Appeals Court Upholds Ban on Worship in Public Schools

[rug]

By MATT FLEGENHEIMER
Published: February 17, 2012

In the latest twist of a winding legal case over worship in public school facilities, a federal appeals court ruled on Friday that New York City was allowed to prevent dozens of religious groups from holding services in the schools.

The ruling, by a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit — which the city had asked to review a lower court’s decision — came one day after a federal judge directed the city to halt its plan to eject religious groups that that had been worshiping in public schools on weekends.

The appeals court said a temporary restraining order that the judge, Loretta A. Preska of United States District Court in Manhattan, issued on Thursday applied only to the plaintiff in the case before her, the Bronx Household of Faith, and not to other groups.

“The Department of Education is legitimately concerned about public schools being affiliated with a particular religious belief or practice,” Jane Gordon, a lawyer for the city, said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/18/nyregion/city-ban-on-worship-in-schools-is-upheld.html

[jberryhill]

1. Appellate reviews of TRO's are on a low standard

The district court judge issued this order on a temporary basis pending further presentations of the facts of the case. That's what a temporary order is about. They are issued on a quick review and argument, and are highly discretionary.

On appeal, the circuit court is not going to dig much more deeply than "Was the judge completely off his rocker?" As long as they find the judge had some reason, it's tough to overturn a TRO on an appeal, or even get it taken up.

[rug]

2. It also limited the scope of the TRO to the single plaintiff.

[exboyfil]

3. I guess I am a little amazed that

a religious organization cannot have the same rights to rent space as any other organization. Doesn't the school district need the dollars? How can using a building under these terms be viewed in any way as violating the 1st amendment? By saying that all groups can rent space they are obviously not showing their willingness to support any particular faith. It is in the school district's best interest to increase revenue.

[jberryhill]

5. See above, this is a TRO

It sounds like there was a little something of the ordinary going on at this particular school.

[rug]

6. This particular litigation has beeen going oin over a decade.

The Supreme Court declined cert on the latest appeal a month or so ago. Looks like they're taking another crack at it.

Apparently they want to limit the scope on this.

"The appeals court said a temporary restraining order that the judge, Loretta A. Preska of United States District Court in Manhattan, issued on Thursday applied only to the plaintiff in the case before her, the Bronx Household of Faith, and not to other groups."

[immoderate]

4. I'm conflicted on this.

I think renting out public space to private parties is a good idea. Pays for the structure, offers overtime pay, etc.

I don't think the activity, if it's legal, should be discriminatory. No religious services, but how about a seance, or a production of Godspell?

I don't think that students should be "religionized" during their education. But when you rent a space, you should be able to say what you want.

I'd rather they be educated though.

--imm

[BuroshKozorg]

7. My own opinion

Personally I think that any group who is a private group, holding a private meeting, should be allowed to rent out a room at a school, just as long as they pay the fees and don't engage in illegal activity. I remember vaguely speaking of this issue with some acquaintances of mine, who said that in their small hometown, the Gun Club sometimes held meetings at the elementary school saturday mornings. I honestly can't imagine a private Bible study being somehow "worse" than the Gun Club.

[Jim__]

8. So, the TRO does allow the plaintiff to hold services in the public school this week?

But the TRO does not apply to any other religious group but the plaintiff? Am I understanding this correctly?

[rug]

9. That's how I'm reading it.

Since the Supreme Court let stand the Circuit Court's earlier ruling prohibiting the use of schools by religions during off hours, that's the current law. So they don't want to upset that. But, they are willing to keep the injunction in place while the merits of this particular plaintiff's claims are being determined.

[Jim__]

10. Thanks - n/t