Satanic Temple Sues School Board Over Discriminatory Rental Fees for Satan Club

The Satanic Temple filed suit this week in a Tennessee federal district court complaining that the Memphis-Shelby County School Board is placing hurdles in the way of its renting space for use by an After-School Satan Club. The complaint (full text) in The Satanic Temple, Inc. v. Shelby County Board of Education, (WD TN, filed 3/19/2024), alleges in part:

160. ... MSCS has demonstrated a widespread custom and practice of unnecessarily delaying approval or denial of the Satanic Temple’s rental applications....

169. ... MSCS is unconstitutionally discriminating against the Satanic Temple on the basis of its disfavored viewpoint and the content of its speech by charging the Temple a discriminatory hourly rental rate for its monthly ASSC meetings and ... an arbitrary and exorbitant security fee while not charging the same rates or security fees to the Good News Club....

170. ... MSCS’s discriminatory actions are ... arising from disagreement with, and hostility toward, the viewpoint and/or content of the Satanic Temple’s speech, as well as hostility towards the Satanic Temple’s religion by school board members, MSCS administrators, MSCS officials, community members and others....

196. The Satanic Temple’s before- and-after school clubs are a vital part of its religiously motivated mission to provide a safe, inclusive, and welcoming club for students whose parents are members of the Satanic Temple, as well as other students who may not feel welcomed or comfortable at other available before- or after-school religious clubs.

197. MSCS’s widespread custom and practice of discriminating against the Satanic Temple and attempting to constructively block and deter the ASSC from meeting ... substantially burdens the Satanic Temple’s exercise of its sincerely held non-theistic religious belief.

Freedom From Religion foundation issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

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.

Indiana Legislature Passes Bill Barring Antisemitism in Public Schools and Colleges

On Friday, the Indiana legislature gave final passage to House Bill 1002 (full text) which amends the state Education Code to specifically protect against antisemitism in public schools and colleges.  The bill, as finally enacted, defines antisemitism by adopting the text of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's definition, but, in a compromise, excludes examples given by IHRA that, among other things, indicate when criticism of Israel amounts to antisemitism.  AP reports on the bill's passage, discussing the compromise in greater detail. The bill now goes to Governor Eric Holcomb for his signature.

Certiorari Denied In Transgender Bathroom Case

Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court denied review in Metropolitan School District v. A.C., (Docket No. 23-392, certiorari denied 1/16/2024) (Order List). In the case (A.C. v. Metropolitan School District, (7th Cir., Aug. 1, 2023)) the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals-- invoking Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause-- affirmed an injunction issued by an Indiana federal district court ordering a school to grant a transgender boy access to boys' rest rooms. ACLU issued a press release on the Supreme Court's action.

Parents Sue School for Using Teen's Preferred Masculine Name and Pronouns

Suit was filed yesterday in a Michigan federal district court by parents of a 13-year-old biologically female child whose school concealed from the parents that the school was referring to the child by masculine name and male pronouns. The complaint (full text) in Mead v. Rockford Public School District, (WD MI, filed 12/18/2023), alleges in part:

7. These actions ... violated the Meads’ long-settled constitutional rights. The First Amendment protects their right to exercise their religion by directing G.M.’s education and upbringing, including on fundamental questions of existence like how G.M. identifies herself. And the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees their fundamental right to make decisions about her upbringing, education, and healthcare. 

8. By intentionally concealing from the Meads important information about their daughter’s education and health—on a subject as morally fraught as gender confusion—the District denied them these constitutional rights. Absent extraordinary circumstances, a school district’s concealment from parents of such information violates the Constitution.

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

Florida Transgender Teachers Challenge Law That Bars Them from Using Their Preferred Pronouns

Suit was filed this week in a Florida federal district court by three current and former Florida public-school teachers who identify as transgender or non-binary. They challenge a provision of Florida law that bars K-12 teachers from providing students with the teacher's preferred title or pronouns if they do not reflect the teacher's biological sex. The 61-page complaint (full text) in Wood v. Florida Department of Education, (ND FL, filed 12/13/2023) alleges in part:

[The statute] unlawfully discriminates against Plaintiffs on the basis of sex in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 because whether Plaintiffs may provide to students a particular title or pronoun depends entirely on Plaintiffs’ sex, and Florida has only an invidious basis—not an exceedingly persuasive or even a rational one—for discriminating in this harmful way. It also unconstitutionally restrains Plaintiffs’ speech in violation of the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution because it prohibits Plaintiffs from using the titles and pronouns that express who they are, the same way that their colleagues do.

The Hill reports on the lawsuit.

Teachers Get Religious Exemption from School Policy Barring Disclosure to Parents of Gender Identity Changes

In Mirabelli v. Olson, (SD CA, Sept. 14, 2023), a California federal district court granted a preliminary injunction prohibiting the Escondido Union School District from taking any adverse employment action against two teachers who have religious objections to the school district's policy of faculty confidentiality when communicating with parents about a student's change in gender identity. The court said in part:

The result of the new EUSD policy is that a teacher ordinarily may not disclose to a parent the fact that a student identifies as a new gender, or wants to be addressed by a new name or new pronouns during the school day – names, genders, or pronouns that are different from the birth name and birth gender of the student. Under the policy at issue, accurate communication with parents is permitted only if the child first gives its consent to the school....

The plaintiffs in this action are two experienced, well-qualified, teachers. The teachers maintain sincere religious beliefs that communications with a parent about a student should be accurate; communications should not be calculated to deceive or mislead a student’s parent....

... Mirabelli believes that the relationship between parents and children is an inherently sacred and life-long bond, ordained by God, in which the parents have the ultimate right and responsibility to care for and guide their children..... In a similar vein, West believes that the relationship between parents and their child is created by God with the intent that the parents have the ultimate responsibility to raise and guide their child. Both Mirabelli and West believe that God forbids lying and deceit...

EUSD contends that the government purpose of protecting gender diverse students from (an undefined) harm is a compelling governmental interest and the policy of non-disclosure to parents is narrowly tailored.... This argument is unconvincing. First, both the Ninth Circuit and the Supreme Court have found overly broad formulations of compelling government interests unavailing.... Second, keeping parents uninformed and unaware of significant events that beg for medical and psychological experts to evaluate a child, like hiding a gym student’s soccer concussion, is precisely the type of inaction that is likely to cause greater harm and is not narrowly tailored. ....

In the end, Mirabelli and West face an unlawful choice along the lines of: “lose your faith and keep your job, or keep your faith and lose your job.”... The only meaningful justification the District offers for its insistence that the plaintiffs not reveal to parents gender information about their own children rests on a mistaken view that the District bears a duty to place a child’s right to privacy above, and in derogation of, the rights of a child’s parents....

[Thanks to Jeffrey Trissell for the lead.]

California AG Challenges School District's Policy On Disclosure To Parents of Students' Gender Dysphoria

Suit was filed last week by California's Attorney General against the Chino Valley Unified School District challenging the district's policy that requires school personnel to notify parents whenever a student asks to be identified or treated as a gender other than the biological sex listed on the student's birth certificate.  The complaint (full text) in People ex rel. Bonta v. Chino Valley Unified School District, (CA Super. Ct., filed 8/28/2023), alleges in part:

Policy 5020.1 has placed transgender and gender nonconforming students in danger of imminent, irreparable harm from the consequences of forced disclosures. These students are currently under threat of being outed to their parents or guardians against their express wishes and will. They are in real fear that the District’s policy will force them to make a choice: either “walk back” their constitutionally and statutorily protected rights to gender identity and gender expression, or face the risk of emotional, physical, and psychological harm from non-affirming or unaccepting parents or guardians.

Policy 5020.1 unlawfully discriminates against transgender and gender nonconforming students, subjecting them to disparate treatment, harassment, and abuse, mental, emotional, and physical. This is by design: the Board’s plain motivations in adopting Policy 5020.1 were to create and harbor animosity, discrimination, and prejudice towards these transgender and gender nonconforming students, without any compelling reason to do so.

The Attorney General issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Yesterday, in an oral ruling from the bench, the court issued a temporary restraining order barring the school district from enforcing its disclosure policy. The Attorney General issued a press release announcing the court's ruling and providing links to briefs in the case.

Challenge To Maine's Elimination of Religious Exemption To School Vaccination Mandate May Move Ahead

Fox v. Makin, (D ME, Aug. 16, 2023), is a challenge to the Maine legislature's removal of religious exemptions from the state's school vaccination requirements.  Plaintiffs' son was denied a religious exemption by the principal and vice-principal of the son's school at the direction of the state commissioner of education. In the case, a Maine federal district court allowed plaintiffs to move ahead with their claims for injunctive and declaratory relief against the Commissioner, principal and vice-principal. The court held that plaintiffs' free exercise claim was subject to strict scrutiny, finding that the vaccination law lacked general applicability. The court said in part:

Maine continues to permit multiple non-religious exemptions, including a 90-day grace period for non-religious students, a medical exemption, and the IEP sunset provision, all of which arguably undermine its student health and safety interests while restricting religious exemptions that may pose comparable risks....

The Court finds it plausible that section 6355 is not narrowly tailored to advance Maine’s interests.

The court also found that defendants had qualified immunity from damage claims, saying in part:

... [I]t was not clearly established during the period alleged in the Amended Complaint that failing to permit a religious exemption to mandatory school vaccination (while providing others certain non-religious exemptions) violates religious objectors’ constitutional rights. Thus, even if the Court were to assume – without deciding – that section 6355 is unconstitutional, it would be “unfair to subject” the Commissioner and the individual School Defendants “to money damages for picking the losing side of the controversy” by complying with section 6355....

High School's Failure to Supervise Student Did Not Violate Parents' Free Exercise Rights

In Doe v. Alpine School District, (D UT, June 21, 2023), a Utah federal district court rejected claims by the parents of a high school student that the school's practice of giving students long periods of unsupervised time during the last week of the school year violated their religious free exercise rights.  According to the court:

The Does are members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and have raised their son under its doctrines and to follow its practices, one of which prohibits premarital sex. The Does had previously discovered that JD had begun having sex with his girlfriend and had placed restrictions on JD’s activity to prevent him from having premarital sex thereafter, such as requiring him to be accompanied by other persons when he was with his girlfriend.... The Does learned that JD had had sex with his girlfriend in the parking lot next to the school during school hours three times during the final week of school....

The Does’ claim under the Free Exercise Clause fails because they have not alleged that the Alpine School District coerced them to abandon a religious tenet or belief. First, the school district did not coerce JD into acting against his religious beliefs. He freely chose to have premarital sex with his girlfriend, even though this was against the teachings of his religion. 

Second, the Alpine School District did not coerce the Does to act contrary to their religious principles. The Does allege that they have a religious duty to encourage JD to abstain from premarital sex. The district did nothing to pressure or force the Does to refrain from passing on those teachings to her son. The Does instead argue that the district’s policies allowed JD a window of opportunity to have sex, thwarting their attempts to prevent him from doing so. In essence, the Does assert that the Alpine School District did not do enough to help them perform their religious obligations. But the Free Exercise Clause does not impose such a duty on government entities....

The court also rejected plaintiffs' 14th Amendment parental rights claim.

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.

Court Says School Must Allow After School Satan Club to Use School Space For Meetings

In The Satanic Temple, Inc. v. Saucon Valley School District, (ED PA, May 1, 2023), a Pennsylvania federal district court issued a preliminary injunction requiring the District to allow the After School Satan Club to use school facilities for meetings pursuant to a District Policy on use of school facilities by community organizations. After initial approval of the group's use of Saucon Valley Middle School for meetings, the school had received a shooting threat that required it to close for a day.  Subsequently, it "received over 40 phone calls and 50 emails or handwritten letters, daily, from concerned staff, parents, and community members." This led the District to rescind approval for the Club's use of school facilities, and led to the filing of this lawsuit. The court said in part:

Here, TST states a colorable claim that the District’s decision to rescind approval of its application and prohibit the ASSC from using school facilities for the remainder of the current school year restricts TST’s speech based on TST’s viewpoint, which shifts the burden to the District to justify its restriction on speech....

The District argues its restriction of TST’s speech is justified under the First Amendment because the District determined TST violated the District’s content-neutral Advertising Restriction contained in Policy 707 by posting social media advertisements on February 20, 2023 and February 23, 2023 that failed to clearly communicate the ASSC was not sponsored by the District....

TST makes a sufficient showing that the District selectively and inconsistently enforced its Advertising Restriction against TST as compared to other similarly situated speakers. The District’s proffered distinctions and rationale for this inconsistent enforcement are unpersuasive and fail to satisfy the District’s burden of justification. This inconsistent treatment strongly suggests viewpoint discrimination....

There is no doubt the District and Superintendent were faced with difficult, time-sensitive decisions. However, the Court’s analysis is guided by the law, not practical decision-making considerations or the Court’s own personal opinions. The law requires the Court to determine whether the District’s decision to rescind approval of TST’s application was based on the content of TST’s religious viewpoint and the reactions to it. The Court concludes it was.

ACLU issued a press release announcing the decision.

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.

Kentucky Legislature Overrides Veto of Transgender Bill Restricting Schools and Doctors

As reported by AP, the Kentucky legislature yesterday voted to override Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear's veto of Senate Bill 150 (full text). The elaborate bill requires schools to notify parents of all school health and mental health services related to human sexuality, contraception or family planning and of parents' right to withhold consent for such services.

The bill prohibits policies that keep student information confidential from parents and policies that require use of pronouns that do not conform to a student's biological sex. However, information may be kept from parents if disclosure is likely to result in the child becoming abused or neglected.

Under the bill, no instruction on sexuality may be offered to children below grade 6, and no course at any grade level may discuss gender identity, gender expression or sexual orientation. Parental consent is required for students to take sex education courses. However, this does not bar discussing sexuality of historic persons or answering relevant student questions about human sexuality. 

The bill bars schools from allowing students to use restrooms or locker rooms reserved for students of the opposite biological sex. However other accommodations should be made for transgender students. 

Also, health care providers are prohibited from furnishing puberty blockers or providing other gender transition procedures to minors.

Governor Beshear's March 24 veto message said in part:

Senate Bill 150 allows too much government interference in healthcare issues and rips away the freedom of parents to make medical decision for their children. Senate Bill 150 further strips freedom from parents to make personal family decisions on the names their children are called and how people should refer to them....

I am also vetoing Senate Bill 150 because my faith teaches me that all children are children of God and Senate Bill 150 will endanger the children of Kentucky....

Lex18 reports on the bill.

Teacher Sues Over School's Policy on Transgender Students

Suit was filed this week in an Ohio federal district court by a middle school teacher who resigned after refusing on religious grounds to comply with the school's policy regarding transgender students.  The school required teachers to address students by their preferred names and pronouns. The complaint (full text) in Geraghty v. Jackson Local School District Board of Education, (ND OH, filed 12/12/20222), alleges in part:

2. The Constitution guarantees a freedom of thought that includes a freedom to differ.... 

3. The Constitution protects this freedom to differ, in part, by prohibiting the government from adopting and enforcing a set of approved views on these matters in America’s public schools.... 

4. Defendants have abandoned this guiding light and adopted one particular view on this subject: that a person’s subjective identity determines whether a person is male or female, not a person’s sex. Compounding their unlawful adoption of an orthodoxy in this area, they have created and implemented a Policy requiring teachers, including Plaintiff Vivian Geraghty, to mouth her own support of Defendants’ views by forcing her, as a condition of keeping her job as a public school teacher, to participate in the “social transition” of children in her class.

5. Ms. Geraghty has a different view of this fundamental matter, informed by her scientific understanding and her Christian faith....

7. Because no interest justifies the state’s treatment of Ms. Geraghty—indeed, the very nature of free speech, free exercise of religion, and freedom from state-enforced orthodoxy on fundamental matters condemns the state’s attempt to purge contrary views from its schools—she brings this Complaint for injunctive, declaratory, and compensatory relief.

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

Suit Claims School's Restroom Policy Burdens Muslim and Christian Religious Beliefs

Suit was filed this week in an Ohio federal district court challenging a school district's rule change that allows transgender students to use restrooms and locker rooms that conform to their gender identity.  Plaintiffs, who identify as Muslims and Christians, claim, among other contentions, that the new rules violate their free exercise and equal protection rights, their parental rights and Title IX.  The complaint (full text) in Doe No. 1 v. Bethel Local School District Board of Educaton, (SD OH, filed 11/22/2022), alleges in part:

67. The [Muslim] Plaintiffs ... sincerely believe that Allah makes men and women in the womb as distinct and separate genders. Allah desires modesty and separateness between the sexes. Satan attempts to entice humans to change and disobey what Allah has created and desires, and believers are to stay true to Allah’s creation and commands....

68. Muslim parents are responsible for raising their children in the faith including its morals and values....  This is a fundamental part of the parents’ exercise of their own faith. The Board is imposing a substantial burden on the free exercise of that faith by placing the children in intimate facilities with members of the opposite biological sex....

79. [Seven of the] Plaintiffs ... are all active members of the Christian community.

80. For thousands of years, Judeo-Christianity has taught that their identity as people comes from God, who made human beings in his image—male and female. See, e.g., Genesis 1:26-28; Matthew 19:4-6. Therefore, a human being’s dignity comes from the image of God himself. And God’s fashioning of a human being as a man or woman at birth is a fundamental part of that dignity. One cannot impose on that dignity without transgressing the fundamental core of a Christian.

Fox News reports on the lawsuit.

11th Circuit: No Liability For Withdrawing Permission For Religious Group To Use After School Classrooms

In Chabad Chayil, Inc. v. School Board of Miami-Dade County, Florida, (11th Cir., Sept. 8, 2022), the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district Court' dismissal of free exercise, equal protection and due process claims brought by a Jewish organization that ran a popular after-school Hebrew program for more than ten years using public school classrooms. In 2019, after a complaint and investigation of whether Chabad complied with the rules for use of school facilities without paying a fee, the Miami-Dade County superintendent withdrew permission for Chabad use of school classrooms. Chabad sued. The court held that plaintiff had not shown the elements necessary to assert liability against either the school board or the Inspector General's office that investigated complaints against Chabad.

School Policy On Treatment of Transgender Students Upheld

In Parents 1 v. Montgomery County Board of Education, (D MD, Aug. 18, 2022), a Maryland federal district court upheld Guidelines promulgated by Montgomery County, Maryland school officials on dealing with transgender and gender non-conforming students.  Parents particularly challenge the portion of the Guidelines that advise school personnel not to disclose a student’s gender identity to their parents without the student’s consent, especially when the student has not yet disclosed their gender identity to their parents, or if the student either expects or knows their parents are unsupportive. Plaintiffs contend that this violates their parental rights protected by the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. The court said in part:

My review of the Guidelines reveals that the Plaintiff Parents’ argument is based on a selective reading that distorts the Guidelines into a calculated prohibition against the disclosure of a child’s gender identity that aims to sow distrust among MCPS students and their families. In reality, the Guidelines instruct MCPS staff to keep a student’s gender identity confidential until the student consents to the disclosure out of concern for the student’s well-being, and as a part of a more comprehensive gender support plan that anticipates and encourages eventual familial involvement whenever possible....

The court concluded that the Guidelines are subject only to rational basis review. It went on to say that even if it were to apply strict scrutiny, the Guidelines would still be upheld because the state's interest in safeguarding a minor's physical and psychological well-being is compelling. The court also dismissed various claims under Maryland law. WTOP News reports on the decision.