Facts of the Case
Cornerstone was an officially recognized student organization on the campus of the University of Missouri - Kansas City. The avowed purpose of Cornerstone was to promote a knowledge and awareness of Jesus Christ on the campus. From 1973 to 1977, Cornerstone obtained permission to use university facilities for its weekly meetings and events.
In January 1977, the group sought permission from the university to use two rooms of its Haag Hall Annex for two and a half hours every week. University officials asked for a description of the activities that would be conducted at the proposed meetings. Cornerstone told the university that worship in the form of prayer and biblical teaching would be an important part of the general atmosphere of the meetings. University officials rejected Cornerstone’s application for regular use of the rooms, concluding the meetings would violate several sections of the Collected Rules and Regulations of the University of Missouri. These regulations prohibited the use of university buildings and grounds for religious worship or religious teaching.
On December 11, 1979, the trial court granted summary judgment to Gary Widmar, the Dean of Students at the university, and the university’s Board of Curators, rejecting a motion for summary judgment filed by Cornerstone’s members. It concluded that the university’s ban on religious services in its buildings was required by the First Amendment’s establishment clause. It also held that the university did not violate the students’ free exercise rights, and that any violation was outweighed by Missouri’s compelling interest in the separation of church and state. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reversed. It held that the university’s regulation had the primary effect of inhibiting religion, in violation of the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause. Instead, the Eighth Circuit suggested that a neutral policy toward religious groups would satisfy the university’s First Amendment obligations.
Questions
Did the refusal of the University of Missouri to accommodate voluntary student religious meetings violate Cornerstone members’ rights of equal access to a public forum protected by the Fourteenth Amendment?
Did the refusal of the University of Missouri to accommodate Cornerstone’s religious meetings unconstitutionally abridge freedoms of speech, association, and exercise of religion?
Conclusions
-
Yes and yes. In an 8-1 decision written by Justice Lewis F. Powell, Jr., the Court held that the university’s policy violated Cornerstone members’ First Amendment rights. He reasoned that when the university opened its facilities to student meetings, it created a public forum for those student groups; given no other justification, the university excluded Cornerstone based on the content of its members’ speech. While acknowledging the university’s obligation to comply with its constitutional obligations, Justice Powell agreed with the Eighth Circuit that a neutral policy toward religion would achieve this end.
Justice Powell argued that any religious benefits from an open forum would be incidental because the forum was available to a broad class of both religious and nonreligious speakers and because the university was not showing approval of a particular religious sect or practice. Justice Powell rejected the university’s argument that the Missouri Constitution compelled it to exclude Cornerstone, noting that Cornerstone’s First Amendment interests outweighed this state interest through the supremacy clause.
Justice John Paul Stevens concurred. He rejected the majority’s description of the university’s student meetings policy as the creation of a public forum, but agreed that the university failed to justify its refusal to allow Cornerstone to worship on campus.
Justice Byron White dissented. He rejected the argument that the university created a public forum, but also suggested that the university’s fear of appearing to subsidize religion was too extreme. He balanced the state’s interest in enforcing its regulation with the burden on Cornerstone’s members’ ability to freely exercise their beliefs, concluding that the burden on Cornerstone was minimal.
A Cord of Three Strands: How Kennedy v. Bremerton School District Changed Free Exercise, Establishment, and Free Speech Clause Doctrine
Federalist Society Review, Volume 24
In 2015, Bremerton High School football coach Joseph Kennedy lost his job for kneeling at...
After Espinoza, What’s Left of the Establishment Clause?
Federalist Society Review, Volume 21
Note from the Editor: The Federalist Society takes no positions on particular legal and public...
The Bladensburg WWI Memorial Cross
Government Expression of Religious Content and the Establishment Clause
On February 27, 2019, the Supreme Court of the United States heard oral argument in...
Why Nineteenth Century Bans on “Sectarian” Aid Are Facially Unconstitutional: New Evidence on Plain Meaning
Federalist Society Review, Volume 19
Note from the Editor: This article presents original research on the nineteenth century meaning of...
Who Said That?: A Simple Question That May Change the Way Courts View Legislative Prayer
Engage Volume 14, Issue 1 February 2013
Related Opinions & Briefs: • Petition for Writ of Certiorari, Town of Greece v. Galloway:...