Religious liberty will likely take a step forward May 22, when the New York City Council votes on a resolution asking the New York Legislature to overturn a state law that permits the New York City public school policy that bans private worship services in the vacant buildings when school is not in session.

This is the latest turn in the ongoing effort to repeal the New York City public school’s anti-worship service policy.  Alliance Defending Freedom’s lawsuit on behalf of NYC church Bronx Household of Faith is also challenging the policy in court.  Currently, churches and other religious groups are holding worship services in the schools because of a federal district court injunction against the policy issued in June 2012.  The City appealed the court order, and we are awaiting a ruling by the federal appeals court in New York City.

NYC Council member (and Pastor) Fernando Cabrera is trying to open another front against the policy by leading the effort to repeal the policy through the legislative process.  Mayor Michael Bloomberg directs the NYC Department of Education, and fully supports the policy banning private worship services from the schools.  The City Council lacks the authority to change the policy directly, but it does have the power to ask the state legislature to change the state statute that provides Mayor Bloomberg the legal authority to ban the religious activities.  These resolutions passed by the City Council carry significant weight at the state legislature in Albany, and usually spurs it to action.

Councilman Cabrera attempted to have the City Council pass this resolution in early 2012, but was blocked by the Speaker of the City Council, Christine Quinn.  Speaker Quinn, who is running for mayor, has expressed support for the policy banning worship services.  According to the Wall Street Journal, Speaker Quinn’s tight control of the City Council has loosened in recent months because of her run for mayor.  The Wall Street Journal also reports that Councilman Cabrera sensed an opportunity to move the stalled resolution, and Speaker Quinn agreed to allow the resolution to come to a vote on May 22.

Councilman Cabrera expects the City Council to pass the resolution.  Whether the New York Legislature will pass the necessary legislation to overturn the New York City anti-worship service policy is unclear.  In early 2012, the New York Senate passed such legislation, only to see it die in the Assembly because the Speaker of the Assembly, Sheldon Silver, refused to allow the bill to come to a vote.  The Senate bill would have likely passed in the Assembly, because a majority of the Assembly’s members had signed on as co-sponsors of the bill.  Speaker Silver may respond differently to the proposed legislation and allow Assembly members to vote on it, if the legislation is in response to a resolution passed by the influential New York City Council.

New York City remains the only major school district in the United States that prohibits private religious services in public school buildings during non-school hours.  The churches and other religious groups meeting in the NYC schools help some of the poorest and neediest people in the city.  Whether by a court order, or a law passed by the New York Legislature, it is time for this policy to go.

Jeremy Tedesco, Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Legal Counsel

Rarely can the essence of a lawsuit be captured through pictures. But in Alliance Defending Freedom’s case involving a tiny Church’s First Amendment challenge to the Town of Gilbert’s discriminatory treatment of signs advertising its religious services, a picture truly speaks a thousand words.  Consider these two pictures:

Town officials view the sign on the left, which advertises our client’s Church services, as a constitutional crisis, and thus impose incredibly stringent limitations on the placement of such signs.  Yet these same officials see no problem with the proliferation of political signs, like those depicted in the picture on the right.  In fact, we presented the court with dozens of pictures showing how the Town permits the placement of numerous political signs at intersections throughout Gilbert.

The constitutional problem with the Town’s sign code is that it treats temporary signs VASTLY differently based on what they say.  In First Amendment parlance, this is called “content-based discrimination,” and it is a major constitutional no-no.

The Town’s sign code violates this core First Amendment principle in many ways.  One of them is by imposing highly restrictive requirements (related to size, duration, etc.) on the Church’s signs that it does not impose on similar temporary signs, like political and ideological signs.  For example, the Church’s signs can only be 6 square feet, while ideological signs can be up to 20 square feet (over 300% larger) and political signs up to 32 square feet (almost 600% larger)!  Also, the Church’s signs can be placed just 12 hours before their services begin and must be taken done 1 hour after they end.  In stark contrast, political signs may be placed 60 days before a primary election and may stay up 15 days after the general election and ideological signs may stay up indefinitely!  (A diagram depicting the code’s differential treatment of signs based on content can be viewed here.)  The Town’s code favors signs bearing political and ideological messages over those bearing religious messages, and that violates the First Amendment.

Unfortunately, a three judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled 2-1 against the Church.  So we filed a petition asking the full Ninth Circuit to rehear the case.  Please join us in praying for a favorable outcome and for this tiny Church’s courageous stand to be vindicated.

If you’ve faced similar disparity in your community when attempting to promote your church or ministry, contact Alliance Defending Freedom through our legal help form online.

By Rory Gray, Alliance Defending Freedom Litigation Counsel

Churches have always served a key role in American society, not only as centers of worship but also as polling places, food pantries, concert venues, and general meeting places.  So it is hardly surprising that when the Elmbrook Community School District in Wisconsin lacked an adequate venue for its high school graduation ceremonies, it rented a local church.  Graduation moved back on campus once a building was completed that could comfortably accommodate every student’s guests.  But the District’s secular use of a church building upset the atheists who so often view religion as a kind of communicable disease that must be quarantined from public life.  And they filed a federal lawsuit to prohibit the District from renting a church, in the future, for any purpose.

Thankfully, the district court saw the atheists’ religious phobia for what it was and ruled that renting a church to obtain “an adequate, convenient, cost-effective graduation venue” did not violate the Establishment Clause.  On appeal, a three-judge panel of the Seventh Circuit in Chicago agreed, citing the lack of evidence that the District had “any religious purpose” in renting the church and noting the District’s clear desire “to make use only of the Church’s material amenities.” But, unfortunately, the fact that everyone acknowledged the District rented the church’s building simply for its large, air-conditioned auditorium was not enough for a majority of the Seventh Circuit’s judges sitting together en banc.

Contrary to what four judges had already found, seven out of ten Seventh Circuit judges sitting on the en banc Court concluded that the District violated the Constitution by failing to run away from the church’s “pervasively religious” facilities at full sprint.  Oddly emphasizing the church’s rather conventional religious symbols and decorations, the Court declared that churches are generally off limits, which means that schools must rent secular facilities no matter the inconvenience or cost.  For example, the Court noted that if all secular buildings burned to the ground in a natural disaster, the District’s rental of a church would pass muster.  Otherwise, the Court viewed exposing high school students to “pervasively religious” church buildings as simply too dangerous.  The Court’s fear was that students might voluntarily undertake religious activity inspired not by the District but by their friends.

The Seventh Circuit’s reasoning is deeply troubling because it supports the atheists’ view that religion is a dangerous force that must be isolated and contained—a view which has no basis in the Constitution.  Alliance Defending Freedom fights against such misconceptions on a daily basis and we filed a friend-of-the-court brief recently that urges the Supreme Court to take the Elmbrook case.  The brief explains that nothing in the Constitution requires government to treat churches like the leper colonies of the modern American state.  And it emphasizes the dangers the Seventh Circuit’s reasoning poses to religious freedom by requiring discrimination against not only churches but religious students as well.  Indeed, the Seventh Circuit viewed private religious conduct—protected by the Free Exercise Clause—as the primary justification for finding an Establishment Clause violation.

Your support is key in the legal battle ahead.  We ask that you pray for the Supreme Court, that the justices would grant review in the Elmbrook case, and for our attorneys, as they continue our legal efforts.  And we ask that you would also pray for a change of heart in the atheists:  that they would learn Christianity is not a plague that threatens humanity, but the cure by which God chose to save it.

The ongoing legal battle for equal access of churches to meet in New York City’s public schools returns to court Monday. Currently, churches and other religious groups are meeting in NYC’s vacant schools due to a court injunction Alliance Defending Freedom won last June against NYC’s policy prohibiting worship services from the public schools.   Alliance Defending Freedom has been representing a small church, Bronx Household of Faith in this matter since 1995.

On Monday, we will be appearing before a panel of three judges from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which will be sitting in lower Manhattan.  NYC school officials have appealed, arguing that the policy is constitutional, that the appeals court should dissolve the injunction and free them to boot out the churches.  Alliance Defending Freedom will be arguing strongly that the First Amendment’s protection of religious liberty requires NYC to allow the churches to stay.  We ask for your prayers for God’s help and mercy as we go forward in this case.

Actor Alec Baldwin of the television show 30 Rock and the movie Hunt for Red October, is seriously considering a run for Mayor of New York City, according to his brother Billy Baldwin.  During an interview with CNN’s Piers Morgan last Tuesday night, Billy Baldwin said Alec’s possible candidacy is “very real,” and that Alec is ”very committed and extremely  bright and knowledgeable and I think he could do it and he could run.”

The race for Mayor in New York City could affect religious liberty there because the Mayor directs the NYC Department of Education, which has a policy banning religious groups from conducting worship services during non-school hours. The Mayor has the authority to order an immediate repeal of the Department of Education policy.   The current mayor, Michael Bloomberg has refused repeated requests by City Council members and local pastors to reverse the anti-worship service policy.

ADF is challenging the policy in court in the Bronx Household of Faith case, and won a permanent injunction against the policy last week.  We expect the NYC DOE to appeal the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.  The question of whether the next Mayor of NYC can alter the policy may be moot if we successfully defeat the policy in court.

We would welcome a victorious resolution of this case by the Mayor ordering the repeal of the policy.  Although the election for the new mayor of NYC is not until November 2013, it is important to ask the candidates for their position on ending the ban on worship services.  If Alec Baldwin does run for Mayor, we hope he shows true support for religious liberty and the right of all people to worship the true Rock of Ages.