Court Opinion

ID: 9484028
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 09:38:38.065503+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:49:58.646975
License: Public Domain

O’SCANNLAIN, Circuit Judge:
This appeal squarely presents a conflict between two of our most deeply cherished liberties: freedom of speech and freedom of religion. The question we must decide is whether the City of San Diego may, consistent with the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution, permit a private group to erect a religious display in a public park during the Christmas season.
Because the park is a traditional public forum removed from the seat of government, we hold that the City may permit the display provided it does so in a non-discriminatory manner.
I
San Diego’s Balboa Park is a 1200-acre public park containing recreational facilities ranging from theatres, museums, and a zoo to picnic areas and sporting fields. Every year during the Christmas holiday season, Balboa Park is the site of a holiday display. The City, in conjunction with a private non-profit group known as the Community Christmas Center Committee (“the Committee” or “the Christmas Committee”), sponsors a secular holiday display, which includes a Santa Claus, reindeer, a Christmas tree, and numerous festive colored lights. That display is not challenged here.
Some 250 feet away from the secular display, and partially separated from it by a wall and a road, is a small, open-air amphitheatre known as the Organ Pavilion. Each year, the Christmas Committee is granted a permit to set up a display consisting of scenes from the New Testament in the Organ Pavilion. The Committee’s display, which remains in place for approximately six weeks from late November through early January, includes eight scenes, four of which are placed on each side of the Pavilion’s stage. Each scene is housed in a palm-covered booth ten feet high and fourteen feet wide. Each contains life-size statuary depicting a biblical scene from the life of Christ, a painted backdrop, and a descriptive sign. Seven of the eight scenes also include gospel passages in English and Spanish. As described by the signs, the eight scenes and their accompanying biblical passages are as follows:

Scene

The Annunciation '
[no description; Mary and Joseph being turned away from the inn.]

Biblical Quotation

“Fear not Mary: for thou hast found favour with God; and behold, thou shalt bring forth a son, and shalt call his name Jesus.”
Luke 1:80-31
“there was no room for them at the Inn.”
Luke 2:7

*886
Scene

Angel appearing before the shepherds
The birth of Christ Wise Men on their way to Bethlehem
The Flight into Egypt
Christ in the Temple Suffer the little children to come unto me

Biblical Quotation

“The shepherds said, let us now go ... and they came with haste and found both Mary and Joseph, and the babe lying in a manger.”
Luke 2:15-16
[text does not appear in record] “Behold, wise men from the east came to Jerusalem saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? ... for we are come to worship him.”
Matt. 2:1-2
“Arise and take the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt, for Herod will seek the young child to destroy him, and Joseph took them by night.”
Matt. 2:13-14
[no text] “But Jesus said, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not; for to such belongeth the Kingdom of God.”
Mark 10:14
One or more disclaimer signs, stating that the Biblical display is privately sponsored and not allied with the City, accompany the display. The record does not reveal the size, text, or location of these disclaimers.
The Committee pays no fee for its use of the Organ Pavilion. The City ordinarily charges organizations who wish to reserve the Pavilion for exclusive use a fee varying from $440 to $1,325 per day, depending upon the nature of the use and the user. City regulations allow waiver of these fees for non-profit community services organizations, defined as “recognized group[s], elub[s], agenc[ies] or organizations] whose activities are of a service or character building nature, who give service to the community as a whole, and ... where no portion of the net earnings are used for or inure to the benefit of any individual or member of the group.”
The City explains that it charges no fee for the Committee’s display because the Committee’s use of the Organ Pavilion is “non-exclusive.” Other groups and individuals can and do use the Pavilion while the display is in place. The City represents that, if another user so requests, it will require the Committee to cover the display while any overlapping exclusive use permit is in effect.
The Committee's Biblical display has been an annual tradition in Balboa Park since 1953. The Committee has always owned the statuary and booths. Before 1988, the display was erected and removed each year by City employees, and stored on City property. In the wake of an opinion issued by the City Attorney to the effect that the City’s involvement was unconstitutional, the Committee now erects, removes, and maintains the display itself, and stores it on private property. The Committee reimburses the City $150 for the estimated cost of electricity used by the display. The City provides no other services in connection with the display.
To help defray the costs of'the display, the Committee maintains donation barrels at the site. It also maintains a stock of small pamphlets, which contain a schedule of concerts and events to be held at the Pavilion during the Christmas season, a brief history of the Christmas Committee, and a plea for donations to support the Committee’s activities.
Acting pro se, appellant Howard Kreis-ner filed suit in the federal district court *887seeking to prevent the City from allowing the Committee to erect the display on public property. Kreisner alleged that the City’s decision to permit the display in Balboa Park violated the religion clauses of both the federal and state constitutions. His complaint requested declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as punitive and other damages.1
The parties agreed that no material facts were in dispute, and submitted cross motions for summary judgment. On November 8, 1989, Judge Enright granted judgment for the City on the federal claim and dismissed- the state claim.2 788 F.Supp. 445 This timely appeal followed. This court appointed counsel to represent Kreis-ner on appeal.
After the appeal was argued before this panel, it became obvious that the parties disagreed about the nature of the City’s permit policy in Balboa Park. They submitted competing declarations and affidavits describing the policy to us. Rather than resolve the dispute ourselves, we remanded to the district court for entry of factual findings.3 The district court (Judge Huff, following Judge Enright’s recusal) held a hearing and determined that the City followed a first-come, first-served policy in Balboa Park. Judge Huff also reaffirmed Judge Enright’s conclusion of law that permitting the display on public property did not violate the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution.
We solicited additional briefing from the parties, and postponed submission pending the decision of the Supreme Court in Lee v. Weisman, — U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 2649, 120 L.Ed.2d 467 (1992). We now affirm.
II
A
The First Amendment provides that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion_” U.S. Const. amend. I. Although written as a limitation upon congressional power, this clause also operates, through the Fourteenth Amendment, to constrain the power of state governments. See Everson v. Board of Educ., 330 U.S. 1, 8, 67 S.Ct. 504, 507, 91 L.Ed. 711 (1947).
Like most cherished social values, the principle of religious freedom that is embodied in the Establishment Clause is easy to proclaim but difficult to define: “Candor compels acknowledgment ... that we can only dimly perceive the lines of demarcation in this extraordinarily sensitive area of constitutional law.” Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 612, 91 S.Ct. 2105, 2111, 29 L.Ed.2d 745 (1971). The Supreme Court *888has, however, generally articulated the boundaries of the Clause’s coverage. In a world of constant compromise and qualification, the Establishment Clause
means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion.
Everson, 330 U.S. at 15-16, 67 S.Ct. at 511-12 (quoting Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. (8 Otto) 145, 164, 25 L.Ed. 244 (1879)). Or, more succinctly put:
In the course of adjudicating specific cases, [the Supreme Court] has come to understand the Establishment Clause to mean that government may not promote or affiliate itself with any religious doctrine or organization, may not discriminate among persons on the basis of their religious beliefs and practices, may not delegate a governmental power to a religious institution, and may not involve itself too deeply in such an institution’s affairs.
County of Allegheny v. ACLU (“Allegheny County”), 492 U.S. 573, 590-91, 109 S.Ct. 3086, 3099, 106 L.Ed.2d 472 (1989). On the other hand:
The First Amendment does not prohibit practices which by any realistic measure create none of the dangers which it is designed to prevent and which do not so directly or substantially involve the state in religious exercises or in the favoring of religion as to have meaningful and practical impact. It is of course true that great consequences can grow from small beginnings, but the measure of constitutional adjudication is the ability and willingness to distinguish between real threat and mere shadow.
Lee v. Weisman, — U.S. at -, 112 S.Ct. at 2661 (quoting Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203, 308, 83 S.Ct. 1560, 1616, 10 L.Ed.2d 844 (1963) (Goldberg, J., concurring)). The Constitution “permits government some latitude in recognizing and accommodating the central role religion plays in our society.” Allegheny County, 492 U.S. at 657, 109 S.Ct. at 3135 (Kennedy, J., concurring and dissenting).
Applying these general tenets in the context of a particular case “remains a delicate and fact-sensitive” task. Lee v. Weisman, — U.S. at -, 112 S.Ct. at 2661.
In each case, the inquiry calls for line-drawing; no fixed, per se rule can be framed. The Establishment Clause like the Due Process Clauses is not a precise, detailed provision in a legal code capable of ready application. The purpose of the Establishment Clause “was to state an objective, not to write a statute.”
Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668, 678, 104 S.Ct. 1355, 1362, 79 L.Ed.2d 604 (1984) (quoting Walz v. Tax Comm’n, 397 U.S. 664, 671, 90 S.Ct. 1409, 1412, 25 L.Ed.2d 697 (1970)).
In the context of religious holiday displays, the Court’s Establishment Clause jurisprudence has been particularly fact-bound. No clear general principles emerge from the two most recent cases considering the constitutionality of such displays. In Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 1355, 79 L.Ed.2d 604 (1984), the Court found no Establishment Clause violation in the City of Pawtucket’s ownership and annual display of holiday decorations including, among other things, a Santa Claus, a Christmas tree, and a Nativity scene. The display was located in a privately-owned park in the heart of the City’s shopping district. In Allegheny County, a deeply divided Court held unconstitutional the display of a privately-owned creche on the “Grand Staircase” of the County courthouse, but permitted a second privately-sponsored display consisting of a menorah, a Christmas tree, and a sign saluting liber*889ty outside a government office building a block from the courthouse. Together, Lynch and Allegheny County call for a detailed contextual inquiry that has been aptly described as “requiring scrutiny more commonly associated with interior decorators than with the judiciary.” American Jewish Congress v. City of Chicago, 827 F.2d 120, 129 (7th Cir.1987) (Easterbrook, J., dissenting).
B
Although the Court has “repeatedly emphasized [its] unwillingness to be confined to any single test or criterion in this sensitive area,” Lynch, 465 U.S. at 679, 104 S.Ct. at 1362, it has generally applied the three-part test first articulated in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 91 S.Ct. 2105, 29 L.Ed.2d 745 (1971), to determine whether a challenged practice or statute comports with the Establishment Clause. Moreover, despite criticisms by current members of the Court, see Lee v. Weisman, — U.S. at -, 112 S.Ct. at 2685 (Scalia, J., dissenting) (cataloging such criticisms), the Supreme Court expressly declined to reconsider the Lemon test in Lee, id. — U.S. at -, 112 S.Ct. at 2655 (opinion of the Court). We therefore see no justification for the dissent’s articulation of a new Establishment Clause test.
Even were a new test warranted, the dissent’s proposed sliding scale test has what we see as a major flaw: It requires the court to judge the “intensity” of the religious message. This is problematic in a several significant ways. First, an inquiry into the intensity of a religious symbol essentially asks how “central” that symbol is to the faith it represents. For example, is a menorah more intense than a cross? The Supreme Court has disapproved this sort of inquiry in religion cases. See Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872, 886-87, 110 S.Ct. 1595, 1604, 108 L.Ed.2d 876 (1990) (constructing free exercise test to avoid judicial inquiry into the “centrality” of a practice to a person’s faith); see also Hernandez v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 490 U.S. 680, 699, 109 S.Ct. 2136, 2149, 104 L.Ed.2d 766 (1989) (“It is not within the judicial ken to question the centrality of particular beliefs or practices to a faith....”); United States v. Lee, 455 U.S. 252, 257, 102 S.Ct. 1051, 1055, 71 L.Ed.2d 127 (1982) (“It is not within the judicial function and judicial competence, however, to determine whether appellee or the Government has the proper interpretation of the Amish faith....”) (quotation omitted). Second, the dissent’s test raises a difficult question of perspective. The dancing Siva, Nataraja, has much religious import to a Hindu, but its significance would be lost on most Americans. From whose perspective do we determine intensity? The reasonable Judeo-Christian observer? There are no judicially manageable standards to apply in making these sensitive judgments. Finally, the likely consequence of the dissent’s test would be that only diluted religious messages would be allowed in public forums. Yet Lee v. Weisman cautioned against precisely this result:
The First Amendment’s Religion Clauses mean that religious beliefs and religious expression are too precious to be either proscribed or prescribed by the State. The design of the Constitution is that preservation and transmission of religious beliefs and worship is a responsibility and a choice committed to the private sphere, which itself is promised freedom to pursue that mission. It must not be forgotten then, that while concern must be given to define the protection granted to an objector or a dissenting nonbeliever, these same Clauses exist to protect religion from government interference. James Madison, the principal author of the Bill of Rights, did not rest his opposition to a religious establishment on the sole ground of its effect on the minority. A principal ground for his view was: “[Experience witnesseth that ecclesiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of Religion, have had a contrary operation.”
Id. — U.S. at -, 112 S.Ct. at 2656-57 (citations omitted). In the same way that government-crafted prayers threaten to water down religious messages, permitting only those Christmas displays that are of *890minimal “intensity” will detract from or destroy their religious significance. The Lemon test focuses our inquiry on the objective circumstances — such as its location and sponsorship — that measure the government’s involvement in the religious display. The test thus avoids the serious risks associated with judicial scrutiny of the content of the message conveyed.
In our application of the Lemon test, we take guidance from Allegheny County, 492 U.S. at 592, 109 S.Ct. at 3100, where the Court explained:
Under the Lemon analysis, a statute or practice which touches upon religion, if it is to be permissible under the Establishment Clause, must have a secular purpose; it must neither advance nor inhibit religion in its principal or primary effect; and it must not foster an excessive entanglement with religion.
The challenged practice must survive all three prongs of the Lemon analysis in order to pass constitutional muster. Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578, 583, 107 S.Ct. 2573, 2577, 96 L.Ed.2d 510 (1987). Kreisner argues that the City’s grant of a permit allowing the Committee to erect its display in Balboa Park violates each facet of the Lemon test.
1
A government practice or statute fails the purpose prong of Lemon if its purpose is to endorse a religious custom or viewpoint. See Allegheny County, 492 U.S. at 592, 109 S.Ct. 3086; Edwards, 482 U.S. at 593, 107 S.Ct. at 2582; Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38, 60, 105 S.Ct. 2479, 2491, 86 L.Ed.2d 29 (1985). “Government endorsement of religion has been found when the government conveys or attempts to convey a message that a particular religion is favored or preferred, or when it promotes one religion or religious theory against another or even against the militant opposite.” Cammack v. Waihee, 932 F.2d 765, 773 (9th Cir.1991), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 3027, 120 L.Ed.2d 898 (1992). As Justice O’Connor explained in her concurring opinion in Lynch: “The purpose prong of the Lemon test asks whether government’s actual purpose is to endorse or disapprove of religion.” Lynch, 465 U.S. at 690, 104 S.Ct. at 1368 (O’Connor, J., concurring).
A practice will stumble on the purpose prong “only if it is motivated wholly by an impermissible purpose.” Bowen v. Kendrick, 487 U.S. 589, 602, 108 S.Ct. 2562, 2570, 101 L.Ed.2d 520 (1988); Cammack, 932 F.2d at 774. A reviewing court must be “reluctant to attribute unconstitutional motives” to government actors in the face of a plausible secular purpose. Mueller v. Allen, 463 U.S. 388, 394-95, 103 S.Ct. 3062, 3066-67, 77 L.Ed.2d 721 (1983).
We have no difficulty concluding that the City’s decision to permit the Committee to erect its holiday display in Balboa Park is supported by a legitimate, sincere secular purpose. The City cites two such purposes: (1) the promotion of holiday spirit and (2) the promotion of free expression. We need not consider the City’s first avowed purpose because the second suffices. The Supreme Court has made it clear that a policy of permitting open access to a public forum, including non-discriminatory access for religious speech, is a valid secular purpose. Board of Education v. Mergens, 496 U.S. 226, 249, 110 S.Ct. 2356, 2371, 110 L.Ed.2d 191 (1990); Widmar v. Vincent, 454 U.S. 263, 271, 102 S.Ct. 269, 275, 70 L.Ed.2d 440 (1981).
The City’s past sponsorship of the display does not under-cut our conclusion. It is undisputed that the City no longer acts as a sponsor. Further, the City has taken affirmative steps to disassociate itself from the Committee and the display. Under the circumstances, the City’s past conduct is not persuasive evidence of its current motives.
2
Purposes aside, Kreisner contends that the principal and primary effect of granting the Committee’s annual request for a permit is to advance one particular religion and its theological viewpoint. The test under this prong is whether “the challenged government action is sufficiently likely to be perceived by adherents of the *891controlling denominations as an endorsement, and by the nonadherents as a disapproval, of their individual religious choices.” School Dist. of Grand Rapids v. Ball, 473 U.S. 373, 390, 105 S.Ct. 3216, 3226, 87 L.Ed.2d 267 (1985). The question, in other words, is whether the government’s action “actually conveys a message of endorsement” of religion in general or of a particular religion. Wallace, 472 U.S. at 69, 105 S.Ct. at 2496 (O’Connor, J., concurring in the judgment).
We assume that, were the Committee’s display sponsored by the government, its overwhelming message of glorification of the divinity of Jesus Christ would violate the Establishment Clause. Notwithstanding its strong religious content, however, we conclude that because the display is private speech in a traditional public forum removed from the seat of government it does not have the primary effect of advancing religion. We set forth below the reasoning by which we arrive at this conclusion.
a
Essentially, the question presented here is whether placement of a private, overtly religious holiday display on public property represents government endorsement of religion. The Supreme Court has not yet squarely addressed this issue. Cf. Allegheny County, 492 U.S. at 600 n. 50, 109 S.Ct. at 3104 n. 50 (creche display on courthouse staircase does not raise public forum issue). This question was presented but not authoritatively resolved in Board of Trustees of Scarsdale v. McCreary, 471 U.S. 83, 105 S.Ct. 1859, 85 L.Ed.2d 63 (1985) (lower court decision holding that city could constitutionally allow private group to display creche in traditional public forum affirmed by an equally divided court). It has divided the circuits. See Doe v. Small, 964 F.2d 611 (7th Cir.1992) (en banc) (injunction forbidding display of religious paintings by private organization in public park held over-broad); Chabad-Lubavitch of Georgia v. Miller, 976 F.2d 1386 (11th Cir.1992) (per curiam) (private group properly prohibited from erecting menorah on plaza in front of, or in the rotunda of, state capitol building). Even within individual circuits, the answer has not always been consistent. Compare Kaplan v. City of Burlington, 891 F.2d 1024 (2d Cir.1989) (holding that permitting private display of menorah in City Hall Park violated Establishment Clause), cert. denied, 496 U.S. 926, 110 S.Ct. 2619, 110 L.Ed.2d 640 (1990), with McCreary v. Stone, 739 F.2d 716 (2d Cir.1984) (holding that village’s grant of a permit allowing private group to display creche in public park did not violate Establishment Clause), affd by an equally divided court sub nom. Board of Trustees v. McCreary, 471 U.S. 83, 105 S.Ct. 1859, 85 L.Ed.2d 63 (1985). Indeed, as Judge Boggs, writing for the Sixth Circuit, noted in Americans United for Separation of Church and State v. City of Grand Rapids (“Grand Rapids I"), 922 F.2d 303 (6th Cir.1990), virtually every panel to consider this issue has found itself divided.
In addressing ourselves to this difficult question, we start from the observation that Balboa Park, a public park which is held open for various expressive activities, is unquestionably a traditional public forum. See Perry Educ. Ass’n v. Perry Local Educators’ Ass’n, 460 U.S. 37, 45, 103 S.Ct. 948, 955, 74 L.Ed.2d 794 (1983) (describing public parks as “quintessential public forums”); Hague v. CIO, 307 U.S. 496, 515, 59 S.Ct. 954, 964, 83 L.Ed. 1423 (1939) (parks have “immemorially been held in trust for the use of the public and, time out of mind, have been used for purposes of assembly, communicating thoughts between citizens, and discussing public questions”). Religious speakers have the same right of access to public forums as others. Widmar, 454 U.S. at 269, 102 S.Ct. at 274; McDaniel v. Paty, 435 U.S. 618, 641, 98 S.Ct. 1322, 1335, 55 L.Ed.2d 593 (1978) (Brennan, J., concurring); O’Hair v. Andrus, 613 F.2d 931, 935 (D.C.Cir.1979) (“The government may not allocate access to a public place available for communication among citizens on the basis of the religious content of the messages.”).
It necessarily follows from the fact that Balboa Park, including the Organ Pavilion, is a traditional public forum, that the City *892may not enforce a content-based restriction on private speech there without a compelling interest, and that any such restriction must be narrowly tailored to achieve that interest. Perry Educ. Ass’n, 460 U.S. at 45, 103 S.Ct. at 954.4 This means that, absent some compelling state interest, the City cannot forbid the Committee from erecting its display in Balboa Park because of the religious content of the message. ^ The Supreme Court has raised, but never resolved, the question whether avoiding an Establishment Clause violation provides a compelling state interest justifying a content-based restriction on speech in a public forum. See Widmar, 454 U.S. at 271, 102 S.Ct. at 274. The Widmar analysis of such a case involves two steps: first, determining whether there is a violation of the Establishment Clause; then, deciding whether avoiding the violation is an interest sufficiently weighty to justify placing restraints on free speech.
Thus, in this case, we must first decide whether the City’s open forum policy, which accommodates the Committee’s religious display, violates the Establishment Clause. If it does not, the predicate is lacking for restricting speech in Balboa Park, and the policy will stand. If there is an Establishment Clause violation, we must turn to the (even more difficult) question of whether avoiding that violation provides a compelling state interest that justifies placing a content-based restriction on religious speech in a public forum — a restriction that would otherwise be forbidden by the Free Speech Clause.
b
In evaluating the effect of the City’s grant of a permit to the Committee, we apply the standard of a “reasonable observer.” Allegheny County, 492 U.S. at 620, 109 S.Ct. at 3115 (opinion of Blackmun, J.). This hypothetical observer is informed as well as reasonable; we assume that he or she is familiar with the history of the government practice at issue, as well as with the general contours of the Free Speech Clause and public forum doctrine. See Wallace, 472 U.S. at 76, 83, 105 S.Ct. at 2500, 2503 (O’Connor, J., concurring in the judgment). For purposes of this case, then, we assume that the reasonable observer is aware of Balboa Park’s public forum nature and the City’s first-come, first-served permit policy. Our observer realizes that the Park and the Organ Pavilion host an eclectic range of uses throughout the year.
In our view, such an observer could not fairly interpret the City’s tolerance of the Committee’s display as an endorsement of religion. To paraphrase Judge Boggs writing for the en banc court at a subsequent stage of the Grand Rapids litigation:
By allowing the display ... the city merely states that it neither favors nor disfavors religious speech. In fact, [the city] does not even go so far as to “acknowledge” religion by permitting the [biblical] display; it merely sends a message that religious groups will be treated no worse than others. Anyone familiar with [Balboa Park] soon realizes that many groups use it, and that none of these groups receives special treatment from [the city].
Americans United for Separation of Church and State v. City of Grand Rapids (“Grand Rapids II"), 980 F.2d 1538, 1544-45, (6th Cir.1992) (en banc). See also O’Hair, 613 F.2d at 935 (“When the National Mall is, as a matter of established policy, openly available on a non-discriminatory basis to the Pope, to the Reverend Moon, to Madalyn Murray O’Hair, and to all others (religionists and anti-religion-ists), there is no ‘establishment of religion,' and there cannot be a meaningful perception of one.”).5 Because Balboa Park is a *893traditional public forum, we conclude that San Diego conveys no message of endorsement by allowing the Christmas Committee to display its biblical booths there.
Again, the City’s past sponsorship of the display does not mandate a different conclusion. We will not punish the Committee for the City’s past mistakes. “Neither official disfavor nor the rebound effect of official approbation can make a difference when the Constitution puts choice in private hands. A blunder by public officials cannot restrict the scope of private speech.” Doe v. Small, 964 F.2d at 629 (Easterbrook, J., concurring).
We reject Kreisner’s contention that public forum doctrine does not apply here because the Organ Pavilion is not a public forum for large unattended displays. This argument misperceives the nature of Balboa Park, which is a traditional public forum, not a public forum by designation. Designated public forums are areas opened and designated by the state for expressive activity. Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Defense and Educ. Fund, 473 U.S. 788, 802, 105 S.Ct. 3439, 3448, 87 L.Ed.2d 567 (1985). Access to such designated public forums may be restricted “to the original recipients of the government’s permission and to entities similar in character.” Monterey County Democratic Central Comm. v. United States Postal Serv., 812 F.2d 1194, 1196 (9th Cir.1987). Thus, if Balboa Park were a designated public forum, the fact that the City permitted certain types of expressive activity there would not require it to permit other forms of speech, such as large unattended displays. Traditional public forums, such as parks and public streets, however, are open to all manner of speech, subject only to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions. No affirmative government action is required to open a traditional public forum to a specific type of expressive activity.
In fact, we have grave doubts about the City’s ability, should it so choose, to withdraw the Organ Pavilion from its status as a traditional public forum. See United States v. Grace, 461 U.S. 171, 180, 103 S.Ct. 1702, 1708, 75 L.Ed.2d 736 (1983) (traditional public forum does not lose its historically protected character because of proximity to other property, or by governmental ipse dixit). In any event, the City has made no such effort to limit uses of the Organ Pavilion. The record before us provides no indication that the 'City has treated the Organ Pavilion as anything other than a traditional public forum. The Pavilion is open to use by a wide variety of persons for a wide variety of purposes throughout the year. In the absence of any evidence that the City has closed Balboa Park or the Organ Pavilion to large unattended displays, we assume it has not. Cf. Doe v. Small, 964 F.2d at 619 (plaintiff bears burden of proving that government denies access to public forum). Accordingly, we reject Kreisner’s argument that the Organ Pavilion is not a public forum for large unattended displays.
Kreisner relies on Kaplan, 891 F.2d at 1029, in which the Second Circuit held that allowing the private display of a menorah in City Hall Park would violate the Establishment Clause in part because “prior to the grant of the permits for the display of the menorah, [the City] had not created a forum in City Hall Park open to the unattended, solitary display of religious symbols.” We do not find Kaplan’s reasoning persuasive in the context of a traditional public forum such as Balboa Park. The mere fact that no other speaker in Balboa Park, so far as the record reveals, has chosen the medium of an unattended display cannot justify a rule of law that would force the City to forbid such displays based upon their religious content. Cf. Kaplan, 891 F.2d at 1032 (Meskill, J., dissenting) (“The park’s status as a public forum does not depend upon whether the City has in the past permitted a particular type of speech or form of expressive conduct.”). We refuse to place the burden on the City of showing that a traditional public forum is open to any particular form of speech. *894Rather, we think the burden must be on Kreisner to show that the City has closed the forum to large displays other than the Committee’s. This burden has not been met.
Nor are we persuaded that under our interpretation the “public forum doctrine would swallow up the Establishment Clause.” Kaplan, 891 F.2d at 1029. Public forum or not, the Establishment Clause limits the ability of government to engage in or to support religious speech. The City may not sponsor the Committee’s display, or render preferential treatment to the Committee. See Berger v. Rensselaer Central School Corp., 982 F.2d 1160, 1166, (7th Cir.1993) (government “officials cannot retain discretion over content on the one hand and on the other pretend to be manacled by the dictates of content neutrality”). However, the Committee, like other citizens of diverse views, has the right to express its views publicly in areas traditionally held open for all manner of speech. Tolerance of religious speech in an open forum “does not confer any imprimatur of state approval on religious sects or practices.” Widmar, 454 U.S. at 274, 102 S.Ct. at 276. “Thus, ... truly private religious expression in a truly public forum cannot be seen as endorsement by a reasonable observer.” Grand Rapids II, 980 F.2d at 1553 (emphasis in original). Indeed, exclusion of religious groups from a forum otherwise open to all would demonstrate government hostility to religion rather than the neutrality contemplated by the Establishment Clause. Mergens, 496 U.S. at 228, 110 S.Ct. at 2360-61.
The dissent makes much of the fact that “the property on which the display rests is owned and maintained by San Diego’s taxpayers” and “the property is adorned with structural symbols of government,” Dissent at 1739, but we are at a loss to understand the significance of these assertions. By its nature, a public forum will be on land owned by the government. See Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner, 407 U.S. 551, 569, 92 S.Ct. 2219, 2229, 33 L.Ed.2d 131 (1972) (private shopping center not a public forum).6
In part because Balboa Park houses some “structural symbols of government,” the dissent believes a reasonable observer would think the Christmas Committee display was endorsed by the government. To support this argument the dissent lists the following structural symbols: “the United Nations Building, the Hall of Nations, the House of Pacific Relations, the Museum of Man, the San Diego Museum of Art, the Space Theater and Science Center, and the Natural History Museum.” Dissent at 907. We have found nothing in the record which discloses the relationship of any of these buildings to the City of San Diego; the complaint contains no allegations as to them. However, even if we assume they are owned or operated by the city, they appear to have nothing to do with functions associated with the seat of government. Rather, consistent with the nature of Balboa Park itself, they involve cultural and recreational activities unrelated to core governmental functions.
In any event, even the proximity of buildings of unmistakably governmental character is a patently imperfect proxy for attributing speech that goes on there to the government. The White House, perhaps the most visible structural symbol of our government, borders Lafayette Square in Washington, D.C., yet the square itself has consistently been upheld as a public forum. See Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence, 468 U.S. 288, 104 S.Ct. 3065, 82 L.Ed.2d 221 (1984). Places that are near government buildings—where many people pass and have occasion to *895hear the speaker — are prime territory for the exercise of First Amendment rights. See United States v. Kokinda, 497 U.S. 720, 736-38, 110 S.Ct. 3115, 3125, 111 L.Ed.2d 571 (1990) (Kennedy, J. concurring) (“As society becomes more insular in character, it becomes essential to protect public places where traditional modes of speech and forms of expression can take place.”). It seems axiomatic to the public forum principle that we view messages expressed there as those of the actual speakers. The public forum doctrine would be rendered meaningless if only places in the middle of nowhere could be free speech areas, and if all speech that occurred near “structural symbols of government” had to be viewed as government speech. The dissent treats this as another creche-on-the-courthouse-steps or menorah-in-the-capitol-rotunda case, which it clearly is not.
We simply are not called upon to decide here whether a private religious display located in a public forum closely associated with the seat of government might be constitutionally infirm.7 Balboa Park, and in particular the Organ Pavilion where the Committee’s display is located, is neither physically surrounded by nor intimately associated with the trappings of government. While Balboa Park may be a well-known San Diego landmark, it is not the equivalent of City Hall or a city office building.
c
Kreisner argues that, even if the City may issue a permit for the display on a non-preferential basis, as a matter of fact it grants the Committee an unconstitutional preference. We agree with the district court that Kreisner has failed to raise a material issue of fact in this regard. The City claims that its policy is first-come, first-served, regardless of the identity of the speaker or the content of the speech.8 Kreisner is unable to point to any facts undermining that claim.9
A first-come, first-served policy, such as that employed by San Diego, is a valid means for regulating the use of a public forum. Such a policy does not vest impermissible discretion in any official. See Heffron v. International Soc’y for Krishna Consciousness, 452 U.S. 640, 649, 101 S.Ct. 2559, 2564, 69 L.Ed.2d 298 (1981).
Nor do we find it significant that the City’s first-come, first-served policy is not *896memorialized in the form of a written regulation.
In the absence of any allegation (much less actual proof) that [San Diego] has denied any person access to the Park, it is immaterial that [San Diego] does not have an officially stated policy of equal access, for the Constitution mandates that religious speakers may not be discriminated against in a public forum on the basis of their speech. The City of [San Diego] is required to comply with the constitutional mandate regardless of whether it has an officially stated policy of doing so, and [Kreisner] has failed to demonstrate non-compliance.
Doe v. Small, 964 F.2d at 619.
d
Kreisner further contends that, even if the City has not violated the Constitution by permitting the display in the Organ Pavilion, it has done so by: (1) allowing the Committee to solicit donations; and (2) failing to charge a fee for the Committee’s use of the Organ Pavilion.
i
Does permitting the Christmas Community Center to solicit donations at the site — through its bins and pamphlets— have the impermissible effect of both endorsing and supporting a particular sectarian viewpoint? The regulations governing park use state that “[t]o solicit funds is prohibited by City Ordinance.” The definition of “solicitation” in the municipal code includes “[a]ny direct oral or written request for money, property or anything of value or any financial assistance of any kind,” as well as “[t]he distribution ... of letters, posters, handbills, cards, folders, pamphlets, books, or circulars for the purpose of soliciting funds.” San Diego Municipal Code section 57.01B(a), (b).
The Committee keeps a stock of pamphlets, which entreat visitors to “Help Us Keep the Community Christmas Center Going!,” at the display. The pamphlets request that checks be made out to the Committee, and explain that “[t]o insure the continuing operation of the Christmas Community Center, voluntary contributions are essential.” They also point out that gifts are tax deductible. Distribution of these circulars appears to fall within San Diego’s definition of “solicitation.”
We agree that enforcement of the non-solicitation rule against some groups, but not against others similarly situated, would impermissibly favor some speakers. Nonetheless, on the record before us, we find no Establishment Clause violation. Although Kreisner has amply demonstrated that the Committee is permitted to solicit contributions in the park, he has not demonstrated that anyone else is prevented from engaging in similar solicitation. The City claims that it does not regard the type of request for donations made by the Committee as within the scope of its ordinance.
We decline to assume, in the absence of any evidence, that the City ordinarily attempts to enforce its ordinance to bar this kind of solicitation of charitable contributions. The opposite interpretation might raise serious constitutional issues. Solicitation of charitable contributions is protected speech. International Soc’y for Krishna Consciousness v. Lee, — U.S. -, -, 112 S.Ct. 2701, 2705, 120 L.Ed.2d 541 (1992); Riley v. National Federation of Blind, 487 U.S. 781, 789, 108 S.Ct. 2667, 2673, 101 L.Ed.2d 669 (1988); Village of Schaumburg v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 444 U.S. 620, 632, 100 S.Ct. 826, 833, 63 L.Ed.2d 73 (1980). Consequently, restrictions on solicitation in traditional public forums must be narrowly drawn to serve a compelling government interest. It is not immediately apparent that exclusion of solicitation of the sort engaged in by the Committee would serve any compelling interest. Given the serious constitutional issues raised by the ordinance, we decline to require San Diego to apply it to the Committee’s fund-raising efforts in the absence of evidence that it is similarly enforced against other groups.
ii
Kreisner also contends that the City's failure to charge the Committee a permit fee constitutes an impermissible *897public subsidy and endorsement of religion. We disagree.
The City’s written park regulations require non-profit organizations to pay $440 per day for exclusive use of the Organ Pavilion, provided members of the public are not charged admission. If the organization does charge admission, the City’s fee doubles to $885 per day. Profit-oriented, commercial users must pay $1,825 per day.
The City’s regulations contemplate waiver of these fees only in the case of a “nonprofit community service agency or organization.” San Diego Park & Recreation Dep’t Fee Policy and Fee Schedule, § 8.2.4 (Sept. 16, 1986). The regulations define such an organization as “[a] recognized group, club, agency, or organization whose activities are of a service or character building nature, who give service to the community as a whole, and a group where no portion of the net earnings are used for or inure to the benefit of any individual or member of the group.” Id. (emphasis added). We doubt that the Committee qualifies for a waiver under the regulations, but we need not decide the issue because the City does not rely upon the waiver rules.
The City instead contends that its fee regulations do not apply to the Committee’s use of the Pavilion because that use is, in the City’s words, “non-exclusive.” The City claims that it assesses fees only for “exclusive” permits, which entitle the holder to restrict public access to the area for the duration of the permit. The Committee’s display does not occupy the stage, nor does it prevent others from gathering in the amphitheatre. The record reveals that other groups have used the Pavilion while the display is in place. While certain other groups might be reluctant to share the Pavilion with the Committee’s indisputably religious display, the Committee in no way seeks exclusive physical control of the Pavilion during its display. Furthermore, the City represents that, should another party seeking an exclusive use permit so request, the Committee would be asked to cover its display temporarily.
Kreisner cites to no evidence that fees are ordinarily charged to non-exclusive users, nor does he provide any basis for challenging the City’s categorization of the Committee’s use as non-exclusive. Accordingly, we conclude that the City’s grant of a non-fee permit to the Committee is consistent with a content-neutral policy and does not violate the Establishment Clause.10
3
The third and final prong of the Lemon test requires invalidation of a government practice if it fosters an excessive government entanglement with religion. Lemon, 403 U.S. at 613, 91 S.Ct. at 2111. “In order to determine whether the government entanglement with religion is excessive, we must examine the character and purposes of the institutions that are benefited, the nature of the aid that the State provides, and the resulting relationship between the government and the religious authority.” Id. at 615, 91 S.Ct. at 2112.
There is no appreciable institutional entanglement in this case.11 The City of San Diego provides two forms of aid to the Committee. It grants the Committee’s annual request for use of the Organ Pavilion, *898and to the extent that the display might consume more than $150 worth of electricity, it subsidizes the excess. Both forms of aid are indirect and de minimis; neither demonstrates that the City has an active, deeply involved relationship with the Committee. See Lynch, 465 U.S. at 671, 684, 104 S.Ct. at 1358, 1364 (twenty-dollar cost incurred by the city in erecting and dismantling creche and nominal expenses for lighting did not constitute excessive support for religious activity). The City does not supervise or provide input on the content or design of the display. In fact, the danger of entanglement would be considerably greater if the City screened the religious motives of speakers before allowing them access to Balboa Park. Widmar, 454 U.S. at 272 n. 11, 102 S.Ct. at 275 n. 11.
The City’s past involvement in the display was more troublesome under the entanglement prong, but that involvement has been discontinued. Assuming that the City’s past practices (particularly the supervision of the Committee’s fund-raising efforts) amounted to excessive entanglement, we do not view them as relevant to the question of whether the display as currently conducted violates the Establishment Clause.
Ill
For the foregoing reasons, we hold that the City has not violated the Establishment Clause by allowing the Christmas Committee to erect a religious display in the Organ Pavilion. We therefore need not determine whether avoiding an Establishment Clause violation would justify excluding the Christmas Committee’s religious speech from the public forum. The City remains free to impose reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions on speech in Balboa Park, including religious speech, provided those regulations are content-neutral. We will not, however, force the City to impose such restrictions based on the content of the Committee’s speech; to do so would violate the Free Speech Clause, turning the public forum doctrine on its head.
We emphasize that the City must treat the Committee as it would any other speaker in Balboa Park. On this record, we conclude that Kreisner has not raised a factual issue of preferential treatment.
AFFIRMED.

. Kreisner has standing to bring this action based on his allegation that the challenged display interferes with his right to use Balboa Park. See Hewitt v. Joyner, 940 F.2d 1561, 1564 (9th Cir.1991), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 969, 117 L.Ed.2d 134 (1992); ACLU v. City of St. Charles, 794 F.2d 265, 268 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 961, 107 S.Ct. 458, 93 L.Ed.2d 403 (1986); ACLU v. Rabun County Chamber of Commerce, 698 F.2d 1098, 1107-08 (11th Cir.1983). Because this injury is sufficient to establish standing, we need not consider whether Kreisner would have standing as a municipal taxpayer. See Cammack v. Waihee, 932 F.2d 765, 770-72 (9th Cir.1991), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 3027, 120 L.Ed.2d 898 (1992).

. In his supplemental brief following our limited remand, Kreisner attempted to resurrect his state constitutional claim. Because he failed to challenge the district court’s dismissal of that claim in his opening and reply briefs on appeal, we deem the issue waived and decline to address it. See In re Riverside-Linden Inv. Co., 945 F.2d 320, 324 (9th Cir.1991).

.The dissent states that because we are reviewing the district court’s grant of summary judgment we should view the evidence in the light most favorable to Kreisner, rather than adopt the findings of fact of the district court. The dissent relies on Swarner v. United States, 937 F.2d 1478 (9th Cir.1991). But garden variety summary judgment cases, like Swarner, are far different from this one. Here, the district court made findings of fact after holding an evidentia-ry hearing and taking testimony in open court. See Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law 52 C.R. at 2-3. Kreisner did not object to the holding of an evidentiary hearing, nor is there any indication that he did not have sufficient notice to present his case. Considering the extent of the hearings below and our earlier order focusing the district court’s efforts, there is no reason to depart from the clearly erroneous standard of review that we apply to findings of fact following an evidentiary hearing. Carter v. McCarthy, 806 F.2d 1373, 1375 (9th Cir.1986).

. But see Simon & Schuster, Inc. v. Members of the New York State Crime Victims Bd., — U.S. -, -, 112 S.Ct. 501, 512-15, 116 L.Ed.2d 476 (1991) (Kennedy, J., concurring) (disputing the precedential basis for a compelling state interest balancing test, and arguing for an approach in which all restrictions falling outside recognized categories, such as fighting words or obscenity, are automatically invalidated).

. In concluding that San Diego has not endorsed the Committee’s religious views by allowing it to erect its display in the Organ Pavil*893ion, we do not rely upon the details of the disclaimer sign, which do not appear in the record. We emphasize, however, that the presence of such a sign, while not dispositive, reinforces the reasonable observer's perception of no government sponsorship.

. Whether certain types of government property are public fora has sharply divided the Court, see, e.g., International Soc'y for Krishna Consciousness v. Lee, — U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 2711, 120 L.Ed.2d 541 (1992); Cornelius v. NAACP Defense and Educ. Fund, Inc., 473 U.S. 788, 105 S.Ct. 3439, 87 L.Ed.2d 567 (1985), but thus far the Court has only reaffirmed the description of public fora that gave rise to the doctrine: "Wherever the title of streets and parks may rest, they have immemorially been held in trust for the use of the public and, time out of mind, have been used for purposes of assembly, communicating thoughts between citizens, and discussing public questions.” Hague v. CIO, 307 U.S. 496, 515, 59 S.Ct. 954, 964, 83 L.Ed. 1423 (1939) (emphasis added).

. See, e.g., Kaplan, 891 F.2d at 1025 (holding permit for private display of religious symbol in traditional public forum in front of seat of city government violative of Establishment Clause); Smith v. County of Albermarle, 895 F.2d 953, 955 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 823, 111 S.Ct. 74, 112 L.Ed.2d 48 (1990) (nativity scene could not be placed in public forum on front lawn of county office building by private group; determinative factor that "one could not readily view the creche without also viewing the trappings and identifying marks of the state”); but see Kaplan, 891 F.2d at 1033 (Meskill, J., dissenting) (park does not lose its status as a traditional public forum "merely because City Hall is located on one side” of it).

. At oral argument, the City represented to this court that any person could get a permit to place an unattended display in any part of the park, regardless of the content of the display, on a first-come, first-served basis. The City further represented that no fee would be charged for such a display. Having made these representations, the City is now bound by them.
We hold here that Kreisner has failed to demonstrate that the City does not abide by its stated open-access policy. Should the City at any time fail to comply with that policy, a wrongfully excluded group may of course bring suit.

.After oral argument in this court, amicus ACLU attempted to "test” the City’s permit procedures. Amicus sent an employee to the City’s Parks and Recreation Department to request a permit for use of the Organ Pavilion in December 1991 for a display celebrating the bicentennial of the Bill of Rights. The ACLU had no intention of erecting such a display, and the employee was accordingly unable to supply the City with needed details concerning the size of the display. The City declined to issue the permit without such details, which were never provided. This little vignette in no way suggests that the City’s claimed open-access policy is a sham.
Nor does it, as Kreisner now insists, cast doubt upon the district court’s grant of summary judgment. A litigant who has been unable to demonstrate material issues of fact prior to an adverse decision cannot thereafter create such issues by his own behavior. Moreover, Kreisner affirmatively declared below that the case was ripe for summary judgment. We will not allow him to withdraw that concession based on his dissatisfaction with the court's ruling.

. We emphasize once again that our holding does not preclude future actions against the City should the City fail to adhere to its content-neutral policy. Should the City seek to charge rental fees to another group requesting a permit to place an unattended display in Balboa Park, that group could challenge the City’s action. Furthermore, evidence that fees are assessed against similar users but not against the Committee would tend to show a City preference for or endorsement of the Committee’s religious message.

. Kreisner does not allege that political divisiveness engendered by the City’s action violates Lemon’s entanglement prong. While the Supreme Court has on occasion suggested that political divisiveness is relevant to the entanglement analysis, see Committee for Public Education v. Nyquist, 413 U.S. 756, 796, 93 S.Ct. 2955, 2977, 37 L.Ed.2d 948 (1973); Lemon, 403 U.S. at 623, 91 S.Ct. at 2116, it has emphasized that divisiveness alone does not render a practice unconstitutional. See Lynch, 465 U.S. at 684, 104 S.Ct. at 1364; id. at 669, 104 S.Ct. at 1357 (O’Connor, J., concurring).