Barnes-Wallace V. Boy Scouts of America - District Court

District Court

In 2000, the Plaintiffs sued the city, aided by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). They alleged that the lease was unconstitutional.

The case was filed in the United States District Court, Southern District of California. The official title is LORI & LYNN BARNES-WALLACE; MITCHELL BARNES-WALLACE; MICHAEL & VALERIE BREEN; and MAXWELL BREEN, Plaintiffs, v. BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA; CITY OF SAN DIEGO; and BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA — DESERT PACIFIC COUNCIL. Case No. 00CV1726 J (AJB).

The State of California filed an amicus brief in support of the plaintiffs. The United States Department of Justice and the American Civil Rights Union, a non-partisan legal policy organization, submitted an amicus brief on behalf of the Boy Scouts.

In 2003, Judge Napoleon A. Jones Jr. of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California ruled that the Boy Scouts of America is, by its own admission a religious organization — and therefore that the non-market rate lease was in violation of the Establishment Clause of the Constitution. A subsequent settlement between the ACLU and San Diego provided for the Scouts' continued ability to use the facilities.

While the City of San Diego had been a co-defendant, after the 2003 decision and a failed appeal the city council withdrew from the lawsuit and agreed to a $950,000 settlement to the ACLU to cover legal fees. The City Attorney issued a statement regarding the decision, stating that "During the course of the case, however, and without forewarning the City as to its position, the Boy Scouts admitted in court documents that it was in fact a ‘religious organization.’” and that “The Boy Scouts have repeatedly and pointedly refused to support the City in helping to pay any of the potential attorney’s fees involved in this case. They want the City taxpayers to continue to argue the case even though they have acknowledged that they are a religious organization and even though they refuse to share in the potentially enormous attorney’s fee award that will be ultimately awarded to plaintiffs who have already prevailed in Judge Jones’ ruling noted above.”