1 / 12

Presented/Synthesized by: Lauren Bauer and Maureen Schabel

THE GOOD NEWS CLUB, ANDREA FOURNIER and DARLEEN FOURNIER, Plaintiffs - v. - MILFORD CENTRAL SCHOOL , Defendant. Presented/Synthesized by: Lauren Bauer and Maureen Schabel. Facts of the case.

cheung
Télécharger la présentation

Presented/Synthesized by: Lauren Bauer and Maureen Schabel

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. THE GOOD NEWS CLUB, ANDREA FOURNIER and DARLEEN FOURNIER,Plaintiffs- v. -MILFORD CENTRAL SCHOOL,Defendant Presented/Synthesized by: Lauren Bauer and Maureen Schabel

  2. Facts of the case • This is a case about perceived discrimination against religious expression and religious practice. • Meet Stephen and Darlene Fournier, and their daughter Andrea • Community Use Policy: • holding social, civic and recreational meetings and entertainment events that are pertaining to the welfare of the community • provided that such uses shall be nonexclusive and shall be open to the general public • the policy explicitly says that the school premises will not be used by any individual or organization for religious purposes

  3. Facts of the case • The Fournierssought approval to use the school building for the Good News Club • The Fourniers submitted a request to hold the Club's weekly afterschool meetings at the school • Milford denied the request • The Club filed suit the denial violated: • First • Fourteenth Amendments.

  4. First Amendment • Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

  5. Fourteenth Amendment • All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

  6. Legal Procedural History • Initially, the United States District Court found for the Club • Then in August 1998, the district court ruled against the club • The Fourniers’ then appealed a decision in favor of defendant-appellee Milford Central School • Next, the club appealed to the Second Circuit Court • United States Supreme Court agreed to review the ruling

  7. Supreme Court • Decision: 6 votes for Good News Club, 3 vote(s) against • Legal provision: Amendment 1: Speech, Press, and Assembly Yes votes: Rehnquist, O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Breyer No votes: Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg

  8. Main legal issues • 1st AMENDMENT: • Speech is speech, regardless of the topic. • 14th AMENDMENT: • The Good News Club is allowed the same rights and privileges as any other person or club. • ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE: • The First Amendment's Establishment Clause prohibits the government from making any law “respecting an establishment of religion.” • If another club is allowed to meet using the school facilities, the Good News Club should also be allowed the same permission.

  9. Court holdings The court decided the use policy of the district discriminates on the basis of religion, since: • It would be impossible to sort out which activities of the club, and which words, fall where, in terms of religious v. secular moral development • The exclusion message of involving children relating their learning in the club to a school endorsement found to be nonsensical. • Allowing non-religious groups to use facilities but not allowing for religious purposes was discriminatory. • That the school district had no “animus” (intent to do harm) toward the Good News Club

  10. Rationale • When the Good News Club is compared to: • The Full Gospel Tabernacle in Full Gospel Tabernacle v. Community School District #27 (1998) • In Bronx Household of Faith v. Community School District No. 10 (1997) • Milford’s Community Use policy does allow such clubs and the Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, and 4-H Clubs to meet in their facilities. • In Lamb’s Chappel v. Center Moriches Union Free School District (1993),

  11. Be Prepared for the Good News… • QUESTIONS?

More Related