Westside School District v. Mergens | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Supreme Court of the United States |
||||||
Argued January 9, 1990 Decided June 4, 1990 |
||||||
Full case name | Board of Education of the Westside Community Schools, etc., et al., Petitioners v. Bridget C. Mergens, by and through her next friend, Daniel N. Mergens, et al. | |||||
Citations | 496 U.S. 226 (more) 110 S. Ct. 2356; 110 L. Ed. 2d 191; 1990 U.S. LEXIS 2880; 58 U.S.L.W. 4720 |
|||||
Prior history | On writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. | |||||
Holding | ||||||
School districts may not prohibit Bible study groups from meeting on school premises if they allow other groups to meet on school premises. | ||||||
Court membership | ||||||
|
||||||
Case opinions | ||||||
Majority | O'Connor (parts I, II-A, II-B, II-C), joined by Rehnquist, White, Blackmun, Scalia, Kennedy | |||||
Concurrence | O'Connor (part III), joined by Rehnquist, White, Blackmun | |||||
Concurrence | Kennedy, joined by Scalia | |||||
Concurrence | Marshall, joined by Brennan | |||||
Dissent | Stevens | |||||
Laws applied | ||||||
Equal Access Act; Establishment Clause |
Westside School District v. Mergens, 496 U.S. 226 (1990), was a case involving a school district's ability to hold classes on Bible study after school.
Contents |
Westside High School, in District 66, located in Omaha Nebraska, refused to let a group of students wishing to form a Christian Bible Study Club within their school. Bridget Mergens is the name of the student who initiated the process to start the club. She was a senior at the time. It was decided that the club could not take place because they would not allow a staff member to sponsor it (staff sponsoring was required or the club meetings could not take place at the school). The students argued that the district's decision was in violation of the Equal Access Act requiring that groups seeking to express “religious, political, philosophical, or other content” messages not be denied the ability to form clubs.
In an 8-1 decision[1] the Supreme Court held that the club could hold their meetings, however their sponsor could not be paid; this would truly be an endorsement of religion.