9th Circuit: Religious References At Sentencing Hearing Were OK

In United States v. Hong, (9th Cir., March 17, 2020), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held that a district court did not violate defendants' free exercise rights at a sentencing hearing in a fraud case, saying in part:

The district court did not plainly err in describing how the Hongs used religion to carry out their fraudulent scheme, in commenting on video footage showing Grace Hong speaking to a church group, or in mentioning the spiritual harm suffered by the Hongs’ victims. The Hongs point to no binding legal authority precluding a sentencing court from considering the religion of the victims or noting the spiritual impact of an offense on the victims. 

Some Louisville Religious Leaders Question Governor's Call For Halt To Services To Combat Coronavirus

In order to slow the spread of COVID-19, officials in various parts of the United States, as well as in a number of other countries, have encouraged or required cancellation of gatherings of large numbers of persons.  These have often specifically included a call for cancellation of religious services.  For the most part, churches and synagogues have cooperated with these government requests. However, the reaction yesterday of some religious leaders in Louisville, Kentucky to a request (full text) by Governor Andy Beshear raises in a new context a possible clash between government mandated health measures and religious rights.  The Louisville Courier Journal reports:

... [T]he request has caused confusion for congregations citywide, with some seeing it as an affront to their religions.

"Places that at one time seemed safe and sacred are now being called out as viral threats," the Interdenominational Ministerial Coalition said in a statement Wednesday. "The sanctity of church is needed during this uncertain time."....

The Rev. Stephen Smith adamantly said Portland Memorial Missionary Baptist Church will not cancel services for its 800 members. "You're not closing grocery stores, you're not closing gas stations, so no — we're not closing anything," Smith said.... 

"If we tried to shut the [Lenten] fish fry down we'd have a protest in the street," Smith said. "These people are going to come and get their fish; they're not thinking about a virus."...

... [T]he Archdiocese of Louisville.... issued a statement saying that it would not call for a cancellation of daily or weekend Masses.

"The Sunday celebration of the Eucharist is at the center of the life of the Church," the statement read. "Perhaps especially in difficult times, liturgical gatherings are a source of comfort and hope for the faithful, as well as an opportunity to offer our prayers to God for those who are suffering or who cannot be with us."

"At the same time, it is important – especially for those who are ill, feel vulnerable, or feel afraid – to be able to exercise individual discretion in light of this situation."

Christian Evangelists May Move Ahead With Part of Their Challenges To Restrictions On Them At City Festival

In O'Connell v. City of New Bern, North Carolina, (ED NC, March 10, 2020), a North Carolina federal district court allowed two Christian evangelists to move ahead with certain of their claims of unconstitutional treatment at the city's Mumfest-- an annual fall festival held in the historic downtown district.  The court held that the city did not infringe plaintiffs' 1st Amendment rights in barring them from carrying a nine-foot tall cross, using a loud megaphone to proselytize, or distributing literature, all in violation of city ordinances. The court did however allow plaintiffs to move ahead with their free speech and free exercise challenges to an officer moving them from the roadway to the sidewalk and placing a beeping firetruck and then a beeping utility cart between them and festival attendees who had gathered in the intersection.  The court said in part:

Defendant Conway testified that he ... placed a beeping cart in between plaintiffs and festival attendees because people were “getting aggravated” and “becoming aggressive” towards plaintiffs’ group.... Defendant Conway testified that individuals waived a rainbow flag in plaintiff O’Connell’s face and yelled at him.... In the past, individuals threw Mountain Dew bottles at plaintiff O’Connell, threatened plaintiff O’Connell with violence, and assaulted the police officers guarding plaintiff O’Connell....  Because “[l]isteners’ reaction to speech is not a content-neutral basis for regulation,” the court applies strict scrutiny to defendant Conway’s decision to order plaintiffs to the sidewalk and place a beeping cart between them and festival attendees in 2015.

Supervision of Sex Offender's Church Attendance Upheld

In State of Washington v. Mecham, (WA App., March 2, 2020), a Washington state appellate court rejected a free exercise challenge to a community custody condition imposed on a convicted sex offender. Under a negotiated plea agreement, appellant, among other things, was prohibited from attending church services unless accompanied and supervised by an adult aware of his offenses and approved by his Community Corrections Officer.  In upholding the prohibition, the court said in part:

Mecham’s crime involved abusing an unsupervised child at church. The day of the offense, Mecham was attending church with his mother, father, and older brother. Mecham has failed to show that these members of his family, who presumably know his offense, will be unable to supervise his attendance at church. Thus, from the record, Mecham will be able to continue attending church services in the same manner as before his conviction.

Further, even if the restriction unduly burdened Mecham’s free exercise, the restriction satisfies strict scrutiny....

The State has a compelling interest to protect families who attend church services from Mecham. Mecham committed the offense in a church. He abused a seven-year-old in the church playroom while the congregation enjoyed lunch upstairs....  Mecham needs supervision to prevent this type of contact.

No 1st Amendment Violation In Requiring Parolee To Live At Christian Homeless Shelter

In Janny v. Gamez, (D CO, Feb. 21, 2020), a Colorado federal district court dismissed an inmate's First Amendment challenge to his arrest for parole violations. Mark Janny's parole officer directed him to stay at a Christian homeless shelter in order to meet the parole requirement that he establish a residence of record. Janny was expelled from the shelter's program when he refused to attend chapel religious services. The court held that plaintiff's Establishment Clause rights were not infringed because there was a secular purpose for the homeless shelter requirement. The court also accepted defendant's qualified immunity defense to an assertion of free exercise violations, saying that it was not clearly established that a parole officer violates a parolee’s rights by requiring him to reside at a facility that provides religious programming.

Parents Sue School District Over Its Transgender Policy

A group of parent filed suit this week against the Madison, Wisconsin school district challenging the district's policy on transgender students.  The complaint (full text) in Doe I v. Madison Metropolitan School District, (WI Cir. Ct., filed 2/18/2020) contends that the district's policy violates state constitutional provisions protecting parental rights and their free exercise of religion. The complaint describes the district's policy as follows:

The policy enables children, of any age, to socially transition to a different gender identity at school without parental notice or consent, requires all teachers to enable this transition, and then prohibits teachers from communicating with parents about this potentially life-altering choice without the child’s consent. Even more, the Madison School District directs its teachers and staff to deceive parents by reverting to the child’s birth name and corresponding pronouns whenever the child’s parents are nearby.

The complaint goes on to allege:

As a direct result of their religious beliefs, if these Plaintiffs’ children ever experience gender dysphoria, they would not i mmediately “affirm” whatever beliefs their children might have about their gender, but would instead remind them that they were “fearfully and wonderfully made,” see Psalm 139:14, and seek to help them identify and address the underlying causes of the dysphoria and learn to accept and embrace their God-given sex.

... At the same time, Plaintiffs w ill never stop loving their children, or love them any less, no matter what they believe about their gender.

LGBTQ Nation reports on the lawsuit.

Free Exercise Claim As To Marijuana Use Is Rejected

In State of Ohio v. Cook, (OH App., Feb. 10, 2020), an Ohio state appellate court rejected a defendant's claim that his use of marijuana-- which he claimed was part of his Shamanism religion-- violated his free exercise rights. The court said in part:

Even assuming that Cook’s “religious” beliefs are sincerely held, and even assuming that the law restricts his practice, there is certainly a compelling state interest in regulating the use of Schedule I controlled substances. Moreover, the drug laws are facially religion-neutral, and do not target any specific sect of any religion. Thus we find that they are narrowly tailored.... For these reasons we cannot find that the trial court erred in overruling Cook’s suppression motions. 

Court Denies Preliminary Injunction To Pastor Targeted For Ministering To Migrants

In Dousa v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, (SD CA, Jan. 28, 2020), a California federal district court refused to grant a preliminary injunction to a Christian pastor who claimed that her right to freely exercise her religion was substantially burdened by federal government's surveillance, brief detention and harassment of her. She contended that the government's actions amounted to retaliation for her activities ministering to asylum seekers and migrant on the Mexican side of the U.S. southern border. Denying a preliminary injunction, the court said in part:

Dousa has not shown at this stage that the Government has substantially burdened her Free Exercise rights. The harms she alleges—a “canceled trip to Mexico, refrain[ing] from blessing migrant marriages, hav[ing] her pastoral counseling chilled,” ... are subjective, and the Ninth Circuit is clear that “a subjective chilling effect on free exercise rights is not sufficient to constitute a substantial burden.”

However the court refused to completely dismiss her allegations of 1st Amendment and RFRA violations, saying in part:

It bears repeating that a preliminary injunction is an “extraordinary remedy that may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief.” ... The conclusion here that Dousa is not entitled to an injunction is simply a finding that she has not made that “clear showing” at this stage; it is not a finding that she cannot make that showing down the line, perhaps with the advantage of additional discovery.

Courthouse News Service reports on the decision.

Canadian Court Says Indigenous Events In School Did Not Infringe Religious Freedom of Christian Students

In Canada, in Servatius v. Board of Education School District No. 70, (BC Sup. Ct., Jan. 8, 2020), a British Columbia trial court judge rejected claims of infringement of religious freedom asserted by the mother of two school children. The court summarized the dispute:

As part of an effort to acquaint students with Indigenous culture and to promote a sense of belonging in Indigenous children, a Nuu-chah-nulth Elder visited a Port Alberni elementary school and demonstrated the practice of smudging. A few months later, an assembly at this public school witnessed an Indigenous dance performance, in the midst of which the dancer said a prayer. The petitioner is an evangelical Christian. Her nine-year-old daughter and seven-year-old son were enrolled in the school and witnessed these demonstrations of Indigenous culture and spirituality.

In dismissing the claims, the court said in part:

When arrangements are made for Indigenous events in its schools, even events with elements of spirituality, the School District is not professing or favouring Indigenous beliefs. Educators are holding these events to teach about Indigenous culture, and to introduce students to Indigenous perspectives and worldviews....

I conclude that proof on an objective basis of interference with the ability of the petitioner or her children to act in accordance with their religious beliefs requires more than the children being in the presence of an Elder demonstrating a custom with spiritual overtones or being in the presence of a dancer who said a brief prayer. In most instances, it is not difficult to recognize the boundary between a student learning about different beliefs and being made to participate in spiritual rituals. A field trip to a mosque to watch prayers would be learning about Islam; an Imam coming to the classroom and demonstrating prayer rituals would likewise not be problematic. However, in either of these cases, if the involvement of the students progressed to being called upon to pray or read from the Koran then it might well be said that educators have compelled the manifestation of a specific religious practice or the affirmation of a specific religious belief. If a Catholic priest came to school with altar candles and a censer containing incense to acquaint the students with the sights and scents of Church rites, this would seem to be well within the bounds of what the S.L. case stands for: religious freedom is not compromised when students are taught about other beliefs. If, however, the children underwent a baptism, this would be far over the line.

(See prior related posting.)

Religious Group's Distribution of Vegan Food May Be Expressive Conduct

In Krishna Lunch of Southern California, Inc. v. Gordon, (9th Cir., Jan. 13, 2020), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held that Krishna Lunch had plausibly pleaded that its distribution of sanctified vegan and vegetarian food (prasada) is protected expressive conduct under the 1st Amendment. The court explained:

While distributing prasada, the organization plans on chanting the names of God and other devotional hymns and songs, speaking with interested students and others of the University of California, Los Angeles (“UCLA”) community, distributing religious literature, and displaying signs depicting reincarnation, animal protectionism, and other topics related to its followers’ beliefs. Drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of Krishna Lunch, we can infer that in these circumstances an onlooker would understand the distribution of food “to be communicative.”

However the court dismissed the organization's free exercise claim, finding that UCLA's four-times-per-year policy is neutral and generally applicable, and saying:

Krishna Lunch has not negated every conceivable basis that might support the policy.

State Senator's Threats Were Not Religious Speech

In Boquist v. Oregon State Senate President Peter Courtney, (D OR, Jan. 7, 2020), an Oregon federal district court rejected claims by Oregon state senator Brian Boquist that his constitutional rights, including his 1st Amendment rights, were violated when state Senate leaders imposed a requirement that he give 12-hours notice before entering the Capitol building. The notice requirement was imposed in reaction to statements made by Boquist that others saw as threatening.  All of this occurred during a political battle in which Republican senators left the Capitol in order to prevent a quorum from being present in the Senate, and the governor ordered state police to arrest them and bring them back. Rejecting Boquist's 1st Amendment claims, the court said in part:

While both sides can point fingers and complain that the other is overreacting to a political situation, Plaintiff’s chosen words on the Senate floor were those of a bully on the playground. As such, they are unprotected fighting words. See Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568, 572 (1942).... Remarkably, Plaintiff argues that his statement to Defendant Courtney— “if you send the [S]tate [P]olice to get me, Hell’s coming to visit you personally”—was a statement of religious expression.... But here, Plaintiff seems to overlook the fact that he sounds more like a character out of a Clint Eastwood movie than he does Mother Theresa.... Plaintiff made this statement in anticipation of his potential arrest, not during a religious discussion. Plaintiff also said that if the State Police were to arrest him, they should “send bachelors and come heavily armed.”... These statements, apart and together, resonate more as threats than the expression of theological ideas.

The Oregonian reports on the decision.

Suit Challenges Postal Service's Rules On Content of Customized Stamps

Suit was filed earlier this month in a Texas federal district court challenging the constitutionality of a portion of the U.S. Postal Service's regulation (39 CFR §501.21) that limits the depictions that may be placed on customized postage stamps produced by private providers authorized by USPS. The regulation limits, among other things, "Any depiction of political, religious, violent or sexual content".  The complaint, (full text) in Fletcher v. U.S. Postal Service, (ED TX, filed 12/19/2019), contends that plaintiff's free speech and free exercise rights (including her rights under RFRA) are violated because she will be unable to create personalized postage stamps that allow her to share her love of Christmas and other holidays through PhotoStamps.com's website.  According to the complaint:

16. The website also requires customers to agree that Stamps.com, in its sole discretion, may determine if designs meet the eligibility criteria and may also reject orders without explanations. If customers submit a design Stamps.com determines is in violation of their requirements, those customers may be charged a processing fee of $10 per image.

17. If customers publicly complain about the rejection of a stamp design, Stamps.com claims it will be harmed and may pursue legal action. The website states, “[if] you intentionally publicize such violation, you acknowledge that Stamps.com will suffer substantial damage to its reputation and goodwill and that you can be liable for causing such substantial damage.”

The complaint goes on to allege that:

... USPS chose to promulgate a regulation allowing third-party providers, such as PhotoStamps, to discriminate against speech. Regulation 39 C.F.R. § 501.7(c)(1) requires the provider—here, PhotoStamps—to ensure that what it prints is “[c]onsistent with the Postal Service’s intent to maintain neutrality on religious, social, political, legal, moral, or other public issues.”

First Liberty Institute issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Suit Filed Against Synagogue Picketers

A lawsuit was filed last week in a Michigan federal district court against protesters who, every Saturday for the last 16 years, have picketed an Ann Arbor synagogue with anti-Israel and anti-Jewish signs. The 85-page complaint (full text) in Gerber v. Herskovitz, (ED MI, filed 12/19/2019) contends in part:

The conduct of the protesters is infringing on the 1st Amendment right of the congregants to exercise their freedom of religion without being harassed and insulted by the protesters. The City, by its failure to enforce its own Code provisions to curtail the protesters' conduct, is aiding and abetting the protesters harassment of the congregants, thereby making the protesters state actors under 42 U.S.C. §1983 and the protesters and the City co-conspirators under §§ 42 U.S.C. 1983 and 1985(3)....

The 1st Amendment right of free speech does not entitle a speaker to use that right repeatedly as a bludgeon, for weeks and years at a time, in the same location, rather than as a means of legitimate communication in an effort to convey information and persuade others to the speaker's point of view.

M Live reports on the lawsuit. [Thanks to Tom Rutledge for the lead.]

Free Exercise Challenge To Vermont's Dual Enrollment Program Moves Ahead

In A.M. v. French, (D VT, Dec. 29, 2019), a Vermont federal district court refused to dismiss plaintiffs' claim that Vermont's administration of its Dual Enrollment Program for high school students violates their right to free exercise of religion.  Vermont pays tuition for high school students to take a limited number of courses at colleges.  While public school, home schooled and private non-sectarian school students may participate in the program, students at religious high schools are not eligible. The court held in part:

Because Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged that the DEP Provision is not neutral and generally applicable, the burden shifts to Defendant to prove that the State's enforcement of the DEP Provision withstands strict scrutiny....

The State's intent appears to be ... the avoidance of using public fundes to subsidize religious worship. A state's "policy preference for skating as far as possible from religious establishment concerns" is not a state interest of the highest order because "achieving greater separation of church and State than is already ensured under the Establishment Clause of the Federal Constitution ... is limited by the Free Exercise Clause." Trinity Lutheran, 137 S. Ct. at 2024....

The court also rejected as adequate other justifications offered by the state for the exclusion of religious school students. (See prior related posting.)

Court Dismisses Challenges To NY Repeal of Religious Exemption From Vaccination Requirement

In F.F. on behalf of her minor children v. State of New York, (Albany Cty NY Sup. Ct., Dec. 3, 2019), a New York state trial court upheld New York's repeal of the religious exemption to the state's compulsory vaccination requirement for school children.  The court rejected Free Exercise, Free Speech and Equal Protection challenges to the repeal.  The suit was brought by some 55 families of school children. In rejecting free exercise claims by plaintiffs, the parents of school children, the court rejected their argument that the object of the law was to target religion rather than protect public health.  The court went on to say in part:

[P]lainitffs most strenuous argument for applying strict scrutiny is that the repeal of the legislation was infected by statements made by individual legislators whose comments, they say, demonstrate unconstitutional hostility toward plaintiffs' sincerely held religious beliefs.  For this argument, Plaintiffs cite Masterpiece Cakeshop Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Comm'n., (138 S Ct 1719 [2018]), where the Supreme Court relied on the comments of individual members of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, which sanctioned a baker for his refusal to make a wedding cake for a same sex couple....

This Court declines to extend that part of the Supreme Court's analysis in Masterpiece Cakeshop, which probed the comments of individual members of a decision-making body to the collective decision-making of New York State's Legislature and Executive.... [I]n Masterpiece Cakeshop, the Court considered the remarks of a seven-member administrative body, not a state legislature.

The trial court had previously denied a preliminary injunction against the exemption repeal (see prior posting), and the state appellate court summarily affirmed that decision. Albany Times-Union reports on the trial court's latest decision.

California Denied Preliminary Injunction In License Dispute Over Faith Based Teen Rescue Facility

In a Tentative Ruling (full text [scroll down]) in Leary v. Teen Rescue,(Shasta Cty. Calif. Super. Ct., Nov. 18, 2019), a California state trial court judge refused to enter a preliminary injunction that would shut down a residential facility for abused and neglected children.  The state claims that the facility should be regulated under state law as a "community care facility." The court agrees that the state has a reasonable probability of prevailing at trial on this claim, but says that there remains a significant religious free exercise question:

Defendants argue that they choose to address behavior through faith-based practices. Compliance with the Act and licensure would impact Defendants’ rights to free exercise of religion, in that 22 CCR § 80072 mandates that students be “free to attend religious services or activities of his/her choice and have visits from the spiritual advisor of his/her choice.” Further, “Attendance at religious services, in or outside of the facility, shall be on a completely voluntary basis” (“the spiritual exploration provisions”). Additionally, the Act provides students the right “[t]o be free from acts that seek to change his or her sexual orientation . . .” (“the SOCE prohibit”). The Act requires staff be trained in “[c]ultural competency and sensitivity in issues relating to the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender communities” (“the LGBT cultural competency requirement”)....

The State advances the argument that requiring community care facilities to train staff in sensitivity to LGBTQ issues is neutral and does not infringe on or restrict religious practices. Defendants hold beliefs that are in direct opposition to this requirement. ....

There is no question that the protection of children – especially the particularly sensitive population of children Defendants seek out for their facility – is of great importance. However, the Court must also consider the foreseeable harm to the defendants in granting this injunction. “The loss of First Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.” Elrod v. Burns (1976) 427 US 347, 373. The Court is concerned about the potential impact of the preliminary injunction on Plaintiff’s First Amendment freedoms, and the attendant presumption of irreparable injury to Defendants if this injunction were to be granted prior to a full determination of the facts of the case. 

Pacific Justice Institute issued a press release announcing the decision.

Suit Challenges New York's Ban On Reproductive Health Care Employment Discrimination

A lawsuit was filed last week in a New York federal district court by a pro-life pregnancy care center, a religious pro-life pregnancy care center membership organization and a Baptist church challenging the constitutionality of  New York's SB 660 which was signed into law earlier this month. the new law prohibits employers from taking action against an employee because of reproductive health care decisions by the employee or their dependents.  It bars employers from accessing information about employees' reproductive health decision making or requiring waivers by employees of their right to make such decisions. The complaint (full text) in CompassCare v. Cuomo, ND NY, filed 11/14/2019), alleges in part:

SB 660 is a transparent attempt to meddle in the affairs of religious and pro-life organizations—including but not limited to pregnancy care centers, churches, and schools—by forcing them to employ and associate with those persons who do not share or live by the organizations’ beliefs regarding abortion, contraception, and the impropriety of sexual relations outside the context of a marriage between a man and a woman.....

Taken together, these requirements compromise the very reason for being of these organizations, which is to promote life, oppose abortion, and teach and live a sexual ethic consistent with biblical principles.

The suit claims that the law violates their free speech and free exercise rights. CNA reports on the lawsuit.

11th Circuit: Christian School Can Proceed In Challenge To Pre-Game Loudspeaker Prayer Ban

In Cambridge Christian School, Inc. v. Florida High School Athletic Association, Inc., (11th Cir., Nov. 13, 2019), the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals held that a Christian school could move ahead with its complaint that its free speech and free exercise rights were infringed when it was denied permission to broadcast a joint prayer over the loudspeaker at the state championship high school football game. Both schools in the playoff were Christian schools. In its 70-page opinion, the court said in part:

As we see it, the district court was too quick to dismiss all of Cambridge Christian’s claims out of hand. Taking the complaint in a light most favorable to the plaintiff, as we must at this stage in the proceedings, the schools’ claims for relief under the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses have been adequately and plausibly pled. There are too many open factual questions for us to say with confidence that the allegations cannot be proven as a matter of law. The question of whether all speech over the microphone was government speech is a heavily fact-intensive one that looks at the history of the government’s use of the medium for communicative purposes, the implication of government endorsement of messages carried over that medium, and the degree of government control over those messages.... [B]ased on this limited record, we find it plausible that the multitude of messages delivered over the loudspeaker should be viewed as private, not government, speech. And while we agree with the district court that the loudspeaker was a nonpublic forum, we conclude that Cambridge Christian has plausibly alleged that it was arbitrarily and haphazardly denied access to the forum in violation of the First Amendment. Likewise, we cannot say, again drawing all inferences in favor of the appellant, that in denying scommunal prayer over the loudspeaker, the FHSAA did not infringe on Cambridge Christian’s free exercise of religion.

WCTV News reports on the decision.

Christian Student Group Can Retain Selective Leadership Requirements

In Intervarsity Christian Fellowship USA v. University of Iowa, (SD IA, Sept. 27, 2019), an Iowa federal district court held that the University of Iowa and three of its administrators violated the free speech and free exercise rights of a Christian student organization when it revoked its registered student organization status. The University's action was taken because Intervarsity Christian Fellowship required its leaders to affirm the groups Christian statement of faith. The court said in part:

by granting the exceptions it has to the Human Rights Policy and refusing to make a similar exception for InterVarsity, the University has made a value judgment that its secular reasons for deviating from the Human Rights Policy are more important than InterVarsity’s religious reasons for the deviation it seeks. Because this reflects an impermissible “value judgment in favor of secular motivations,” ... the University’s decision to deregister InterVarsity is subject to strict scrutiny.

Becket issued a press release announcing the decision.

Fired Teacher Sues Saying Requirements On Pronouns For Transgender Students Violated His Rights

A Virginia high school teacher filed suit yesterday in a Virginia state trial court challenging his firing for refusing to use male pronouns to refer to a transgender student in his French class.  The complaint (full text) in Vlaming v. West Point School Board, (VA Cir. Ct., filed 10/1-/2019), claims that the teacher's free speech and free exercise rights, as well as other rights, were violated. Plaintiff contends that the case is

about whether the government may force [plaintiff] to express ideas about human nature, unrelated to the school's curriculum, that he believes are false.

Plaintiff also contends that

[his] views and expression related to gender identity, would require [him] to violate his sincerely held religious beliefs.

Washington Post reports on the lawsuit.