Wallace v. Washoe County School District

701 F. Supp. 187, 1988 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13868, 1988 WL 130365
CourtDistrict Court, D. Nevada
DecidedNovember 3, 1988
DocketCV-N-88-302-HDM
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 701 F. Supp. 187 (Wallace v. Washoe County School District) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Nevada primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Wallace v. Washoe County School District, 701 F. Supp. 187, 1988 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13868, 1988 WL 130365 (D. Nev. 1988).

Opinion

ORDER

McKIBBEN, District Judge.

The plaintiffs, Northgate Community Church (“Northgate”) and Jim Wallace, pastor of the church, have filed a civil rights action against the defendant Washoe County School District (“WCSD”) seeking declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1982). This court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (1982).

Northgate seeks to enjoin the WCSD from prohibiting Northgate’s use of the McQueen High School for regular and permanent Sunday church services and Sunday school. Northgate is an unincorporated association which has approximately one hundred (100) members and presently meets for Sunday services at the Oddfel-lows Hall in Reno, Nevada. 1 The WCSD is a public school district created under the laws of the State of Nevada.

On September 25, 1987 Wallace met with Ron Pagni, the vice-principal of the McQueen High School, and inquired about the possibility of renting or using a portion of McQueen High School for Sunday services. Pagni advised plaintiff that the policy of WCSD was not to allow the use of school facilities for any religious purposes.

WCSD has a written policy which permits use of school facilities by community groups. This official policy was originally adopted November 11, 1966. When it was revised on June 15, 1982, the policy provided in pertinent part: “Community groups shall be permitted and encouraged to use school facilities for worthwhile purposes provided that: ... the use thereof is not for a religious purpose.” (WCSD Administrative Regulation 1380.) The latest revi *189 sion of the policy has deleted the language “the use thereof is not for religious purposes.” Northgate and WCSD have agreed that even though Administrative Regulation 1330 does not expressly bar the use of the WCSD facilities for religious purposes, the WCSD’s interpretation of the law would exclude groups from using WCSD facilities for religious purposes. On April 20,1988, counsel for Northgate wrote Dr. Marvin Moss, the superintendent of the WCSD and requested that this policy be revised to permit Northgate to use the school facilities for its church services. WCSD did not respond. Northgate, instead of filing a written application with the WCSD for use of the facilities, filed this lawsuit.

In this action Northgate seeks the following relief: (1) an order of the court declaring WCSD Administrative Regulation 1330 unconstitutional and void and prohibiting WCSD from enforcing the regulation; (2) an order requiring WCSD to permit plaintiffs to use the McQueen High School facility for religious purposes during non-school hours; (3) the entry of an order prohibiting WCSD from discriminating against religious groups use of WCSD facilities during non-school hours; and (4) an order prohibiting WCSD from closing the “open forum” created by the Administrative Regulation 1330.

Northgate contends that WCSD’s policy of renting space in the school buildings to various community organizations for meetings has created an “open forum.” North-gate argues once the WCSD has created an “open forum”, a policy to prohibit the use of these public buildings for Northgate’s Sunday worship and Sunday school services constitutes speech content-based discrimination and violates Northgate’s rights of free speech and assembly guaranteed under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution. WCSD contends there is a compelling interest in maintaining a separation of church and state under the establishment clauses of both the Federal and State Constitution.

To obtain injunctive relief, Northgate must make a clear showing of either “ ‘(1) probable success on the merits and possible irreparable injury or (2) sufficiently serious questions going to the merits to make them fair ground for litigation and a balance of hardships tipping decidedly toward the party requesting the preliminary relief.’ ” Lydo Enterprises, Inc. v. City of Las Vegas, 745 F.2d 1211, 1212 (9th Cir.1984) (quoting Ebel v. City of Corona, 698 F.2d 390, 392 (9th Cir.1983)) (emphasis in original); see also Wilson v. Watt, 703 F.2d 395, 399 (9th Cir.1983).

In order for Northgate to prevail in this action, it must be able to show its free speech will be violated if the court declines to issue the injunctive relief. If Northgate fails to establish a violation of the First Amendment, the intrusion of the courts into the management of school property would be improper. Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97, 104-105, 89 S.Ct. 266, 270-71, 21 L.Ed.2d 228 (1968). The threshold issue to be decided is whether WCSD has, by virtue of the policy it has adopted, created a “public forum.” If the court concludes WCSD has created a “public forum,” the second issue is whether WCSD has shown that its regulation was necessary to serve a compelling state interest and that the regulation was narrowly drawn to achieve that purpose.

The WCSD does not have a legal or constitutional obligation to open its school buildings to the public to permit the public to engage in free speech and association. Perry Educ. Ass’n v. Perry Local Educators’ Ass’n, 460 U.S. 37, 44, 103 S.Ct. 948, 954, 74 L.Ed.2d 794 (1983). When it does, however, WCSD must justify its discriminations and exclusions under appropriate constitutional standards even if the excluded activity includes religion or religious subjects. Widmar v. Vincent, 454 U.S. 263, 269-70, 102 S.Ct. 269, 274-75, 70 L.Ed.2d 440 (1981). Section 1330(C)(4) of the WCSD’s Community Use Policy states the district’s facilities shall be open to “organizations for public, literary, scientific, recreational or educational meetings, or for discussions of matters of general or public interest_” (emphasis supplied). The forum created by this policy is a “public *190 forum” which is open to the general public and not limited to student use. As a consequence, the school district must justify its discrimination or exclusion under appropriate constitutional standards. Widmar, 454 U.S. at 268, 102 S.Ct. at 273.

The WCSD contends it has a compelling interest in maintaining the separation of church and state and that this interest is derived from the establishment clauses of the United States and Nevada Constitutions. As the Supreme Court held in Widmar, an “equal access” policy is not incompatible with the court’s establishment clause cases. Id. at 274, 102 S.Ct. at 276.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Untitled California Attorney General Opinion
California Attorney General Reports, 1993
Wallace v. Washoe County School District
818 F. Supp. 1346 (D. Nevada, 1991)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
701 F. Supp. 187, 1988 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13868, 1988 WL 130365, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wallace-v-washoe-county-school-district-nvd-1988.