Barnes-Wallace, Etal v. Boy Scouts of Am
704 F.3d 1067
| 9th Cir. | 2012Background
- Public land leases to Desert Pacific Council (Boy Scouts) for Camp Balboa (Balboa Park) and Youth Aquatic Center (Fiesta Island) with nominal or no rent in exchange for operations and improvements.
- Council administers leased land; its headquarters on park land and uses impact the area for public and private activities.
- Plaintiffs are lesbians and agnostics who would use the facilities but object to Scout exclusionary policies that bar atheists/agnostics and homosexuals.
- Council and Boy Scouts' policies require belief in God and exclude certain groups, leading plaintiffs to avoid using the facilities.
- District court granted summary judgment for plaintiffs on Establishment and No Aid/No Preference claims, but on appeal court reversed and held leases do not violate No Aid, No Preference, or Establishment Clauses; equal protection and other claims affirmed or dismissed.
- Court remanded to grant summary judgment for Scouts on federal/state Establishment Clauses; upheld dismissal of Equal Protection, Human Dignity Ordinance, and contract breach claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the City’s leases violate the California No Aid Clause | Barnes-Wallace argues leases provide impermissible aid to a sectarian organization | City policy of broad, equal leases to nonprofits avoids favoritism and No Aid violation | No violation: aid incidental and within four-factor Statewide Communities test |
| Whether the leases violate California No Preference and Establishment Clauses | No Preference/Establishment Clause protections breached by favoring Scout programs | Leases serve public purpose and are neutrally applied | No violation: Lemon-Agostini analysis shows no religious endorsement or coercion |
| Whether the leases violate federal Establishment Clause | Leases endorse religion by associating with religious group | Leases are part of broad city leasing practice; not endorsed religion | No violation: government purpose secular; no indoctrination or entanglement |
| Whether plaintiffs have standing to pursue Equal Protection claims | Plaintiffs harmed by exclusionary policies of Scout occupants | No concrete injury; plaintiffs not denied access themselves | No Equal Protection violation: plaintiffs lacked injury in fact or proper standing |
| Whether San Diego Human Dignity Ordinance and breach of contract claims survive | Discrimination claim under ordinance and breach of nondiscrimination clauses | Plaintiffs did not attempt to use facilities; breached by lack of opportunity | Claims affirmed/dismissed consistent with lack of standing and lack of actionable breach |
Key Cases Cited
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (standing requires concrete, particularized injury)
- Summers v. Earth Island Institute, 555 U.S. 488 (2009) (standing requires concrete imminent injury; some day plans insufficient)
- Statewide Communities Development Authority v. All Persons Interested, 40 Cal.4th 788 (2007) (four-part No Aid test for incidental religious benefit)
- Card v. City of Everett, 520 F.3d 1009 (9th Cir.2008) (Lemon-Agostini modern approach to Establishment Clause analysis)
- Kiryas Joel Village School Dist. v. Grumet, 512 U.S. 687 (1994) (presence of broad availability of benefits weighs against establishment concerns)
- E. Bay Asian Local Dev. Corp. v. California, 102 Cal.Rptr.2d 280 (2000) (California no broader Establishment Clause than federal; Lemon guidance applies)