# Lamb's Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free School District

> Supreme Court of the United States · June 7, 1993 · 508 U.S. 384

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9432827

## Case

- **Full name:** LAMB’S CHAPEL Et Al. v. CENTER MORICHES UNION FREE SCHOOL DISTRICT Et Al.
- **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States
- **Decided:** June 7, 1993
- **Citations:** 508 U.S. 384; 113 S. Ct. 2141; 124 L. Ed. 2d 352; 1993 U.S. LEXIS 4019
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Kennedy
- **Judges:** White, Kennedy, Scalia, Thomas
- **Cited by:** 652 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9432827

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that school district violated Free Speech Clause of First Amendment in denying church access to school facilities after school hours solely because the film the church wished to show dealt with religion when school was open after hours to civic groups, and further hold…
- stating, in context of nonpublic forum where restriction on speech was held to be viewpoint-discriminatory, that “the interest of the State in avoiding an Establishment Clause violation may be a compelling one justifying an abridgement of free speech” (internal quotation marks…
- holding that school district violated Free Speech Clause in denying church access to school solely because the film the church wished to show dealt with religion, and further holding that allowing the church-access to the school did not violate the Establishment Clause
- stating that lecture or film about child-rearing and family values from religious perspective was not "subject matter ... that the District has placed off limits to any and all speakers," when other speakers could discuss same topics from non-religious perspective
- holding that “permitting] school property to be used for the presentation of all views about family issues and child-rearing except those dealing with the subject matter from a religious standpoint,” was impermissible viewpoint discrimination.

## Opinion text

Justice Kennedy,
concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.
Given the issues presented as well as the apparent unanimity of our conclusion that this overt, viewpoint-based discrimination contradicts the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment and that there has been no substantial showing of a potential Establishment Clause violation, I agree with Justice Scalia that the Court’s citation of Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U. S. 602 (1971), is unsettling and unnecessary. The same can be said of the Court’s use of the phrase “endorsing religion,” see ante, at 395, which, as I have indicated elsewhere, cannot suffice as a rule of decision consistent with our precedents and our traditions in this part of our jurisprudence. See Allegheny County v. American Civil Liberties Union, Greater Pittsburgh Chapter, 492 U. S. 573, 655 (1989) (opinion concurring in judgment in part and dissenting in part). With these observations, I concur in part and concur in the judgment.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9432827. Public record. Not legal advice.