Bronx Household of Faith v. Board of Education
750 F.3d 184
2d Cir.2014Background
- Board regulates after-hours use of NYC public school facilities and subsidizes such use via Chancellor’s Regulation D-180 I.Q. (Reg. I.Q.).
- Reg. I.Q. prohibits any permit for religious worship services in school facilities.
- Bronx Household of Faith and its pastors challenged the rule in district court, obtaining a preliminary injunction and later summary judgment for enforcement enjoining Reg. I.Q.
- We are reviewing the Board’s appeal from the district court’s injunction and judgment enjoining enforcement of Reg. I.Q. against Bronx Household.
- The court previously addressed related Bronx Household cases and incorporated prior discussions into the present decision.
- The Board contends Reg. I.Q. is constitutional to avoid Establishment Clause risk and balance Free Exercise concerns.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Reg. I.Q. violates the Free Exercise Clause by denying subsidized worship space. | Bronx Household argues subsidization is necessary to exercise religion. | Board asserts no entitlement to subsidize worship and aims to avoid Establishment Clause risk. | Reg. I.Q. does not violate the Free Exercise Clause. |
| Whether Lukumi-based strict scrutiny applies to Reg. I.Q. | Lukumi applies because the policy burdens religious conduct and targets religion. | Lukumi does not apply; Reg. I.Q. focuses on Establishment Clause concerns, not targeting a specific religion. | Lukumi does not govern Reg. I.Q.; not subject to strict scrutiny. |
| Whether Reg. I.Q. violates the Establishment Clause by creating endorsement or excessive entanglement. | Enforcing Reg. I.Q. fosters governmental endorsement of religion. | Exclusion is a neutral Establishment Clause safeguard and avoids entanglement. | District Court erred; Reg. I.Q. does not violate the Establishment Clause. |
| Whether Reg. I.Q. entails excessive entanglement with religion under Hosanna-Tabor and related caselaw. | Board’s determinations risk ecclesiastical entanglement. | Board’s inquiries remain within permissible boundaries and Hosanna-Tabor does not prohibit them. | No excessive entanglement; policy permissible. |
| Whether Reg. I.Q. is neutral and generally applicable or subject to heightened scrutiny. | Reg. I.Q. is non-neutral and targeted at religious worship. | Policy is neutral in effect and aimed at avoiding endorsement; Lukumi not required. | Court treats Reg. I.Q. as permissible; not subjected to Lukumi strict scrutiny. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993) (strict scrutiny not automatically triggered for all religious burdens; focus on neutrality and endorsement concerns)
- Locke v. Davey, 540 U.S. 712 (2004) (government may exclude religious activities from subsidies in establishment contexts)
- Good News Club v. Milford Central School, 533 U.S. 98 (2001) (limits of Establishment Clause concerns on school facilities use for religious groups)
- Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & School v. EEOC, 132 S. Ct. 694 (2012) (ministerial exception; government should not intrude on church governance in certain ministerial contexts)
- Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of Univ. of Virginia, 515 U.S. 819 (1995) (religion-neutral access to facilities; debunking broad Establishment concerns while allowing religious groups to speak)