February 14, 2006 -- Pasadena, CA. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit heard oral arguments today in an appeal by Boy Scouts of a case brought by the ACLU against Boy Scouts of America. The case is Barnes-Wallace v. Boy Scouts of America.
|
Listen to Boy Scouts make its case to the Court of Appeals
Watch post-hearing press conferences
Read press coverage
Read the commentary
-
-
Considerette (follow cross-postings on this blog for interesting comments on other blogs)
Listen to post-argument analysis by BSA Counsel Carla Kerr
|
The City of San Diego has over 100 leases with nonprofit organizations for little or no cash rent in exchange for the organizations' developing the properties and making them available for public use. The City leases two properties to San Diego-Imperial Council—parkland in Balboa Park, where Scouts built and manage Camp Balboa at their own expense, and a half-acre of parkland on Fiesta Island in Mission Bay Park, where Scouts built and manage the San Diego Youth Aquatic Center, also at their own expense. Both properties are used extensively on a first-come, first-served basis by the public as well as by Scouts. Plaintiffs, represented by the ACLU, have never even tried to use Camp Balboa or the Youth Aquatic Center.
The federal district court in San Diego invalidated the leases to San Diego-Imperial Council, 
concluding that that they violated the Establishment Clause because, despite the open use of the properties by the public, Scout members themselves promise in the Scout Oath to do their "duty to God."
Boy Scouts argued that leasing to San Diego-Imperial Council does not violate the Establishment Clause but terminating the leases because of Scouting's values would violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Read the Scouts' appeal.
The Civil Rights Division of the United States Department of Justice also argued in support of the Scouts. Here is the federal government's amicus brief. Read DOJ's press release when its brief was filed last year.
For a fascinating, quick review of the issues, watch an archived webcast of a discussion last May in San Diego of the issues in the case.
Read what others are saying about the case.
Check back for additional coverage of the case.
Home
