{"id":30866,"date":"2022-07-18T12:37:56","date_gmt":"2022-07-18T17:37:56","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/content.findlaw-admin.com\/ability-legal\/constitution\/amendment1\/annotation07.html"},"modified":"2022-07-18T12:37:56","modified_gmt":"2022-07-18T17:37:56","slug":"annotation07","status":"publish","type":"constitution","link":"https:\/\/constitution.findlaw.com\/amendment1\/annotation07.html","title":{"rendered":"Do Religious Groups Have a Right to Access Public Property?"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\n \n
\n

Do Religious Groups Have a Right to Access Public Property?<\/h1>\n
\n
\n By FindLaw Staff<\/a> | Legally reviewed by Laura Temme, Esq.<\/a>\n | Last reviewed\n
\n \n <\/i>\n Legally Reviewed\n <\/summary>\n\n
\n

This article has been written and reviewed for legal accuracy, clarity, and style by FindLaw\u2019s team of legal writers and attorneys<\/a> and in accordance with our editorial standards<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n\n <\/div>\n <\/details>\n\n

\n \n <\/i>\n Fact-Checked\n <\/summary>\n\n
\n

The last updated date refers to the last time this article was reviewed by FindLaw or one of our contributing authors<\/a>. We make every effort to keep our articles updated. For information regarding a specific legal issue affecting you, please contact an attorney in your area<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n\n <\/div>\n <\/details>\n<\/section>\n

\n

Government entities must walk a fine line between avoiding the "establishment" of religion while also allowing religious groups access to the same resources as secular ones. <\/p>\n\n <\/div>\n\n

The First Amendment protects a person’s right to practice whatever religion they choose – but it also requires religion to be separate from the government. This is also known as the separation of church and state. <\/p>\r\n

The First Amendment’s religion clauses state:<\/p>\r\n

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…"<\/i><\/p>\r\n

What It Means<\/h2>\r\n

United States Library of Congress, The Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation<\/i><\/b>
\r\n<\/p>\r\n

Although government may not promote religion through its educational facilities, it may not bar student religious groups from meeting on public school property if it makes its facilities available to nonreligious student groups. In <\/span>Widmar v. Vincent<\/a><\/i>,<\/span>1<\/sup> the Court held that allowing student religious groups equal access to a public college\u2019s facilities would further a secular purpose, would not constitute an impermissible benefit to religion, and would pose little hazard of entanglement. Subsequently, the Court held that these principles apply to public secondary schools as well as to institutions of higher learning.<\/span><\/p>\r\n

In 1990, in Westside Community Board of Education v. Mergens<\/a><\/i>,2<\/sup> the Court upheld the application of the Equal Access Act<\/a>3<\/sup> to prevent a secondary school from denying access to school premises to a student religious club while granting access to such other non-curriculum related student groups as a scuba diving club, a chess club, and a service club.4<\/sup><\/p>\r\n

Justice O\u2019Connor stated in a plurality opinion that there is a crucial difference between government<\/i> speech endorsing religion and private<\/i> speech endorsing religion. We think that secondary school students are mature enough and are likely to understand that a school does not endorse or support student speech that it merely permits on a nondiscriminatory basis.5<\/sup><\/p>\r\n

Religious Groups Must Be <\/sup>Allowed Same Access to School Property After Hours<\/b><\/h2>\r\n

Similarly, public schools may not rely on the establishment clause as grounds to discriminate against religious groups in after-hours use of school property otherwise available for non-religious social, civic, and recreational purposes.<\/p>\r\n

In Lamb\u2019s Chapel v. Center Moriches School District<\/a><\/i>,6<\/sup> the Court held that a school district could not, consistent with the free speech clause, refuse to allow a religious group to use school facilities to show a film series on family life when the facilities were otherwise available for community use. It discriminates on the basis of viewpoint, the Court ruled, to permit school property to be used for the presentation of all views about family issues and child-rearing except those dealing with the subject matter from a religious viewpoint. In response to the school district\u2019s claim that the establishment clause required it to deny use of its facilities to a religious group, the Court said that there was no realistic danger in this instance that the community would think that the District was endorsing religion or any particular creed and that such permission would satisfy the requirements of the Lemon<\/i> test.7<\/sup><\/p>\r\n

Similarly, in Good News Club v. Milford Central School<\/a><\/i>,8<\/sup> the Court held the free speech clause to be violated by a school policy that barred a religious children\u2019s club from meeting on school premises after school. Given that other groups teaching morals and character development to young children were allowed to use the school\u2019s facilities, the exclusion, the Court said, constitutes unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination. Moreover, it said, the school had no valid establishment clause interest because permitting the religious club to meet would not show any favoritism toward religion but would simply ensure neutrality.<\/p>\r\n

Finally, the Court has made clear that public colleges may not exclude student religious organizations from benefits otherwise provided to a full spectrum of student news, information, opinion, entertainment, or academic communications media groups. In Rosenberger v. Board of Visitors of the University of Virginia<\/a><\/i>,9<\/sup> the Court struck down a university policy that afforded a school subsidy to all student publications except religious ones. Once again, the Court held the denial of the subsidy to constitute viewpoint discrimination in violation of the free speech clause of the First Amendment. In response to the University\u2019s argument that the establishment clause required it not to subsidize an enterprise that promotes religion, the Court emphasized that the forum created by the University\u2019s subsidy policy had neither the purpose nor the effect of advancing religion and, because it was open to a variety of viewpoints, was neutral toward religion.<\/p>\r\n

These cases make clear that the establishment clause does not necessarily trump the First Amendment\u2019s protection of freedom of speech. In regulating private speech in a public forum, government may not justify discrimination against religious viewpoints as necessary to avoid creating an establishment of religion.<\/p>\r\n

More On Religious Freedom<\/h3>\r\n