	ROMINGER LEGAL
		Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Opinions - 5th Circuit
					Need Legal Help?
					Need Legal Help?
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER			LEGAL HEADLINES - CASE LAW - LEGAL FORMS	NOT FINDING WHAT YOU NEED? -CLICK HERE

This opinion or court case is from the Fifth Circuit Court or Appeals. Search our site for more cases - CLICK HERE

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-31071
Consolidated with No. 99-31140

SALLY CAMPBELL;
LOUISIANA CHRISTIAN COALITION,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
versus
ST. TAMMANY PARISH SCHOOL BOARD; EDDIE FIELDING, in his official
capacity as a member of the St. Tammany Parish School Board; A.R.
SMITH, in his official capacity as a member of the St. Tammany
Parish School Board; Also known as Smitty Smith; GREGORY J.
SAURAGE, in his official capacity as a member of the St. Tammany
Parish School Board; DONALD J. VILLERE, in his official capacity as
a member of the St. Tammany Parish School Board; PATTI YOUNG, in
her official capacity as a member of the St. Tammany Parish School
Board; DANIEL G. ZECHENELLY, in his official capacity as a member
of the St. Tammany Parish School Board; BETTY VERZWYVELT, in her
official capacity as a member of the St. Tammany Parish School
Board; JOHN C. LAMARQUE, in his official capacity as a member of
the St. Tammany Parish School Board; E. ROTH ALLEN, in his official
capacity as a member of the St. Tammany Parish School Board; JAMES
PANKS, SR., in his official capacity as a member of the St. Tammany
Parish School Board; also known as Ronnie Panks, Sr.; ANTHONY
TEDESCO, also known as Tony Todesco, in his official capacity as a
member of the St. Tammany Parish School Board; RAY A. ALFRED, in
his official capacity as a member of the St. Tammany Parish School
Board; MARY K. LYNCH, in her official capacity as a member of the
St. Tammany Parish School Board; CHARLES T. HARRELL, in his
official capacity as a member of the St. Tammany Parish School
Board; NEAL M. HENNEGAN, in his official capacity as a member of
the St. Tammany Parish School Board; LEONARD P. MONTELEONE, in his
official capacity as Superintendent of St. Tammany Parish School
Board; WILLIAM B. BRADY, in his official capacity as Administrative
Supervisor of St. Tammany Parish School Board,
Defendants-Appellants.

Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana

July 24, 2002

ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Before JOHN R. GIBSON* and HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:**
In this First Amendment challenge to St. Tammany's School
District's facilities use policy, the defendants appealed to this
Court the district court's award of summary judgment in favor of
plaintiffs Sally Campbell and the Louisiana Christian Coalition on
the grounds that the policy was unconstitutionally vague. We
reversed the district court and granted summary judgment for the
defendants.1 We denied panel rehearing and this Court denied
rehearing en banc.2 The United States Supreme Court granted
application for writ of certiorari filed by the plaintiffs, vacated
our prior opinion, and ordered that the case be "remanded to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit for further
consideration in light of Good News Club v. Milford Central
School,3 533 U.S. 98 (2001)."4
While the case was sub judice, the country and this court
suffered a great loss with the death of Judge Politz, leaving the
* Circuit Judge of the Eighth Circuit, sitting by designation.
** This case is decided by a quorum. 28 U.S.C. § 46(d).
1 Campbell v. St Tammany's Sch. Bd., 206 F.3d 482 (5th Cir. 2000)
2 Campbell v. St. Tammany Parish Sch. Bd., 231 F.3d 937 (5th Cir. 2000)
(per curiam).
3 121 S. Ct. 2093 (2001).
4 Campbell v. St. Tammany's Sch. Bd., 121 S. Ct. 2518 (2001).
2

panel with only one active member of this court. The district
court has not had the opportunity to consider the case in light of
Good News Club, including any change in positions by the parties as
well as any further development of the record. Given these
circumstances we are persuaded that the best approach is to remand
to the district court for consideration in light of the intervening
decision of the Supreme Court.
REMANDED.
3

JOHN R. GIBSON, Circuit Judge, concurring.
I concur with the decision to remand for
reconsideration in light of Good News Club v. Milford
Central School, 121 S. Ct. 2093 (2001), but wish to add
my views on the critical issue in this case.
There are significant differences between the facts
of Good News Club, Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of
the University of Virginia, 515 U.S. 819 (1995), and
Lamb's Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free School
District, 508 U.S. 384 (1993), on the one hand, and this
case, on the other. In each of the three Supreme Court
cases, the governmental decision-maker characterized the
applicant's proposed activities as religious based on the
applicant's viewpoint, rather than the subject matter
presented, and impermissibly denied permission to use
governmental facilities on the strength of that
characterization.
4

In Rosenberger, the University of Virginia paid
certain costs for student-run organizations that were
deemed to serve the educational purpose of the
university. News organizations were deemed educational.
However, otherwise eligible organizations were subject to
exclusion if their activities were "religious." Wide
Awake Publications published a newspaper with a Christian
editorial perspective. Because the University concluded
that Wide Awake's editorial perspective rendered it a
"religious activity," the University denied Wide Awake
moneys that it would otherwise have qualified for. The
Supreme Court held that the University's decision was
impermissible viewpoint discrimination, based on the
editorial perspective of the newspaper, not on its
subject matter. 515 U.S. at 830-31.
Similarly, in Lamb's Chapel, New York law allowed
school boards to open school property for certain
enumerated uses, including social, civic and recreational
meetings and entertainments, and other uses pertaining to
the welfare of the community." 508 U.S. at 386. Lamb's
5

Chapel proposed to take advantage of this opportunity to
use school property to show a series of films discussing
child-rearing from a Christian perspective. The school
district denied the Chapel's application, saying, "This
film does appear to be church related and therefore your
request must be refused." Id. at 389. Again, the
governmental denial of access was viewpoint related,
rather than subject matter related: "The film series
involved here no doubt dealt with a subject otherwise
permissible under Rule 10, and its exhibition was denied
solely because the series dealt with the subject from a
religious standpoint." Id. at 394.
Good News Club continued the same pattern. An
applicant was denied permission to use school property
because the government viewed the applicant's approach as
"in fact the equivalent of religious instruction itself."
121 S. Ct. at 2098. As in Lamb's Chapel and Rosenberger,
the
governmental
actor
critically
assessed
the
applicant's use and decided that it did not fall within
the permitted uses of the limited forum because of the
6

religious aspect of an otherwise eligible activity. The
Supreme Court held that the school's decision was
impermissible viewpoint discrimination: "[W]e reaffirm
our holdings in Lamb's Chapel and Rosenberger that speech
discussing otherwise permissible subjects cannot be
excluded from a limited public forum on the ground that
the subject is discussed from a religious viewpoint."
Id. at 2102.
In contrast to these three Supreme Court cases, the
facts before us involve no need for the school officials
to impose their own characterization on the applicant's
proposed use. The policy in St. Tammany's prohibited use
for "religious services or religious instruction," among
other subjects, but specifically permitted use of school
facilities by outside groups "for the purpose of
discussing religious material or material which contains
a religious viewpoint." (Dist. Ct. op. at 2). As we
held in the original panel opinion, this policy
establishes a limited public forum. Campbell v. St.
Tammany's Parish Sch. Bd, 206 F.3d 482, 486-87 (5th Cir.
7

2000). Campbell sought permission to hold a "prayer
meeting," at which she proposed to "worship the Lord in
prayer and music." As to this much of Campbell's
proposal, there was no need for St. Tammany's to engage
in a critical assessment of how to characterize the
proposal. It was on its face a proposal to engage in
"religious services," a subject matter for which the
school district had not made its property available.
This was not an otherwise eligible activity, which the
school district decided to exclude because of the
viewpoint from which ideas would be expressed.
Therefore, in this respect, Campbell's case differs
importantly from the Supreme Court cases on which she
relies.
It is true that Campbell's letter went on to say that
the prayer meeting would also involve discussion, prayer
and instruction with regard to family and political
issues. (Dist. Ct. op. at 3). This language, however,
does not bring the request as a whole within the subject
8