Read without ads and support Scribd by becoming a Scribd Premium Reader.
See Premium Plans
 
FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSFOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
M
ITCHELL
B
ARNES
-W
ALLACE
;M
AXWELL
B
REEN
;
 
L
ORI
B
ARNES
-W
ALLACE
;
 
L
YNN
B
ARNES
-W
ALLACE
;
 
M
ICHAEL
B
REEN
;V
ALERIE
B
REEN
,
 Plaintiffs-Appellees
,v.C
ITY OF
S
AN
D
IEGO
,
 Defendant 
,andB
OY
S
COUTS OF
A
MERICA
-
 
D
ESERT
P
ACIFIC
C
OUNCIL
,
 Defendant-Appellant 
. No. 04-55732D.C. No.CV-00-01726- NAJ/AJB
 
B
ARNES
-W
ALLACE V
.
 
B
OY
S
COUTS OF
A
MERICA
2M
ITCHELL
B
ARNES
-W
ALLACE
;M
AXWELL
B
REEN
;
 
L
ORI
B
ARNES
-W
ALLACE
, Guardian Ad Litem;L
YNN
B
ARNES
-W
ALLACE
, GuardianAd Litem; M
ICHAEL
B
REEN
,Guardian Ad Litem; V
ALERIE
B
REEN
, Guardian Ad Litem,
 Plaintiffs-Appellants
,v.C
ITY OF
S
AN
D
IEGO
;
 
B
OY
S
COUTS OF
A
MERICA
-
 
D
ESERT
P
ACIFIC
C
OUNCIL
,
 Defendants-Appellees
. No. 04-56167D.C. No.3:00-cv-01726-J-AJBOPINIONAppeal from the United States District Courtfor the Southern District of California Napoleon A. Jones, Jr., District Judge, PresidingArgued and SubmittedJune 20, 2011—Pasadena, CaliforniaFiled December 20, 2012Before: William C. Canby, Jr., Andrew J. Kleinfeld,and Marsha S. Berzon, Circuit Judges.Opinion by Judge Canby;Concurrence by Judge Kleinfeld
 
B
ARNES
-W
ALLACE V
.
 
B
OY
S
COUTS OF
A
MERICA
3
This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has
*
 been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.
SUMMARY
*
Civil Rights
The panel affirmed in part and reversed in part the districtcourt’s summary judgment and dismissal of a complaintwhich alleged that two leases of land for one dollar per year  by the City of San Diego to the Desert Pacific Council, anonprofit corporation chartered by the Boy Scouts of America, violated, among other things, provisions of theCalifornia or federal Constitutions relating to theEstablishment of Religion or the denial of Equal Protectionof the Laws.Plaintiffs alleged that they would use the land or facilitiesleased by the Desert Pacific Council but for the Boy Scouts’discriminatory policies, which prohibit atheists, agnostics,and homosexuals from being members or volunteers andrequire members to affirm a belief in God.The panel held that the district court erred in ruling thatthe City’s leases with the Boy Scouts violated the No AidClause of the California Constitution. The panel determinedthat the leases constitute, at most, indirect or incidental aid bythe City for a religious purpose, and the aid does nototherwise violate the requirements established by theSupreme Court of California to avoid invalidity under the NoAid Clause.
Search
Search History:
Searching...
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
  • p.
    • Notes
    Load more