Home Home Home Home Home
HomeContentSubmissionsMembershipGeneral
Currently in Print:
Vol. 99, June 2013, Issue 4
Constitutional Privileging
by Michael Coenen
A Constitutional Theory of Habeas Power
by Lee B. Kovarsky
The Science of Exclusion: Race and Social Capital in Housing Policy
by Stephanie M. Stern
The Principal Problem: Towards a More Limited Role for Fiduciary Law in the Nonprofit Sector
by Natalie Brown
In Brief:
Recently Published Items
Noel Canning v. NLRB - Enforcing Basic Constitutional Limits On Presidential Power
Essay by Noel J. Francisco and James M. Burnham

Unequal Treatment of Religious Exercises Under RFRA: Explaining the Outliers in the HHS Mandate Cases
Essay by Mark Rienzi

Protecting Same-Sex Marriage and Religious Liberty
Essay by Douglas Laycock and Thomas C. Berg

[More]
Announcements
Virginia Law Review Announces Centennial Campaign

May Notes Pool Announcement

Notes Accepted from the March 2013 Notes Pool

[More]

Email Updates
Join Our Mailing List
Quick Links
Submit to In Brief

Forthcoming

Archive

Subscriptions

Advertisements

Customer Service

Short-Article Policy

Masthead

Contact Information
Virginia Law Review Association
580 Massie Road
Charlottesville, VA 22903-1789

Phone: 434-924-3079
Fax: 434-982-2818
E-Mail: lawrev@virginia.edu

Contact Valerie Listorti

September 2012, Volume 98, Issue 5

Forum Domination: Religious Speech In Extremely Limited Public Fora
by Nicholas Matich
98 Va. L. Rev. 1149 (2012)   View PDF

In the United States there are a large number of religious communities that do not have the resources to obtain a meeting place of their own. Frequently, these groups meet in public schools, taking advantage of liberal rental policies that provide inexpensive space to community groups. Not surprisingly, this kind religious use of public space has generated much First Amendment litigation.

It is now settled law under the Public Forum Doctrine that such religious groups must have access to public facilities on an equal footing with non-religious groups. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court has expressed concern that First Amendment problems could arise if a religious group dominated the available rental space in such a forum.

Although the forum domination problem is one that the Supreme Court has discussed in several opinions, it has never faced the question directly. In spite of the Court’s speculation on the matter, and although the specter of forum domination is often raised, cases of courts actually finding forum domination have been quite rare. More recently, however, the Second Circuit has shown a willingness to find domination in a wider range of scenarios. This note will argue that the Second Circuit has taken an overly broad view of forum domination that does not comport with the Supreme Court’s cases. Properly understood, forum domination occurs only when one group uses a forum’s resources to the exclusion of others who actually seek access to them.

Although forum domination is a problem of narrower scope than the Second Circuit has held, it still is a genuine problem. Forum domination may result in impermissible government aid to, or endorsement of, religion. This note will argue, however, that the most plausible reading of the Supreme Court’s cases is that the forum domination problem presents a limit, not on private speech, but on the government’s administration of public fora. This note will also evaluate several of the policy options available to local governments to avoid the forum domination problem.

Finally, this note will conclude that although courts have discussed the forum domination problem primarily in the context of the use of a forum by religious speakers, it may arise regardless of the religiosity of a forum’s participants. Consequently, enacting policies to ensure the equitable treatment of all speakers is critical in any forum with limited space.


Click on an icon below to access the full text of this article*

Westlaw Westlaw   |  LexisNexis LexisNexis   |  HeinOnline HeinOnline   |  SSRN SSRN   |  Bloomberg Bloomberg   

* These are third-party content providers; they may require a separate subscription or charge a fee for access.