Legal Clips, [August 2007]The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has ruled that a school district in the state of Washington did not violate the federal Equal Access Act (EAA) or the First Amendment when it refused formal recognition to a student Bible club on the ground that the club’s membership requirements violated the district’s non-discrimination policies. In fall of 2001 two students at Kentridge High School (KHS) in Kent School District (KSD) applied to the school’s Associated Student Body (ASB) Council for a charter for a proposed Bible club called "Truth." Several ASB members objected to the charter out of concern over the club’s plans for broadcasting a weekly Bible quote over the school public address system and monthly decoration of the school in a biblical theme. After several months of inaction, an attorney for Truth sent two letters to the district demanding recognition for the club and threatening litigation. Truth then submitted a second application that removed the weekly Bible quote and the monthly decorating, offered membership to all students, but limited voting membership to those "professing belief in the Bible and Jesus Christ" and required officers to "believe in and be committed to biblical principles."
When the ASB Council voted to reject the second application, Truth filed suit in U.S. district court, alleging the rejection violated the EEA and the Free Speech, Association, Free Exercise, Establishment, and Equal Protection Clauses. While the case was pending, Truth submitted a third charter that divided membership into three categories¯voting members, non-voting members, and attendees¯and set various requirements for behavior and affirmation of belief for members. The ASB Council rejected this third charter. The district court granted the defendants summary judgment on all except the EAA claim based on the plaintiffs’ failure to satisfy the requirements for finding municipal liability under Section 1983, a federal statute that allows a plaintiff to sue a public official who, acting under color of state law, violates rights secured by the federal constitution or statutes. In case its municipal liability ruling was reversed, the court also ruled in the alternative on the merits of the EAA claim and some of the First Amendment claims, concluding the club’s restrictions on general membership provided a legitimate basis for denying the third charter.
On appeal the parties agreed that the third charter was the one before the court. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the lower court’s decision with regard to the EAA and First Amendment free speech claims but reversed on the municipal liability requirements, which it found did not apply to this case. The appeals court ruled that the defendants were justified in relying on KSD’s non-discrimination policies and that this reliance was consistent with the EAA. Specifically, while acknowledging that the EAA prohibits denial of access on the basis of a club’s religious, political, philosophical, or other content of speech at meetings, the court found the defendants’ denial of recognition was based on content-neutral non-discrimination policies that addressed only the club’s restrictive membership requirements. The EAA only addresses attempts to discriminate against student clubs based on content, the court observed, noting that Congress could have written the EAA "to protect religious clubs against any burden on their activities, but did not." By way of contrast, the court cited the federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act as an example of where Congress "not only prohibited discrimination against religious groups as such but also limited governments’ abilities to impose even neutral, nondiscriminatory policies against them."
Turning to the free speech claim, the court ruled that the club had failed to show that the denial of recognition based on its general membership restrictions "burdens a First Amendment interest," which is a "threshold inquiry" for such a claim. The club had not established that its policy of excluding persons who do not share Christian values from general membership has any expressive content, let alone that it communicates a message consistent with the views of the club’s organizers. As a result, the court concluded the "club failed to show the required incidental infringement of a First Amendment interest." The court rejected the club’s argument that the charter denial amounted to the forced inclusion of persons whose views are antithetical to the club’s and thereby constituted an infringement on the club’s freedom of expressive association. The court noted that "general members do not control the club’s Bible study and prayer functions, … do not lead the club in its activities, … [and] cannot vote"; that general members would not seek to participate on equal footing with voting members or leaders; and that the club’s own statements undermined its argument that general membership status is a significant measure of the club’s expressive purpose.
Finally, the court rejected the club’s Free Exercise Clause claim. Where a "neutral law of general applicability … incidentally burdens a particular religious belief or practice," the court noted, the government generally need only have a "rational basis" for the law. The exception is that strict scrutiny applies to "hybrid" claims where the free exercise claim implicates other constitutional protections, such as free speech. Because the court had rejected the free speech claim in this case, it found that the rational basis test applied. The school district had a rational basis for its non-discrimination policies, the court concluded: preventing students from being subjected to unequal treatment based on their religious beliefs.
Truth v. Kent Sch. Dist., No. 04-35876 (9th Cir. Aug. 24, 2007)
[Full opinion]