In The Satanic Temple, Inc. v. Saucon Valley School District, (ED PA, May 1, 2023), a Pennsylvania federal district court issued a preliminary injunction requiring the District to allow the After School Satan Club to use school facilities for meetings pursuant to a District Policy on use of school facilities by community organizations. After initial approval of the group's use of Saucon Valley Middle School for meetings, the school had received a shooting threat that required it to close for a day. Subsequently, it "received over 40 phone calls and 50 emails or handwritten letters, daily, from concerned staff, parents, and community members." This led the District to rescind approval for the Club's use of school facilities, and led to the filing of this lawsuit. The court said in part:
Here, TST states a colorable claim that the District’s decision to rescind approval of its application and prohibit the ASSC from using school facilities for the remainder of the current school year restricts TST’s speech based on TST’s viewpoint, which shifts the burden to the District to justify its restriction on speech....
The District argues its restriction of TST’s speech is justified under the First Amendment because the District determined TST violated the District’s content-neutral Advertising Restriction contained in Policy 707 by posting social media advertisements on February 20, 2023 and February 23, 2023 that failed to clearly communicate the ASSC was not sponsored by the District....
TST makes a sufficient showing that the District selectively and inconsistently enforced its Advertising Restriction against TST as compared to other similarly situated speakers. The District’s proffered distinctions and rationale for this inconsistent enforcement are unpersuasive and fail to satisfy the District’s burden of justification. This inconsistent treatment strongly suggests viewpoint discrimination....
There is no doubt the District and Superintendent were faced with difficult, time-sensitive decisions. However, the Court’s analysis is guided by the law, not practical decision-making considerations or the Court’s own personal opinions. The law requires the Court to determine whether the District’s decision to rescind approval of TST’s application was based on the content of TST’s religious viewpoint and the reactions to it. The Court concludes it was.
ACLU issued a press release announcing the decision.
