Supreme Court Asked to Review Decision on Opting Students Out of Instruction on Gender and Sexuality

A petition for certiorari (full text) was filed last week with the U.S. Supreme Court in Mahmoud v. Taylor, (Sup. Ct., cert. filed 9/12/2024). Petitioners seek review of a 2-1 decision by the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in a challenge to a school board's refusal to allow parents to opt their children out of exposure to a group of LGBTQ inclusive books. The parents contend that refusal to provide an opt out alternative violates their religious free exercise rights. The 4th Circuit affirmed a Maryland federal district court's refusal to grant a preliminary injunction. (See prior posting.). Becket Fund issued a press release announcing the filing of the petition for review.

9th Circuit: Title IX's Religious Exemption Does Not Violate Establishment Clause

In Hunter v. U.S. Department of Education, (9th Cir., Aug. 30, 2024), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held that the exemption available to religious educational institutions from Title IX's ban on sex discrimination (including sexual orientation and gender identity) does not violate the Establishment Clause or equal protection guaranties. The court said in part:

Any practice that was “accepted by the Framers and has withstood the critical scrutiny of time and political change” does not violate the Establishment Clause....

Given the dearth of historical equivalents, ... tax exemptions are the most analogous case to Title IX’s statutory exemption.... Absent additional historical evidence—and Plaintiffs point us to none here—the history of tax exemptions near the time of the Founding suggests that the statutory exemptions that operate as a subsidy to religious institutions do not violate the Establishment Clause according to its original meaning.

Having considered the history of religious exemptions at or near the Founding, the history and tradition test requires us to look next to the “uninterrupted practice” of a law in our nation’s traditions....  The Department identifies a relevant tradition in “modern legislative efforts to accommodate religious practice.” ...

... [T]here is no evidence in the record that the exemption here “was drafted with the explicit intention of including particular religious denominations and excluding others.”...

... Here, when a school claims an exemption, the Department must make two determinations—whether the school is controlled by a religious organization and whether Title IX would conflict with the religious tenets of the controlling organization....  The Department has ... “never rejected an educational institution’s assertion that it is controlled by a religious organization” and “never denied a religious exemption when a religious educational institution asserts a religious objection.” ...

The exemption substantially relates to the achievement of limiting government interference with the free exercise of religion....

9th Circuit: Ministry Has Standing to Challenge Washington Antidiscrimination Law

In Union Gospel Mission of Yakima, Washington v. Ferguson, (9th Cir., Aug. 12, 2024), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held that a Christian Ministry has standing to challenge the constitutionality of the Washington Law Against Discrimination insofar as it bars plaintiff from requiring all its employees to sign a statement of faith and core values.  The statement requires employees to adhere to Christian lifestyle and behavior, including Christian beliefs on marriage and sexuality. However, the court remanded the case for the trial court to consider the issue of prudential ripeness and to consider plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction. [Thanks to Thomas Rutledge for the lead.]

Denial of Foster Care Licensure Subject to Strict Scrutiny

In Burke v. Walsh, (D MA, June 5, 2024), a Massachusetts federal district court refused to dismiss free exercise and free speech claims brought against Massachusetts Department of Children and Families personnel in their official capacities. Plaintiffs, a Catholic couple, were denied licensure for foster care and adoption because they did not demonstrate the ability to support the well-being of an LGBTQIA+ child that might be placed with them. The court said in part:

The court concludes it was clearly established, in 2023, that DCF's individualized and discretionary assessment of Plaintiffs' foster license application was not a "generally applicable" policy and thus was subject to strict scrutiny. Under the governing regulations, DCF considers 17 different subjective criteria, all of which must be demonstrated "to the satisfaction of the Department," when deciding on a foster license application. 110 C.M.R. § 7.104(1). One of these requirements, upon which Defendants relied in denying Plaintiffs' application, is "to promote the physical, mental, and emotional well-being of a child placed in his or her care, including supporting and respecting a child's sexual orientation or gender identity."...

 ... [T]he court need not decide, at this stage, whether it was also clearly established that Defendants' conduct would not withstand strict scrutiny analysis under these circumstances.

Namibia Court Strikes Down Bans on Male Homosexual Conduct

In Dausab v. Minister of Justice, (NA HC MD, June 21, 2024), a 3-judge panel of the High Court of Namibia held that the common law and statutory provisions that ban "sodomy" and "unnatural sexual offenses" unconstitutionally discriminate against gay men. The court said in part:

What emerges from the definition of sodomy is that the offense clearly and undoubtedly criminalises such sexual conduct between males.... What furthermore emerges is that various forms of sexual conduct, which have been held to constitute an offense, if committed by a male person with another male person are not regarded as criminal, if committed by a male person with a female person....

...[T]he impugned laws differentiate ... between male and female and between gay men and heterosexual men.... [T]he differentiation ... in so far as it criminalises anal sex between men and men but not between men and women, [is] based on one of the enumerated grounds set out in Article 10(2).... [I]n so far as the impugned laws differentiate between heterosexual men and gay men, it is not based on one of the enumerated grounds in Article 10(2)....

We have no qualms with counsel's argument that Article 10 does not make express reference to 'sexual orientation' as a ground of discrimination.... We, however, hold the view that the matter is not as simple as counsel portrays it to be, because the fact that a ground is not listed in Article 10(2) is not a license for the law to discriminate on that ground....

A press release by Human Dignity Trust has further background on the decision. [Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]

Lifeguard Sues L.A. County Over Required Flag Raising for Pride Month

A suit was filed last week in a California federal district court by plaintiff who is employed as a lifeguard by Los Angeles County objecting to the requirement that he raise the Progress Pride Flag at his lifeguard station during June which has been designated as LGBTQ+ Pride month. The complaint (full text) in Little v. Los Angeles County Fire Department, (CD CA, filed 5/24/2024), alleges in part:

Captain Little is ... an evangelical Christian with beliefs on marriage, family, sexual behavior and identity that align with the traditional and orthodox biblical-social teachings....

... While Captain Little understands that the government can speak its own messages, and thus may promote Pride Month, he believes that he cannot personally do so by raising the Progress Pride Flag. Doing so would be to personally participate in, espouse, and promote messages contrary to his sincerely held religious beliefs, similar to how many courts have recognized that Jehovah’s Witnesses may not salute or pledge allegiance to the flag of any nation or state....

The complaint alleges that requiring him to raise the Pride Flag, refusing to provide him with a religious accommodation and taking retaliatory action against him violate Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the California Fair Employment and Housing Law, the Free Exercise Clause of the U.S. and California Constitutions and the Free Speech clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Thomas More Society issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit. Los Angeles Times has additional details.

UPDATE: According to a June 5. 2024 press release from the Thomas More Society, Los Angeles County has agreed to give plaintiff a partial accommodation by not requiring him to raise the Progress Pride Flag as part of his job for the remainder of June.

Court Says NY Proposed Amendment on Abortion, Sexual Orientation and Gender May Not Go on Ballot

In Byrnes v. Senate of the State of New York, (Livingston County NY Sup. Ct., May 7, 2024), a New York state trial court held that the proposed state Equal Protection constitutional amendment must be removed from the November 2024 ballot because the state legislature did not follow the proper procedures in approving the amendment for placement on the ballot.  The proposed amendment (full text) would expand the state constitution's Equal Protection clause by adding ethnicity, national origin, age, disability, sex (including sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, pregnancy, pregnancy outcomes and reproductive healthcare and autonomy) to race, color, creed and religion that are already protected against discrimination by the clause. The clause covers discrimination by private individuals and firms as well as by the state and the proposed amendment provides that no characteristic listed in the section shall be interpreted to interfere with the civil rights of any other person based on any of the other characteristics listed. The court held that the state legislature's failure to wait 20 days for an Attorney General's opinion on the proposed amendment before taking the initial vote on it invalidated the Resolution proposing the amendment. The City reports on the decision.

Settlement Narrows Interpretation of Florida's "Don't Say Gay" Law

On Monday, a Settlement Agreement (full text) was filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit in Equality Florida v. Florida State Board of Education. In the case, plaintiffs challenged the constitutionality of Florida's Parental Rights in Education Act (sometimes known as the "Don't Say Gay" law). The Settlement Agreement defines narrowly the conduct that is prohibited by the law. According to the Agreement, the law only bans instruction on sexual orientation or gender identity that takes place in the classroom in grades 1-3. It does not ban references by teachers or students that do not amount to "instruction." Library books and extracurricular activities are not impacted by the ban.

In a press release, Florida Governor Ron Desantis' referred to the settlement as 

a major win against the activists who sought to stop Florida’s efforts to keep radical gender and sexual ideology out of the classrooms of public-school children in kindergarten through third grade (5- to 9-year-olds).

Plaintiffs in the case however describe it as a win for them, saying in part:

The agreement effectively nullifies the most dangerous and discriminatory impacts of Florida’s controversial “Don’t Say Gay Law,” and makes clear that the law must be applied neutrally and is no license to discriminate against or erase LGBTQ+ families.

The settlement restores the ability of students, teachers, and others in Florida schools to speak and write freely about sexual orientation and gender identity in class participation and schoolwork. It also restores safeguards against bullying on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, and reinstates Gay-Straight Alliances (GSAs). Critically, the settlement also requires the State Board of Education to send today’s agreement to every school district, and to make clear that the settlement reflects the considered position of the State of Florida on the scope and meaning of this law.

LGBTQ+ Support Group Fights Texas AG's Demand for Information

Suit was filed this week in a Texas state trial court by PFLAG, a national support group for LGBTQ+ individuals and their families, seeking to set aside civil investigative demands from the Texas Attorney General's Office. PFLAG contends that the demands from the AG's Office indicate that the Attorney General is seeking to identify Texas families that are seeking gender-affirming care for their transgender adolescents. The investigative demands were issued under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act.  The petition (full text) in PFLAG, Inc. v. Office of the Attorney General of the State of Texas, (TX Dist. Ct., filed 2/28/2024), alleges in part:

The goal of the OAG in serving these Demands is neither to enforce Texas law, nor to protect Texas consumers under the DTPA. These Demands are a clear and unmistakable overreach by the OAG in retaliation for PFLAG successfully standing up for its members, who include Texas transgender youth and their families, against the OAG’s, the Attorney General’s, and the State of Texas’s relentless campaign to persecute Texas trans youth and their loving parents. While that retaliation is itself a reason to set aside the Demands, PFLAG is entitled to a temporary restraining order and temporary and permanent injunctive relief because the Demands violate PFLAG and its members’ rights to freedom of petition, speech and assembly and to be free from unjustified searches and seizures, are contrary to the OAG’s authority under the DTPA, and impermissibly seek to evade the protections afforded to PFLAG as a civil litigant. 

In 2022, PFLAG successfully obtained temporary injunctive relief shielding its member families from the Texas Department of Family Protective Services’ (“DFPS”) operationalization of Governor Greg Abbott’s directive to investigate families of transgender youth who receive gender-affirming medical care for the treatment of gender dysphoria—a directive based on the Attorney General’s non-binding opinion claiming that necessary, evidence-based gender affirming medical treatment for transgender youth is per se “child abuse” under Texas law....  And in 2023, PFLAG successfully obtained a temporary injunction at the district court enjoining enforcement of Senate Bill 14 ... which seeks to prohibit the provision and state funding of gender-affirming medical care for the treatment of gender dysphoria of transgender adolescents.....

Through the OAG’s own actions, discovery has been stayed in both [cases].... But through these Demands, the OAG seeks to circumvent the normal discovery process along with its attendant protections, and in so doing, seeks to chill the ability of PFLAG and its members to exercise their free speech and associational rights and avail themselves of the courts when their constitutional rights are threatened.

ACLU issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit. AP reports on the lawsuit.

Court Upholds Oregon's Rules for Approving Adoptive Parents Over Free Exercise and Free Speech Challenges

In Bates v. Pakseresht, (D OR, Nov. 14, 2023), an Oregon federal district court, in a 53-page opinion, rejected plaintiff's challenge to the state's denial of her application to be certified to adopt children through the Oregon Department of Human Services.  Plaintiff was denied certification because, consistent with her Christian religious beliefs, she would not agree to support an adoptive child's sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression. Rejecting plaintiff's free exercise claim, the court said in part:

A willingness to take in an LGBTQ+ child, but disavow their identity, cannot by analogy be compared to a business owner's willingness to provide some services, but not others, to LGBTQ+ individuals. To make such a claim demonstrates a lack of understanding of the importance of providing a child with the holistic support and care required to produce well-rounded and confident adults....

The court also rejected plaintiff's free speech claim, saying in part:

[T]he issue in this case is not that plaintiff is seeking to provide religious instruction to her child. She is seeking to provide religious instruction to a child in the care and custody of the state. She does not possess the same rights as a parent in this situation because the state is the de facto parent. Although plaintiff's ultimate goal is adoption, she is seeking a certification that grants her only the opportunity to house and care for a child under the state's umbrella of protection.

Episcopal Priest Sues County Commissioners Over Invocation Policy

Suit was filed this week in a Michigan federal district court by an Episcopal Priest in Grand Haven, Michigan, challenging the manner in which the Ottawa County Board of Commissioners currently selects individuals to deliver invocations at Board meetings. The complaint (full text) in Cramer v. Ottawa County, (WD MI, filed 10/2/2023), alleges that prior to 2023, different Commissioners on a rotating basis selected individuals to offer invocations. However, since January 2023 when Joe Moss became Chairperson of the Commission, only he selects persons to give invocations.  He has selected only male pastors of Christian churches who share his religious beliefs.  Some of the pastors have included in their invocations praise for a far-right political group that Moss founded and leads. Plaintiff is an advocate of LGBTQ rights, while Moss has promoted an anti-LGBTQ agenda. Grand Haven Tribune reports on the lawsuit.

Plaintiffs Must Seek Narrower Relief Against Restrictions on LGBTQ Books in Children's Section of Library

In Virden v. Crawford County, Arkansas, (WD AR, Sept. 12, 2023), the court denied plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction because the proposed injunction was too broad, but left open the possibility of a narrower injunction later on.  The court described the dispute:

According to Plaintiffs’ amended complaint, in late 2022 or early 2023 the Crawford County Library System implemented a policy under which its library branches must remove from their children’s sections all books containing LGBTQ themes, affix a prominent color label to those books, and place them in a newly-created section called the “social section.” Plaintiffs allege this policy was imposed on the Library System by the Crawford County Quorum Court in response to political pressure from constituents who objected, at least partly on religious grounds, to the presence of these books in the children’s section.

Plaintiffs claimed that this policy violates the Establishment Clause as well as their 1st Amendment free speech right.  The court said in part:

First, with respect to the Establishment Clause claim, it must be noted that—as Defendants acknowledge—there is little useful precedent to guide this Court’s analysis. The United States Supreme Court’s most recent guidance on such claims amounts to little more than the extremely general and abstract direction that “the Establishment Clause must be interpreted by ‘reference to historical practices and understandings.’” Kennedy v. Bremerton Sch. Dist..... In the face of this instruction, the County resorts to arguing that book banning and censorship, for reasons both religious and otherwise, have a centuries-long history in America and the broader Western world....

Neither side’s argument regarding the Establishment Clause claim is satisfactory. Plaintiffs’ argument simply sidesteps the “historical practices and understandings” analysis altogether. But the County’s argument, which is essentially that the Establishment Clause does not prohibit state-sponsored religious viewpoint discrimination because state actors have been violating the Free Speech Clause for centuries, seems out of step with the Kennedy Court’s admonition that the First Amendment’s Establishment, Free-Exercise, and Free-Speech Clauses “have complementary purposes, not warring ones where one Clause is always sure to prevail over the others.”.... 

The court found that plaintiffs had alleged sufficient facts to avoid dismissal of their claim that their 1st Amendment right to receive information had been infringed. However, it refused to enter a preliminary injunction requiring the library to return to its prior procedures for classifying and processing books, saying in part:

... Plaintiffs’ proposals would essentially freeze in perpetuity the Library’s method for processing all types of books—not only children’s books relating to LGBTQ topics. The Court does not see any reason, on the record before it, why it should curtail the Library’s discretion in processing books on such disparate topics as caring for houseplants, playing chess, or mystery novels. Furthermore, the requested injunctions are so vague and general that they could potentially prevent the Library from altering these processes even for reasons that could be perfectly benign, prudent, and constitutionally inoffensive. 

Religious or Parental Rights Not Violated By School Classroom Discussion of LGBTQ-Themed Books

In Mahmoud v. McKnight, (D MD, Aug. 24, 2023), a Maryland federal district court refused to issue an injunction to allow parents to opt their public-school children out of classroom reading and discussion of books with LGBTQ themes. Parents claim that the books' messages violate parents' sincerely held religious beliefs.  The court said in part: 

In essence, the plaintiffs argue that by being forced to read and discuss the storybooks, their children will be pressured to change their religious views on human sexuality, gender, and marriage. The Court interprets this argument as an indoctrination claim.... 

The plaintiffs have not identified any case recognizing a free exercise violation based on indoctrination....

Here, the plaintiffs have not shown that the no-opt-out policy likely will result in the indoctrination of their children....

Separate from any indoctrination claim, Mahmoud and Barakat contend their son would be forced to violate Islam’s prohibition of “prying into others’ private lives” and its discouragement of “public disclosure of sexual behavior” if his teacher were to ask him to discuss “romantic relationships or sexuality.”... Forcing a child to discuss topics that his religion prohibits him from discussing goes beyond the mere exposure to ideas that conflict with religious beliefs. But nothing in the current record suggests the child will be required to share such private information. Based on the evidence of how teachers will use the books, it appears discussion will focus on the characters, not on the students.....

The parents assert that their children’s exposure to the storybooks, including discussion about the characters, storyline, and themes, will substantially interfere with their sacred obligations to raise their children in their faiths.... [T]he parents’ inability to opt their children out of reading and discussion of the storybooks does not coerce them into violating their religious beliefs....  The parents still may instruct their children on their religious beliefs regarding sexuality, marriage, and gender, and each family may place contrary views in its religious context. No government action prevents the parents from freely discussing the topics raised in the storybooks with their children or teaching their children as they wish.

In a press release on the decision, Becket Fund announced that the case will be appealed to the 4th Circuit.

Baylor Gets DOE Assurance That It Is Exempt From Title IX Sexual Harassment Rules

In a July 25 letter (full text), the U.S. Department of Education Office of Civil Rights has assured Baylor University that, as a university controlled by a religious organization, it is exempt from various regulations under Title IX to the extent that they are inconsistent with the University's religious tenets.  As reported by the Religious Exemption Accountability Project, in the past many religious universities have been assured they are exempt from Title IX regulations barring discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status, sex outside of marriage, pregnancy or abortion. (See prior posting.) For the first time, however, Baylor was also assured that it is exempt from sexual harassment rules. More specifically, it was assured that compliance with its religious tenets by the University or its students would not constitute “unwelcome conduct” under the Department’s definition of “sexual harassment” under Title IX. 

Baylor's letter requesting a ruling (full text) was filed in response to several complaints filed with the DOE Office for Civil Rights. The letter reads in part:

The University does not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity or expression per se, but it does regulate conduct that is inconsistent with the religious values and beliefs that are integral to its Christian faith and mission....

The OCR complaints at issue here allege that Baylor violated OCR's Title IX regulations by its application of its Statement on Human Sexuality, Sexual Conduct Policy, Civil Rights Policy, Theological Seminary Policy, Baptist Faith and Message of 1963, and Truett Handbook to its campus community, both as a general matter and specifically in three situations: (1) the University's alleged decision to deny applications for an official charter for Gamma Alpha Upsilon, (2) the University's alleged response to notice that students were subjected to harassment based on their sexual orientation and/or gender identity, (3) and the University's alleged decision to pressure University media to not report on LGBTQ events and protests in September and October 2021.

According to an extensive report on Baylor's request, Baptist News Global says in part:

Baylor Assistant Vice President for Media and Public Relations Lori Fogleman said Baylor is responding to the “expanded definition of sexual harassment” under Title IX from the Biden administration, which includes discrimination against LGBTQ people.

Catholic Couple Sues Foster Care Agency For Religious Discrimination [Revised]

 A Catholic couple has filed suit in a Massachusetts federal district court against the Massachusetts Department of Children and Families claiming free exercise and free speech violations. Plaintiffs were denied a foster care license because they would not be affirming to a child who identified as LGBTQIA.  The complaint (full text) in Burke v. Walsh, (D MA, filed 8/8/2023), alleges in part:

As faithful Catholics, the Burkes believe that all children should be loved and supported, and they would never reject a child placed in their home. They also believe that children should not undergo procedures that attempt to change their God-given sex, and they uphold Catholic beliefs about marriage and sexuality....

In effect, DCF has interpreted its regulations, which require foster families to “support[] and respect[] a child’s sexual orientation or gender identity,” 110 CMR 7.104(1)(d), as an absolute bar for Catholics who agree with the Church’s teaching on sex, marriage, and gender.

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

[Note-- this post was erroneously published previously with a title but no text.]

Michigan Legislature Bans Conversion Therapy-- 22nd State To Do So

The Michigan legislature yesterday gave final passage to HB 4616 (full text) and HB 4617 (full text), bills which together prohibit mental health professionals from engaging in conversion therapy with a minor. HB4617 contains an elaborate definition of "conversion therapy" which explicitly excludes, among other things, "counseling that provides acceptance, support, or understanding of an individual or facilitates an individual's coping, social support, or identity exploration and development ...  as long as the counseling does not seek to change an individual's sexual orientation or gender identity."  When signed by the Governor, Michigan will become the 22nd state (plus the District of Columbia) to ban conversion therapy for those under 18. M Live reports on the new legislation.

White House Announces New Initiatives to Protect LGBTQI+ Communities

The White House yesterday released Fact Sheet: Biden-⁠Harris Administration Announces New Actions to Protect LGBTQI+ Communities (full text). It reads in part:

Today, in celebration of Pride Month, the Biden-Harris Administration is announcing new actions to protect LGBTQI+ communities from attacks on their rights and safety.  Over a dozen states have enacted anti-LGBTQI+ laws that violate our most basic values and freedoms as Americans, and are cruel and callous to our kids, our neighbors, and those in our community. The Biden-Harris administration stands with the LGBTQI+ community and has their backs in the face of these attacks....

The Fact Sheet announced new federal action, including a new LGBTQI+ Community Safety Partnership and new initiatives to deal with LGBTQI+ youth homelessness, foster care and mental health. It also announced the release of federal funds "to support programs that help parents affirm their LGBTQI+ kids."  Additionally, it announced initiatives to counter book bans, which "disproportionately strip books about LGBTQI+ communities, communities of color, and other communities off of library and classroom shelves." The Department of Education will appoint a coordinator to "work to provide new trainings for schools nationwide on how book bans that target specific communities and create a hostile school environment may violate federal civil rights laws."

Court OK's Police Department's Rejection of Religious-Themed Flags and Uniform Patches

In Sangervasi v. City of San Jose, (ND CA, May 22, 2023), a California federal district court dismissed a suit by a police officer William Sangervasi who challenged the police department's refusal to adopt his proposed patch and flag designs. The court explained:

In August 2019, as part of the region’s celebration of Silicon Valley Pride Month, Chief Garcia raised a rainbow-themed LGBTQ pride flag in place of the City of San Jose flag on the flagpole outside SJPD headquarters....

On July 28, 2020, Chief Garcia issued official SJPD Memorandum #2020-33, introducing a rainbow-themed LGBTQ pride shoulder patch for the SJPD uniform.... 

On November 11, 2020, Mr. Sangervasi sent a memorandum to Chief Garcia titled, “Desecration of The Uniform by Memorandum #2020-33.” ... Mr. Sangervasi’s memorandum “detailed his intent to forever protect and defend the sacrosanct neutral and impartial visual appearance of The American Uniform” by submitting various “free speech patch and flag designs” that he wanted the SJPD to adopt.... Mr. Sangervasi proposed patch designs featuring phrases and images such as “natural hetero-sexual pride,” what appears to be Christian rosary beads encircling the traditional SJPD crest, and an image of the Christian archangel Saint Michael.... He proposed flag designs featuring phrases and images including, for example, “father + mother = girls + boys,” “white lives matter,” and the confederate battle flag.... Two days later... Mr. Sangervasi was placed on indefinite administrative leave.... On December 11, 2020, Mr. Sangervasi received a letter from Acting Chief Dave Knopf denying Mr. Sangervasi’s demand that the SJPD adopt Mr. Sangervasi’s patch and flag designs.

The court, rejecting plaintiff's free exercise, free speech and equal protection claims, held:

Mr. Sangervasi does not allege any burden on his sincere religious practice pursuant to a policy that is not neutral or generally applicable. Rather, he complains that, if the SJPD authorizes specialty uniform patches to be worn on a voluntary basis, it must allow him to wear religion-themed patches of his own design.... These allegations fail to state a claim for relief because the City has not created a public forum in which Mr. Sangervasi has a right to express any views, let alone those views that may be grounded in religious practice or belief. In the absence of such a forum and as discussed above, the SJPD’s patch designs amount to government speech and do not burden Mr. Sangervasi’s religious practice.

Parents Charge That Elementary School Pride Stories Violate Their Free Exercise Rights

Muslim and Christian parents filed suit yesterday in a Maryland federal district court challenging the Montgomery County School Board's policy that introduces their pre-K and elementary school students to various "Pride Storybooks." The parents are seeking the right to opt their children out of family life and human sexuality instruction, including reading of the Storybooks. The complaint (full text) in Mahmoud v. McKnight, (D MD, 5/24/2023), alleges that requiring their children to listen to the Storybooks violates the parents free exercise and free speech rights, as well as their right to control their children's education.  The complaint alleges in part:

222. The School Board’s policy to mandate the Pride Storybooks to discourage a biological understanding of human sexuality is not neutral toward religion, in part because it assumes that traditional religious views regarding family life and sexuality as supported by sound science and common sense are hurtful, hateful, or bigoted.

223. This burdens the Parents’ freedom to form their children on a matter of core religious exercise and parenting: how to understand who they are.

224. It also burdens the Student Plaintiff’s freedom to receive an education in an environment free from religious discrimination....

254. Far from guaranteeing a fair and objective discussion of religious perspectives, the School Board’s Pride Storybooks and corresponding “resource guide” preclude religious viewpoints on the topics of sexual orientation and gender identity—because of their viewpoint. That is unconstitutional.

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

British Court Rejects Parents' Challenge To School's LGBT Curriculum

In Montague v. Governing Body of Heavers Farm Primary School, (UK Cty. Ct., April 24, 2023), a British County Court, in an 89-page opinion, dismissed a suit by Christian parents who objected to a primary school's activities relating to LGBT equality. The court described the claims:

This is a claim for compensation, damages, declarations and recommendations pursuant to alleged violations of the Equality Act 2010, the Human Rights Act 1998 and for breach of Statutory duty....

The Claimants are black Christians whose 4 year old son Izaiyah Montague attended the school between 11th September 2017 and 19th October 2018....

In broad terms, the focus of this case is on the events from mid 2018 when the school decided to arrange a number of activities which would coincide with ‘Pride Month’ in June. It is the school’s position that these events were part of broader teaching throughout the year. This was directed towards supporting tolerance, challenging stereotypes and to prevent bullying....

The parents’ case is that the teaching at the school caused a conflict between their religious household and the approach adopted by the school, exposing their young and vulnerable child to the possibility of conflict and confusion. They further assert that the treatment of the complaints, the detention of Izaiyah and the barring of the Second Claimant were the direct result of their adherence to Christian beliefs and prosecution of a well founded complaint to the school....

In rejecting the parents' claims, the court said in part:

I do not accept that, as formulated, the curriculum the teaching I have outlined, was designed to promote LGBT beliefs over others. The difficulty that the Claimants face is that they have focussed on one aspect of a year long SMSC curriculum. There was very little examination of and criticism of the other five elements of the teaching. By throwing an intense concentration on one sixth of the teaching they have lost sight of, and distorted, the overall SMSC curriculum.... [T]he school were under a duty to meet the requirements of the Education Act....  Indeed I confess that I am very uneasy about some of the comments being made at the school gate and it is important for the children’s responsibilities and experiences in later life that there is some corrective to the ill informed views which were being articulated by some of the parents.

Fox News reporting on the case says that plaintiff is appealing the decision.