In Spihes v. Smith, (D KS, April 29, 2026), a Kansas federal district court dismissed most of the claims brought by a Christian citizen journalist and activist challenging his removal from several demonstrations at the Kansas Capitol Statehouse grounds because of the slogans on shirts he was wearing. He also challenged a new policy on use of the Capitol grounds that has been promulgated by the Kansas Department of Administration.
The court dismissed plaintiff's claim that his removal from two events violated his rights under the Kansas Preservation of Religious Freedom Act. The court said in part:
The complaint alleges Plaintiff was wearing a t-shirt that said “Rolling with Jesus and my AK” to each of the events.... Further, at the March 28, 2025, event Plaintiff carried a sign that said, “Bet these pussies won’t blaspheme Islam next.” ... At the June 14, 2025, event, Plaintiff carried a sign that read “Illegals Drain American Resources” and “Deport Feminist Bitches First then Illegals.”...
Signs about immigration policy, much like signs about environmentalism, are not religious expressions. Additionally, Plaintiff’s sign at the March 28, 2025, event, despite referencing Islam, is not religious exercise either, as it is merely a sign designed to score a political point about how society approaches a religion. Plaintiff has not demonstrated that this is an exercise of his religion.
Finally, Plaintiff’s shirt that states he is “Rolling with Jesus and [his] AK” is similarly just a statement about a religion, not the exercise of a religion....
The court also dismissed plaintiff's claim that the new policy on use of the Capitol grounds violates plaintiff's free exercise rights. The court said in part:
Plaintiff claims that the new Capitol Use Policy “requires Dr. Spiehs to impose no limitations or restrictions to participants in his permitted event based upon ‘sexual orientation, gender identity, or genetic information.’” ... Plaintiff argues that this policy would force him to “use or employ people who are not his coreligionists: those who do not share, and who behave in ways antithetical to, his Christian beliefs and messaging.”... While Plaintiff does not object to having the “identified categories of individuals” present, he complains that the wording of the policy, specifically the use of the word “participate”, prevents him from limiting his usage of “vendors, staff, or volunteers” based upon their sexual orientation... Plaintiff explains that allowing “transgender, LGBTQ, or feminist” individuals to participate in his event would violate his religious convictions.....
The law before the court is one that is neutral and generally applicable. The post-July 1st Capitol Use Policy does not “facially target religion” nor is it “established for the purpose of targeting religion” and therefore does not trigger strict scrutiny.... The court does not view the word “participation”, as used in the policy, as imposing a requirement to hire individuals to whom Plaintiff has a religious objection.
The court allowed plaintiff to move ahead only on a 4th Amendment claim and a narrow free speech claim.
