Dennis Gillam, et al. v. Harding University, et al.
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas
2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53609 (2009)
- Written by Jenny Perry, JD
Facts
In 1988, Searcy, Arkansas, created the Public Educational and Residential Housing Facilities Board (board), a municipal entity authorized by state statute to issue bonds to finance projects that had a public purpose. The board offered tax-exempt bond financing to educational institutions regardless of the recipient’s religious or nonreligious affiliation. Harding University (the university) (defendant) was a private college in Searcy associated with the Churches of Christ and open to the public. The board issued bonds to finance the construction of buildings on the university’s campus. For each bond issued to the university, the board required that the university agree (1) to timely repay the bonds; (2) to operate and maintain the facilities being financed for four-year, degree-granting, postsecondary educational purposes; (3) that the facilities being financed would not be used for sectarian purposes; and (4) to maintain the university’s status as a § 501(c)(3) corporation. Dennis Gillam (plaintiff) and other residents of Searcy filed suit, alleging that issuing bonds to the university violated the Establishment Clause. Gillam conceded that the bonds expressed a facially secular purpose but argued that the bonds had the effect of advancing religion, in part because the university was the only recipient of bonds issued by the board. There was no evidence, however, that the board had denied funding to any nonreligious institution. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Miller, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 805,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.