Running head: Examination of Good News Club v. Milford, 533 U.S.

98 (2001) 1

Examination of Good News Club v. Milford, 533 U.S. 98 (2001)

Dena Fisher & Elizabeth Tallent

Oakland University
Examination of Good News Club v. Milford, 533 U.S.98 (2001) 2

Facts of the case

Milford Central High School decided to open its schools to the public for use after school

hours, and in so, created a limited public forum to benefit the community. It is important to note

that in a limited public forum, not all speech is allowed. The school created the following

requirements for district residents to use the building for “(1) instruction in education, learning,

or the arts and (2) social, civic, recreational, and entertainment uses pertaining to the community

welfare” (Good News Club v. Milford, 533 U.S. 2001). Stephen and Darleen Fournier, who

resided in the district, proposed using the facility for a Christian group, Good News Club. The

Good News Club was designed “to sing songs, hear Bible lessons, memorize scripture, and pray”

(Id., 533 U.S.). Milford’s interim superintendent, Dr. Robert McGruder, denied their request

stating their club purpose, “was the equivalent of religious worship prohibited by the community

use policy” (Id., 533 U.S.). This decision prompted the Good News Club to file suit, citing,

“denial of the Club's application violated its free speech rights under the First and Fourteenth

Amendments” (Id., 533 U.S.). Yet, Supreme Court Justice Stevens’ dissent indicates that the

Good News Club was indeed using Milford’s facility “...for an evangelical service of worship

calling children to commit themselves in an act of Christian conversion” (Id., 533 U.S. at 139).

Stevens further states that when the majority ignored these facts, they suggest that any public

school “...opened for civic meetings must be opened for use as a church, synagogue, or mosque”

(Id., 533 U.S. at 139).

Procedural history section

The suit was brought to the United States District Court for the Northern District of New

York for violating the Good News Club’s First and Fourteenth Amendment rights specifically

regarding free speech, religious freedom, and equal protection. An injunction was requested by
Examination of Good News Club v. Milford, 533 U.S.98 (2001) 3

The Good News Club to allow them to hold their weekly meetings at Milford’s school facility

and this was granted from April 1997 to June of 1998. In August of 1998, the District Court

vacated the motion, dismissed the injunction, and stated Milford Schools could deny The Good

News Club from meeting on their premises. The court upheld that Milford Schools was within

its rights to deny the club access to their facility due to the religious nature of the meetings.

The Good News Club then appealed to the Second Circuit Court, which upheld the

District Court's decision that the Good News Club’s rights were not violated and “rejected the

Club's contention that Milford's restriction was unreasonable” (Id., 533 U.S.). Judge Jacobs

dissented concluding, “that the school's restriction did constitute viewpoint discrimination under

Lamb's Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free School Dist., 508 U.S. 384, 124 L. Ed. 2d 352,

113 S. Ct. 2141” (1993) (Id., 533 U.S at 162). It is because there was a conflict with the court of

appeals, and the decision was divided, that a dissenting judge entered a Writ of Certiorari to

petition the Supreme Court to hear the case. The point to be determined was if the Good News

Club was discriminated based on viewpoint discrimination and not subject discrimination.

Description of the main legal issues in the case

The main legal issue is whether Milford violated the rights of the Good News Club based

on unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination. Simply stated, if the Boy Scouts of America can

teach about moral character from their viewpoint, then the Good News Club can also teach about

moral character from their viewpoint. Milford schools denied the Good News Club access to the

school after hours based on constitutional subject discrimination because the school does not

allow religious groups to use their facilities.

The decision of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals states, “Milford's policy of

excluding the Club's meetings was constitutional subject discrimination, not unconstitutional
Examination of Good News Club v. Milford, 533 U.S.98 (2001) 4

viewpoint discrimination” (Id., 533 U.S at 162). Since there was a similar case brought to the

Supreme Court, Lamb’s Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free School Dist, Judge Jacobs

dissented the Second Circuit Court of Appeals based on “...whether speech can be excluded from

a limited public forum on the basis of the religious nature of the speech” (Id., 533 U.S at 162).

Another legal issue Milford argued for is the Establishment Clause, which was

introduced for the first time at the Supreme Court level. The Establishment Clause of the First

Amendment “...not only forbids the government from establishing an official religion, but also

prohibits government actions that unduly favor one religion over another” (Carlson, 2017).

According to Milford (2001), because the Club will hold its meetings at the school, elementary

school children will think the school endorses their religion and they will be obligated to join

(533 U.S. at 111). Yet, the Supreme Court stated that in order to establish neutrality the

government must allow for all groups to have equal access to public facilities regardless of the

viewpoint of the group. Admittedly, Milford felt that, “... even if its restriction constitutes

viewpoint discrimination, its interest in not violating the Establishment Clause outweighs the

Club's interest in gaining equal access to the school's facilities” (Id., 533 U.S. at 2103).

The Court’s holding (ruling)

The Supreme Court ruled six to three “...that Milford's exclusion of the Club from use of

the school, pursuant to its community use policy, constitutes impermissible viewpoint

discrimination” (Id., 533 U.S. at 112). Furthermore, it was determined, “Because Milford has not

raised a valid Establishment Clause claim, we do not address the question whether such a claim

could excuse Milford's viewpoint discrimination” (Id., 533 U.S. at 98). The major stance that

Milford took regarding the Establishment Clause and the Club’s impact on school children did

not factor in the final ruling.

Examination of Good News Club v. Milford, 533 U.S.98 (2001) 5

Explanation of the rationale

Two main court cases that supported the Court’s rationale are Lamb's Chapel v. Center

Moriches Union Free School Dist., 508 U.S. 384, 124 L. Ed. 2d 352, 113 S. Ct. 2141 and

Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of Univ. of Va., 515 U.S. 819, 829, 132 L. Ed. 2d 700, 115 S.

Ct. 2510. The Lamb’s Chapel case was deemed viewpoint discrimination because the school

violated the groups rights solely on the basis that their viewpoint was from a religious

perspective. “Applying Lamb's Chapel, we find it quite clear that Milford engaged in viewpoint

discrimination when it excluded the Club from the afterschool forum” (Id., 533 U.S. at

109). The Rosenberger case dealt with a university withholding funding to a religious

publication, while funding non-religious publications. Both of these cases established precedents

that supported the school violated the Club’s First Amendment right of Freedom of Speech,

which determined the decision in favor of the Good News Club over Milford Schools.

Three justices (Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg) dissented stating that the Good News Club

was not teaching moral character from a Christian viewpoint and was not comparable to Lamb’s

Chapel. The club was using “...proselytizing religious speech that does not rise to the level of

actual worship…” (Id., 533 U.S. at 134), which is considered promoting religious beliefs, not

teaching lessons from a religious viewpoint, and is expressly excluded for use under Milford’s

limited public forum.

In addition, the three dissenting justices state that the Establishment Clause should not

have been used in the ruling, especially since it was not raised at the district or circuit

level. “Whereas the District Court and Court of Appeals resolved this case entirely on the

ground that Milford's actions did not offend the First Amendment's Speech Clause, the majority

now sees fit to rule on the application of the Establishment Clause, in derogation of this Court's
Examination of Good News Club v. Milford, 533 U.S.98 (2001) 6

proper role as a court of review” (Id., 533 U.S.). It was also stated that the school has the right to

avoid organizations that seek to recruit individuals into their organizations and that Good News

“...blur the line between public classroom instruction and private religious indoctrination, leaving

a reasonable elementary school pupil unable to appreciate that the former instruction is the

business of the school, while the latter evangelism is not” (Id., 533 U.S. at 145).

Milford specifically authorized the use of their space to include instructions, meetings,

entertainment for the benefit of the community with the exception that “... ‘school premises shall

not be used for religious purposes’” (Id., 533 U.S. at 136). Justice Stevens (with Souter and

Ginsberg) upholds Milford’s claim stating the school has the right to “‘...preserve the property

under its control for the use to which it is lawfully dedicated’” (Id., 533 U.S. at 136).

This case is important today because it defines the division of church and state. “The

novel question that this case presents concerns the constitutionality of a public school's attempt

to limit the scope of a public forum it has created” (Id., 533 U.S. at 131). Today, schools must

not discriminate based on viewpoint and therefore, must allow all applicable residents to use

their facilities after school.

Examination of Good News Club v. Milford, 533 U.S.98 (2001) 7

References

Carlson, M. D. (2017, June 03). Establishment Clause. Retrieved from

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/establishment_clause

Good News Club v Milford Cen. Sch., 99-2036 (Supreme Court of the United States June 11,

2001).