1990 United States Supreme Court case
Westside Community Board of Education v. Mergens Full case name Board of Education of the Westside Community Schools, etc., et al., Petitioners v. Bridget C. Mergens, by and through her next friend, Daniel N. Mergens, et al. Citations 496 U.S. 226 (more Prior 867 F.2d 1076 (8th Cir. 1989); cert. granted, 492 U.S. 917 (1989). School districts may not prohibit Bible study groups from meeting on school premises if they allow other groups to meet on school premises.
Chief Justice
William Rehnquist
Associate Justices
William J. Brennan Jr. · Byron White Thurgood Marshall · Harry Blackmun John P. Stevens · Sandra Day O'Connor Antonin Scalia · Anthony Kennedy
Majority O'Connor (parts I, II-A, II-B, II-C), joined by Rehnquist, White, Blackmun, Scalia, Kennedy Plurality O'Connor (part III), joined by Rehnquist, White, Blackmun Concurrence Kennedy, joined by Scalia Concurrence Marshall, joined by Brennan Dissent Stevens U.S. Const. amend. I ; Equal Access Act
Westside Community Board of Education v. Mergens United States Supreme Court case involving a school district's ability to hold classes on Bible study after school.
Background [ edit ] Westside High School , in District 66 , located in Omaha , Nebraska , refused to allow a group of students to form a Christian Bible Study Club within their school. Bridget Mergens is the name of the student who initiated the process to start the club. She was a senior at the time. It was decided that the club could not take place because they would not allow a staff member to sponsor it (staff sponsoring was required or the club meetings could not take place at the school). The students argued that the district's decision was in violation of the federal Equal Access Act requiring that groups seeking to express messages containing "religious, political, philosophical, or other content" not be denied the ability to form clubs.
Opinion of the Court [ edit ] In an 8–1 decision,[1] Establishment Clause of the First Amendment .[2]
The school's situation was placed under the Equal Access Act because it allowed other ‘limited open forums’. In Part III of Justice O'Connor 's opinion, which did not reach a majority of the Court, she applied the Lemon Test to find that the Equal Access Act is constitutional as applied in this case. Justice Kennedy , meanwhile, analyzed the application of the Act under different Court precedents, focusing more upon "coercion".
Dissent [ edit ] Justice Stevens , in a dissenting opinion, would have avoided the Establishment Clause issue.
See also [ edit ] References [ edit ] External links [ edit ]
Public displays Statutory religious Public funding Religion in Private religious speech Internal church affairs Taxpayer standing Blue laws Other
Unprotected
Incitementsedition Libel andFighting words andheckler's veto True threats Obscenity
Rosen v. United States United States v. One Book Called Ulysses Roth v. United States One, Inc. v. Olesen Smith v. California Marcus v. Search Warrant MANual Enterprises, Inc. v. Day Jacobellis v. Ohio Quantity of Books v. Kansas Ginzburg v. United States Memoirs v. Massachusetts Redrup v. New York Ginsberg v. New York Stanley v. Georgia United States v. Thirty-seven Photographs Kois v. Wisconsin Miller v. California Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton United States v. 12 200-ft. Reels of Film Jenkins v. Georgia Southeastern Promotions, Ltd. v. Conrad Erznoznik v. City of Jacksonville Young v. American Mini Theatres, Inc. Vance v. Universal Amusement Co., Inc. American Booksellers Ass'n, Inc. v. Hudnut People v. Freeman United States v. X-Citement Video, Inc. Reno v. ACLU United States v. Playboy Entertainment Group, Inc. City of Los Angeles v. Alameda Books, Inc. Ashcroft v. ACLU I United States v. American Library Ass'n Ashcroft v. ACLU II Nitke v. Gonzales United States v. Williams American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression v. Strickland United States v. Kilbride United States v. Stevens Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Ass'n FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc. Speech integral
Strict scrutiny Vagueness Symbolic speech Content-based Content-neutral
Compelled speech Compelled subsidy
Government grants Government Loyalty oaths School speech Public employees Hatch Act andLicensing and Commercial speech
Valentine v. Chrestensen Rowan v. U.S. Post Office Dept. Pittsburgh Press Co. v. Pittsburgh Comm'n on Human Relations Lehman v. Shaker Heights Goldfarb v. Virginia State Bar Bigelow v. Virginia Virginia State Pharmacy Bd. v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council Linmark Assoc., Inc. v. Township of Willingboro Carey v. Population Services International Bates v. State Bar of Arizona In re Primus Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar Association Friedman v. Rogers Consol. Edison Co. v. Public Serv. Comm'n Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission Metromedia, Inc. v. San Diego In re R.M.J. Hoffman Estates v. The Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc. Zauderer v. Off. of Disciplinary Counsel of Supreme Court of Ohio Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. Public Utilities Comm'n of California Posadas de Puerto Rico Assoc. v. Tourism Co. of Puerto Rico San Francisco Arts & Athletics, Inc. v. U.S. Olympic Committee Shapero v. Kentucky Bar Association Riley v. Nat'l Fed'n of the Blind State University of New York v. Fox Peel v. Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission of Illinois City of Cincinnati v. Discovery Network Edenfield v. Fane United States v. Edge Broadcasting Co. Ibanez v. Florida Dept. of Business and Professional Regulation, Bd. of Accountancy Lebron v. National Railroad Passenger Corp. Rubin v. Coors Brewing Co. Florida Bar v. Went For It, Inc. 44 Liquormart, Inc. v. Rhode Island Glickman v. Wileman Brothers & Elliot, Inc. Greater New Orleans Broadcasting Assn., Inc. v. United States Los Angeles Police Department v. United Reporting Publishing Co. United States v. United Foods Inc. Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Reilly Thompson v. Western States Medical Center Nike, Inc. v. Kasky Johanns v. Livestock Marketing Ass'n Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Assn. v. Brentwood Academy Milavetz, Gallop & Milavetz, P.A. v. United States Jerman v. Carlisle, McNellie, Rini, Kramer & Ulrich LPA Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc. Expressions Hair Design v. Schneiderman Matal v. Tam Iancu v. Brunetti Barr v. American Association of Political Consultants Vidal v. Elster Campaign finance Anonymous speech State action Official retaliation Boycotts Prisons
Organizations Future Conduct Solicitation Membership restriction Primaries and elections
