Filed April 25, 2005
So in reality it is the divided Coles decision which is the aberration and not these six courts of appeals. Additionally, Coles was decided before the recent landmark decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in Good News Club v. Milford Central School, 533 U.S. 98 (2001), which laid to rest the legally incorrect notion that just because religious activity takes place upon public school grounds it is a violation of the Establishment Clause. The Supreme Court there also criticized lower courts which take the simplistic position that mere geography determines whether voluntary prayer is constitutional.
Filed December 13, 2018
v. Pinette, 515 U.S. 753 (1995) .................................................................................................................11 Case 1:16-cv-08896-SHS Document 171 Filed 12/13/18 Page 3 of 27 iii Cariou v. Prince, 714 F.3d 694 (2d Cir. 2013)............................................................................................. passim Cariou v. Prince, 784 F. Supp. 2d 337 (S.D.N.Y. 2011)......................................................................................15 Eldred v. Ashcroft, 537 U.S. 186 (2003) .................................................................................................................10 Golan v. Holder, 565 U.S. 302 (2012) .................................................................................................................10 Good News Club v. Milford Cent. Sch., 533 U.S. 98 (2001) ...................................................................................................................11 Gordon v. Rite Aid Corp., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54071 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) ........................................................................4 Graham v. Prince, 265 F. Supp. 3d 366 (S.D.N.Y. 2017)......................................................................................11 Hirsch v. CBS Broad. Inc., 2017 WL 3393845 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 4, 2017) .............................................................................9 Maloney v. T3Media, Inc., 853 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2017) (Opp. )
Filed January 3, 2013
Dist. v. Peacock, 33 A.D.3d 1074 (3 rd Dep’t 2006); Bryant v. Board of Educ. Chenango Forks CSD, 21 A.D.3d 1134 (3 rd Dep’t 2005); Pocantico Home & Land Co., LLC v. UFSD of the Tarrytowns, 20 A.D.3d 458 (2 nd Dep’t 2005); Polmanteer v. Bobo, 19 A.D.3d (4 th Dep’t 2005); Board of Educ. of City School Dist. of City of Buffalo v. Munoz, 4 A.D.3d 879 (4 th Dep’t 2004); Campaign for Fiscal Equity, Inc., et al. v. The State of New York, et al., 295 A.D.2d 1 (1 st Dep’t 2002); Liberty Management of New York, Inc. v. Assessor of Town of Glenville, 284 A.D.2d 61 (3 rd Dep’t 2001); Sackets Harbor CSD v. Munoz, 283 A.D.2d 756 (3 rd Dep’t 2001); Forest Grove School District v. T.A., 129 S.Ct. 2484 (2009); Board of Educ. of the City School Dist. of the City of New York v. Tom F., 128 S.Ct. 1 (2007); Arlington CSD v. Murphy, 126 S.Ct. 2455 (2006); Good News Club v. Milford CSD, 533 U.S. 98 (2001); Mitchell v. Helms, 530 U.S. 793 (2000); The Bronx Household of Faith v. Board of Educ. of the City of N.Y., currently pending before the Second Circuit Court of Appeals; Zeno v. Pine Plains CSD, currently pending before the Second Circuit Court of Appeals; J.S. v. Attica 10 CSD, 386 F.3d 107 (2 nd Cir. 2004); McCormick v. School District of Mamaroneck, 370 F.3d 275 (2 nd Cir.
Filed July 9, 2012
Where the government discriminates on the basis of viewpoint, a court need not determine the nature of the forum or decide whether the restriction is reasonable in light of the purposes served by the forum. Good News Club v. Milford Cent. Sch., 533 U.S. 98, 107 (2001). 32 “Surprise!
Filed November 11, 2011
321 U.S. at 7-8, 64 S.Ct. at 401. In support of their argument that Plaintiffs’ claims are really First Amendment claims, Defendants cite Good News Club v. Milford Central School, 533 U.S. 98, 121 S.Ct. 2093 (2001) and Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 96 S.Ct. 2793 (1976). However, neither case supports dismissal of Counts 3 and 4.
Filed May 19, 2010
But if the Schools were to require that those objects be covered, they would be intruding into the affairs of a church and making determinations about 5 This case is wholly unlike public-forum cases where courts have held that religious groups may use school property that is made available to a wide variety of groups under a neutral policy. See, e.g., Good News Club v. Milford Cent. Sch., 533 U.S 98 (2001). In such cases any exposure to religion is voluntary, while here it is coerced.
Filed February 20, 2007
The Supreme Court has recently noted that when a school is not advancing religion, the coercion or impres- sionability of students is not relevant to the Establish- ment Clause analysis. Good News Club v. Milford Cent. Sch., 533 U.S. 98, 116, 150 L. Ed. 2d 151, 121 S. Ct. 2093 (2001) (discussing the impropriety of excluding only religious groups from the use of school facilities after hours). UNC's orientation program does not require partici- pation in a religious activity.