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. 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, 2001, p. 1). 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” (Good News Club v. Milford,

2001, p. 1). 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” (Good News Club v. Milford, 2001, p. 1). This decision prompted Good News Club to

file suit, citing, “denial of the Club's application violated its free speech rights under the First and

Fourteenth Amendments” (Good News Club v. Milford, 2001, p. 1).

Procedural history section

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

York for violating their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights specifically regarding free

speech, religious freedom, and equal protection. The court upheld that Milford Schools was

within their rights to deny the club access to their facility due to the religious nature of the

meetings. An injunction was requested by 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 and stated Milford Schools could

deny the Good News Club from meeting on their premises.

 Examination of Good News Club v. Milford, 533 U.S.98 (2001) 3

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” (Good News Club v. Milford,

2001, p. 1). 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) (Good News Club v. Milford, 2001, p. 4).

It is because there was a conflict with the court of appeals, and the decision was divided, the case

was taken to the Supreme Court.

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 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

viewpoint discrimination” (Good News Club v. Milford, 2001, p. 4). Since there was a similar

case brought to the Supreme Court, Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free School Dist, Judge

Jacobs dissented the Second Circuit Court of Appeals “...whether speech can be excluded from a

limited public forum on the basis of the religious nature of the speech” (Good News Club v.

Milford, 2001, p. 4).

 Examination of Good News Club v. Milford, 533 U.S.98 (2001) 4

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” (Good News Club v. Milford, 2001, p. 7).

Explanation of the rationale

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

Works Cited

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

2001).