11th Circuit Remands Establishment Clause Case That Had Relied On Lemon Test

In Rojas v. City of Ocala, Florida, (11th Cir., July 22, 2022), the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals vacated and remanded a district court's Establishment Clause decision that had relied on the now-repudiated Lemon test. In the case, plaintiffs who are atheists and humanists sued, challenging a prayer vigil that was co-sponsored by the Ocala police department held in response to a shooting spree that had injured several children. The district court granted summary judgment to plaintiffs.  On appeal, the court said in part:

When the district court granted summary judgment, it believed that the analytical framework articulated in Lemon v. Kurtzman ... was the controlling law. Even though many Justices soured on Lemon over the years, the Court seemingly could not rid itself of that much-maligned decision. Justice Scalia colorfully described Lemon as “[l]ike some ghoul in a late-night horror movie that repeatedly sits up in its grave and shuffles abroad, after being repeatedly killed and buried.”...

After this appeal was filed, however, the Supreme Court drove a stake through the heart of the ghoul and told us that the Lemon test is gone, buried for good, never again to sit up in its grave. Finally and unambiguously, the Court has “abandoned Lemon and its endorsement test offshoot.” Kennedy v. Bremerton Sch. Dist. ... (2022)....

[T]he Supreme Court has definitively decided that Lemon is dead — long live historical practices and understandings....

We remand this case to the district court to give it an opportunity to apply in the first instance the historical practices and understandings standard endorsed in Kennedy.

Lesson On Ancient Mesopotamia Did Not Violate Establishment Clause

In Ervins v. Sun Prairie Area School District, (WD WI, July 1, 2022), a Wisconsin federal district court rejected a claim that a 6th-grade lesson on ancient Mesopotamia which called on students to apply the Code of Hammurabi to a hypothetical situation amounted to a violation of the Establishment Clause.  The assignment, which coincided with the first day of Black History Month, caused outrage because it involved the death penalty for a defiant slave. The court said in part:

[T]eaching Hammurabi’s Code was not religious education, it was a history lesson.... Neither the school district nor the teachers who used the Mesopotamia materials promoted or endorsed Hammurabi’s Code as a viable moral code or a religious way of life. No reasonable jury could accept plaintiff’s contention that the district forced students to “engage in religion” by asking them to answer in the first person how they would punish a slave....

... [E]ven if all of Mesopotamian culture was theologically based, the teaching of that historical period would not constitute a governmental endorsement of Mesopotamian theology.

The court also rejected Title VI and 14th Amendment claims.

Supreme Court Upholds Football Coach's Prayer Rights; Repudiates the "Lemon Test"

 In Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, (Sup. Ct., June 27, 2022), the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, held that a school district violated the First Amendment's Free Speech and Free Exercise clauses by disciplining a football coach for visibly praying at midfield immediately after football games. Justice Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion. In discussing whether the school district could regulate Coach Kennedy's speech because Kennedy was a government employee, Justice Gorsuch said in part:

[W]hat matters is whether Mr. Kennedy offered his prayers while acting within the scope of his duties as a coach. And taken together, both the substance of Mr. Kennedy’s speech and the circumstances surrounding it point to the conclusion that he did not.

In reaching its contrary conclusion, the Ninth Circuit stressed that, as a coach, Mr. Kennedy served as a role model “clothed with the mantle of one who imparts knowledge and wisdom.”... Teachers and coaches often serve as vital role models. But this argument commits the error of positing an “excessively broad job descriptio[n]” by treating everything teachers and coaches say in the workplace as government speech subject to government control.... On this understanding, a school could fire a Muslim teacher for wearing a headscarf in the classroom or prohibit a Christian aide from praying quietly over her lunch in the cafeteria. Likewise, this argument ignores the District Court’s conclusion (and the District’s concession) that Mr. Kennedy’s actual job description left time for a private moment after the game to call home, check a text, socialize, or engage in any manner of secular activities.... That Mr. Kennedy chose to use the same time to pray does not transform his speech into government speech To hold differently would be to treat religious expression as second-class speech and eviscerate this Court’s repeated promise that teachers do not “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.”.... 

Justice Gorsuch also found it clear that Coach Kennedy seeks to engage in a sincerely motivated religious exercise. The more difficult question was whether the school district could bar this because of Establishment Clause concerns. In deciding that it could not, the Court repudiated the Lemon test which had been relied upon by the lower courts in deciding the case. Justice Gorsuch said in part:

It is true that this Court and others often refer to the “Establishment Clause,” the “Free Exercise Clause,” and the “Free Speech Clause” as separate units. But the three Clauses appear in the same sentence of the same Amendment.... A natural reading of that sentence would seem to suggest the Clauses have “complementary” purposes, not warring ones where one Clause is always sure to prevail over the others....

To defend its approach, the District relied on Lemon and its progeny....

What the District and the Ninth Circuit overlooked, however, is that the “shortcomings” associated with this “ambitiou[s],” abstract, and ahistorical approach to the Establishment Clause became so “apparent” that this Court long ago abandoned Lemon and its endorsement test offshoot.... This Court has since made plain, too, that the Establishment Clause does not include anything like a “modified heckler’s veto, in which . . . religious activity can be proscribed” based on “‘perceptions’” or “‘discomfort.’” ...

In place of Lemon and the endorsement test, this Court has instructed that the Establishment Clause must be interpreted by “‘reference to historical practices and understandings.’” Town of Greece, 572 U. S., at 576.... “‘[T]he line’” that courts and governments “must draw between the permissible and the impermissible” has to “‘accor[d] with history and faithfully reflec[t] the understanding of the Founding Fathers.’”... An analysis focused on original meaning and history, this Court has stressed, has long represented the rule rather than some “‘exception’” within the “Court’s Establishment Clause jurisprudence.”

Justice Gorsuch then focused on the alternative argument that students were being coerced to pray. He said in part:

No doubt, too, coercion along these lines was among the foremost hallmarks of religious establishments the framers sought to prohibit when they adopted the First Amendment. Members of this Court have sometimes disagreed on what exactly qualifies as impermissible coercion in light of the original meaning of the Establishment Clause..... But in this case Mr. Kennedy’s private religious exercise did not come close to crossing any line one might imagine separating protected private expression from impermissible government coercion....

Naturally, Mr. Kennedy’s proposal to pray quietly by himself on the field would have meant some people would have seen his religious exercise. Those close at hand might have heard him too. But learning how to tolerate speech or prayer of all kinds is “part of learning how to live in a pluralistic society,” a trait of character essential to “a tolerant citizenry.”

Justice Thomas filed a brief concurring opinion, saying in part:

[W]e have held that “the First Amendment protects public employee speech only when it falls within the core of First Amendment protection— speech on matters of public concern.”... It remains an open question, however, if a similar analysis can or should apply to free-exercise claims in light of the “history” and “tradition” of the Free Exercise Clause...

Justice Alito filed a brief concurring opinion, saying in part:

The Court does not decide what standard applies to such expression under the Free Speech Clause but holds only that retaliation for this expression cannot be justified based on any of the standards discussed. On that understanding, I join the opinion in full.

Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justices Breyer and Kagan, filed a dissenting opinion, saying in part:

Official-led prayer strikes at the core of our constitutional protections for the religious liberty of students and their parents, as embodied in both the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.

The Court now charts a different path, yet again paying almost exclusive attention to the Free Exercise Clause’s protection for individual religious exercise while giving short shrift to the Establishment Clause’s prohibition on state establishment of religion....

Properly understood, this case is not about the limits on an individual’s ability to engage in private prayer at work. This case is about whether a school district is required to allow one of its employees to incorporate a public, communicative display of the employee’s personal religious beliefs into a school event, where that display is recognizable as part of a longstanding practice of the employee ministering religion to students as the public watched. A school district is not required to permit such conduct; in fact, the Establishment Clause prohibits it from doing so....

The Court now goes much further, overruling Lemon entirely and in all contexts. It is wrong to do so....

The Free Exercise Clause and Establishment Clause are equally integral in protecting religious freedom in our society. The first serves as “a promise from our government,” while the second erects a “backstop that disables our government from breaking it” and “start[ing] us down the path to the past, when [the right to free exercise] was routinely abridged.” ...

Today, the Court once again weakens the backstop. It elevates one individual’s interest in personal religious exercise, in the exact time and place of that individual’s choosing, over society’s interest in protecting the separation between church and state, eroding the protections for religious liberty for all. Today’s decision is particularly misguided because it elevates the religious rights of a school official, who voluntarily accepted public employment and the limits that public employment entails, over those of his students, who are required to attend school and who this Court has long recognized are particularly vulnerable and deserving of protection. In doing so, the Court sets us further down a perilous path in forcing States to entangle themselves with religion, with all of our rights hanging in the balance. As much as the Court protests otherwise, today’s decision is no victory for religious liberty.

CNN reports on the decision.

Supreme Court Says Maine Cannot Exclude Sectarian Schools From Its Tuition Reimbursement Program

In Carson v. Makin, (Sup. Ct., June 21, 2022), in a 6-3 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court held that Maine's program that pays tuition (up to a statutory limit) to out-of-district public or private high schools for students whose districts do not operate a high school, but which requires participating schools to be nonsectarian, violates the Free Exercise Clause. The majority opinion by Chief Justice Roberts says in part:

The State pays tuition for certain students at private schools— so long as the schools are not religious. That is discrimination against religion. A State’s antiestablishment interest does not justify enactments that exclude some members of the community from an otherwise generally available public benefit because of their religious exercise....

Maine’s “nonsectarian” requirement for its otherwise generally available tuition assistance payments violates the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. Regardless of how the benefit and restriction are described, the program operates to identify and exclude otherwise eligible schools on the basis of their religious exercise.

Justice Breyer, joined by Justice Kagan and for the most part by Justice Sotomayor, filed a dissenting opinion which says in part:

Nothing in our Free Exercise Clause cases compels Maine to give tuition aid to private schools that will use the funds to provide a religious education.... [T]his Court’s decisions in Trinity Lutheran and Espinoza prohibit States from denying aid to religious schools solely because of a school’s religious status—that is, its affiliation with or control by a religious organization.... But we have never said that the Free Exercise Clause prohibits States from withholding funds because of the religious use to which the money will be put....

Maine’s decision not to fund such schools falls squarely within the play in the joints between those two Clauses. Maine has promised all children within the State the right to receive a free public education. In fulfilling this promise, Maine endeavors to provide children the religiously neutral education required in public school systems.... The Religion Clauses give Maine the ability, and flexibility, to make this choice. 

Justice Sotomayor also filed a dissenting opinion which says in part:

This Court continues to dismantle the wall of separation between church and state that the Framers fought to build.... 

If a State cannot offer subsidies to its citizens without being required to fund religious exercise, any State that values its historic antiestablishment interests more than this Court does will have to curtail the support it offers to its citizens.

CNN reports on the decision.

Synagogue Sues In Challenge To Florida's Restrictive Abortion Law

Suit was filed last week in a Florida state trial court by a Palm Beach County synagogue challenging Florida's recently enacted 15-week abortion ban. The complaint (full text) in Generation to Generation, Inc. v. Florida, (FL Cir. Ct., filed 6/10/2022) contends that the law violates the free exercise, establishment, right to privacy, due process and equal protection provisions of the Florida Constitution.  The complaint alleges in part:

40. Some women, such as the members, congregants, supporters of Plaintiff L’Dor Va-Dor and their families have an abortion because it is required by their religious faith.  For Jews, all life is precious and thus the decision to bring new life into the world is not taken lightly or determined by state fiat.  In Jewish law, abortion is required if necessary to protect the health, mental or physical well-being of the woman, or for many other reasons not permitted under the Act.  As such, the Act prohibits Jewish women from practicing their faith free of government intrusion and thus violates their privacy rights and religious freedom.....

71. The Jewish people have often borne the brunt of the horrors that occur when the power of Christianity has merged with the power of the state.  The result has been Inquisitions, Crusades, ghettoes and pogroms for the Jews and the eventual loss of freedom for everyone else.... 

72.  The architects of the Act have taken a first step towards the dismantling of that wall and returning the state of Florida and our nation back to a time when the merger of Christianity and government produced genocide, slavery, misogyny, and the denial of equal rights and in many cases, any rights at all to those who did not share the gender, race or religion of those in power.

Jews for a Secular Democracy issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

10th Circuit Affirms Dismissal Of Church's Complaint Regarding Sending Of Material To Inmates

 In Colorado Springs Fellowship Church v. Williams, (10th Cir., June 13, 2022), the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected a church's challenge to prison rules that barred it from sending DVD's directly to inmates. Religious organizations could only send religious materials to the Bureau of Prisons which would them make them available to all inmates. The district court had dismissed the church's Establishment Clause claim. On appeal, the court refused to consider the church's argument that the Turner standard does not apply to free speech and free exercise claims brought by non-prisoners because the church had not made that argument to the district court below. The church had also failed to allege that it was treated differently than other religious groups.

Certiorari Denied In Wisconsin Parochial School Bussing Case

The U.S. Supreme Court today denied review in St. Augustine School v. Underly, (Docket No. 21-1295, certiorari denied 6/6/2022). (Order List). In the case, the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals sent back to the district court a suit challenging Wisconsin's refusal to provide bus transportation to students at St. Augustine School. The decision was based on a Wisconsin statute that requires school districts to bus private school students, but limits the obligation to only one private school affiliated with the same religious denomination or sponsoring group in each attendance district. The case has a complicated litigation history. (See prior posting.)

Posting Of National Motto In School Does Not Violate Establishment Clause

In JLF v. Tennessee State Board of Education, (MD TN, May 18, 2022), a Tennessee federal district court upheld Tennessee's statute that requires all public schools to post the national motto "In God We Trust" in a prominent location. The law was challenged under the Establishment Clause by the father of a kindergartener on behalf of his daughter whose school has posted the motto as part of a display in the entryway to the school.  The court said in part:

The court finds ... in light of the substantial body of law ... repeatedly concluding in a variety of contexts that the national motto has a secular purpose and that its display does not violate the Establishment Clause, that the Lemon test is of limited utility in this context.... The fact that the display is in a public school does not require enhanced scrutiny.... [T]he posting of the national motto in schools “involves no coercion,” “does not purport to compel belief or acquiescence,” “does not command participation in any form of religious exercise,” “does not assert a preference for one religious denomination or sect over others, and it does not involve the state in the governance of any church.”...

City Council's Opening Of Meetings With Lord's Prayer Violates Establishment Clause

In Cobranchi v. City of Parkersburg, (D WV, May 17, 2022), a West Virginia federal district court held that Parkersburg's City Council violated the Establishment Clause by opening each of its meetings with The Lord's Prayer.  The court said in part:

The City Council’s prayer practice most clearly runs afoul of the Fourth Circuit’s concern with identifying the government with a single preferred religious sect. As noted, the Lord’s Prayer is sourced from a biblical translation of the gospel of Matthew, and the version utilized by the town council includes a concluding Christian doxology.... [I]t seems apparent that a reasonable observer to City Council meetings would be aware of the origin, or at the least Christian nature, of the prayer. By continually reciting, over a number of years, the same prayer clearly identifiable with a particular faith, without the opportunity for other faiths to be heard, the City Council impermissibly identified itself with a preferred religion.

FFRF issued a press release announcing the decision.

Plaintiff Lacks Standing To Challenge No-Fault Divorce Law Under 1st Amendment

 In King v. State of New York, (2d Cir., May 9, 2022), the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals held that plaintiff lacked standing to challenge New York's no-fault divorce law on free exercise or Establishment Clause grounds. The court said in part:

Ms. King alleges that this law and the resulting divorce violated her Free Exercise and Establishment Clause rights by requiring her to become divorced despite her religious belief in marriage until death..... Because Ms. King alleges only the termination of a civil contract, she has not plausibly alleged that the civil judgment of divorce entered against her “sever[ed] the holy marriage covenant made before God,” ... or “chang[ed] her status under . . . the laws of God”....

Adventist School Sues Over Refusal Of Tournament To Accommodate Its Sabbath Observance

Suit was filed this week in an Alabama federal district court against the Alabama High School Athletic Association (AHSAA) by the Seventh Day Adventist Oakwood Academy that was forced to forfeit its further participation in this year's high school basketball championship tournament because the AHSAA refused to move the time of its game three hours later to permit the school to play without violating its Sabbath. The complaint (full text) in South Central Conference of Seventh Day Adventists v. Alabama High School Athletic Association, (MD AL, filed 5/3/2022), contends that the refusal to accommodate its religious exercise violated the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses of the 1st Amendment. Al.com reports on the lawsuit.

Unanimous Supreme Court Says Boston Violated Free Speech Clause In Barring Christian Flag Outside City Hall

In Shurtleff v. City of Boston, (Sup.Ct., May 2, 2022), the U.S. Supreme Court held unanimously that Boston violated the free speech rights of Camp Constitution when it refused to allow it to briefly fly a Christian flag on a third flagpole outside city hall which private groups have used to fly flags of their choice for ceremonies. In the past, the city had approved some 50 different flags and had never before refused a request. Boston contended that the flag was government speech and cited Establishment Clause concerns in barring the Christian flag. The Court rejected that contention, saying in part:

We conclude that, on balance, Boston did not make the raising and flying of private groups’ flags a form of government speech. That means, in turn, that Boston’s refusal to let Shurtleff and Camp Constitution raise their flag based on its religious viewpoint “abridg[ed]” their “freedom of speech.”

Justice Breyer wrote the majority opinion which was joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, Kavanaugh and Barrett. Justice Kavanaugh also filed a concurring opinion. Justice Alito, joined by Justices Thomas and Gorsuch filed an opinion concurring only in the judgment, saying in part:

...I cannot go along with the Court’s decision to analyze this case in terms of the triad of factors—history, the public’s perception of who is speaking, and the extent to which the government has exercised control over speech.... [T]reating those factors as a test obscures the real question in government-speech cases: whether the government is speaking instead of regulating private expression.

Justice Gorsuch, joined by Justice Thomas, filed a concurring opinion saying in part:

Not a single Member of the Court seeks to defend Boston’s view that a municipal policy allowing all groups to fly their flags, secular and religious alike, would offend the Establishment Clause.

How did the city get it so wrong? To be fair, at least some of the blame belongs here and traces back to Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U. S. 602 (1971)....

To justify a policy that discriminated against religion, Boston sought to drag Lemon once more from its grave. It was a strategy as risky as it was unsound. Lemon ignored the original meaning of the Establishment Clause, it disregarded mountains of precedent, and it substituted a serious constitutional inquiry with a guessing game. This Court long ago interred Lemon, and it is past time for local officials and lower courts to let it lie.

11th Circuit Hears Oral Arguments In City Prayer Vigil Case

 Yesterday, the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments (audio of full arguments) in Rojas v. City of Ocala, Florida. In the case, , a Florida federal district court held that the City of Ocala, Florida and its police chief violated the Establishment Clause when they organized and promoted a prayer vigil in response to a shooting spree plaguing the city. (See prior posting.) Fox35 reports on the case ahead of the oral arguments.

Free Exercise Challenge To Washington Vaccine Mandate Is Dismissed

 In Wise v. Inslee, (ED WA, April 27, 2022), a Washington federal district court dismissed various challenges to Washington state's vaccine mandate for certain state employees, including free exercise, Title VII religious discrimination, and Establishment Clause claims. The court said in part:

... [T]he State clearly has a legitimate government interest in preventing the spread of COVID-19, an interest that has been endorsed by the Ninth Circuit.... Additionally, the Proclamation is rationally related to that interest because it is based on overwhelming evidence that the vaccines are safe and effective, and increasing vaccination rates among those employees who come into regular contact with vulnerable populations is a rational action to reduce the spread of COVID-19. Accordingly, the Proclamation easily survives federal constitutional scrutiny....

Prayer At The 50-Yard Line: SCOTUS Hears Football Coach's Case This Morning

This morning, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District. In the case, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a high school's actions against a football coach who insisted on praying at the 50-yard line immediately after football games. The coach was placed on paid administrative leave and given negative performance reviews. He did not reapply to coach the following year. A divided 9th Circuit denied en banc review. (See prior posting.) Amy Howe at SCOTUSblog previews the case, saying in part:

... Kennedy and the school district disagree not only about the legal issues and their implications, but also about many of the facts, including exactly why Kennedy lost his job. Kennedy says he was fired for briefly and privately praying at midfield; Laser and the school district counter that he was suspended for “refusing to stop holding public prayers at the 50-yard line,” which created both pressure for students to join him and “genuine safety concerns for students on the fields because of the spectacle that ensued from his media outreach on praying.”

The SCOTUSblog case page has links to the filings in the case, including the dozens of amicus briefs that have been submitted. Live audio of the oral arguments, which begin at 10:00 AM, will be available at this link. When the transcript and recording of the oral arguments become available later today, I will update this post with links to them.

UPDATE Here are links to the transcript and audio of the oral arguments.

Deputy Sheriff May Be Liable For Failing To Stop Fellow Officer From Carrying Out Coercive Baptism

In Riley v. Hamilton County Government, (ED TN, April 7, 2022), a Tennessee federal district court refused to dismiss an Establishment Clause, as well as a 4th Amendment, claim against Deputy Sheriff Jacob Goforth for his role in Deputy Sheriff Daniel Wilkey's baptism of Shandle Riley. Wilkey had pulled Riley over for a traffic stop and discovered that she had marijuana in her car. After searching Riley and her car, Wilkey began to talk with Riley about religion, asking her if she had been baptized. According to the court:

Wilkey told her “God [was] talking to him” and assured her that, if she got baptized, he would only write her a citation and she would be free to go about her business.... According to Riley, Wilkey also indicated that he would speak at court on her behalf if she agreed.... Riley decided to go along with this plan because she“[did not] want to go to jail.” ... She also “thought [Wilkey] was a God-fearing, church-like man who saw something . . . in [her], that God talked to him,” and testified that “it felt good to believe that for a minute.”

Wilkey asked another deputy on duty, Jacob Goforth, to witness his baptism of Riley. According to the court: 

any reasonable officer would have recognized that coerced participation in a Christian baptism—an overtly religious act with no secular purpose—was unlawful.... There are genuine disputes of material fact concerning whether Riley was coerced into the baptism, whether she would have faced harsher penalties had she refused to be baptized, and whether Goforth should have known that Riley was being coerced. This is enough to preclude summary judgment on this issue....

Goforth had fair warning that he had a duty to intervene to stop constitutional violations of this nature. And a reasonable jury could conclude that Goforth had both notice of the violation and an opportunity to stop the baptism. Accordingly, Goforth is not entitled to summary judgment on Riley’s First Amendment claim....

The court also held that that Goforth was not entitled to qualified immunity on Riley's claim of an unreasonable seizure.

5th Circuit Hears Oral Arguments In Texas Courtroom Prayer Case

On Tuesday, the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments in Freedom From Religion Foundation v. Mack. (Audio of full oral arguments). In the case, a Texas federal district court held that a program devised by a Justice of the Peace under which his court sessions are opened with a prayer from a volunteer chaplain violates the Establishment Clause. (See prior posting.)  Last July, the 5th Circuit granted a stay pending appeal of the Texas district court's declaratory judgment order. (See prior posting.)

Suit Challenges Latest Application Of Vermont Town Tuition Program

Suit was filed last week in a Vermont federal district court challenging the manner in which the state administers its Town Tuition Program that provides tuition reimbursement for students from towns that do not have their own public high schools. Reimbursement is available for attendance at private or out-of-district public high schools.  The complaint (full text) in Plaintiff E. W. v. French, (D VT, filed 2/24/2022), alleges that the state's current policy:

requires school districts to collect information on private religious schools' religious activity and to reduce or deny tuition benefits to account for religious schools' "religious worship" or "religious education."

The suit contends that this violates plaintiffs free exercise, free speech, Establishment Clause and due process rights, saying in part:

Defendants have no legitimate interest in enacting a greater separation of Church and State than is provided by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

The Town Tuition Program has been the subject of extensive prior litigation. (See prior posting.) ADF issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Settlement Reached In Dispute Over VA Hospital's Display Of Bible

AP reports that the parties have reached an agreement leading to a New Hampshire federal district court's dismissal of a suit against the Manchester VA Medical Center.  The suit, filed in 2019, challenged a lobby "missing man" display that includes a Bible. (See prior posting.) Under the settlement agreement, the Military Religious Freedom Foundation will apply for permission to set up a second table that will feature an American flag and a published, generic Book of Faith, along with a granite stone engraved with "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

Suit Challenges School Assembly Featuring Evangelical Minister

Suit was filed yesterday in a West Virginia federal district court by students at Huntington High School and their parents alleging that a school assembly featuring Nik Walker, a Christian evangelical minister, violated the Establishment Clause.  The complaint (full text) in Mays v. Cabell County Board of Education, (SD WV, filed 2/17/2022), alleges in part:

Most recently, schools within Cabell County sponsored religious revivals during the school day. At the behest of adult evangelists, Huntington High School held an assembly for students that sought to convert students to evangelical Christianity. Some students were forced to attend. Regardless of whether attendance is mandatory or voluntary, the Defendants violate the First Amendment by permitting, coordinating, and encouraging students to attend an adult-led worship service and revival at their school during the school day.

Freedom From Religion Foundation, in a press release announcing the lawsuit, reports that on Feb. 9, more than 100 students staged a walkout in protest of the assembly.