9th Circuit Denies En Banc Review of Certification In Boy Scourts Case

In the latest chapter of a complex procedural route through the courts, in Barnes-Wallace v. City of San Diego, (9th Cir., Dec. 31, 2008), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals refused to grant an en banc review of a June 2008 order certifying three questions of California state constitutional law to the California Supreme Court. (See prior posting). Six judges dissented from the denial of en banc review. The case a challenge to the City of San Diego's leasing, at nominal rentals, to the Boy Scouts city property on which the Scouts operate a campground and aquatic center. The challenge turns on the scout's exclusion of atheists, agnostics, and homosexuals as members or volunteers and its requirement that members affirm a belief in God. The dissenters argue that plaintiffs lack standing, saying:

Today, our court promulgates an astonishing new rule of law for the nine Western States. Henceforth, a plaintiff who claims to feel offended by the mere thought of associating with people who hold different views has suffered a legally cognizable injury-in-fact. No other circuit has embraced this remarkable innovation, which contradicts nearly three decades of the Supreme Court’s standing jurisprudence. In practical effect, the three-judge panel majority’s unprecedented theory creates a new legal landscape in which almost anyone who is almost offended by almost anything has standing to air his or her displeasure in court.

Today's San Diego Union-Tribune reports on the decision.