# Barnes-Wallace, Etal v. Boy Scouts of Am

> Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · December 20, 2012 · 704 F.3d 1067

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9501860

## Case

- **Full name:** Mitchell BARNES-WALLACE; Maxwell Breen; Lori Barnes-Wallace; Lynn Barnes-Wallace; Michael Breen; Valerie Breen, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. CITY OF SAN DIEGO, Defendant, and Boy Scouts of America-Desert Pacific Council, Defendant-Appellant; Mitchell Barnes-Wallace; Maxwell Breen; Lori Barnes-Wallace, Guardian Ad Litem; Lynn Barnes-Wallace, Guardian Ad Litem; Michael Breen, Guardian Ad Litem; Valerie Breen, Guardian Ad Litem, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. City of San Diego; Boy Scouts of America-Desert Pacific Council, Defendants-Appellees
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- **Decided:** December 20, 2012
- **Citations:** 704 F.3d 1067; 2012 WL 6621341
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Kleinfeld
- **Judges:** Canby, Kleinfeld, Berzon
- **Cited by:** 12 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/9501860

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that the lease of public land to Boy Scouts was incidental and not in violation of the No Aid Clause where the services the Scouts provided were “essentially neutral to religion” and the equivalent to a “broad curriculum in secular subjects”

## Opinion text

KLEINFELD, Circuit Judge,
concurring:
I join the majority opinion. I write separately only to note that we erred in the previous opinion (by which we are now bound) addressing standing. The plaintiffs allege absolutely no cognizable harm to themselves. They simply have a preference. The plaintiffs’ views about the Boy Scouts’ institutional positions do not establish standing, because no concrete harm flows to plaintiffs as a result of the Boy Scouts’ views. My views on standing were set forth in my dissent in Barnes-Wallace v. City of San Diego, 530 F.3d 776, 794 (9th Cir.2008) (Kleinfeld, J., dissenting). Revulsion for a group so intense that one cannot bear to be on property they manage cannot, in a tolerant society, be deemed harm sufficiently concrete as to confer standing to sue.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9501860. Public record. Not legal advice.