High Court Hears Case Examining Equal Access Act

A lawyer representing students in Nebraska who want to form a Bible club argued before the U.S. Supreme Court that public high schools must provide meeting space for all student clubs that are not directly related to a course, unless the groups are illegal or disruptive. The lawyer, Jay Allen Sekulow, acknowledged that if such clubs advocate controversial political views, it is a consequence of the freedom granted by the federal Equal Access Act of 1984.

During oral arguments in the case Board of Education of the Westside Community Schools v. Mergens, the Justices seemed more interested in determining the conditions that trigger the provisions of the Equal Access Act rather than the constitutionality of the law itself.

Associate Justice Byron R. White, who conducted much of the questioning, suggested that the Court needs to establish a definition of "curriculum related."

The Equal Access Act states that districts must allow students to form religious and political groups if they have created a "limited open forum" in their high schools, which means allowing other non-curriculum-related groups to meet. However, this act has resulted in numerous legal challenges and different interpretations by federal courts.

In the Mergens case, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit ruled that officials at Westside High School in Omaha had created a limited open forum by allowing groups like a chess club to meet. The appellate court overturned a district court’s ruling that the clubs were curriculum related because they furthered the school’s mission and goals.

The lawyer representing the Westside district argued that the Eighth Circuit Court’s ruling should be overturned to protect the autonomy and discretion of school officials. He stated that the Court needs to balance the free-speech rights of students, the prohibition on government establishment of religion, and deference to school officials. He argued that district officials made the right decision in allowing a chess club to meet because they considered it part of the educational program of the school.

The solicitor general argued that the district’s approach is inconsistent with the ordinary meaning of "curriculum related" and that a chess club, for example, is quintessentially noncurricular according to Congressional debate on the Equal Access Act.

Throughout the argument, the Justices raised questions about hypothetical clubs that might trigger the provisions of the Equal Access Act, such as a football team in a school without an athletic curriculum or a French club in a school without French courses or a language department. They also raised hypothetical situations that might occur if the act is upheld. Both sides acknowledged that the act would allow clubs advocating various views, including communism, racial purity, and satanism.

The Justices focused less on the constitutionality of the act and did not explore whether the potential for religious influence is greater in high schools compared to colleges where attendance is voluntary.

Further Developments

In a recent development, the High Court has granted the federal government the authority to request confidential documents related to tenure decisions in colleges and universities. This decision was made in response to claims of employment discrimination. Several esteemed universities and the American Association of University Professors had raised concerns that granting access to these records would impede academic freedom and discourage honest evaluations of tenure candidates. However, the Court, in a unanimous ruling, deemed educational institutions to be on par with other employers accused of employment discrimination, and thus not entitled to special protections.

In another case, Fort Stewart Schools v. Federal Labor Relations Authority, the Justices heard arguments regarding the collective bargaining rights of employees at schools under the Defense Department. The question at hand was whether these employees, including teachers, have the right to negotiate salary issues collectively. The Federal Labor Relations Board has interpreted the Federal Service Labor Management Relations Act of 1978 to allow certain federal employees to include wages in the "working conditions" subject to negotiation. However, the Defense Department argues that salaries and other monetary fringe benefits are not negotiable, as another clause of the law grants federal agencies the right to set their own budgets.

Moreover, the High Court chose not to review several education-related cases, one of which was Loftis v. Los Angeles Unified School District. In this case, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit concluded that the school district’s informal affirmative-action policy did not disproportionately favor black males over white females.