ED's Title IX Rule Violates 1st Amendment

 In Carroll Independent School District v. U.S. Department of Education, (ND TX, Feb. 19, 2025), a Texas federal district court invalidated the Department of Education’s rule that interprets Title IX as prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. The court had previously issued a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of the rule against plaintiff school district.  The court now permanently vacates the Rule, finding, among other things, that it violates the First Amendment. The court said in part:

Because “misgendering” could, under this broad standard, constitute hostile environment harassment, teachers will “assume they should use subjective gender terms to avoid discipline under the Final Rule.”

As a consequence, recipients of Title IX funds, including teachers, are forced “to be an instrument for fostering public adherence to an ideological point of view [they] find[] unacceptable.”... The Final Rule functionally turns recipients of federal funds into federally commandeered censors of speech, forcing schools to require engagement in or, at a minimum, to prohibit certain kinds of speech, which in turn represses what has long been regarded as protected forms of expression and religious exercise.

ADF issued a press release announcing the decision.

Anti-Abortion Pregnancy Centers Sue Challenging Delaware Disclaimer Requirements

Suit was filed this week in a Delaware federal district court challenging a new Delaware law that requires pro-life pregnancy centers to include in all advertising and to disseminate to clients onsite a disclaimer stating:  "This facility is not licensed as a medical facility by the state of Delaware and has no licensed medical provider who provides or directly supervises the provision of services." The complaint (full text) in National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Jennings, (D DE, filed 2/12/2025) alleges that this requirement violates the free speech and free exercise rights of pregnancy care centers. The complaint alleges in part:

13. ... [The law] is a classic example of compelled speech in violation of the Free Speech Clause. The law is expressly content-based both because it compels the content of speech and because it regulates only speakers who wish to discuss the subject of pregnancy from a pro-life perspective rather than any other health topic.

14. The law is also viewpoint based, because it is designed to target pro-life pregnancy care centers and burdens, restricts, chills, or in some circumstances legally prohibits their message. It does not similarly impact pro-abortion advocacy groups, individuals, or facilities. 

15. The law also infringes upon the free exercise rights of the pregnancy care centers which are founded with a religious mission to engage and support women, but will be forced to drown out their religiously motivated messages (including ones with primarily or exclusively religious content) and present misleading information to undercut the opportunities the pregnancy care centers have to engage pregnant women in unplanned or unsupported pregnancies.

ADF issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Refusal To Sell Generic Cake for Same-Sex Wedding Reception Violates California Anti-Discrimination Law

In Civil Rights Department v. Cathy's Creations, Inc., (CA App., Feb. 11, 2025), a California state appellate court in a 74-page opinion held that a bakery violated the anti-discrimination provisions of the Unruh Civil Rights Act (UCRA) when it refused to sell a predesigned white cake to a customer because the cake would be used at the customer's same-sex wedding reception. The bakery had a policy of refusing customer requests that violate fundamental Christian principles. The court rejected defendant's free exercise and free speech defenses and concluded that the bakery's referral of the customer to another bakery did not eliminate the violation. The court said in part:

Here, the policy’s application hinges not on the act of marriage, but on the same sex status of the couple to be married.  Thus, the policy’s purposeful exclusion of same sex couples is facial discrimination because of sexual orientation....

... [T]he fact that Miller’s adoption of the discriminatory policy was driven by her sincerely held religious beliefs rather than malice or ill will is irrelevant to the issue of intentional discrimination....

Discriminatorily denying service and then telling would-be customers they may take their business down the street (or farther) to a separate, unassociated establishment where they may be served by way of referral in no way ensures full and equal access to the product or service at the same price and under the same conditions.... [A] referral to a separate and independent business subjects the customer to “‘the deprivation of personal dignity that surely accompanies denials of equal access to public establishments’” that public accommodation laws like the UCRA are generally designed to address.....

Focusing on the bakery's free speech and free exercise defenses, the court said in part: 

The act of providing a product to a wedding reception with the intent to send a message does not transform that product into pure speech if the product itself is not the self-expression of the vendor.  If this were the case, a host of nonexpressive products or services provided for a same-sex wedding reception could be deemed to convey a message merely because they were provided for the event—e.g., flatware, chairs and linens, etc.  Moreover, many standard products provided to a wedding reception are equally as visible as the cake and used by the couple in a symbolic manner....  The mere fact these products are prepared for and provided to a same-sex wedding in a routine economic transaction does not transform them into the self-expression of the vendor....

There is also little likelihood a viewer would understand the cake’s sale and provision to a same-sex wedding conveyed any message about marriage generally or an endorsement and celebration of same-sex marriage in particular....

Here, the UCRA does not draw any distinctions between secular and religious activities, and there is no evidence the UCRA was enacted as a means to discriminate against religion.  Moreover, defendants’ argument the statutory provisions relating to the preservation of housing for senior citizens ... are contradictory secular exemptions under the UCRA, rendering it not generally applicable, is unpersuasive.

Missouri and Christian Counselors Sue Localities Over Conversion Therapy Bans

Suit was filed last week in a Missouri federal district court against Kansas City and Jackson County, Missouri by the state of Missouri and Christian licensed counselors challenging ordinances passed by those jurisdictions which broadly ban licensed counselors from engaging in counseling directed at changing a minor's sexual orientation or gender identity. The complaint (full text) in Wyatt Bury, LLC v. City of Kansas City, Missouri, (WD MO, filed 2/7/2025), alleges in part:

Kansas City and Jackson County recently passed ordinances that ban purely consensual conversations—pure speech—about gender identity and sexual orientation. These ordinances not only require counselors to parrot these governments’ preferred views on sexual ethics; they also ban different views. That violates the First Amendment. 

340. The Counseling Ordinances facially and as-applied restrict speech based on content and viewpoint by prohibiting the Counselors and other licensed professionals who are Missouri citizens from proclaiming only certain content and viewpoints; by applying to speech based solely on its content; by authorizing counseling that supports only one viewpoint of gender identity and sexual orientation....  

353. The Public Accommodation Ordinance forces the Counselors to speak messages they object to by requiring them to offer and provide same-sex marital and relationship counseling because the Counselors offer and provide counseling about marriages and relationships between one man and one woman.... and to refer to clients and prospective clients by using those persons’ self-selected pronouns....

376. The City’s Public Accommodation Ordinance substantially burdens the Counselors’ sincerely held religious beliefs by requiring them either to operate their counseling practices in ways that violate their religious beliefs or to close their practices....

Plaintiffs also challenge the ordinances on vagueness grounds. 

ADF issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuits.

Evangelist Can Move Ahead with Free Speech Claim Against Officer Who Arrested Him at Pride Festival

In Cocchini v. City of Franklin, Tennessee, (MD TN, Feb. 6, 2025), a Tennessee federal district court held that plaintiff, a Christian evangelist, had successfully stated a claim for violation of his 1st Amendment free speech rights. Plaintiff was asked by a police officer to leave a Pride Festival after he began to share his Christian testimony with two women at a church booth.  When he refused to leave, he was arrested. He sued, contending that the police officer discriminated against him by impermissibly regulating his speech conducted in a public forum. The police office asserted a defense of qualified immunity. The court said in part:

Here, Cocchini has alleged facts plausibly demonstrating that the Park remained a public forum throughout Franklin Pride....

There are two competing stories for Cocchini’s exclusion from the Park.  Officer Spry says he removed Cocchini from the public forum, causing him to cease his peaceful invited religious speech, apparently for violating Tennessee’s criminal trespass law....  However, the Complaint alleges that Officer Spry told Cocchini on the day of his arrest, and under oath, that he arrested Cocchini because a Franklin Pride TN security event coordinator wanted him removed.....  Taking the allegations in the Complaint as true, Cocchini sufficiently asserts that the justification for his exclusion from the Park, and arrest, was based on the content of his speech....

If the arrest was to “avoid offense to gay, lesbian, or transgender individuals,” as the Complaint alleges, such an interest (compelling or not) is not narrowly tailored by arresting individuals like Cocchini who express religious views....

... [I]if as Cocchini alleges, Officer Spry arrested him “because of the content of his speech,” then he “acted in violation of the First Amendment in ways that should have been clear to a reasonable officer.” ... This is a disputed issue of fact such that “development of the factual record is [] necessary to decide whether [Officer Spry’s] actions violated clearly established law.” ...

The court however dismissed plaintiff's equal protection claim which was based only on the alleged violation of his 1st Amendment rights.

Title VI Does Not Cover Protected Speech, But Antisemitic Actions at Cooper Union Went Beyond Speech

In Gartenberg v. The Cooper Union for the Advancement of Science and Art, (SD NY, Feb. 5, 2025), a New York federal district court held that Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act must be applied consistent with the 1st Amendment, even as to private schools. In the case, a group of Jewish students asserted a claim for deliberate indifference to national-origin harassment under Title VI growing out of on-campus incidents after the Gaza-Israel conflict began. The court said in part:

First, speech “on a matter of public concern, directed to the college community,” will generally fail to “constitute unlawful harassment.” ...

[C]onstruing Title VI not to reach instances of pure speech on matters of public concern, or an institution’s failure to censor or punish the same, does not mean that such expression is irrelevant to determining whether actionable harassment occurred.  To make out a hostile environment claim, a plaintiff must plead (and then prove) not only that they suffered objectively severe or pervasive harassment, but that the harassment was motivated, at least in part, by a protected characteristic....

Cooper Union’s first line of defense is that none of the speech or conduct identified in Gartenberg’s Complaint was motivated by animus towards Jews, but was instead mere “criticism[] of Israel and/or its policies” and a “show[] of solidarity for the Palestinian cause.”... Gartenberg, by contrast, maintains that Zionism and support for Israel are “an integral part of the national origin and identity of many Jews,” and that Jews’ “belief in Israel as their ancestral national homeland is fundamental to their Jewish identity.” ...

... [T]his case can be resolved without opining on whether conduct or speech hostile to Zionism, itself a term subject to a considerable variety of interpretations, is necessarily antisemitic....

... That the demonstrators at Cooper Union generally avoided the use of overtly antisemitic language and symbols is ... not dispositive. Here, Gartenberg’s Complaint is replete with words and phrases that she alleges are thinly veiled “code words” designed to “activate conscious or subconscious [antisemitic] concepts and frames.”...  On October 25, 2023, for instance, pro-Palestinian students at Cooper Union chanted slogans like “[l]ong live the intifada,” “[r]esistance is justified,” and “[i]t is right to rebel.” ...  Although the parties offer competing interpretations of these slogans, when uttered just two weeks after the deadliest massacre of Jews since the Holocaust in a manner that reasonably appears to celebrate and glorify that same violence, the Court agrees that such phrases support at least a plausible inference of animus towards Jews....

Regardless of whether this expression is better characterized as righteous protest in support of a noble cause, as the vulgar celebration of terrorism and antisemitism, or as something in between, it is not a proper basis on which to impose civil liability on Cooper Union....

Gartenberg’s allegations, however, go beyond identifying instances of pure political speech.  Although the October 25 demonstration began as a peaceful, public protest concerning the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Gartenberg alleges that after a couple hours a mob of protestors forced their way past campus security guards and into the Foundation Building....  

Once inside, the protestors obstructed the hallway and disrupted classes while apparently attempting to locate President Sparks.,,, Unable to find her, the protesters then “descended on the hallway surrounding the library” while continuing to chant their slogans...

It is plausible that this incident was physically threatening or humiliating to the Jewish students huddled inside the library.  The demonstrators “attempted to enter the library, banging on and rattling the locked library doors and shouting ‘let us in!’”...

The Court is dismayed by Cooper Union’s suggestion that the Jewish students should have hidden upstairs or left the building, or that locking the library doors was enough to discharge its obligations under Title VI.  These events took place in 2023—not 1943—and Title VI places responsibility on colleges and universities to protect their Jewish students from harassment, not on those students to hide themselves away in a proverbial attic or attempt to escape from a place they have a right to be.  In sum, the physically threatening or humiliating conduct that the Complaint alleges Jewish students in the library experienced “is entirely outside the ambit of the free speech clause,....

JNS reports on the court's decision.

Teacher Sues After Suspension for Hanging Crucifix in Her Classroom Workspace

Suit was filed last week in a Connecticut federal district court by a public-school teacher who was placed on administrative leave after she refused to remove a crucifix that she had hung among other personal items in personal workspace near her classroom desk. The complaint (full text) in Arroyo-Castro v. Gasper, (D CT, filed 1/30/2025) alleges in part:

Federal and state law prohibit government officials from using the Establishment Clause as an excuse to abridge the free speech and religious free exercise rights of their employees.... Other teachers, meanwhile, display in their classroom workspaces Wonder Woman action figures, images of Baby Yoda and Santa Claus, and other personal expressive items.  Yet only Ms. Castro has been suspended and threatened with termination.  The disparity of treatment here against religious expression makes this an easy case...: if Defendants permit teachers to display personal expressive items like family photos and inspirational quotes in their classrooms, they may not punish Ms. Castro for doing the same by hanging a crucifix in the personal workspace aside her desk.

National Review reports on the lawsuit.

Requirement for Church to Obtain Permit Before Hosting Homeless Encampment Is Upheld

In Miller v. City of Burien, (WD WA, Feb. 3, 2025), a Washington federal district court dismissed a suit brought by a Methodist church challenging the city's requirement that the church apply for and obtain a temporary use permit before it could host a homeless encampment on its property. The court rejected plaintiffs' claims that requiring a permit violated its rights under RLUIPA as well as its free speech and free exercise rights under the 1st Amendment. The court said in part:

The parties concede that caring for unhoused individuals is an “exercise of religion” for purposes of RLUIPA. However, the parties dispute whether requiring the Church to apply for a temporary use permit before it is allowed to host a homeless encampment constitutes “imposing a ‘substantial burden’ on religious exercise” under the statute. It is important to note that this is not a denial of application case; rather, the question here is whether the City can require the Church to submit a permit application.... 

Here, the Church did not apply for a permit, the City did not deny the permit application, and the City did not deny the Church’s the right to host a homeless encampment—indeed, the City supported the Church’s endeavor. However, the City did require that the Church fill out a simple two-page application so that the City could ensure that the health and safety of the neighborhood residents, as well as the encampment occupants, was accounted for. Such minimum inconvenience does not constitute a substantial burden on the Church for purposes of RLUIPA. ...

 ... [T]he Church has failed to plausibly allege that the challenged regulation impacts speech. As such, its prior restraint facial challenge fails as a matter of law and must be dismissed....

... [Z]oning laws that permit some individualized assessment for variances remain “generally applicable” so long as the laws are motivated by secular purposes and impact equally all landowners seeking the variances. That, of course, is the case here. No landowner—secular or religious—is permitted to host a homeless encampment within a multi-family zone without a permit.... Nor has the Church alleged that Burien’s regulatory scheme is religiously motivated.... Therefore, because the Church has failed to plausibly allege that the challenged regulatory scheme was not neutral and not generally applicable, it has failed to state a free exercise claim under the First Amendment.

Michigan's Ban on Conversion Therapy for Minors Is Upheld

In Catholic Charities of Jackson, Lenawee and Hillsdale Counties v. Whitmer, (WD MI, Jan. 28, 2025), a Michigan federal district court refused to issue a preliminary injunction to prevent enforcement against counselors employed by Catholic Charities of Michigan's ban on conversion therapy for minors. The court concluded that plaintiffs were not likely to prove that the ban violates their free speech or free exercise rights, or that is void for vagueness.  The court said in part:

Here, Plaintiffs allege that they believe that “when a client comes to them and seeks to change her gender identity or gender expression to align with her biological sex, or seeks to change her behavior to refrain from acting on same-sex attraction, it is their ethical and religious duty to help that client live the life she desires to live” ...

The law is not subject to any form of heightened scrutiny under the First Amendment because the conduct regulated by the law is not merely “tied to a [medical] procedure,” ..., but consists solely of the administration of the procedure or treatment itself.... 

... In passing the new law, Michigan legislators found that treating children with conversion therapy fell below prevailing standards of care, and Michigan legislators targeted the specific and devastating harms to children that result from conversion therapy, including dramatically increased risks of depression and suicide....

Plaintiffs are not likely to establish the Free Speech violations alleged in Counts I through III....

Assuming, for the sake of argument, that Plaintiffs have plausibly demonstrated that Michigan’s law burdens the free exercise of religion, a law that burdens religious exercise is presumptively unconstitutional unless it is both neutral and generally applicable....

Michigan’s new law readily passes this test of facial neutrality.... There is no reference to religion nor any use of words with religious connotations. Michigan’s law prohibits all conversion therapy on minors, regardless of whether the minor’s (or the minor’s parent’s) motivation for seeking such therapy is religious or secular, or some variation....

Here, Plaintiffs contend that Michigan’s law was enacted with “official expressions of hostility to this well-known religious practice” ....  However, ... the comments Plaintiffs highlight do not necessarily demonstrate hostility to religion, only criticisms of conversion therapy.

News from the States reports on the decision.

Court Refuses to Enjoin Colorado's Reporting Requirements for Health Care Sharing Ministries

In Alliance of Health Care Sharing Ministries v. Conway, (D CO, Jan. 13, 2025), a Colorado federal district court refused to issue a preliminary injunction to prevent enforcement of Colorado's reporting requirement for health care sharing plans, most of which are religiously affiliated. The court said in part:

The Alliance has not made a showing—strong or otherwise—that it is likely to succeed on the merits of any of its claims.  First, the Alliance has not demonstrated that the Reporting Law is not neutral or generally applicable, or that it is not rationally related to a legitimate government interest.  Accordingly, the Alliance has not shown that it is likely to succeed on the merits of its free exercise claim.  Second, generally applicable administrative and recordkeeping regulations like the Reporting Law do not violate the Establishment Clause.  The Alliance is therefore unlikely to succeed on the merits of its Establishment Clause claim.  Third, the Alliance has not shown that the Reporting Law’s requirement that the Alliance’s members disclose certain third-party vendors poses any risk of chilling the Alliance’s members’ First Amendment associational rights.  Thus, the Alliance’s challenge to the Reporting Law on freedom-of-association grounds is unlikely to succeed.  Fourth and finally, the Alliance has not shown that the Reporting Law—in compelling the Alliance’s members divulge their marketing materials and to report factually accurate operations data—violates the Alliance’s members’ free speech rights.  The Alliance therefore has not shown that it is likely to succeed on the merits of its free speech claim.

In a motion filed Jan. 28 (full text), plaintiff seeks an injunction pending appeal.

School's Transgender Policy Does Not Violate Teacher's 1st Amendment Rights

In Polk v. Montgomery County Public Schools, (D MD, Jan. 17, 2025), a public-school substitute teacher alleged that a Maryland school system violated her free exercise and free speech rights when it insisted that she affirm Guidelines on dealing with transgender students. The Guidelines required her to refer to students by their preferred pronouns and barred them from discussing a student's gender identity with the student's parents without the student's consent. Plaintiff insisted that the Guidelines conflict with her religious beliefs. She also contended that under Title VII she is entitled to a reasonable accommodation of her beliefs. The court dismissed plaintiff's free exercise claim, finding that the Guidelines are neutral and generally applicable. It dismissed her free speech claim because the speech required by the Guidelines are part of plaintiff's official duties as a teacher. The court however, while refusing to issue a preliminary injunction, permitted plaintiff to move ahead on her Title VII failure to accommodate claim against the school board saying that the Board's undue hardship defense should be raised at the summary judgement stage of the proceedings rather than on a motion to dismiss.

Suit Challenges Federal Agency Rule Changes Protecting Against Gender Identity Discrimination

Suit was filed last week in a Louisiana federal district court challenging rule changes interpreting five federal statutes. Defendants are HHS, Department of Agriculture, EEOC and the Department of Justice. The rule changes define sex discrimination and sexual harassment as including discrimination or harassment on the basis of gender identity and define gender dysphoria as a disability. The complaint (full text) in Rapides Parish School Board v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, (WD LA, filed 1/17/2025), contends that the rule provisions are not authorized by the various statutes being implemented, are arbitrary and capricious and violate the Spending Clause of the Constitution. It also alleges that various of the rule provisions compel speech in violation of the First Amendment and are unconstitutionally vague. ADF issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

National Guard Officer Sues After Dismissal for His Religion-Based Anti-LGBTQ Views

Suit was filed last week in an Idaho federal district court by an Idaho National Guard officer who was removed from a command position that he had just assumed because of his Christian religious views on sexuality that he had expressed during his previous campaigns for mayor and state senator. The complaint (full text) in Worley v. Little, (D ID, filed 1/17/2025), reads in part:

74. The Investigating Officer stated, in his findings, that Major Worley had “well documented discriminatory views against the LGBTQ community” that “suggest an inability to uphold the values of equality, respect, and impartiality expected of a company commander.”...

75.... In addition to his unconstitutional and unconscionable findings as it relates to Major Worley’s religious beliefs, views, expression, and exercise, the Investigating Officer also recommended to Defendants that they institute a “No Christians in Command” Policy. ...

The complaint alleges that this violates plaintiff's free speech, free exercise and equal protection rights.

Liberty Counsel issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

9th Circuit: Police Department's LGBTQ Outreach Was Government Speech That Did Not Violate 1st Amendment

In Sangervasi v. City of San Jose, (9th Cir., Jan. 14, 2025), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a California federal district court's denial of a preliminary injunction sought by a police officer who objected to the police department's authorizing officers to wear an LGBTQ Pride uniform patch and to the raising of a Pride flag at police headquarters.  Plaintiff wanted to create other uniform patches and flag designs featuring Christian or anti-LGBTQ themes. His proposal was denied and he was placed on indefinite administrative leave. He sued, claiming violation of his equal protection, free speech and free exercise rights. The court said in part:

The district court properly dismissed Sangervasi’s free speech and free exercise claims because Defendants were engaging in government speech and Sangervasi was speaking as a government employee....  The district court properly dismissed Sangervasi’s equal protection claims because he failed to allege facts demonstrating a discriminatory intent.

Court Invalidates New Title IX Rules That Protected Transgender Students

In State of Tennessee v. Cardona, (ED KY, Jan. 9, 2025), a Kentucky federal district court issued a vacatur order invalidating rules under Title IX adopted by the Department of Education last April. Plaintiffs challenged provisions that extended sex discrimination bans to discrimination on the basis of gender identity. The court said in part:

Because the Final Rule and its corresponding regulations exceed the Department’s authority under Title IX, violate the Constitution, and are the result of arbitrary and capricious agency action, the plaintiffs’ motions for summary judgment will be granted....

... [T]he Final Rule’s definitions of sex discrimination and sex-based harassment, combined with the de minimis harm standard, require Title IX recipients, including teachers, to use names and pronouns associated with a student’s asserted gender identity....

The plaintiffs reasonably fear that teachers’ (and others’) speech concerning gender issues or their failure to use gender-identity-based pronouns would constitute harassment under the Final Rule.  Put simply, the First Amendment does not permit the government to chill speech or compel affirmance of a belief with which the speaker disagrees in this manner....

The Final Rule also is vague and overbroad. ....

... [A] vacatur order “takes the unlawful agency action ‘off the books’”—“an entirely appropriate response when a plaintiff successfully establishes that the agency’s conduct violates the law.”...  Vacatur operates on the rule itself and prevents the rule’s “application to all who would otherwise be subject to its operation.” ... See Kentucky, 728 F. Supp. 3d at 522 (quoting East Bay 

Although the Court has discretion to craft a different remedy, there is no reason to do so here.

ADF issued a press release announcing the decision.

Challenges to School Policy on Disclosure of Gender Identity Change May Move Ahead

In Mirabelli v. Olson, (SD CA, Jan. 7, 2025), a California federal district court denied motions to dismiss a suit brought by teachers and parents challenging a policy of the state board of education that schools are not to disclose a student's announced change of gender identity to the student's parents without the student's consent. The policy is intended to protect student privacy.  Among other challenges, plaintiffs claimed that the policy violates their 1st Amendment free exercise and free speech rights. The court said in part:

According to the Complaint, the policies force parents to accede to a school’s plan to neither acknowledge nor disclose information about their child’s gender dysphoria.  By concealing a child’s gender health issues from the parents, parents are precluded from exercising their religious obligations to raise and care for their child at a time when it may be highly significant, because they are kept uninformed of the need for their child’s religious guidance.  “....

... Teachers do not completely forfeit their First Amendment rights in exchange for public school employment.  To the extent that teachers allege (as they do here) that EUSD has hired their speech to speak falsely or deceptively to parents of students, the teachers make out a plausible claim for relief under the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause.  Likewise, to the extent teachers allege (as they do here) that EUSD’s curriculum includes what the teachers sincerely believe to be lies and deceptions for communications with school parents and that such prevarications are religiously or morally offensive, the teachers make out a plausible claim for relief under the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause.  EUSD contends that it is not a lie to not answer a question.  That the teachers sincerely held religious beliefs to the contrary cannot be simply dismissed....

There are no controlling decisions that would compel this Court to limit or infringe parental rights, notwithstanding the State’s laudable goals of protecting children.  This Court concludes that, in a collision of rights as between parents and child, the long-recognized federal constitutional rights of parents must eclipse the state rights of the child.  Therefore, the Court finds that the Plaintiffs have stated plausible claims upon which relief can be granted and the motions to dismiss are denied.

Suit Challenges Museum's Diversity Policy as Violative of Employee's Religious Beliefs

Suit was filed last week in a New York federal district court by an employee of the Genesee Country Museum who was fired from her managerial position because her religious beliefs were inconsistent with the Museum's Diversity, Equity, Acceptance and Inclusion Policy. The complaint (full text) in Berkemeir v. Genesee County Museum, (WD NY, filed 1/2/2025), alleges that plaintiff's dismissal violates her free exercise and free speech rights, the Equal Protection Clause, and Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act as well as other statutes. The complaint specifically focuses on requirements to address individuals by their preferred pronouns, but also sets out broader objections, stating in part:

80. Plaintiff also has the sincerely held religious belief, compelled by Scripture, that she is to “take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness,” but to “expose them.”... 

81. Plaintiff also has the sincerely held religious belief, compelled by Scripture, that silence in the face of evil is evil itself....

84. Plaintiff also has the sincerely held religious belief that for her to fail to speak out against things she knows are wrong results in the eternal condemnation of her soul....

228. Plaintiff’s sincerely held religious beliefs that compelled her to view all people as created by God in His image and equally deserving of respect did not comport with Defendants’ newly minted program of requiring all employees to view white people as “born oppressors” and somehow undeserving of identical respect and treatment. 

Liberty Counsel issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Church of Satanology's Suit to Display Banner in Schools Moves Ahead

In Stevens v. School Board of Broward County, Florida, (SD FL, Jan. 2, 2025), a Florida federal district court refused to dismiss free exercise, free speech and Establishment Clause claims brought by a minister of The Church of Satanology and Perpetual Soiree whose request to display a religious banner at a high school and a middle school were denied. Schools had permitted other churches to display banners, but refused plaintiff's request to display a banner reading "Satan Loves the First Amendment". The court said in part:

... Reverend Stevens has adequately alleged that he “has engaged in the exercise of religion.”... The school board’s arguments as to the lack of evidence regarding the Church’s tenets are better addressed on a motion for summary judgment or at trial, not on a motion to dismiss. And by preventing Reverend Stevens from displaying these banners, the school board has allegedly “substantially burdened this religious exercise.”...

The Court concludes that Reverend Stevens has stated a claim for viewpoint discrimination.  

The school board has arguably created a limited public forum at its schools by allowing some advertisements to be displayed on school grounds. ...

To the extent that Reverend Stevens’s First Amendment claim is brought as an Establishment Clause claim, rather than a Free Exercise Clause claim, the school board has not established that it should be dismissed....

Christian Haven for Sex Trafficking Victims Sues to Receive Federal Funding

Gracehaven, a Christian organization that cares for young survivors of sex trafficking, filed suit this week in an Ohio federal district court challenging the county's refusal to contract with it to receive federal Title IV-E funding for foster care services.  The complaint (full text) in Gracehaven, Inc. v. Montgomery County Department of Job and Family Services, (SD OH, filed 12/9/2024), says in part:

12.  Because Gracehaven is a Christian ministry that requires all employees to share and live out its religious beliefs, it told Montgomery County that it was not waiving or surrendering its right to employ only those who share its faith by signing the contract, and that it would sign the contract “as is.”  

13. The County responded that it would no longer “move forward with the renewal” of the contract with Gracehaven because of the ministry’s religiously based employment practices.  ...

15. But Defendants’ position conflicts with federal law, which expressly allows religious organizations to prefer members of their own faith as employees. 

18. The United States Supreme Court has clearly established—indeed, has held three times in the past seven years—that the government “violates the Free Exercise Clause when it excludes religious observers from otherwise available public benefits.”

The complaint also alleges that the county's action violates its freedom of expressive association and its religious freedom rights under the Ohio Constitution. ADF issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Good News Clubs Sue California School District for Access

Suit was filed yesterday in a California federal district court by Child Evangelism Fellowship alleging that a California school district has prevented Good News Clubs from meeting in district elementary schools. The complaint (full text) in Child Evangelism Fellowship NORCAL, Inc. v. Oakland Unified School District Board of Education, (ND CA, filed 12/11/2024), alleges in part:

1. For over two years, Defendant OUSD and its officials have unconstitutionally and impermissibly prohibited CEF from hosting its Good News Clubs in public elementary school facilities owned by OUSD. The Good News Club provides free moral and character training to students from a Christian viewpoint and strategically meets at public schools after school hours for the convenience of parents. CEF’s Good News Club has enriched the emotional, physical, and spiritual well-being of students across OUSD for over a decade. 

2. ... CEF was forced to temporarily end its Good News Club meetings in 2020 due to COVID-19 but sought to resume its meetings starting in January 2023. Despite having a long and storied history of providing after-school enrichment programs to students in OUSD, numerous schools within OUSD inexplicably denied the Good News Club access to use OUSD facilities while allowing numerous secular organizations and activities to resume meeting after school hours.  

3. CEF seeks a judgment declaring Defendants’ discriminatory use policies unconstitutional, both on their face and as applied, under the Free Speech, Establishment, and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. CEF also seeks preliminary and permanent injunctive relief ... together with damages....

Liberty Counsel issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.