Document: 459 U.S. 116 103 S.Ct. 505 74 L.Ed.2d 297 John P. LARKIN et al., Appellants,v.GRENDEL'S DEN, INC. No. 81-878. Argued Oct. 4, 1981. Decided Dec. 13, 1982. Syllabus A Massachusetts statute (§ 16C) vests in the governing bodies of schools and churches power to prevent issuance liquor licenses for premises within a 500-foot radius church or school by objecting license applications. Appellee restaurant operator's application was denied when located 10 feet from objected application. then sued licensing authorities Federal District Court, claiming that § 16C, on its face as applied, violated, inter alia, Establishment Clause First Amendment. The Court held 16C is facially unconstitutional under Clause, Appeals affirmed. Held: Section violates Clause. Pp. 120-127. (a) not simply legislative exercise zoning but delegates private, nongovernmental entities reject certain applications, ordinarily vested governmental agencies. Under these circumstances, deference normally due judgment merited. 120-122. (b) valid secular objective protecting commotion associated with outlets may readily be accomplished other means. 123-124. (c) churches' standardless, calling no reasons, findings, reasoned conclusions, can seen having "primary" "principal" effect advancing religion. 125-126. (d) substitutes unilateral absolute decisionmaking public body acting evidence guided standards issues significant economic political implications, thus enmeshes processes government creates danger "[p]olitical fragmentation divisiveness along religious lines," Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 602, 623, 91 2105, 2116, 29 745. Few entanglements could more offensive spirit Constitution. Pp.126-127 662 F.2d 102 (1st Cir., 1981), Gerald J. Caruso, Boston, Mass., appellants, pro hac vice, special leave Court. Laurence H. Tribe, Cambridge, appellee. Chief Justice BURGER delivered opinion 1 question presented this appeal whether statute, which effectively veto applications five hundred foot school, Amendment Due Process Fourteenth 2 * A. 3 operates Harvard Square area Massachusetts. Holy Cross Armenian Catholic Parish adjacent restaurant; back walls two buildings are ten apart. In 1977, appellee applied Cambridge License Commission approval an alcoholic beverages restaurant. 4 Chapter 138 General Laws provides: "Premises . shall licensed sale if such files written objection thereto."1 5 Church appellee's application, expressing concern over "having so many near" (emphasis original).2 voted deny citing only noting "is proposed location." 6 On appeal, Alcoholic Beverages Control upheld Commission's action. found "the church's basis [license] denied." 7 United States Relief sought grounds violated Equal Protection Clauses Amendment, Sherman Act. 8 suit voluntarily continued pending decision Supreme Judicial similar challenge Arno Commission, 377 Mass. 83, 384 N.E.2d 1223 (1979). Arno, court characterized delegating "veto power" specified institutions, at 89, 1223, against challenges. Thereafter, appellants' motion dismiss. 9 parties' cross-motions summary judgment, declined follow Court's supra. void face, 495 F.Supp. 761 (Mass.1980). rejected equal protection arguments, state's actions were immune antitrust review doctrine Parker Brown, 317 341, 63 307, 87 L.Ed. 315 (1942). It certified Circuit pursuant 28 U.S.C. 1292, accepted certification. panel Circuit, divided opinion, reversed affirmed analysis, 88 (CA1 1981). 11 Appellee's rehearing en banc granted court, without reaching process claims, B 12 noted does contend lacks purpose, turned "whether law 'has direct immediate religion' contrasted 'only remote incidental advantageous institutions,' " F.2d, 104 original), quoting Committee Public Education Nyquist, 413 756, 783 n. 39, 93 2955, 2971 37 948 (1973). concluded confers substantial benefit upon religions grant sales roughly one million square what city's most commercially valuable sites," 105. 13 acknowledged "extends beyond schools," inclusion "does dilute [the statute's] forbidden classification," since "encompass all who otherwise similarly situated respects except dedication 'divine worship.' Id., 106-107 (footnote omitted). view Appeals, "explicit discrimination," id., 105, provided additional holding 14 nothing Twenty-First alter conclusion, 15 We probable jurisdiction, 454 1140, 996, 71 291 (1982), we affirm. II 16 Appellants State may, impinging enforce it describes "zoning" order shield places divine worship presence nearby dispensing establishments. also contended zone around essential protect diverse centers spiritual, educational cultural enrichment. end has schools, churches,3 any 500 their institutions. 17 Plainly have interest being insulated kinds commercial establishments, including those liquor. Zoning laws long been employed end, there little doubt about state regulate environment vicinity churches, hospitals like reasonable laws. 18 ordinances regulating location so-called "adult" theaters, see Young American Mini Theatres, Inc., 427 50, 62-63, 96 2440, 2448, 49 310 (1976); Grayned City Rockford, 408 104, 92 2294, 33 222 (1972), recognized legitimate institutions sustained ordinance prohibiting willfully making, noises disturbing good sessions. 19 function traditionally task requiring "balancing [of] numerous competing considerations," courts should properly "refrain reviewing merits [such] decisions, absent showing arbitrariness irrationality." Village Arlington Heights Metropolitan Housing Development Corp., 429 252, 265, 97 555, 563, 50 450 (1977). See also, e.g., Belle Terre Boraas, 416 1, 7-9, 94 1536, 1540-1541, 39 797 (1974). Given broad powers states judicial city council especially appropriate regulation. See, California Larue, 409 109, 390, 34 342 (1972); Retail Liquor Dealers Association Midcal Aluminum, 445 97, 106-110, 100 937, 943-945, 233 (1980). 20 However, power. As concluded, supra, 1223.4 This agencies government. LaRue, U.S., 116, S.Ct., 396, commenting "state agency itself repository State's Amendment." need decide whether, conditions, ever delegated entities; here, classes legislature important power, secular, religious. merited.5 21 purposes guarantees relating religion twofold: foreclose interference practice faiths, establishment familiar Eighteenth Century systems. Religion government, each other, coexist. Jefferson's idea "wall," Reynolds States, 98 (8 Otto) 145, 164, 25 244 (1878), Reply Thomas Jefferson address committee Danbury Baptist (January 1802), reprinted Works 113 (Washington ed. 1861), useful figurative illustration emphasize concept separateness. Some limited entanglement between authority inevitable complex modern society, see, 614, 2112, 745 (1971); Walz Tax 397 664, 670, 90 1409, 1412, 697 (1970), "wall" separation signpost. Here substantially breached vesting discretionary bodies. 22 consistently must satisfy three criteria pass muster Clause: 23 First, purpose; second, principal primary neither advances nor inhibits .; finally, foster "an excessive religion." 24 612-613, 2111, 674, 1414. Widmar Vincent, 263, 271, 269, 275, 70 440 (1981); Wolman Walter, 433 229, 236, 2593, 2599, 53 714 Independent first criteria, inescapably implicates purpose described "protect[ ] cultural, 'hurly-burly' outlets." F.Supp., 766. There embraces purposes.6 objectives means either through ban prescribed distances institutions,7 ensuring hearing views affected proceedings where, question, would entitled weight.8 26 argue advancement highest Massachusetts, however, construed conferring authority. gives right determine particular applicant will license, even several applicants receive license. 27 conclusions. That therefore used promote goals insulating undesirable neighbors; explicitly goals, example, favoring members congregation adherents faith. assume act faith statutory 618-619, 2113-2114, yet terms require religiously neutral way. "[T]he potential conflict inheres situation," Levitt Education, 472, 480, 2814, 2819, 376 (1973); appellants suggested "effective guaranteeing" "will exclusively neutral, nonideological purposes." 780, 2969.9 addition, mere appearance joint provides symbolic minds some reason conferred. strain our prior holdings say Turning third phase inquiry called previously had occasion consider implications churches. contrary consistent interpretation Clause; "[t]he prevent, far possible, intrusion [Church State] into precincts other." 2112. went case state: system choice made entirely excluded instruction affairs Constitution decrees private matter individual, family, choice, while involvement inevitable, lines drawn. 30 625, 2117 added). 31 Our contemporary do than reflect approved century ago: 32 "The structure has, preservation civil liberty, rescued temporal interference. hand, secured liberty invasion authority." Watson Jones, 80 (13 Wall.) 679, 730, 666 (1871), Harmon Dreher, Speer's Equity Reports 87, 120 (S.C.Ct.App.1843). cases make clear, core rationale underlying preventing "a fusion functions," School Abington Township Schempp, 374 203, 222, 83 1560, 1571, 844 (1963). 674-75, 1414; Everson Board 330 8-13, 67 504, 507-510, 711 (1947).10 Framers did set up important, shared 35 standards, implications. challenged 2116. Ordinary human experience line teach few Constitution.11 36 So ordered. 38 REHNQUIST, dissenting. Dissenting opinions previous commented "great" cases, "hard" bad law. Northern Securities Co. 193 197 400-401, 436 468, 48 679 (1904) (Holmes, J., dissenting); Nixon Service Administrator, 425, 505, 2777, 2821, 867 (1977) (BURGER, C.J., dissenting). Today's suggests class cases—silly cases—also wrenches word "veto," rests conclusion single term. aim effort prove quite sensible apparently sort sinister attack reminiscent St. Bartholemew's Night. Being unpersuaded, I dissent. 40 original form, imposed flat school. 1954 Acts c. 569, 1. represented determination generally compatible uses land. majority concedes, believe must, hospitals, institutions," ante, 124 omitted), valid. 120, 398, (1972) (Stewart, concurring). 41 Over time, meet goal people engaged activities liquor-related disruption less prohibition. Rather out elaborate formulae administrative findings fact, settled simple expedient asking object outlet disturb them. Thus, present version unless institution objects. ban, concedes valid, protective restrictive 16C. 42 evolving treatment seems me refinement encourage, forbid name If chooses object, sensibly prohibit Nothing persuades why rigid prohibition constitutional, flexible not. 43 rings metaphor "wall state," "three part test" developed justify result. frequent reference provision indicates belief constitutes houses legislature. Surely test actual proscription Amendments. unconstitutional, statute. answers sentence discussion statement reasons. think trivial answered affixing label provision. 44 sponsor subsidize group activity. much compel, anyone participate support To "advances" meaning word. 45 because guarantee objections "in way." Ante, 125. difficult understand this. concededly citizens engaging incompatible patrons. way another ask patrons interfere activity; cannot, meaningful sense, "religiously neutral." different version. Whether unconditional invoked behest church, neutral" enables defeat bank same. not, my "advance" making wish engage activities, well unmolested neighboring bar tavern historically thought incompatible. 46 concerned fear might "explicitly religious" "favoring faith."* seek advance interests way, unsuccessful But ability discern risk abuse render violative constitutionally same reasons them fire, Walz, 671, 1412 noise, harm. 47 heavy artillery fires unobjectionable both unnecessary unavailing. reverse Appeals. defines "church" synagogue building dedicated regular use chapel occupying minor portion primarily devoted uses." "School" defined elementary secondary giving minimum training required [state law] children compulsory age." Mass.G.L. ch. 138, originally enacted Mass.Acts, 1968 amendment modified prohibition, permitting "if assents writing," 435. 1970, amended 1970 192. 1979, licensees Church; existence time App. 69-72. as: worship" argues unconstitutionally differentiates theistic nontheistic religions. reach issue. For assume, apply protections "any place assembly bona fide group," thereby avoid serious constitutional questions arise concerning distinguishes commitment divinity. Torcaso Watkins, 367 488, 495, 81 1680, 1683, 982 (1961); 15, 511, (1947). recent construction controlling O'Brien Skinner, 414 524, 531, 740, 743, 702 21st reserves states, here sales. impinges facial attack, assumes actually effectuates serving fact already surrounded casts effectiveness granted, however. enacted, consisted note supra; continue distance various categories protected exceptions variations: Ala.Code 28-3-17 (1975); Alaska Stat.Ann. 04.11.410 (1980); Ark.Stat.Ann. 48-345 (1977); Colo.Rev.Stat. 12-47-138 (1978 & 1982 Supp.); Ga.Code Ann. 3-3-21 (1982); Idaho Code §§ 23-303, 23-913 Ill.Rev.Stat., 43, 127 (1982 Ind.Code 7.1-3-21-11 Kan.Stat.Ann. 41-710 La.Rev.Stat.Ann. 26-280 (West 1975); Md.Ann.Code, Art. 2B, 46B, 47, 52A, 52C (1981 Mich.Comp.Laws 436.17a, 436.17c Minn.Stat.Ann. 340.14 (1972 Miss.Code 67-1-51 (1973 Mont.Code 16-3-306 Neb.Rev.Stat. 53-177 (1978); N.H.Rev.Stat.Ann. 177:1 N.M.Stat.Ann. 60-6B-10 N.C.Gen.Stat. 18A-40 (1978) (schools); Okla.Stat.Ann., Tit. 37, 534 1981); R.I.Gen.Laws 3-7-19 (1976 1981 S.C.Code 61-3-440 S.D.Comp.Laws 35-2-6.1 Tex.Alco.Bev.Code Ann., 109.33 Utah 16.6-13.5 W.Va.Code 11-16-12 (1974); Wis.Stat.Ann. 125.68 Supp.). express constitutionality Eleven statutes directing proximity deciding license: Cal.Bus. Prof.Code 23789 1964 Conn.Gen.Stat. 30-46 Del.Code 543 Haw.Rev.Stat. 281-56 Supp.) (certain licenses); (churches); Ohio Rev.Code 4303.26 Pa.Stat.Ann., 4-404, 4-432(d) (Purdon 1969 Tenn.Code 57-5-105 Va.Code 4-31 Vt. Bd.Regs. ¶ (1976). ignore discriminatory illegal contention appears flatly contradicted own 90, 23, event, assumption problems. 619, 2114, National Labor Relations Bishop Chicago, 490, 99 1313, 59 533 At Revolution, Americans feared denial freedom, oppression union ecclesiastical control. B. Bailyn, Ideological Origins Revolution 98-99 (1967). McDaniel Paty, 435 618, 622-623, 1322, 1325-1326, 55 593 (1978). eighteenth England, reflected legal arrangements granting officials control occupations, trade. George 31, (1753) (church given certificate character, prerequisite alehouse license); S. Webb, History Licensing Principally 1700 1830, 62-67, 102-103 (1903). challenges violation process. light analysis claim. exists denomination considers supporting theology. However else characterized, certainly strictly temporal. passing confer obtain anyone.

Category: 2