widmar
vincent
argued
october
decided
december
university
missouri
kansas
city
state
university
makes
facilities
generally
available
activities
registered
student
groups
registered
student
religious
group
previously
received
permission
conduct
meetings
university
facilities
informed
longer
university
regulation
prohibiting
use
university
buildings
grounds
purposes
religious
worship
religious
teaching
members
group
brought
suit
federal
district
alleging
regulation
violated
inter
alia
rights
free
exercise
religion
freedom
speech
first
amendment
district
upheld
regulation
justified
required
establishment
clause
first
amendment
appeals
reversed
viewing
regulation
discrimination
religious
speech
find
compelling
justification
holding
establishment
clause
bar
policy
equal
access
facilities
open
groups
speakers
kinds
held
university
exclusionary
policy
violates
fundamental
principle
state
regulation
speech
pp
created
forum
generally
open
use
student
groups
university
order
justify
discriminatory
exclusion
forum
based
religious
content
group
intended
speech
must
satisfy
standard
review
appropriate
exclusions
must
show
regulation
necessary
serve
compelling
state
interest
narrowly
drawn
achieve
end
pp
although
university
interest
complying
constitutional
obligations
establishment
clause
may
characterized
compelling
equal
access
policy
incompatible
clause
policy
offend
establishment
clause
pass
following
test
secular
legislative
purpose
principal
primary
effect
neither
advance
inhibit
religion
foster
excessive
government
entanglement
religion
conceded
equal
access
policy
meet
first
third
prongs
test
context
case
absence
evidence
religious
groups
dominate
university
forum
advancement
religion
forum
primary
effect
equal
access
policy
therefore
satisfy
test
second
prong
well
pp
state
interest
achieving
greater
separation
church
state
already
ensured
establishment
clause
sufficiently
compelling
justify
discrimination
religious
speech
student
group
question
pp
powell
delivered
opinion
burger
brennan
marshall
blackmun
rehnquist
joined
stevens
filed
opinion
concurring
judgment
post
white
filed
dissenting
opinion
post
ted
ayres
argued
cause
petitioners
brief
jackson
wright
james
smart
argued
cause
respondents
brief
michael
whitehead
briefs
amici
curiae
urging
affirmance
filed
joel
paget
association
coordination
university
religious
affairs
wilkes
robinson
jane
nelson
bible
study
edward
mcglynn
gaffney
kenneth
ripple
center
constitutional
studies
et
al
barry
fisher
holy
spirit
association
unification
world
christianity
nathan
lewin
daniel
chazin
dennis
rapps
national
jewish
commission
law
public
affairs
wilfred
caron
catholic
conference
briefs
amici
curiae
urging
reversal
filed
jerold
blumoff
marc
stern
american
jewish
congress
justin
finger
jeffrey
sinensky
meyer
eisenberg
league
briefs
amici
curiae
filed
earl
trent
baptist
joint
committee
public
affairs
robert
brame
john
whitehead
james
knicely
national
association
evangelicals
donald
reidhaar
regents
university
california
justice
powell
delivered
opinion
case
presents
question
whether
state
university
makes
facilities
generally
available
activities
registered
student
groups
may
close
facilities
registered
student
group
desiring
use
facilities
religious
worship
religious
discussion
stated
policy
university
missouri
kansas
city
encourage
activities
student
organizations
university
officially
recognize
student
groups
routinely
provides
university
facilities
meetings
registered
organizations
students
pay
activity
fee
per
semester
help
defray
costs
university
registered
religious
group
named
cornerstone
regularly
sought
received
permission
conduct
meetings
university
facilities
however
university
informed
group
longer
meet
university
buildings
exclusion
based
regulation
adopted
board
curators
prohibits
use
university
buildings
grounds
purposes
religious
worship
religious
teaching
eleven
university
students
members
cornerstone
brought
suit
challenge
regulation
federal
district
western
district
missouri
alleged
university
discrimination
religious
activity
discussion
violated
rights
free
exercise
religion
equal
protection
freedom
speech
first
fourteenth
amendments
constitution
upon
summary
judgment
district
upheld
challenged
regulation
chess
widmar
supp
found
regulation
justified
required
establishment
clause
federal
constitution
tilton
richardson
reasoned
state
provide
facilities
religious
use
without
giving
prohibited
support
institution
religion
district
rejected
argument
university
discriminate
religious
speech
basis
content
found
religious
speech
entitled
less
protection
types
expression
appeals
eighth
circuit
reversed
chess
widmar
rejecting
analysis
district
viewed
university
regulation
discrimination
religious
speech
find
compelling
justification
held
establishment
clause
bar
policy
equal
access
facilities
open
groups
speakers
kinds
according
appeals
primary
effect
policy
advance
religion
rather
neutral
purpose
developing
students
social
cultural
awareness
well
intellectual
curiosity
ibid
quoting
university
bulletin
description
student
activities
program
reprinted
granted
certiorari
affirm
ii
policy
accommodating
meetings
university
created
forum
generally
open
use
student
groups
done
university
assumed
obligation
justify
discriminations
exclusions
applicable
constitutional
norms
constitution
forbids
state
enforce
certain
exclusions
forum
generally
open
public
even
required
create
forum
first
place
see
madison
joint
school
district
wisconsin
employment
relations
although
state
may
conduct
business
private
session
state
opened
forum
direct
citizen
involvement
exclusions
bear
heavy
burden
justification
southeastern
promotions
conrad
municipal
theater
public
forum
city
exclude
production
without
satisfying
constitutional
safeguards
applicable
prior
restraints
university
institutional
mission
describes
providing
secular
education
students
brief
petitioners
exempt
actions
constitutional
scrutiny
respect
persons
entitled
cases
leave
doubt
first
amendment
rights
speech
association
extend
campuses
state
universities
see
healy
james
tinker
des
moines
independent
school
district
shelton
tucker
umkc
discriminated
student
groups
speakers
based
desire
use
generally
open
forum
engage
religious
worship
discussion
forms
speech
association
protected
first
amendment
see
heffron
international
society
krishna
consciousness
niemotko
maryland
saia
new
york
order
justify
discriminatory
exclusion
public
forum
based
religious
content
group
intended
speech
university
must
therefore
satisfy
standard
review
appropriate
exclusions
must
show
regulation
necessary
serve
compelling
state
interest
narrowly
drawn
achieve
end
see
carey
brown
iii
case
university
claims
compelling
interest
maintaining
strict
separation
church
state
derives
interest
establishment
clauses
federal
missouri
constitutions
university
first
argues
offer
facilities
religious
groups
speakers
terms
available
groups
without
violating
establishment
clause
constitution
agree
interest
university
complying
constitutional
obligations
may
characterized
compelling
follow
however
equal
access
policy
incompatible
establishment
clause
cases
cases
hold
policy
offend
establishment
clause
pass
test
first
governmental
policy
must
secular
legislative
purpose
second
principal
primary
effect
must
one
neither
advances
inhibits
religion
finally
policy
must
foster
excessive
government
entanglement
religion
lemon
kurtzman
see
committee
public
education
regan
roemer
maryland
public
works
case
two
prongs
test
clearly
met
district
appeals
held
policy
including
nondiscrimination
religious
speech
secular
purpose
avoid
entanglement
religion
district
concluded
university
argues
allowing
religious
groups
share
limited
public
forum
primary
effect
advancing
religion
university
argument
misconceives
nature
case
question
whether
creation
religious
forum
violate
establishment
clause
university
opened
facilities
use
student
groups
question
whether
exclude
groups
content
speech
see
healy
james
context
unpersuaded
primary
effect
public
forum
open
forms
discourse
advance
religion
oblivious
range
open
forum
likely
effects
possible
perhaps
even
foreseeable
religious
groups
benefit
access
university
facilities
explained
religious
organization
enjoyment
merely
incidental
benefits
violate
prohibition
primary
advancement
religion
committee
public
education
nyquist
see
roemer
maryland
public
works
hunt
mcnair
mcgowan
maryland
satisfied
religious
benefits
open
forum
umkc
incidental
within
meaning
cases
two
factors
especially
relevant
first
open
forum
public
university
confer
imprimatur
state
approval
religious
sects
practices
appeals
quite
aptly
stated
policy
commit
university
religious
goals
committed
goals
students
democratic
society
young
socialist
alliance
group
eligible
use
facilities
second
forum
available
broad
class
nonreligious
well
religious
speakers
recognized
student
groups
umkc
provision
benefits
broad
spectrum
groups
important
index
secular
effect
see
wolman
walter
committee
public
education
nyquist
supra
establishment
clause
barred
extension
general
benefits
religious
groups
church
protected
police
fire
departments
public
sidewalk
kept
repair
roemer
maryland
public
works
supra
plurality
opinion
quoted
committee
public
education
regan
least
absence
empirical
evidence
religious
groups
dominate
umkc
open
forum
agree
appeals
advancement
religion
forum
primary
effect
arguing
state
missouri
gone
federal
constitution
proscribing
indirect
state
support
religion
university
claims
compelling
interest
complying
applicable
provisions
missouri
constitution
missouri
courts
ruled
whether
general
policy
accommodating
student
groups
applied
equally
wishing
gather
engage
religious
nonreligious
speech
offend
state
constitution
need
however
determine
missouri
courts
decide
issue
also
unnecessary
us
decide
whether
supremacy
clause
state
interest
derived
constitution
ever
outweigh
free
speech
interests
protected
first
amendment
limit
holding
case
us
one
hand
respondents
first
amendment
rights
entitled
special
constitutional
solicitude
cases
required
exacting
scrutiny
cases
state
undertakes
regulate
speech
basis
content
see
carey
brown
police
dept
chicago
mosley
hand
state
interest
asserted
achieving
greater
separation
church
state
already
ensured
establishment
clause
federal
constitution
limited
free
exercise
clause
case
free
speech
clause
well
constitutional
context
unable
recognize
state
interest
sufficiently
compelling
justify
discrimination
respondents
religious
speech
iv
holding
case
way
undermines
capacity
university
establish
reasonable
time
place
manner
regulations
question
right
university
make
academic
judgments
best
allocate
scarce
resources
determine
academic
grounds
may
teach
may
taught
shall
taught
may
admitted
study
sweezy
new
hampshire
frankfurter
concurring
result
see
university
california
regents
bakke
opinion
powell
announcing
judgment
finally
affirm
continuing
validity
cases
healy
james
recognize
university
right
exclude
even
first
amendment
activities
violate
reasonable
campus
rules
substantially
interfere
opportunity
students
obtain
education
basis
decision
narrow
created
forum
generally
open
student
groups
university
seeks
enforce
exclusion
religious
speech
exclusionary
policy
violates
fundamental
principle
state
regulations
speech
university
unable
justify
violation
applicable
constitutional
standards
reason
decision
appeals
affirmed
footnotes
cornerstone
organization
evangelical
christian
students
various
denominational
backgrounds
according
affidavit
filed
perhaps
twenty
students
participate
actively
cornerstone
form
backbone
campus
organization
affidavit
florian
chess
quoted
chess
widmar
supp
wd
mo
cornerstone
held
meetings
classrooms
student
center
meetings
open
public
attracted
students
typical
cornerstone
meeting
included
prayer
hymns
bible
commentary
discussion
religious
views
experiences
pertinent
regulations
provide
follows
university
buildings
grounds
except
chapels
herein
provided
may
used
purposes
religious
worship
religious
teaching
either
student
nonstudent
groups
general
prohibition
use
university
buildings
grounds
religious
worship
religious
teaching
policy
required
opinion
board
curators
constitution
laws
state
open
construction
regulations
shall
interpreted
forbid
offering
prayer
appropriate
recognition
religion
public
functions
held
university
facilities
regular
chapels
established
university
grounds
may
used
religious
services
regular
recurring
services
groups
special
rules
procedures
shall
established
chapel
chancellor
specifically
directed
advantage
shall
given
religious
group
although
university
routinely
approved
cornerstone
meetings
district
found
university
officials
never
authorized
student
organization
utilize
university
facility
meeting
full
knowledge
purposes
meeting
include
religious
worship
religious
teaching
chess
widmar
supra
respondent
clark
vincent
florian
chess
named
plaintiff
action
district
among
students
initiated
action
october
named
defendants
petitioner
gary
widmar
dean
students
umkc
university
board
curators
recognized
campus
public
university
least
students
possesses
many
characteristics
public
forum
see
generally
police
dept
chicago
mosley
cox
louisiana
college
classroom
surrounding
environs
peculiarly
marketplace
ideas
healy
james
moreover
capacity
group
individual
participate
intellectual
give
take
campus
debate
limited
denial
access
customary
media
communicating
administration
faculty
members
students
therefore
held
students
enjoy
first
amendment
rights
speech
association
campus
denial
particular
groups
use
campus
facilities
meetings
appropriate
purposes
must
subjected
level
scrutiny
appropriate
form
prior
restraint
time
however
cases
recognized
first
amendment
rights
must
analyzed
light
special
characteristics
school
environment
tinker
des
moines
independent
school
district
continue
adhere
view
university
differs
significant
respects
public
forums
streets
parks
even
municipal
theaters
university
mission
education
decisions
never
denied
university
authority
impose
reasonable
regulations
compatible
mission
upon
use
campus
facilities
held
example
campus
must
make
facilities
equally
available
students
nonstudents
alike
university
must
grant
free
access
grounds
buildings
dissent
argues
religious
worship
speech
generally
protected
free
speech
guarantee
first
amendment
equal
protection
guarantee
fourteenth
amendment
religious
worship
protected
speech
dissent
reasons
religion
clauses
emptied
independent
meaning
circumstances
religious
practice
took
form
speech
post
novel
argument
dissent
deny
speech
religion
speech
entitled
general
protections
first
amendment
see
post
argue
descriptions
religious
experiences
fail
qualify
speech
repudiate
last
term
decision
heffron
international
society
krishna
consciousness
assumed
religious
appeals
nonbelievers
constituted
protected
speech
rather
dissent
seems
attempt
distinction
kinds
religious
speech
explicitly
protected
cases
new
class
religious
speech
act
post
constituting
worship
least
three
difficulties
distinction
first
dissent
fails
establish
distinction
intelligible
content
indication
singing
hymns
reading
scripture
teaching
biblical
principles
post
cease
singing
teaching
reading
apparently
forms
speech
despite
religious
subject
matter
become
unprotected
worship
second
even
distinction
drew
arguably
principled
line
highly
doubtful
lie
within
judicial
competence
administer
cf
fowler
rhode
island
merely
draw
distinction
require
university
ultimately
courts
inquire
significance
words
practices
different
religious
faiths
varying
circumstances
faith
inquiries
tend
inevitably
entangle
state
religion
manner
forbidden
cases
walz
tax
finally
dissent
fails
establish
relevance
distinction
seeks
rely
dissent
apparently
wishes
preserve
vitality
establishment
clause
see
post
gives
reason
establishment
clause
provision
constitution
require
different
treatment
religious
speech
designed
win
religious
converts
see
heffron
supra
religious
worship
persons
already
converted
far
clear
state
gives
greater
support
latter
case
former
see
also
healy
james
supra
remembered
effect
college
denial
recognition
form
prior
restraint
denying
petitioners
organization
range
associational
activities
described
college
legitimate
interest
preventing
disruption
campus
may
justify
restraint
heavy
burden
rests
college
demonstrate
appropriateness
action
congress
shall
make
law
respecting
establishment
religion
amdt
establishment
clause
made
applicable
fourteenth
amendment
see
cantwell
connecticut
dissent
emphasizes
establishment
clause
requires
state
distinguish
religious
speech
speech
undertaken
approved
state
primary
effect
support
establishment
religion
nonreligious
speech
speech
undertaken
approved
state
primary
effect
support
establishment
religion
distinction
required
plain
text
constitution
followed
cases
stone
graham
dissent
attempts
equate
distinction
view
alleged
constitutional
difference
religious
speech
religious
worship
see
post
think
distinction
advanced
dissent
lacks
foundation
either
constitution
cases
judicially
unmanageable
avowed
purpose
umkc
provide
forum
students
exchange
ideas
university
argues
use
forum
religious
speech
undermine
secular
aim
creating
forum
university
thereby
endorse
promote
particular
ideas
aired
undoubtedly
many
views
advocated
forum
university
desires
association
case
involves
forum
already
made
generally
available
student
groups
differs
cases
invalidated
statutes
permitting
school
facilities
used
instruction
religious
groups
others
see
mccollum
board
education
cases
school
may
appear
sponsor
views
speaker
agree
appeals
university
risk
greater
entanglement
attempting
enforce
exclusion
religious
worship
religious
speech
see
chess
widmar
initially
university
need
determine
words
activities
fall
within
religious
worship
religious
teaching
alone
prove
impossible
task
age
many
various
beliefs
meet
constitutional
definition
religion
andrus
app
omitted
see
tribe
american
constitutional
law
also
continuing
need
monitor
group
meetings
ensure
compliance
rule
finding
equal
access
policy
primary
effect
advancing
religion
district
case
relief
primarily
tilton
richardson
tilton
upheld
grant
federal
financing
assistance
sectarian
colleges
secular
purposes
circumscribed
terms
grant
ensure
constitutionality
although
congress
provided
federally
subsidized
buildings
used
sectarian
religious
worship
years
considered
restriction
insufficient
end
years
building
example
converted
chapel
otherwise
used
promote
religious
interests
original
federal
grant
part
constitutionally
impermissible
effect
advancing
religion
statement
district
derived
proposition
state
funds
may
used
provide
maintain
buildings
used
religious
organizations
believe
tilton
read
broadly
tilton
concerned
sectarian
institution
might
convert
federally
funded
buildings
religious
uses
otherwise
stamp
imprimatur
religion
nothing
tilton
suggested
limitation
state
capacity
maintain
forums
equally
open
religious
discussion
cases
tilton
acknowledged
right
religious
speakers
use
public
forums
equal
terms
others
see
heffron
international
society
krishna
consciousness
saia
new
york
case
different
cases
religious
groups
claim
denial
facilities
available
groups
deprives
rights
free
exercise
clause
university
forum
already
available
groups
respondents
claim
use
forum
rest
solely
rights
claimed
free
exercise
clause
respondents
claim
also
implicates
first
amendment
rights
speech
association
bases
speech
association
rights
decide
case
accordingly
need
inquire
extent
free
exercise
interests
infringed
challenged
university
regulation
neither
reach
questions
arise
state
accommodation
free
exercise
free
speech
rights
particular
case
conflict
prohibitions
establishment
clause
university
students
course
young
adults
less
impressionable
younger
students
able
appreciate
university
policy
one
neutrality
toward
religion
see
tilton
richardson
supra
university
argues
cornerstone
students
admitted
affidavits
tudents
know
something
campus
student
organization
likely
feel
comfortable
attending
meeting
affidavit
florian
frederick
chess
app
light
large
number
groups
meeting
campus
however
doubt
students
draw
reasonable
inference
university
support
mere
fact
campus
meeting
place
university
student
handbook
already
notes
university
name
identified
way
aims
policies
programs
products
opinions
organization
members
umkc
student
handbook
similarly
rejected
recurrent
agreement
aid
parochial
schools
forbidden
aid
one
aspect
institution
frees
spend
resources
religious
ends
hunt
mcnair
see
americans
rogers
mo
en
banc
holding
missouri
constitution
requires
stricter
separation
church
state
federal
constitution
cert
denied
harfst
hoegen
mo
mo
en
banc
see
mo
art
art
luetkemeyer
kaufmann
supp
wd
mo
aff
district
found
missouri
compelling
interest
compliance
constitution
art
vi
cl
see
grayned
city
rockford
nature
place
pattern
normal
activities
dictate
kinds
regulations
time
place
manner
reasonable
quoting
wright
constitution
campus
vand
rev
opinion
concurring
judgment
post
justice
stevens
expresses
concern
use
terms
compelling
state
interest
public
forum
may
undermine
academic
freedom
public
universities
text
makes
clear
concern
unjustified
see
also
supra
holding
limited
context
public
forum
created
university
self
justice
stevens
concurring
judgment
recognizes
every
university
must
make
academic
judgments
best
allocate
scarce
resources
ante
appears
hold
however
judgments
must
serve
compelling
state
interest
wherever
based
even
part
content
speech
ante
conclusion
apparently
flows
suggestion
student
activities
program
public
may
excluded
ante
must
managed
though
public
forum
opinion
use
terms
compelling
state
interest
public
forum
analyze
question
presented
case
may
needlessly
undermine
academic
freedom
public
universities
today
major
colleges
universities
operated
public
authority
nevertheless
facilities
open
public
way
streets
parks
university
facilities
private
public
maintained
primarily
benefit
student
body
faculty
performing
learning
teaching
missions
managers
university
routinely
make
countless
decisions
based
content
communicative
materials
select
books
inclusion
library
hire
professors
basis
academic
philosophies
select
courses
inclusion
curriculum
reward
scholars
written
addition
encouraging
students
participate
extracurricular
activities
necessarily
make
decisions
concerning
content
activities
every
university
resources
limited
educational
institution
must
routinely
make
decisions
concerning
use
time
space
available
extracurricular
activities
judgment
necessary
appropriate
decisions
evaluate
content
proposed
student
activity
think
obvious
example
two
groups
students
requested
use
room
particular
time
one
view
mickey
mouse
cartoons
rehearse
amateur
performance
hamlet
first
amendment
require
room
reserved
group
submitted
application
first
see
university
establish
compelling
state
interest
defend
decision
permit
one
group
use
facility
opinion
university
allowed
decide
whether
program
illuminates
genius
walt
disney
given
precedence
one
may
duplicate
material
adequately
covered
classroom
judgments
kind
made
academicians
federal
judges
standards
decision
encumbered
ambiguous
phrases
like
compelling
state
interest
thus
subscribe
view
public
university
greater
interest
content
student
activities
police
chief
content
soapbox
oration
capitol
hill
university
legitimately
may
regard
subjects
relevant
educational
mission
others
university
like
police
officer
may
allow
agreement
disagreement
viewpoint
particular
speaker
determine
whether
access
forum
granted
state
university
deny
recognition
student
organization
give
lesser
right
use
school
facilities
student
must
valid
reason
healy
james
case
agree
university
established
sufficient
justification
refusal
allow
cornerstone
group
engage
religious
worship
campus
primary
reason
advanced
discriminatory
treatment
university
fear
violating
establishment
clause
since
record
discloses
danger
university
appear
sponsor
particular
religion
since
student
participation
cornerstone
meetings
entirely
voluntary
properly
concludes
university
fear
groundless
justification
put
one
side
university
met
burden
imposed
healy
university
reliance
establishment
clause
missouri
state
constitution
provide
sufficient
justification
discriminatory
treatment
case
said
believe
university
may
exercise
measure
control
agenda
student
use
school
facilities
preferring
subjects
others
without
needing
identify
compelling
state
interests
quite
obviously
however
university
allow
group
republicans
presbyterians
meet
denying
democrats
mormons
privilege
seems
apparent
policy
attack
allow
groups
young
philosophers
meet
discuss
skepticism
exists
group
political
scientists
meet
debate
accuracy
view
religion
opium
people
school
facilities
may
used
discuss
anticlerical
doctrine
seems
comparable
use
group
desiring
express
belief
god
must
also
permitted
fact
expression
faith
includes
ceremonial
conduct
opinion
sufficient
reason
suppressing
discussion
entirely
accordingly
although
endorse
reasoning
concur
judgment
stated
order
justify
discriminatory
exclusion
public
forum
based
religious
content
group
intended
speech
university
must
therefore
satisfy
standard
review
appropriate
exclusions
ante
see
also
ante
page
holding
limited
context
public
forum
created
university
sweezy
new
hampshire
justice
frankfurter
forcefully
spoke
grave
harm
resulting
governmental
intrusion
intellectual
life
university
concurring
result
justice
frankfurter
quoted
approval
portions
address
huxley
business
university
provide
atmosphere
conducive
speculation
experiment
creation
atmosphere
prevail
four
essential
freedoms
university
determine
academic
grounds
may
teach
may
taught
shall
taught
may
admitted
study
illinois
elections
bd
socialist
workers
party
justice
blackmun
expressed
concern
seems
continuing
tendency
use
tests
easy
phrases
compelling
state
interest
least
drastic
restrictive
means
never
able
fully
appreciate
compelling
state
interest
means
convincingly
controlling
incapable
overcome
upon
balancing
process
course
test
merely
announces
inevitable
result
test
test
least
drastic
means
slippery
slope
also
signal
result
chosen
reach
judge
unimaginative
indeed
come
something
little
less
drastic
little
less
restrictive
almost
situation
thereby
enable
vote
strike
legislation
concurring
opinion
citation
omitted
healy
stated
opinions
also
assumed
petitioner
burden
showing
entitlement
recognition
college
petitioners
challenged
procedural
requirement
file
application
conformity
rules
college
question
view
courts
final
rejection
rest
failure
convince
administration
organization
unaffiliated
national
students
democratic
society
reasons
stated
later
opinion
consider
issue
affiliation
controlling
one
apart
particular
issue
petitioners
failed
application
conformity
requirements
burden
upon
college
administration
justify
decision
rejection
remembered
effect
college
denial
recognition
form
prior
restraint
denying
petitioners
organization
range
associational
activities
described
college
legitimate
interest
preventing
disrupting
campus
circumstances
requiring
safeguarding
interest
may
justify
restraint
heavy
burden
rests
college
demonstrate
appropriateness
action
footnotes
citations
omitted
university
asserted
determination
keep
church
state
completely
separate
pursuant
alleged
dictates
missouri
constitution
without
qualification
regulations
issue
provide
regulations
shall
interpreted
forbid
offering
prayer
appropriate
recognition
religion
public
functions
held
university
facilities
see
ante
see
farber
content
regulation
first
amendment
revisionist
view
geo
justice
white
dissenting
affirming
decision
appeals
majority
rejects
petitioners
argument
establishment
clause
constitution
prohibits
use
university
buildings
religious
purposes
state
university
may
permit
property
used
purely
religious
services
without
violating
first
fourteenth
amendments
agree
see
committee
public
education
nyquist
white
dissenting
lemon
kurtzman
opinion
white
establishment
clause
however
sets
limits
state
may
respect
religious
organizations
establish
state
required
long
argued
establishment
clause
limits
state
action
incidentally
aids
religion
strict
held
step
permissible
necessary
however
long
one
view
room
religion
clauses
state
policies
may
beneficial
effect
religion
also
room
state
policies
may
incidentally
burden
religion
words
believe
state
good
deal
freer
formulate
policies
affect
religion
divergent
ways
majority
see
sherbert
verner
harlan
dissenting
majority
position
inevitably
lead
contradictions
tensions
establishment
free
exercise
clauses
warned
justice
stewart
sherbert
verner
supra
university
regulation
issue
provides
pertinent
part
university
buildings
grounds
except
chapels
herein
provided
may
used
purposes
religious
worship
religious
teaching
either
student
nonstudent
groups
student
congregations
local
churches
recognized
denominations
sects
although
technically
recognized
campus
groups
may
use
facilities
regulations
apply
recognized
campus
organizations
provided
university
facilities
may
used
purposes
religious
worship
religious
teaching
large
part
respondents
argument
accepted
accepted
majority
founded
proposition
religious
worship
uses
speech
protected
free
speech
clause
first
amendment
protected
argue
religious
worship
qua
speech
different
variety
protected
speech
matter
constitutional
principle
believe
proposition
plainly
wrong
right
religion
clauses
emptied
independent
meaning
circumstances
religious
practice
took
form
speech
although
majority
describes
argument
novel
ante
believe
clearly
supported
previous
cases
last
term
found
sufficiently
obvious
establishment
clause
prohibited
state
posting
copy
ten
commandments
classroom
wall
statute
requiring
posting
summarily
struck
stone
graham
case
necessarily
presumed
state
ignore
religious
content
written
message
permitted
treat
content
must
treat
secular
messages
first
amendment
protection
speech
similarly
decisions
prohibiting
prayer
public
schools
rest
distinction
varieties
speech
speech
act
apart
content
prayer
indistinguishable
biology
lesson
see
abington
school
district
schempp
engel
vitale
operation
free
exercise
clause
equally
dependent
certain
circumstances
recognition
distinction
religious
secular
speech
thus
torcaso
watkins
struck
violative
free
exercise
clause
state
requirement
made
declaration
belief
god
condition
state
employment
declaration
speech
act
content
speech
brought
case
within
scope
free
exercise
clause
majority
right
distinction
may
drawn
verbal
acts
worship
verbal
acts
cases
reconsidered
although
agree
line
may
difficult
draw
many
cases
surely
majority
seriously
suggest
line
may
ever
drawn
case
majority
uphold
university
right
offer
class
entitled
sunday
mass
majority
view
class
matter
constitutional
principle
indistinguishable
class
entitled
history
catholic
church
may
instances
state
attempt
disentangle
religious
worship
intrude
upon
secular
speech
religion
case
state
action
subject
challenge
free
speech
clause
first
amendment
case
case
involves
religious
worship
fact
worship
accomplished
speech
add
anything
respondents
argument
argument
must
rely
upon
claim
state
action
impermissibly
interferes
free
exercise
respondents
religious
practices
although
close
question
conclude
plausible
analogies
either
side
suggest
respondents
argue
majority
agrees
permitting
student
group
use
facilities
communicative
purposes
religious
worship
university
created
public
forum
ante
ample
support
argue
state
may
make
distinctions
groups
may
use
messages
may
conveyed
forum
see
police
department
chicago
mosley
cox
louisiana
right
religious
nondiscriminatory
access
public
forum
well
established
see
niemotko
maryland
murdock
pennsylvania
moreover
clear
bounds
beyond
university
go
enforcing
regulation
suppose
prevent
students
saying
grace
meals
school
cafeteria
prevent
distribution
religious
literature
campus
petitioners
hand
argue
allowing
use
facilities
religious
worship
constitutionally
indistinguishable
directly
subsidizing
religious
services
fun
specifically
religious
activity
otherwise
substantially
secular
setting
hunt
mcnair
argue
fact
secular
student
groups
entitled
subsidy
issue
establish
religious
group
entitled
subsidy
convincingly
argue
example
state
university
pays
basketballs
basketball
team
thereby
required
pay
bibles
group
like
cornerstone
third
analogy
suggests
one
falls
two
extremes
variety
state
policies
incidentally
benefit
religion
upheld
without
implying
constitutionally
required
state
see
board
education
allen
state
loan
textbooks
parochial
school
students
zorach
clauson
release
students
public
schools
school
hours
perform
religious
activities
away
school
grounds
everson
board
education
state
provision
transportation
parochial
school
students
provision
university
facilities
uniform
basis
student
groups
different
provision
textbooks
transportation
perspective
issue
whether
state
must
must
open
facilities
religious
worship
rather
whether
state
may
choose
analogies
persuasive
lead
different
results
however
limited
help
reaching
decision
also
demonstrate
difficulty
reconciling
various
interests
expressed
religion
clauses
view
therefore
resolution
case
best
achieved
returning
first
principles
requires
assessment
burden
respondents
ability
freely
exercise
religious
beliefs
practices
state
interest
enforcing
regulation
respondents
complain
compliance
regulation
require
meet
block
half
campus
conditions
less
comfortable
previously
available
campus
view
burden
free
exercise
minimal
burden
minimal
state
need
demonstrate
regulation
furthers
permissible
state
end
state
interest
avoiding
claims
financing
otherwise
supporting
religious
worship
maintaining
definitive
separation
church
state
end
state
truly
mean
act
toward
end
amply
supported
treatment
religion
state
constitution
thus
believe
interest
state
sufficiently
strong
justify
imposition
minimal
burden
respondents
ability
freely
exercise
religious
beliefs
facts
therefore
find
application
regulation
prevent
cornerstone
holding
religious
worship
services
university
facilities
violates
first
fourteenth
amendments
hold
majority
university
permits
students
others
use
property
secular
purposes
must
also
furnish
facilities
religious
groups
purposes
worship
practice
religion
accordingly
reverse
judgment
appeals
cornerstone
denied
access
university
facilities
intended
use
facilities
regular
religious
services
worship
important
part
general
atmosphere
issue
application
regulation
religious
teaching
reaching
issue
particularly
inappropriate
case
nothing
record
indicates
university
interpreted
phrase
religious
teaching
even
whether
ever
applied
activity
clearly
religious
worship
district
noted
plaintiffs
contend
limited
way
holding
campus
meetings
include
religious
worship
services
oral
argument
counsel
university
indicated
regulation
bar
discussion
biblical
texts
circumstances
constitute
religious
worship
tr
oral
arg
sole
question
case
involves
application
regulation
prohibit
regular
religious
worship
services
university
buildings
given
majority
entire
argument
turns
description
religious
services
speech
surprising
majority
assumes
proposition
require
argument
majority
assumes
conclusion
describing
university
action
discriminating
speakers
based
desire
engage
religious
worship
discussion
ante
noted
clear
university
discriminated
intends
discriminate
religious
discussion
preliminary
matter
even
clear
majority
means
religious
discussion
entered
case
religious
worship
form
speech
majority
takes
established
three
cases
heffron
international
society
krishna
consciousness
niemotko
maryland
saia
new
york
none
cases
stand
proposition
heffron
saia
involved
communication
religious
views
nonreligious
public
audience
talk
religion
religious
beliefs
however
religious
services
worship
niemotko
equal
protection
challenge
discriminatory
denial
one
religious
group
access
public
park
specifically
stated
addressing
question
whether
state
uniformly
deny
religious
groups
access
public
parks
indeed
majority
opinion
suggests
intelligible
distinction
may
drawn
worship
forms
speech
recognizes
establishment
clause
requires
line
drawn
majority
adequately
explain
state
required
observe
line
one
context
prohibited
voluntarily
recognizing
another
context
counsel
respondents
somewhat
forthright
recognizing
extraordinary
breadth
argument
majority
counsel
explicitly
stated
distinction
speech
worship
collapsed
university
generally
provides
student
groups
access
facilities
constitutionally
required
allow
facilities
used
church
purpose
holding
regular
church
services
tr
oral
arg
similarly
although
majority
opinion
limits
discussion
student
groups
counsel
respondents
recognized
first
amendment
argument
relied
upon
apply
equally
nonstudent
groups
recognized
respondents
submission
require
university
make
available
buildings
catholic
church
denominations
purpose
holding
religious
services
university
facilities
made
available
nonstudent
groups
words
university
avoid
conversion
one
buildings
church
long
religious
group
meets
neutral
requirements
entry
rent
imposed
groups
obvious
limits
scope
analogy
know
precedent
holding
simply
public
forum
open
kinds
speech
including
speech
religion
must
open
regular
religious
worship
services
well
doubt
state
need
stand
allow
public
forum
become
church
religious
sect
chooses
stand
right
access
forum
course
limits
subsidy
argument
sherbert
verner
thomas
indiana
employment
security
division
demonstrate
certain
circumstances
state
may
required
subsidize
least
indirectly
religious
practices
circumstances
need
subsidize
similar
behavior
founded
secular
motives
respondents
also
complain
university
action
made
religious
message
less
attractive
suggesting
appropriate
fare
college
campus
give
weight
indistinguishable
argument
respondents
entitled
appearance
endorsement
beliefs
practices
university
since
missouri
constitution
contained
provisions
requiring
separation
church
state
missouri
held
state
constitutional
provisions
explicit
restrictive
establishment
clause
constitution
paster
tussey