Canadian Province Awards $750,000 In Damages to LGBTQ Teachers For Trustee's Hate Speech

In the Canadian province of British Columbia, the province's Human Rights Tribunal has ordered a Board of Education trustee to pay damages of $750,000 (Canadian) to compensate LGBTQ teachers in the Chilliwack School District for injury to their dignity, feelings and self-respect caused by respondent's discriminatory and hate speech that violated the British Columbia Human Rights Law.  In Chilliwack Teachers’ Association v. Neufeld, (BC HRT, Feb. 18, 2026), the Tribunal (in a 141-page opinion) said in part:

... In 2017, the Ministry approved resources and tools aimed at fostering a SOGI [Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity]-inclusive education environment in all schools....

The backlash to SOGI 1 2 3 was immediate. One of its loudest critics was the Respondent, Barry Neufeld. At the time, Mr. Neufeld was an elected trustee of the Chilliwack Board of Education ....  For the next five years of his tenure as a trustee, Mr. Neufeld engaged in a high-profile public campaign against SOGI 1 2 3 and the values underlying it. He did this through social media posts, as well as in statements made in Board meetings, rallies, and interviews. Throughout these publications, 30 of which are at issue here, Mr. Neufeld broadcast the message that SOGI 1 2 3 is a “weapon of propaganda”, which threatens “traditional family values” and instructs children about the “absurd theory” that “gender is not biologically determined, but a social construct”. This “lie”, he warned, alienates children from their parents and primes them for sexual abuse....

 We declare that Mr. Neufeld violated ss. 7(1)(a), (b) and 13 of the Code....

... [A]lthough Mr. Neufeld occasionally alluded to his religion, at no point in this complaint did he assert, or lead evidence to support, that his right to freedom of religion under s. 2(a) of the Charter was engaged. In our view, it would not be appropriate to speculate about s. 2(a) of the Charter without a factual foundation or proper argument. For that reason, we have not considered whether our decision appropriately balances Mr. Neufeld’s religious freedoms....

Christian Post reports on the decision.

5th Circuit En Banc: Challenge to Louisiana Classroom 10 Commandments Mandate Is Not Ripe

In Roake v. Brumley, (5th Cir., Feb. 20, 2026), the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals sitting en banc by a vote of 11-7 vacated on jurisdictional grounds a preliminary injunction that had barred schools from complying with a Louisiana law mandating the posting of the Ten Commandments in every public-school classroom. (See prior posting.) The majority held that the case was not ripe, saying in part:

Asking us to declare—here and now, and in the abstract—that every possible H.B. 71 display would violate the Establishment Clause would require precisely what [prior Supreme Court precedent] ... forbids: the substitution of speculation for adjudication. It would oblige us to hypothesize an open-ended range of possible classroom displays and then assess each under a context-sensitive standard that depends on facts not yet developed and, indeed, not yet knowable. That exercise exceeds the judicial function. It is not judging; it is guessing. And because it rests on conjecture rather than a concrete factual record, it does not cure the ripeness defect—it compounds it....

Judge Ho filed a concurring opinion, saying in part:

Plaintiffs contend that their constitutional objection to the Louisiana Ten Commandments law “may properly begin and end” with Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39 (1980). 

That’s telling, because Stone turns entirely on Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971)—and everyone agrees that Lemon is no longer good law after Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, 597 U.S. 507, 534 (2022)....

Later Supreme Court opinions have further affirmed that passive religious displays are not coercive....

Plaintiffs present no historical evidence that remotely suggests that our Founders would have regarded a passive display of the Ten Commandments as an impermissible “establishment of religion.” ...

Judge Dennis, joined by Judges Graves, Higginson, Douglas and Ramirez, filed a dissenting opinion, saying in part:

Here, the legislative record demonstrates that a religious objective dominated. Sponsors repeatedly invoked teaching children “what God commands,” lamented the decline of Christianity, and openly framed opposition to H.B. 71 as an “attack on Christianity.” Another co-sponsor touted the law as a religious counterbalance to secular education....

...  Stone remains controlling because Louisiana vastly overstates Kennedy’s significance. Kennedy repudiated only the endorsement test—an offshoot of Lemon’s second prong—and left intact the broader framework of Establishment Clause doctrine: the requirement of a secular legislative purpose, the prohibition on policies whose primary effect advances religion, and the concern about excessive entanglement between church and state....

Judge Haynes filed a brief dissenting opinion.

Judge Higginson, joined by Judges Dennis, Graves, Douglas and Ramirez filed a dissenting opinion, saying in part:

We know from Louisiana lawmakers the chosen scriptural text was not happenstance. The legislators had definitive religious motivation when they selected a Protestant version of the Decalogue to display....

... Jewish plaintiffs and organizations voice that it violates their faith to make Jewish children stare at a Protestant “misappropriat[ion]” of their most sacred text....

Judge Ramirez, joined by Judges Stewart, Dennis, Graves, Higginson and Douglas, filed a dissenting opinion, saying in part: 

Because H.B. 71 provides sufficient information about the mandatory classroom religious displays, and requires no other materials to be displayed, “no additional factual development” is required to determine the statute’s facial invalidity....

Louisiana’s argument that the court must know what other materials may accompany each Ten Commandments poster to evaluate H.B. 71’s constitutionality also ignores the nature of Plaintiffs’ facial claims—that H.B. 71’s minimum requirements render it unconstitutional in all applications.

Louisiana Illuminator reports on the decision.

DOJ Opens Title IX Investigations of 3 Michigan School Districts

The Department of Justice announced yesterday that it has opened Title IX investigations into three Michigan school districts. The announcement said in part:

Today, the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division launched investigations into three Michigan public school districts: the Detroit Public Schools Community District, Godfrey-Lee Public Schools, and the Lansing School District ... to determine whether they have included sexual orientation and gender ideology (SOGI) content in any class for grades pre-K-12. If they are teaching SOGI-related content, the investigations will examine whether the schools have notified parents of their right to opt their children out of such instruction. The investigation will also assess whether the Michigan School Districts limit access to single-sex intimate spaces, such as bathrooms and locker rooms, based on biological sex....

Child Evangelism Fellowship Sues School District Over Discriminatory Treatment

Suit was filed this week in an Illinois federal district court by Child Evangelism Fellowship alleging that fees charged to it for after-school use of school facilities and its exclusion from literature distribution forums and Backpack Nights forum violate its rights under the 1st and 14th Amendments as well as the Illinois Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The complaint (full text) in Child Evangelism Fellowship of Illinois, Inc. v. Moline-Coal Valley Unified School District #40, (CD IL, filed 2/10/2026), alleges in part:

For more than five years, Defendants have categorized CEF as a “Category II” church and church-affiliated group, treating them differently than similarly situated nonreligious organizations. Defendants’ discriminatory policies target religious organizations like CEF’s Good News Club, compel them to pay discriminatory facility use fees, prevent them from distributing literature to students to take home to their parents, and bar them from Backpack Nights. In other words, Defendants have unconstitutionally relegated CEF to constitutional orphan status and discriminatory treatment in all forums available for similarly situated organizations in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution....

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

House Subcommittee Holds Hearing on Supreme Court's Decision in Mahmoud v. Taylor

Yesterday, the House Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education held a hearing titled Defending Faith and Families Against Government Overreach: Mahmoud v. Taylor.  A video of the entire hearing, written prepared statements of the subcommittee chairman and four witnesses, as well as the Committee's "Hearing Recap" are all available here on the Subcommittee's website. Three of the witnesses strongly supported the Supreme Court's Mahmoud decision, while one of the witnesses argued that Mahmoud went too far in permitting parental opt outs. UPI reported on the hearing, saying in part that "Republicans expressed concern ... about school districts ignoring the ruling, while Democrats voiced fears that the ruling condoned discrimination." [Thanks to Zalman Rothschild for the lead.]

Fellowship of Christian Athletes Can Move Ahead Against School Officials on Two Counts

In Fellowship of Christian Athletes v. District of Columbia, (D DC, Feb. 3, 2026), the D.C. federal district court found that Fellowship of Christian Athletes' (FCA) claims against D.C. public schools and two school officials were not moot even though the school system revised its rules to allowed religious student organizations to give preference to members of the organization's religious affiliation. The school had originally revoked recognition of FCA because FCA required that students serving in a leadership capacity subscribe to a Statement of Faith and a policy of sexual purity. The court held that the individual defendants had qualified immunity as to FCA's various 1st Amendment claims, to their claims under RFRA, the Equal Access Act and the Equal Protection Clause. The court said, however:

Chancellor Ferebee and CIO Ruiz are not entitled to qualified immunity as to Counts VI and VII.  FCA alleges that the defendants selectively enforced DCPS’s Anti-Discrimination Policy on the basis of viewpoint (Count VI) and that enforcement of the policy against FCA violated FCA’s First Amendment right to expressive association (Count VII)....

In light of this Supreme Court and circuit case law, the Court concludes that the law was “sufficiently clear” that a “reasonable official” would have known that the challenged actions violated FCA’s First Amendment free speech and expressive association rights....

Supreme Court Review Sought by High School Pro-Life Group Over Free Speech Rights

 A petition for certiorari (full text) was filed yesterday with the U.S. Supreme Court in E.D. v. Noblesville School District, (Sup. Ct., cert. filed 1/28/2026). At issue in the case is a high school's refusal to permit a student pro-life group to post flyers in the school because of the political content of the flyers. The dispute eventually led to the suspension of the pro-life group for several months. The 7th Circuit upheld the school's action. The petition for review filed with the Supreme Court sets out the Question Presented in part as follows:

The Seventh Circuit upheld the school’s censorship under Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, ... on the theory that a “reasonable observer could easily conclude that the flyers reflected the school’s endorsement.”... In so doing, it exacerbated a deep, longstanding circuit split over when Hazelwood’s reduced speech protection applies. 

The question presented is: 

Whether Hazelwood applies (1) whenever student speech might be erroneously attributed to the school, as the Fifth, Seventh, and Tenth Circuits have held; (2) when student speech occurs in the context of an “organized and structured educational activity,” as the Third Circuit has held; or (3) only when student speech is part of the “curriculum,” as the Sixth and Eleventh Circuits have held.

ADF issued a press release announcing the filing of the cert. petition.

4th Circuit: School Gender Identity Guidelines Do Not Violate Teacher's 1st Amendment Rights

 In Polk v. Montgomery County Public Schools, (4th Cir., Jan. 28, 2026), the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision, affirmed a Maryland federal district court's denial of a preliminary injunction sought by a substitute teacher who objected on free speech and free exercise grounds to the school district's Guidelines for Student Gender Identity. The court rejected plaintiff's free exercise claim, concluding that the Guidelines are neutral and generally applicable and that they satisfy the rational basis standard. The majority said in part:

... Polk believes that gender is rigid, based on her understanding of Christianity.  And referring to her students by a gender that is not consistent with the student’s gender assigned at birth places a requirement on Polk, that she says is at odds with her faith....

Distilled to its core, the thrust of Polk’s appellate position is that, because persons who hold religious views are those most impacted by the Guidelines, they cannot be deemed “neutral.” But that logic turns the well-established neutrality analysis on its head.  As the court explained, the Complaint “alleges no facts from which the Court could infer religious animus.” ...  That a certain religious practice is incidentally burdened by the Guidelines is not sufficient. Rather, the Guidelines must be motivated by religious hostility....

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

 ... [W]e agree with the district court that the Guidelines’s mandate does not concern the speech of a private citizen, but establishes the official duties of a public-school teacher.  More pointedly, how a teacher addresses a particular student in a particular classroom — and whether a teacher communicates with a student’s parent — is merely a part of that teacher’s job description....

 ... And “[w]hen an employee engages in speech that is part of the employee’s job duties, the employee’s words are really the words of the employer.  The employee is effectively the employer’s spokesperson.” ...

Judge Wilkinson dissented, contending that the Guidelines violated plaintiff's free speech rights.  He said in part:

In holding instead that the Free Speech Clause does not provide even qualified protection to Ms. Polk’s speech, the majority leaves teachers completely vulnerable to becoming the unwilling mouthpieces of government messaging. Although transgender rights advocates may now cheer the majority opinion, they will find today’s cure in truth a poison when states enact legally indistinguishable policies preventing teachers from using preferred pronouns in schools. And because nothing prevents school systems from pushing this newfound control much further than mere pronoun usage, I respectfully dissent....

This case is, without question, about compelled speech—a detail to which the majority gives short shrift....

... My qualm with the majority is simply that we cannot categorically write all in-class speech out of the First Amendment. Garcetti has its place, but chiefly with regard to core curricular functions. Speech at the noncurricular margins of a teacher’s job should remain subject to the same standards that we have always applied. This is no jurisprudential revolution....

 Ms. Polk’s case is one of many plaguing our nation’s educational system. Across all levels of education—elementary to college—LGBT rights, DEI, antisemitism, systemic racism, and innumerable other issues have made our schools hotbeds of vehement sociopolitical debate. Silencing voices and compelling affirmations to government preferred messaging do nothing to temper the vitriol; on the contrary, such actions foster further hostility....

5th Circuit En Banc Hears Challenges To 2 States' Laws Requiring Posting of 10 Commandments in Classrooms

The U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday, sitting en banc, heard oral arguments in two cases raising the question of the constitutionality of state laws requiring the posting of the Ten Commandments in public school classrooms. (Audio of full oral arguments.)   Roake v. Brumley challenges the Louisiana statute.  In that case a 3-judge panel of the 5th Circuit affirmed a district court's grant of a preliminary injunction, after which the 5th Circuit granted en banc review. In Nathan v. Alamo Heights Independent School District, a Texas federal district court issued a preliminary injunction barring 11 Texas school districts from complying with Texas SB 10 that requires posting of a particular version of the Ten Commandments in every classroom. On appeal, the 5th Circuit consolidated it for argument with the previously granted en banc hearing on the Louisiana law without a prior 3-judge panel hearing the appeal. NOLA reports on the cases.

California's Law Combatting Antisemitism In Public Schools Survives Constitutional Challenge

In Prichett v. Bonta, (ND CA, Dec. 31, 2026), a California federal district court refused to preliminarily enjoin enforcement of California AB 715 which is directed at preventing antisemitism in the curriculum of public schools. Among other things, the new law provides that the Biden Administration's National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism should be a basis to inform schools on how to identify, respond to, prevent, and counter antisemitism. Plaintiffs are California teachers and students who allege that AB 715 violates their free speech rights and is overbroad and void for vagueness. The court said in part:

Teacher Plaintiffs worry that AB 715 exposes them “to charges of unlawful discrimination and corresponding discipline if they convey ideas, information, and instructional materials to their students that may be considered critical of the State of Israel and the philosophy of Zionism—thus, creating a chilling effect and infringing on the First Amendment rights of both the teacher and student.” ...Student Plaintiffs allege ...that AB 715 undermines their “rights to receive information” related to “Palestinian and Arab culture” because teachers will be forced to self-censor to remain within the confines of AB 715....

The Court is not persuaded by Plaintiffs’ argument that the uncertainty created by AB 715’s inexact definition of antisemitism casts an unconstitutional pall over the entire bill....

Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the California legislature’s references in AB 715 to the Biden National Strategy ... were unconstitutional. However, even if Plaintiffs had proved that those two references were unconstitutional, the Court could, and would, properly sever those two references from the remainder of AB 715....

While Teacher Plaintiffs’ claims pass the standing hurdle, those claims are not currently ripe for adjudication....

As public-school education belongs to the government, the government may regulate Teacher Plaintiffs’ speech to accord with the government’s educational goals. It is of no significance that the curricula and the attendant speech required to teach it may advance a single viewpoint to the exclusion of another....

The Court does not find the word antisemitism in AB 715 to be vague....  A reasonable person reading AB 715 would sufficiently understand what the legislature meant by the word “antisemitism.”...

The Forward reports on the decision.

Lower Court Applies Supreme Court's Classroom Religious Opt-Out Decision

In Alan L. v. Lexington Public Schools, (D MA, Dec. 30, 2025), a Massachusetts federal district court, relying on the Supreme Court's recent decision in Mahmoud v. Taylor, held that the father of a 5-year-old kindergartener has the right to opt his child out of classroom lessons and activities that deal with sexual orientation and gender identity and violate plaintiff's Christian religious beliefs. Plaintiff identified ten books of concern. The court's injunction (full text) provides in part:

3. Defendants shall make reasonable efforts to ensure that J.L. is not taught or otherwise exposed to the content of the Identified Books, whether in the classroom or any other school setting. 

4. By January 20, 2025, defendants shall provide plaintiff with copies of any Other LGBTQ+ Educational Materials in their possession. 

5. By January 27, 2025, plaintiff shall specifically identify in writing any Other LGBTQ+ Educational Materials that he contends would burden his free-exercise rights by “substantially interfer[ing] with” J.L.’s “religious development” or posing a “very real threat of undermining the religious beliefs and practices” he wishes to instill in J.L.   

6. After receipt of plaintiff’s written response, defendants shall make reasonable efforts to ensure that J.L. is not taught or otherwise exposed to all Other LGBTQ+ Educational Materials identified by plaintiff, whether in the classroom or any other school setting....

9. Defendants shall make reasonable efforts to ensure that J.L. is able to receive reasonable and age-appropriate alternative instruction during any time he is removed from his classroom or any school assembly or activity in order to comply with this order.....

California Policy Barring School's Disclosure of Student's Change in Gender Expression Is Unconstitutional

In Mirabelli v. Olson, (SD CA, Dec. 22, 2025), a California federal district court held unconstitutional the policy of California school boards that bars public school teachers and staff from informing parents about changes in a child’s gender expression unless the child consents. The court concluded:

[The policies] harm the parents by depriving them of the long-recognized Fourteenth Amendment right to care, guide, and make health care decisions for their children, and by substantially burdening many parents’ First Amendment right to train their children in their sincerely held religious beliefs.  And finally, they harm teachers who are compelled to violate the sincerely held beliefs and the parent’s rights by forcing them to conceal information they feel is critical for the welfare of their students.

Justifying its conclusion, the court said: 

The constitutional question is about when gender incongruence is observed, whether parents have a right to be informed and make the decision about whether further professional investigation or therapy is needed.  Put another way, the question is whether being involved in potentially serious medical or psychological decision-making for their school student is a parent’s constitutional right. It is. "Simply because the decision of a parent is not agreeable to a child or because it involves risks does not automatically transfer the power to make that decision from the parents to some agency or officer of the state...."

The State Defendants argue... that a parent “does not possess a religious exercise right to dictate that a school reject their child’s gender identity.”...  Nevertheless, this Court disagrees....

Defendants concede that parents “may find notification that their child is expressing a transgender identity at school helpful in the general exercise of their right to direct a religious upbringing for that child.” ... So, the State Defendants are aware that notification would be helpful to religious parents, but provide no room for those parents to exercise those federal constitutional rights.... [T]he California state education parental exclusion policies provide no exceptions for religious parents....

The four teacher Plaintiffs and class representatives sincerely hold religious beliefs that that are being severely burdened by the imposition of the parental exclusion policies....

The teachers successfully make out a First Amendment freedom of speech claim when they are compelled to speak in violation of the law or to deliberately convey an illegal message....

Daily Wire reports on the decision.

Oklahoma Supreme Court Invalidates Religion-Based Social Study Standards

In Randall v. Fields, (OK Sup. Ct., Dec. 16, 2025), the Oklahoma Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision held that the Oklahoma State Board of Education violated the Open Meeting Act when it approved the 2025 Oklahoma Academic Standards for Social Studies. Plaintiffs had objected to the new Standards because of their religious content. According to the Court:

¶4 Petitioners are Oklahoma taxpayers who object to their tax dollars being used to promote religion in a public school. They allege the 2025 Standards interfere with their ability to direct and control the upbringing of their children including moral religious training and education they teach their children. They allege the 2025 Standards favor Christianity over all other religions in violation of the religious freedoms guaranteed by statutes and the Oklahoma Constitution. Petitioners allege that promotion and favoritism of Christianity will cause their children to feel ostracized and harm their education. Petitioners raising their children in the Christian faith allege the 2025 Standards promote theological doctrines and ideas contrary to the parents' Christian beliefs and their children will also be similarly harmed.

¶5 Petitioners object to the 2025 Standards requiring teachers to teach and students to learn that events depicted in a Bible are historical facts. Petitioners allege historicity of these events is disputed. Petitioners object to 2025 Standards requiring teachers to teach and students to learn that the validity of results in the 2020 Presidential Election should be questioned, and that the COVID 19 virus was caused by a leak in a laboratory in China. Petitioners point to Superintendent Ryan Walters' public statements asserting that the 2025 Standards were created and adopted to promote Judeo-Christian values and to teach a Bible as a "foundational text, helping students understand its undeniable influence on our nation's history and values." Petitioners allege the 2025 Standards require teaching stories and events depicted in a Bible to first and second grade students, and the material is not appropriate for students who are usually 6-8 years of age.

Oklahoma Voice reports on the decision.  (See prior related posting.)

Suit Challenges High School's Ban on Religious and Political Messages on Its Spirit Rock

A suit was filed this week in a North Carolina federal district court by a high school student whose patriotic and religious tribute to the late Charlie Kirk painted on her high school's Spirit Rock led to controversy and revision of school rules. The 66-page complaint (full text) in G.S. v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, (WD NC, filed 12/8/2025), reads in part:

3. In a desire to emulate Charlie Kirk’s boldness for his faith, G.S. wanted to remind her classmates, friends, and others in the Ardrey Kell High School community that Charlie Kirk had received and was enjoying eternal life with his Savior, Jesus Christ, and to create a space where students could memorialize him. 

4. After receiving permission from school officials to paint the Ardrey Kell High School spirit rock with a patriotic message related to Charlie Kirk, that’s exactly what G.S. and two friends did. They painted the spirit rock with a heart, a United States flag, the message “Freedom 1776,” and a tribute to Charlie Kirk: “Live Like Kirk—John 11:25.” Then they placed flowers in a vase at the base of the spirit rock....

John 11:25 reads: "Jesus said to her, 'I am the resurrection and the life. The one who believes in me will live, even though they die'."

School authorities quickly painted over the tribute and promulgated a Revised Spirit Rock Speech Code which barred students from expressing “political” or “religious messages” on the spirit rock. According to the complaint, authorities also investigated her for a few days for vandalism. 

The complaint, among other things seeks:

A declaratory judgment that Defendant’s Unwritten Spirit Rock Speech Code, Vandalism Policy, and Revised Spirit Rock Speech Code, and the unconstitutional actions against G.S. pursuant to it—including censoring her speech, publicly accusing her of misconduct, searching her cell phone, refusing to clear her name, and adopting a new viewpoint-based policy—violated her rights under the First, Fourth, Fifth, and/or Fourteenth Amendments....

In detailing her claims, plaintiff alleged in part:

458. G.S.’s views and expression on the Ardrey Kell High School spirit rock were motivated by her sincerely held religious beliefs, are avenues through which she expressed her religious faith, and constitute a central component of her sincerely held religious beliefs.

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

Court Enjoins School Districts from Complying with Texas Mandate to Post 10 Commandments in Classrooms

In Cribbs Ringer v. Comal Independent School District, (WD TX, Nov. 18, 2025), a Texas federal district court issued a preliminary injunction barring 14 Texas school districts from complying with SB 10, a recent Texas statute requiring the posting of the Ten Commandments in every public-school classroom. The court concluded that the case is factually indistinguishable from the U.S. Supreme Court's 1980 decision in Stone v. Graham. The court held that the Supreme Court's later decision in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District abandoned the Lemon test in Establishment Clause cases, the Supreme Court "gave no indication it was abrogating or overruling any of its public school cases." The court said in part:

Even if Kennedy undermined Stone to some extent, it would still control this case. Lower courts must apply controlling Supreme Court precedent even when it appears to rest on "reasons rejected in some other line of decisions."

Eleven other Texas school districts were previously enjoined from complying with SB 10. (See prior posting.) 

ACLU issued a press release announcing yesterday's decision.

Texas AG Sues School District to Require Posting of 10 Commandments

Last week, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton filed suit in a Texas state trial court against the Galveston School District and its board members seeking to order them to display copies of the Ten Commandments in every classroom as mandated by Texas law. The complaint (full text) in State of Texas v. Galveston Independent School District, (TX Dist. Ct. filed 11/7/2025) reads in part:

Defendants are openly violating the law in Texas. In order to prevent irreparable harm to the State of Texas’s interests and to bring Defendants back into the bounds of the law, the State of Texas requests temporary and permanent injunctive relief from this Court. 

In August 2025, a Texas federal district court enjoined eleven school districts from complying with the Texas statute that requires posting of the Ten Commandments in classrooms. (See prior posting.) The Galveston district is not one of those eleven. Attorney General Paxton has directed school districts that were not defendants in that case to comply with the display requirement. (See prior posting).

Friendly Atheist blog discusses the lawsuit.

6th Circuit En Banc: Banning Student-on-Student Use of Biological Pronouns Violates Free Speech Rights

In Defending Education v. Olentangy Local School District Board of Education, (6th Cir., Nov. 6, 2025), the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in a 10-7 en banc decision held that the free speech rights of public-school students are infringed when the school prohibits them from calling fellow-students who are transgender by their biological pronouns rather than the pronouns preferred by their fellow students.  A 3-judge panel of the 6th Circuit had reached an opposite conclusion. (See prior posting.) Plaintiff students and parents hold religious beliefs that gender is immutable. Opinions in the en banc case span 112 pages. The en banc court's majority opinion said in part:

A school district may not restrict personal speech on matters of public concern unless the speech would “materially and substantially disrupt” school activities or infringe the legal “rights of others” in the school community.  Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Cmty. Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. 503, 513 (1969).  In this case’s current posture, the school district has fallen far short of meeting this demanding standard.  It introduced no evidence that the use of biological pronouns would disrupt school functions or qualify as harassment under Ohio law....

 ... [T]he School District has regulated personal expression—the use of biological pronouns to convey a student’s scientific and religious beliefs—that addresses a “sensitive topic of public concern.” ... As part of the broader debate over transgender rights, the question whether speakers should use preferred pronouns to refer to transgender individuals—and whether we should treat the commonplace (and non-antagonistic) use of biological pronouns as proper or offensive—has stirred a “passionate political and social debate” in our society....

... [T] the School District has not just entered this policy debate.  It has taken a side.  The School District has “targeted” a speaker’s use of biological pronouns as improper while allowing students to use preferred pronouns (no matter how novel)....

... The School District is right that schools may bar abusive “invective” that targets “specific” students—whether transgender students, religious students, female students, Hispanic students, or any others.... That is, a school could bar a student from abusively ridiculing a transgender classmate’s “physical characteristics” in the same way it could bar a student from abusively ridiculing a smaller student’s physical characteristics.... But the School District is wrong to treat the use of biological pronouns alone as analogous to this abusive invective.  Defending Education’s members want to use biological pronouns not because they seek to ridicule others but because they want to speak what they view as the truth.... 

Ohio law defines “harassment, intimidation, or bullying” to cover speech directed at another student only if the speech both “[c]auses mental or physical harm to the other student,” and “[i]s sufficiently severe, persistent, or pervasive that it creates an intimidating, threatening, or abusive educational environment for the other student.”  Ohio Rev. Code § 3313.666(A)(2)(a).  And the School District has offered no evidence that the commonplace use of biological pronouns would create an intimidating, threating, or abusive environment....

Judge Batchelder filed a concurring opinion, saying in part:

... [E]ven if the School District were to produce overwhelming evidence of disruption, that evidence would still not justify the compelled-speech or viewpoint-discrimination aspects of its preferred-pronoun policies.

Judge Kethledge filed a concurring opinion, saying in part:

 ... [T]o determine whether the plaintiffs here should prevail on their First Amendment claim, we should begin with the right question:  namely, whether the historic common law would have subjected a student to punishment (as a matter of public law or private) for referring to a classmate with biological pronouns that the classmate had insisted the student not use.  Considering the speech alone, the answer is likely no.  For one thing, as noted above, offense or dignitary harm was not cognizable at law....  And the right to express one’s opinions in good faith would almost certainly protect the speech at issue here....

A final point is hortatory rather than legal.  That the law permits certain action does not mean that an individual should necessarily engage in it....

Judges Thapar and Nalbandian filed a concurring opinion, saying in part:  

In the end, the School District’s policy “mandates orthodoxy, not anti-discrimination,” and fails to recognize that “[t]olerance is a two-way street.”...  The District chose a side in a hotly contested debate and tried to squelch the opposing viewpoint by imposing an ideological speech code.  When it did so, it unlawfully discriminated based on viewpoint.  And while we appreciate the majority’s thoughtful Tinker approach, we worry that students’ rights to speak freely on important matters of public interest should not hang in the balance while district courts perform ad hoc inquiries into how “disrupt[ive]” they find the students’ viewpoint....

Judge Bush filed a concurring opinion, saying in part:

Rather than employ the traditional monsieur (for a man) and madame or mademoiselle (for women) or use longstanding aristocratic titles..., the French revolutionaries replaced those words with the masculine citoyen or feminine citoyenne (both translated as “citizen”) to refer to all men and women, respectively, regardless of station....  

Like the French revolutionaries, communists also sought to revolutionize forms of address for political ends.  Communist regimes strongly encouraged and sometimes mandated use of “comrade” instead of traditionally employed honorifics to refer to another person, just as the French revolutionaries insisted on the use of “citizen.”  That was not surprising.  “[T]he history of authoritarian government . . . shows how relentless authoritarian regimes are in their attempts to stifle free speech . . . .” ...

Governments in the United States—federal or state—never operated that way.  Our Constitution forbids mandatory use of certain titles to refer to others....

American history and tradition uphold the majority’s decision to strike down the school’s pronoun policy.  Over hundreds of years, grammar has developed in America without governmental interference.  Consistent with our historical tradition and our cherished First Amendment, the pronoun debate must be won through individual persuasion, not government coercion.  Our system forbids public schools from becoming “enclaves of totalitarianism.”

Judge Stranch joined by Judges Moore, Clay, Davis, Mathis, Bloomekatz and Ritz, filed a dissenting opinion, saying in part:

In this case, the School District has repeatedly affirmed that the children of Defending Education members will have the right to express beliefs about transgender identities.  Those children will be permitted to express the view that sex is immutable.  But it is not viewpoint discrimination to require those students to share those beliefs in a manner that does not disrupt the education of others....

The District made clear in its Policies that the purpose of the ban on intentional use of non-preferred pronouns is to prevent disruption in the form of trauma to transgender or nonbinary students of a degree likely to hamper those students’ ability to learn.  Evidence of that purpose was before the district court.....

Though the record satisfied Tinker’s requirement that the School District’s forecast be reasonable, the majority opinion concluded otherwise, positing and applying a new approach:  that “the closer the speech resembles political expression at the First Amendment’s core, the more evidence a school must present of the potential disruption or violation of rights.”...

... Existing precedent provides educators—those most attuned to the issues in their schools—with a reasonable level of agency to develop productive, civilized educational settings while protecting both student rights and student safety.

Columbus Dispatch reports on the decision.

Religious College Challenges Exclusion from Chicago's Student Teacher Program

Suit was filed this week in an Illinois federal district court by the Moody Bible Institute challenging the Chicago Board of Education with excluding its students from participating in the Chicago student teacher program in violation of the Constitution and of state law. The complaint (full text) in Moody Bible Institute of Chicago v. Board of Education of the City of Chicago, (ND IL, filed 11/4/2025), alleges in part:

... Chicago Public Schools insists that Moody sign two agreements that contain provisions prohibiting Moody from employing only those who share its religious beliefs and agree to comply with its standards of Christian conduct (the “Employment Provisions”)....

Chicago Public Schools has allowed other universities and colleges to participate in the Pre-Service Teaching Program even though they have similar hiring practices to Moody....

Plaintiff alleges that this violates their rights under the First Amendment's religion and speech clauses, the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause and the Illinois Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

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

School May Bar Teacher from Hanging Crucifix on Classroom Wall

In Arroyo-Castro v. Gasper, (D CT, Nov. 3, 2025), a Connecticut federal district court in a 54-page opinion rejected claims of a public middle-school teacher that her free speech and free exercise rights were violated when she was disciplined for hanging a crucifix on a classroom wall near her desk.  The court said in part:

... Ms. Castro acted pursuant to her job duties as a teacher when she decorated the walls of her classroom with items the students would see during instructional time. The question is whether Ms. Castro was doing otherwise when she hung items she calls “personal expressive items” on the wall, including the crucifix. Ms. Castro specifically states that posting such items makes the classroom environment more conducive to learning because the items humanize the teacher to their students. In that way, therefore, Ms. Castro was acting pursuant to her official duties as a teacher by displaying the items....

Accepting Ms. Castro’s argument that teachers have a First Amendment free speech right to post “personal expressive items” related to matters of public concern on classroom walls—where they are visible to students during instructional time—would mean the District could not control the messages conveyed to students while the students are required to be present in the classroom for learning. Instead, with respect to each such item a teacher posted on the classroom wall, the District would need to engage in a Pickering balancing analysis and could prohibit only those items that are sufficiently disruptive.  

... I conclude that Ms. Castro is unlikely to prevail on her claim that her display of the crucifix on the wall of the classroom constitutes speech as a private citizen rather than pursuant to her job duties as a teacher. Therefore, I conclude she is not likely to prevail on her free speech claim....

Ms. Castro says that she “sincerely believes that her religion compels her to display her crucifix, not hide it under her desktop” and “[s]tifling her religious expression through concealment of the crucifix ‘would be an affront to [her] faith....  

I have already concluded that the crucifix display on the classroom wall was pursuant to Ms. Castro’s official duties and is therefore speech attributed to the District. The speech is thus, for constitutional purposes, the government’s own speech....

Defendants argue that allowing the crucifix to remain on the classroom wall would constitute a violation of the Establishment Clause or, at the very least, expose the District to a risk of liability for such a violation....

Based on the existing record, I conclude that Ms. Castro is unlikely to show that Defendants did anything other than make “a reasonable, good faith judgment” that permitting Ms. Castro to hang the crucifix on the classroom wall during instructional time “runs a substantial risk of incurring a violation of the Establishment Clause.... I agree with Defendants, therefore, that a preliminary injunction should not issue....

As noted, under binding Second Circuit cases, the District must be afforded some leeway in balancing the free exercise rights of its employees and the risk of an Establishment Clause violation.... Unlike the coach’s prayer in Kennedy, the crucifix display is a religious message on the classroom wall broadcast to a “captive audience” of students required to be in the classroom. ...

First Liberty Institute issued a press release announcing the decision.

[Thanks to Eugene Volokh via Religionlaw for the lead.] 

5th Circuit Grants En Banc Review of Louisiana 10 Commandments Law

On Oct. 6, the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals granted en banc review in Roake v. Brumley, (Full text of court's Order.) In the case, a 3-judge panel affirmed a district court's grant of a preliminary injunction against enforcement of a Louisiana statute that requires public schools to display the Ten Commandments in every classroom. (See prior posting.) The court's Order vacates the panel decision and calls for new briefs and oral arguments in the case. Baptist News Global reports on the court's action.