6th Circuit Says Christian High Schoolers Can Cahllenge Anti-Harassment Code

Yesterday in Morrison v. Board of Education of Boyd County, (6th Cir., Oct. 26, 2007), the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected mootness and standing challenges to a claim brought by Christian high school students and their parents who argued that Boyd County (KY) High School students’ First Amendment speech rights were “chilled” by the school’s anti-harassment/ discrimination policy. More specifically, plaintiffs alleged that the speech codes in effect during the 2004-05 school year (and later changed) prevented Christian students from expressing their views that homosexuality is sinful, and that the speech codes and related anti-harassment training undermined students’ ability to practice their Christian faith.

In a 2-1 decision, the majority held that “an allegation of a past chill of First Amendment-protected activity is sufficient to confer standing to a plaintiff seeking retrospective relief, even when that relief comes in the form of nominal damages…. [T]o establish such a claim, a plaintiff must show that the defendant’s actions or policy would deter a person of ordinary firmness from exercising his or her First Amendment liberties in the way that the plaintiff alleges he or she would have, were it not for the defendant’s conduct or policy.”

Judge Cook, dissenting, said: "'This is a case about nothing.' The majority burdens a federal district judge with a full-blown trial to determine whether to award the plaintiff a single dollar if a policy no longer in effect was unconstitutional despite never being enforced against the plaintiff.”

The appeal brought together unusual allies. Both the ACLU and the Alliance Defense Fund praised the 6th Circuit’s result. The AP reported on the decision. (See prior related posting.)

In Unusual Reversal, 6th Circuit Finds No Standing In High School Speech Code Case

Yesterday in Morrison v. Board of Education of Boyd County, (6th Cir., April 9, 2008), a 3-judge panel reversed itelf, issuing an amended opinion in a case it originally decided last October. (See prior posting.) In an unusual move, the panel decided to reconsider its prior ruling after defendants petitioned for an en banc rehearing. Also unusual, the deciding vote in granting the rehearing and changing the result was that of a district court judge sitting by designation on the Court of Appeals.

The case involved a challenge by a Christian high school student and his parents to the Boyd County (KY) High School's anti-harassment/ discrimination policy. Plaintiffs alleged that the speech codes in effect during the 2004-05 school year (and later changed) prevented Christian students from expressing their views that homosexuality is sinful, and that the speech codes and related anti-harassment training undermined students’ ability to practice their Christian faith. The majority, adopting the reasoning of the dissent in the original decision, held that since all that is at issue is nominal damages for a policy no longer in existence, plaintiffs lack standing. It concluded: "This case should be over. Allowing it to proceed to determine the constitutionality of an abandoned policy—in the hope of awarding the plaintiff a single dollar—vindicates no interest and trivializes the important business of the federal courts."

Judge Moore dissenting reiterated the position taken in her former majority opinion. She argued that plaintiffs have standing and that their claim is not moot. She would remand the case for a determination of whether the school's policy would have had a chilling effect on a "person of ordinary firmness."

The AP yesterday reported on the decision, noting that both the ACLU and the Alliance Defense Fund had supported plaintiff in the case.

ACLU and ADF In Unusual Agreement Before 6th Circuit In Diversity Training Case

Oral arguments were held yesterday before the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in Morrison v. Board of Education of Boyd County. (ADF Fact Sheet). Initially the ACLU sued Ashland, Kentucky's Boyd High School to vindicate the right of students to form a gay-straight alliance club at the school. As explained in a 2005 ACLU release, the case was settled under an agreement that required the school to treat all student clubs equally and which also required the school to conduct anti-harassment training for all students and staff. Subsequently the Alliance Defense Fund sued the school, claiming that the anti-harassment training violated the rights of students opposed on religious grounds to homosexual conduct. However, in February 2006, a Kentucky federal district court upheld the school's policies. (See prior posting.)

The ACLU intervened in the ADF's lawsuit. In its brief to the 6th Circuit on appeal, the ACLU explained its position as follows: "Intervenors joined this litigation to ensure that the Board complied with its obligations under the Consent Decree by, among other things, conducting mandatory anti-harassment trainings. After careful review of the Board’s 2004-2005 anti-harassment policies, however, Intervenors came to agree with Plaintiffs that the policies were broader than the Constitution permits. Accordingly, Intervenors both joined the Board in moving for summary judgment with respect to the claims seeking a constitutional right to opt out of the anti-harassment trainings, and joined Plaintiffs in moving for summary judgment with respect to the claims involving the anti-harassment policies."

After yesterday's oral arguments, ACLU attorney Sharon McGowan said: "We've always believed that it’s entirely possible for schools to enact policies that keep gay and lesbian students safe while still respecting the First Amendment rights of students who hold anti-gay beliefs." (ACLU Release). Links to all the legal documents in the case are available online.

Cert. Denied In Two Cases Involving Religious Exercise Issues

Yesterday the U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari in Morrison v. Board of Education of Boyd County, (Docket No. 08-701) (Order List.) In the case, the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals had denied a Christian high school student and his parents standing to challenge a school's now-abandoned speech code and related anti-harassment training. Plaintiffs alleged that the speech code prevented Christian students from expressing their views that homosexuality is sinful. (See prior posting.) 365Gay News reported yesterday on the decision.

Yesterday the U.S. Supreme Court also denied certiorari in Friday v. United States, (Docket No. 08-6651). (Order List.) In the case, the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the criminal prosecution of a member of the Northern Arapaho Tribe, for killing a bald eagle so he could use it in his tribe's Sun Dance. The court found that the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, and the regulations under it, were narrowly drawn to further a compelling governmental interest. (See prior posting.) The case had generated unusual interest among press groups who were concerned about the 10th Circuit's extensive review of constitutional facts. (See prior posting.) Yesterday's Hays (KS) Daily News reported on the denial of cert.

Anti-Harassment Training Does Not Infringe Free Exercise of Religion

Last Friday in Morrison v. Board of Education of Boyd County, (ED Ky., Feb. 17, 2006), a Kentucky federal district court held school training classes aimed at reducing anti-gay harassment did not burden students' free exercise of religion. The classes did not require any student to disavow his or her religious beliefs, or to endorse homosexuality, bisexuality or transgendered persons. The ACLU had joined the school district in defending against a challenge to the anti-harassment training sessions. (ACLU release.) Students challenging the training sessions were represented by the Alliance Defense Fund.

Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

In Rials v. Avalos, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97650 (ND CA, June 23, 2017), a California federal district court allowed an inmate to move ahead with free exercise and equal protection challenges to disciplinary action taken against him for possessing two religious photos outside of his cell.

In Nordgaarden v. Baca, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97763 (D NV, June 23, 2017), a Nevada federal magistrate judge recommended refusing to dismiss a claim by a Jewish inmate that an officer threatened to throw him in the hole, confiscated his meal and placed him in a holding cell because he was leaving the culinary to eat his Passover meal, which he contends is religiously required.

In Nance v. Miser, (9th Cir., June 29, 2017), the 9th Circuit held that a ban on a Muslim inmate's purchasing scented oils for use in weekly prayers substantially burdens his exercise of religion. and is not justified under RLUIPA. It remanded for further proceedings a claim regarding beard length.

In Medina v. Kuykendall, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98980 (ED PA, June 27, 2017), a Pennsylvania federal district court dismissed with leave to amend in inmate's complaint that the County Prison denied him religious materials and kosher and halal meals.

In McCann v. Texas, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99400 (SD TX, June 27, 2017), a Texas federal district court dismissed a habeas corpus petition in which plaintiff challenged his conviction for giving false identifying information to the police, alleging that it violates his free exercise rights to require him to list his birth date as the date of delivery rather than the date of conception.

In Boyd v. Etchebehere, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99467 (ED CA, June 27, 2017), a California federal magistrate judge recommended dismissing a complaint by a Muslim inmate that he was denied participation in the Ramadan meal schedule for a week during which he was enrolled in the vegetarian diet rather than the Religious Meat Alternative Program.

In Docherty v. Cape May County, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100709 (D NJ, June 29, 2017), a New Jersey federal district court allowed Muslim inmates to move ahead against governmental defendants with their complaint that they are allowed to congregate for Friday prayers only in an area which is dirty and foul smelling.

In Rush v. Malin, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101285 (SD NY, June 29, 2017), a New York federal district court permitted an inmate to move ahead with claims that Shi'a Muslims were denied Jumu'ah services for 2 months, a separate Ashura observance, and weekly classes, a separate account, and a fundraiser. The court dismissed certain other claims.

In Taft v. California Department of Corrections, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101467 (ED CA, June 28, 2017), a California federal magistrate judge dismissed with leave to amend an inmate's complaint that he was forced to remove his yarmulke without a security search protocol and that a correctional officer displayed anti-Semitic behavior toward him.