Argument of Speaker
Mr. Speaker: The Opinion of the Court in No. 99-2036 Good New Club versus Milford Central School will be announced by Justice Thomas.
Argument of Justice Thomas
Mr. Thomas: This case comes to us on a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Respondent Milford Central School authorizes district residents to use its building after school for instruction and education, learning or the arts, and social, civic, recreational, and the entertainment uses pertaining to the community welfare.
Petitioners Good News Club, a private Christian organization for children, sought approval to use the school’s facilities.
Milford denied the Club’s request to hold its weekly meetings after school in the school’s building on the ground that the Club’s proposed use was equivalent of religious worship.
Petitioners filed suit under Section 1983, alleging that the denial of the Club’s application violated its free speech rights.
The District Court granted Milford summary judgment.
The Second Circuit affirmed, and held that because the Club’s subject matter was quintessentially religious and its activities fell outside the bounds of pure moral and character development, Milford's policy was constitutional.
In an opinion filed with the Clerk today, we reverse.
Because the parties so agree, we assume that Milford operates a limited public forum.
Accordingly, in operating its forum, Milford must not discriminate against speech base on viewpoint.
We hold that Milford by denying the Club access on the ground that the Club is religious in nature, discriminated against the Club because of its religious viewpoint in violation of Free Speech Clause.
Milford’s exclusion of the Club is indistinguishable from the unconstitutional exclusions in Lamb’s Chapel, and Rosenberger versus Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia.
We also conclude that permitting the Club to meet on the school’s premises would not have violated the Establishment Clause.
First, we rejected Establishment Clause defense as similar to Milford’s in Lamb’s Chapel, and also in Widmar versus Vincent.
Second, we reject Milford’s attempt to distinguish those cases by emphasizing that its policy involves elementary school children.
We have never foreclosed private religious conducts during non-school hours merely because it takes place on school premises where elementary school children maybe present.
Justice Scalia has filed a concurring opinion; Justice Breyer has filed an opinion concurring in part; Justice Stevens has filed a dissenting opinion; Justice Souter has filed a dissenting opinion, which Justice Ginsburg has joined.
