The Court thus likewise had to consider whether private religious speech on government property or using government funding violated this no-endorsement principle. For a time, the Court took the view that government speech could violate the Establishment Clause by endorsing religion (see Part XI.D). 98 (2001), all said 'no': They held that religious groups (mostly K–12 or college student groups) were constitutionally entitled to equal access to government property and government funding programs, and shouldn't be excluded by the Establishment Clause from such funding. Center Moriches Union Free School Dist., 508 U.S. Given this, the Court has had to consider whether this principle prohibits private speakers from using government property or programs in ways that lead government funding to flow to those speakers' religious speech.

The Court takes the view that some government funding flowing to religious uses violates the Establishment Clause (see Part XII.A.1.b) that restraint has narrowed over time, but for a while it was quite broad. Here's my summary of the legal background, followed by excerpts from the relevant opinions (which are still long, unfortunately): It took me a while to wrap my head around all the details in this case, but I finally did that while editing it down for the 2022 Supplement to my First Amendment and Related Statutes casebook.

Re-Legion free