert with the government, and do not seek school cooperation or assistance with their speech.
meeting for a religious club would fall under this category.
order to safeguard the students’ right to know.
However, this deferential position does not invariably produce victories for schools. In Pratt v.
noncurricular student clubs in order to prohibit certain clubs from meeting because of their content, e.g.
school stated that it would not recognize the student group unless it removed that restriction from its bylaws.
rights until high school,178 but they are divided over the breadth of these rights in pre-secondary schools.
As for junior high schools, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, in Good News/Good Sports Club, et.
considered the next equal access issue: whether schools must give religious groups equal access to funding.
“See You at the Pole” for information on the annual “See You at the Pole” and related events.
concept and maintain the freedoms essential to a proper administration of the education system.
but to preserve precious and ancient liberties.
1 U.S. CONST. AMEND. I.
2 Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 164 (1878).
5 See generally Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963).
7 Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872, reh’g denied, 496 U.S. 913 (1990).
9 See McConnell, Origins of the Free Exercise Clause, 103 HARV. L. REV. at 1418.
sect, see Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993).
11 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb (1993).
15 U.S. CONST. AMEND. I.
16 See, e.g., Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476, 483 (1957).
17 Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. 503, 506 (1969).
18 U.S. CONST. AMEND. I.
19 Board of Educ. v. Mergens, 496 U.S. 226, 252 (1990) (plurality opinion).
20 Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971).
22 McCollum v. Bd. of Educ., 333 U.S. 203 (1948).
23 Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 431 (1962).
24 Abington Sch. Dist. v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963).
25 Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39, reh’g denied, 449 U.S. 1104 (1981).
26 Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38 (1985).
27 Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578 (1986).
28 Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577 (1992); Santa Fe Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290 (2000).
29 A copy of the Guidelines is available from The Rutherford Institute.
30 For a full analysis of the Guidelines, please contact The Rutherford Institute.
34 Chandler, 978 F.2d at 529 (quoting Tinker, 393 U.S. at 509) (brackets in original).
35 478 U.S. 675 (1986).
39 Broussard v. School Bd. of Norfolk, 801 F. Supp. 1526, 1536 (E.D. Va.1992).
40 See id. at 1537.
constitutional grounds school decision to force students to remove profanity from student film).
based its decision on subject matter rather than grammatical or style problems).
44 Chandler, 978 F.2d at 529 (quoting Hazelwood, 484 U.S. at 271).
45 Hazelwood, 484 U.S. at 273.
47 Hazelwood, 484 U.S. at 271.
48 Tinker, 393 U.S. at 513.
52 The category of student speech dealing with vulgar and lewd expression is an offshoot of this standard.
53 Clark v. North Dallas Indep. Sch. Dist., 806 F. Supp. 116, 120 (N.D. Tex. 1992).
59 Id. at 173 (quoting Steirer v. Bethlehem Area Sch. Dist., 987 F.2d 989, 994 (3d Cir. 1993)).
60 See Widmar v. Vincent, 454 U.S. 263, 269 (1981).
v. Wauconda Comm. Unit Sch. Dist., 9 F.3d 1295 (7th Cir. 1993).
62 Bolger v. Youngs Drug Products Corp., 463 U.S. 60, 84 (1983) (Stevens, J., concurring).
766 F. Supp. 280, 294-95 (E.D. Pa. 1991).
64 Rivera v. East Otero Sch. Dist., 721 F. Supp. 1189, 1195 (D. Colo. 1989).
Thompson v. Waynesboro Area Sch. Dist., 673 F. Supp. 1379 (M.D. Pa. 1987).
1295 (school raises capacity argument for junior high school students); Thompson, 673 F. Supp.
Thompson, 673 F. Supp. 1379; see also Muller v. Jefferson Lighthouse Sch., 98 F.3d 1530 (7th Cir.
71 Schempp, 374 U.S. at 225.
72 Lamb’s Chapel, 508 U.S. 384.
Religious Speech by Private Speakers, 81 NW. U. L. REV. 1, 48 (1986)).
74 Department of Education Guidelines (on file with The Rutherford Institute).
76 The message of the song was that she was saved by Jesus as a young child. Id. at 746.
80 DeNooyer v. Merinelli, 12 F.3d 211 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 511 U.S. 1031 (1994).
81 511 U.S. 1031 (1994).
82 53 F.3d 152 (6th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 116 S. Ct. 518 (1995).
86 Settle v. Dickson County Sch. Bd., 116 S. Ct. 518 (1995).
88 C.H. v. Oliva, 990 F.Supp. 341 (D. N.J. 1997).
in the Third Circuit’s states, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
procedural grounds. Duran v. Nitsche, 972 F.2d 1331 (3d Cir. 1992).
91 See, e.g., Settle, 53 F.3d 152; Hedges, 9 F.3d 1295; Poling, 872 F.2d 757; DeNooyer, 799 F.
Supp. 744; Hemry v. School Bd., 760 F. Supp. 865 (D. Colo. 1991); Nelson v. Moline Sch. Dist.
No. 40, 725 F. Supp. 965 (C.D. Ill. 1989).
DeNooyer, 799 F. Supp. 744.
93 United States v. Grace, 461 U.S. 171, 176 (1983).
94 See Frasca v. Andrews, 463 F. Supp. 1043, 1050 (E.D.N.Y. 1979).
95 See Widmar, 454 U.S. at 269.
96 See, e.g., Muller, 98 F.3d 1530; Hedges, 9 F.3d 1295; Hemry, 760 F. Supp. 856; Nelson, 725 F.
should use Tinker in distribution of literature cases).
98 Hedges, 9 F.3d 1295; Slotterback, 766 F. Supp. 280; Hemry, 760 F. Supp. 856; Rivera, 721 F.
Distribution of Religious Literature in the Public Schools, 68 EDUC. L. REP. 957 (1991).
99 Hedges, 9 F.3d 1295.
1195-96; Thompson, 672 F. Supp. at 1391-92.
101 Rivera, 721 F. Supp. at 1195.
102 Hedges, 9 F.3d at 1298-1300.
F. Supp. 965; Hemry, 760 F. Supp. 856, 863.
105 Muller, 98 F.3d at 1543, (quoting Hedges, 9 F.3d at 1302) (brackets in original); Nelson, 725 F.
evaluating its impact on recipients are relevant when considering a policy’s reasonableness).
111 See, e.g., Burch v. Barker, 861 F.2d 1149 (9th Cir. 1988); Johnston-Loehner v. O’Brien, 859 F.
Supp. 575 (M.D. Fla. 1994).
112 Burch, 861 F.2d 1149.
114 Johnston-Loehner, 859 F. Supp. 575.
115 Roberts v. United States Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609, 622-23 (1984).
116 Board of Directors of Rotary Int’l v. Rotary Club of Duarte, 481 U.S. 537, 544-45 (1987).
118 Id. at 545 (quoting Roberts v. Jaycees, 468 U.S. at 619- 20).
119 Id.; Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, 530 U.S. 640 (2000).
120 Roberts v. Jaycees, 468 U.S. at 618.
121 See Board of Educ. v. Pico, 457 U.S. 853, 867 (1982) (plurality).
122 Id. at 868-69 (plurality opinion).
F.3d 184 (5th Cir. 1995); Case v. Unified Sch. Dist. No. 233, 908 F. Supp. 864 (D. Kan. 1995).
125 Id. at 872 (plurality opinion).
126 Id.; see also Campbell, 64 F.3d at 188-89.
127 Pico, 457 U.S. at 870-72 (plurality); see also Campbell, 64 F.3d at 188.
128 See Case, 908 F. Supp. 864 (applying Pico).
130 See, e.g., Virgil v. School Bd., 862 F.2d 1517 (11th Cir. 1989); Zykan v. Warsaw Community Sch.
131 Zykan, 631 F.2d at 1306.
132 See Borger, 888 F. Supp. at 99-100.
133 Borger, 888 F. Supp. 97.
134 Virgil, 862 F.2d at 1525 (noting that students still had access to materials in library).
135 670 F.2d 771 (8th Cir. 1982).
138 Widmar, 454 U.S. 263.
141 See 20 U.S.C. §§ 4071-4074 (1984).
142 20 U.S.C. § 4071(a).
145 Mergens, 496 U.S. at 239.
146 Pope v. East Brunswick Bd. of Educ., 12 F.3d 1244, 1249 (3d. Cir. 1993).
147 Ceniceros v. Board of Trustees, 66 F.3d 1535 (9th Cir. 1995).
barring all noncurriculum-related student groups from gathering during that time).
150 20 U.S.C. § 4071(a).
155 Id. § 4071(c); see also Sease, 811 F. Supp. 183 (discussing this restriction).
156 496 U.S. at 253.
meet sent a message of endorsement of religion).
158. See Ceniceros, 66 F.3d 1535; Hoppock v. Twin Falls Sch. Dist. No. 411, 772 F. Supp. 1160 (D.
641 (9th Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 818 (1993).
159 987 F.2d 641 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 818 (1993).
160 Id. at 646; see also Ceniceros, 66 F.3d 1535 (reaffirming the Garnett holding).
161 See Blade-Citizen Encinitas Edition, Oct. 31, 1990, at A-1 (discussing such debate).
162 See Arval A. Morris, The Equal Access Act After Mergens, 61 EDUC. L. REP. 1139 (1990).
163 Pope, 12 F.3d at 1254.
Lake City Sch. Distr., 81 F.Supp.2d 1166 (D.C. Utah 1999).
165 Mergens, 496 U.S. at 247.
167 Pope, 12 F.3d at 1247 (quoting district court opinion).
169 85 F.3d 839 (2d Cir. 1996), cert. denied, 117 S. Ct. 608 (1996).
immediately before or after school but to require the club to meet at 6:30 pm).
180 772 F. Supp. 1004, aff’d, 979 F.2d 851 (6th Cir. 1992).
181 Herdahl, 933 F. Supp. at 590.
182 28 F.3d 1501 (8th Cir. 1994); see also Thompson v. Waynesboro Area Sch. Dist., 673 F.Supp.
1379, 1380 (M.D. Pa. 1987).
183 Hedges, 9 F.3d at 1300.
184 121 S.Ct. 2093 (2001).
185 515 U.S. 819 (1995).
187 Id. at 2517-19, 2523.
association funds to various student organizations).

References: v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 2000
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 

v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 4071
 v. 
 v. 
 § 4071
 § 4071
 v. 
 v.