The former, but not that rooms are provided for a wide range of expressive groups so much as that the use of the funds is grounded in neutral criteria (the Sixth Circuit goes on to explain that they upheld Detroit's downtown refurbishment program, which provided funds to refurbish churches, because the funds were given out according to facially neutral criteria and there was no evidence that the facially neutral criteria were chosen to "stack the deck in favor of groups that engage in religious indoctrination." Am. Atheists, 567 F.3d at 291, 302. For example (and assuming that the airport's funds are governmental funds), suppose that the airport polled frequent fliers in a terminal as to what accommodations the terminal was lacking and promised to provide $250,000 each to build the top 5 most-requested accommodations. The results are two fast-food restaurants, the reflection room, a gym, and a luxury seating area, each of which is provided $250,000. This dispersement would be based on neutral criteria, even though there is only one "expressive group."
Justin --- Justin Butterfield Senior Counsel Liberty Institute Tel.: (972) 941-4451 Fax.: (972) 941-4457 jbutterfi...@libertyinstitute.org<mailto:jbutterfi...@libertyinstitute.org> www.libertyinstitute.org<http://www.libertyinstitute.org/> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This electronic mail message and any accompanying documents contain information belonging to the sender that is confidential and legally privileged. This information is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to whom it was sent. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution, or action taken in reliance on the contents of the information contained in this electronic mail message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please delete it immediately and call (972) 941-4451 to advise me that you received it. Thank you. PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION / ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT From: Alan E Brownstein <aebrownst...@ucdavis.edu<mailto:aebrownst...@ucdavis.edu>> Reply-To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics <religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>> Date: Wednesday, October 28, 2015 3:39 PM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics <religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>> Subject: RE: Muslim-focused "reflection room" in airport I’m not sure how all of these free speech cases the Sixth Circuit cites apply to the government funding of a chapel. Is the argument that the creation of rooms in an airport terminal for expressive purposes is determined under open-access neutral criteria and that like the public property at issue in Widmar etc. and the funds distributed in Rosenberger, a wide range of expressive groups are provided rooms for their particular messages and assemblies? Or is the argument that the rooms created by the airport are open access lounges for expressive purposes with no particular connection to religion use or connotation that they are reserved for religious use. Alan From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu> [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Justin Butterfield Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2015 10:58 AM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: Muslim-focused "reflection room" in airport I agree that there's a possible accommodation approach that would allow the reflection room as well. Setting aside accommodation, the Sixth Circuit rests pretty strongly on neutrality as the guiding principle in holding that government funds may be used to refurbish churches, which seems more like your hypothetical . Am. Atheists, Inc. v. City of Detroit Downtown Dev. Auth., 567 F.3d 278 (6th Cir. 2009). In that opinion, the Sixth Circuit said, "Since Tilton, the Court repeatedly has held that the Establishment Clause does not require the government to exclude religious groups from participating in open-access programs that make state-owned buildings available to all comers, even if such groups use the property for 'religious worship and religious discussion.' Widmar, 454 U.S. At 265, 270–75; see Good News Club, 533 U.S. At 113–14, 119; Lamb's Chapel, 508 U.S. At 394–95; see also Rosenberger, 515 U.S. at 839–46. What mattered in those cases was not that religious activity took place in facilities that the State had built and paid to maintain, but that the government provided access to those facilities on equal terms to all, ensuring that whatever use the groups made of them could not be chalked up to the State." Am. Atheists, 567 F.3d at 299. Justin --- Justin Butterfield Senior Counsel Liberty Institute Tel.: (972) 941-4451 Fax.: (972) 941-4457 jbutterfi...@libertyinstitute.org<mailto:jbutterfi...@libertyinstitute.org> www.libertyinstitute.org<http://www.libertyinstitute.org/> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This electronic mail message and any accompanying documents contain information belonging to the sender that is confidential and legally privileged. This information is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to whom it was sent. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution, or action taken in reliance on the contents of the information contained in this electronic mail message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please delete it immediately and call (972) 941-4451 to advise me that you received it. Thank you. PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION / ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
