Contempt Citation Sought For Violation of School Event Prayer Ban In Florida District

Earlier this month, a Florida federal district court formally approved a consent decree barring the Santa Rosa (FL) school district and its employees from including prayers in any school event. (See prior posting.) Yesterday's Pensacola (FL) News Journal reports that now the ACLU has filed a motion seeking to hold school clerical employee Michelle Winkler in contempt for violating the preliminary injunction that preceded the consent decree [corrected]. Winkler called on her husband-- who is not employed by the district-- to deliver a prayer at the school district's "non-instructional employee of the year" banquet after Winkler was told that she could not offer a prayer, but only a nonreligious "thought of the day." In seeking permission, Winkler had e-mailed a supervisor, saying: "I would like to use the prayer I had prayed about and received from God and will suffer whatever consequences for." The contempt motion contends that district officials should have intervened to stop the prayer at the banquet, or at least afterward told those in attendance that it violated the court order.

5th Circuit Issues Splintered Decision On School Board Prayer

The U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday issued an important decision on the opening of school board meetings with sectarian prayer. In Doe v. Tangipahoa Parish School Board, (5th Cir., Dec. 15, 2005), the court, in three divergent opinions, affirmed in part and vacated in part an injunction against opening school board meetings with religious invocations that had been issued by the district court in 2005. The district court, in its opinion, had held that the proper test to be applied was the Supreme Court's three-part Lemon test, rather than the legislative prayer exception of Marsh v. Chambers.

In the 5th Circuit, only Judge Stewart agreed fully with the district court. Judge Clement's opinion said that Marsh rather than Lemon applies to school board invocations, and found that all of the challenged prayers were permissible under Marsh. None of them "exploited the prayer opportunity either 'to proselytize or advance any one, or to disparage any other, faith or belief'." Judge Barksdale assumed, without deciding, that Marsh applied, but found that the prayers at issue were overtly sectarian, and were therefore not permitted by Marsh. The result of these splintered opinions was that the trial court's injunction was affirmed as to four specific prayers, but vacated insofar as it more broadly prohibited all prayer at board meetings.

The decision was covered by today's New Orleans Times-Picayune.

South Carolina School Board Approves Opening Prayer

The Charleston County (SC) School Board voted 8-1 Monday to replace the moment of silence at the beginning of its meetings with a prayer. The Charleston Post and Courier yesterday reported that the change was spearheaded by new board member Arthur Ravenel Jr., a former congressman and state senator. Ravenel said the school board was probably the only political body in the county that did not begin meetings with a prayer, and remarked that "if any political entity needs help, it's the Charleston County School Board". However the new policy will now go to a committee to decide exactly what kinds of prayer will be permitted. The Post and Courier reports that some other South Carolina school boards open with the Lord's Prayer or with an invocation rotated among board members, each of whom can decide the content of his or her statement.

Settlement Reached In Long-Running Santa Rosa Florida School Consent Decree Challenge

A settlement agreement was reached today in the long-running litigation challenging the consent decree that the Santa Rosa County (Florida) School District agreed to in litigation against it challenging religious practices in the schools. (See prior postings 1 and 2)  A Settlement Agreement, Waiver and Release (full text) along with a proposed modified consent decree (full text with changes marked) were filed with the court today in Allen v. School Board for Santa Rosa County, Florida, (ND FL, filed 7/1/2011). The numerous changes clarify, and in some cases narrow, the scope of the consent decree. For example, the consent decree contains several provisions barring prayer by school officials. The modified decree makes it clear that "'Prayer' does not include customary, polite expressions and greetings, including 'God Bless You' or 'Thank Heavens,' or a student’s religious expression responsive to a legitimate academic class assignment."

The agreement also provides for the school board to pay attorneys' fees and costs totally $265,000, mostly to Liberty Counsel which represented plaintiffs in the case. The ACLU waived its claim for attorneys fees against the school board.  The settlement still must be approved by the court.

In press releases, each side has characterized the settlement agreement rather differently. The ACLU said that the changes merely "reinforce and clarify the basic premise of the original Consent Decree – that official, government sanctioned religious activities are prohibited under the Constitution while individual religious expressions are protected by the Constitution."  Sharply criticizing the challenge to the original consent decree that was brought by Liberty Counsel, an ACLU attorney said:

They came in after the fact, stirred up some controversy, raised some money on this invented issue, and will leave town likely with $265,000 in taxpayer money that would be better spent on the students in our community.

Liberty Counsel, on the other hand said:

on the eve of Independence Day, Liberty Counsel has restored freedom to the Santa Rosa County, Florida, School District teachers, staff, students, and members of the community.... The Consent Decree that led to criminal indictments against school employees for prayer and banned "God Bless" in Santa Rosa County schools will now be gutted and revised. The amended Consent Decree will restore dozens of constitutional religious freedoms that were previously denied.

Supreme Court Denies Review In School Board Prayer and Funeral Picketing Cases

Today the U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari in American Humanist Association v. Birdville Independent School District, (Docket No. 17-178, cert. denied 11/27/2017). (Order List).  In the case, the 5th Circuit upheld a school board's practice of opening its meetings with presentations from students, which often involve a prayer.  It held that legislative prayer cases, not the decisions regarding school prayer, govern this situation. (See prior posting.)

The Supreme Court today also denied review in Phelps-Roper v. Ricketts, (Docket No. 17-427, cert. denied 11/27/2017). (Order List).  In the case the 8th Circuit upheld Nebraska's Funeral Picketing Law against both facial and as-applied challenges brought by members of the Westboro Baptist Church. (See prior posting.)

Cert. Petition Filed In School Board Prayer Case

A petition for certiorari (full text) was filed with the U.S. Supreme Court today in American Humanist Association v. Birdville Independent School District, (filed 7/31/2017).  In the case (sub. nom. American Humanist Association v. McCarty) the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a school board's practice of opening its meetings with presentations from students, which often involve a prayer.  The 5th Circuit held that this should be covered by the legislative prayer cases, not the decisions regarding school prayer. (See prior posting.)  the American Humanist Association issued a press release announcing the filing of the petition for review.

State High School Athletic Association Sued Over Its Refusal To Allow Broadcast of Pre-Game Prayers

In Tampa, Florida yesterday, a Christian high school filed a lawsuit in federal district court against the Florida High School Athletic Association (FHSAA) which refused to allow the school to use the loudspeaker at a state football championship game for pre-game prayer.  The complaint (full text) in Cambridge Christian School v. Florida High School Athletic Association, (MD FL, filed 9/27/2016), alleges that both Cambridge Christian and its opponent at the game, another private Christian school, wanted to lead students, teacher and fans in communal prayer before the game.  FHSAA, the state agency that supervises and regulates interscholastic athletics for both public and private schools in Florida, refused on the ground that as a state agency, it could not legally grant permission of this kind, especially since the stadium in which the championship game was being played is a public facility paid for mostly by tax dollars. The teams ended up praying together on the field, but could not be heard by spectators and fans.

The school contends that the refusal to allow it to use the loudspeaker for prayer, while it is available for non-religious messages and cheer leading before, during and after the game, violates its rights under the free exercise, free speech and establishment clauses of the state and federal constitutions as well as under the Florida Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Tampa Bay Times reports on the filing of the lawsuit.

School District Sued For Refusing Student Group's Announcement of Prayer Meeting

Alliance Defense Fund announced yesterday the filing earlier this week of a lawsuit against the Deer Valley (AZ) Unified School District. The suit, brought on behalf of a high school student challenges the refusal by officials of Mountain Ridge High School to accept written and video annoucements by a student group, Common Cause, of one of its upcoming activities. The group wished to announce its before-school prayer gathering. Even though student groups generally are permitted to have such announcements broadcast to the student body, the school policy precludes announcements that use the word "prayer", out of concern over violating required separation of church and state. Common Cause could have the date, time and location of its meetings announced, but not the fact that religious activities will take place. In its complaint (full text) filed in Arizona federal district court, plaintiff alleged this refusal violates the federal Equal Access Act, the First and Fourteenth Amendments, and Arizona's Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

Ban On Prayer Over PA System At High School Playoffs Did Not Violate 1st Amendment

In Cambridge Christian School, Inc. v. Florida High School Athletic Association, Inc., (MD FL, March 31, 2022), in a case on remand from the 11th Circuit, a Florida federal district court held that the Florida High School Athletic Association did not violate the 1st Amendment rights of a Christian school when it refused to allow it to broadcast a pre-game prayer over the PA system at a state championship playoff against another Christian school. The court said in part:

This case is not about whether two Christian schools may pray together at a football game....  [P]layers and coaches from both teams, along with some officials, met at the 50-yard line of the Citrus Bowl to pray together before the game and again on the sidelines after the game.... But they were not permitted to deliver their prayer over the PA system during the pregame....

Addressing plaintiff's free speech claims, the court said in part:

[P]regame speech over the PA system at the championship finals football game hosted by the FHSAA at a state-owned venue is government speech....

Even if some of the speech conducted over the PA system at the 2015 2A State Championship Final football game could be classified as private speech, the FHSAA’s viewpoint neutral regulation of the speech in the nonpublic forum was not unconstitutional....

Here, no one else was permitted to speak over the PA system during the pregame except the announcer, and pursuant to a predetermined script, which did not include speech and viewpoints of other groups, organizations, or religions....

Also, rejecting free exercise claims, the court said in part: 

On the facts of this case, the Court concludes that communal pregame prayer over the PA system is a preference of CCS’s, not a deeply rooted tradition that rises to the level of a sincerely held belief.

School Responds To No-Prayer Injunction By Ending Review of Student Graduation Speeches

Earlier this month, an Indiana federal district court issued a preliminary injunction prohibiting the planned student-led prayer at suburban Indianapolis' Greenwood High School's upcoming graduation. The school conducts a student ballot at an assembly in which students vote on whether to have a fellow student deliver a non-denominational prayer at graduation. (See prior posting.) In response to the court ruling, the Greenwood Community School Corporation announced that this year school "officials will not review the speeches of the four student speakers which will allow them to voice their opinions with no restrictions." In the past, the school principal had reviewed a written copy of students' remarks. The school board statement urged speakers to be responsible and respectful of others. According to AP, school officials say speakers, however, will not be stopped even if they use profane language or deliver politically charged speeches.

Canadian Court Says Indigenous Events In School Did Not Infringe Religious Freedom of Christian Students

In Canada, in Servatius v. Board of Education School District No. 70, (BC Sup. Ct., Jan. 8, 2020), a British Columbia trial court judge rejected claims of infringement of religious freedom asserted by the mother of two school children. The court summarized the dispute:

As part of an effort to acquaint students with Indigenous culture and to promote a sense of belonging in Indigenous children, a Nuu-chah-nulth Elder visited a Port Alberni elementary school and demonstrated the practice of smudging. A few months later, an assembly at this public school witnessed an Indigenous dance performance, in the midst of which the dancer said a prayer. The petitioner is an evangelical Christian. Her nine-year-old daughter and seven-year-old son were enrolled in the school and witnessed these demonstrations of Indigenous culture and spirituality.

In dismissing the claims, the court said in part:

When arrangements are made for Indigenous events in its schools, even events with elements of spirituality, the School District is not professing or favouring Indigenous beliefs. Educators are holding these events to teach about Indigenous culture, and to introduce students to Indigenous perspectives and worldviews....

I conclude that proof on an objective basis of interference with the ability of the petitioner or her children to act in accordance with their religious beliefs requires more than the children being in the presence of an Elder demonstrating a custom with spiritual overtones or being in the presence of a dancer who said a brief prayer. In most instances, it is not difficult to recognize the boundary between a student learning about different beliefs and being made to participate in spiritual rituals. A field trip to a mosque to watch prayers would be learning about Islam; an Imam coming to the classroom and demonstrating prayer rituals would likewise not be problematic. However, in either of these cases, if the involvement of the students progressed to being called upon to pray or read from the Koran then it might well be said that educators have compelled the manifestation of a specific religious practice or the affirmation of a specific religious belief. If a Catholic priest came to school with altar candles and a censer containing incense to acquaint the students with the sights and scents of Church rites, this would seem to be well within the bounds of what the S.L. case stands for: religious freedom is not compromised when students are taught about other beliefs. If, however, the children underwent a baptism, this would be far over the line.

(See prior related posting.)

Court Upholds Teacher's Classroom Banners With Religious-Patriotic Messages

In an interesting decision issued last week, a California federal district court refused to dismiss claims by high school teacher Bradley Johnson against Poway (CA) Unified School District. Johnson, a Christian, was ordered by his principal to remove two banners from the walls of his Westville High School classroom because they conveyed a Judeo-Christian viewpoint. One contained phrases such as "In God We Trust" and "God Bless America". The other included the phrase "All Men Are Created Equal, They Are Endowed By Their Creator." Johnson also hung photos of national parks and of his family in his classroom. In Johnson v. Poway Unified School District, (SD CA, Sept. 4, 2008), the court held that Johnson's free speech rights as a teacher were violated by the order that he remove the banners.

Applying mainly cases involving student speech rights, the court held that, based on allegations in the complaint, the school district had created a limited public forum in which teachers could exercise free speech in their classrooms. The school engaged in viewpoint discrimination since it had permitted other teachers to post Buddhist messages, Islamic messages and a Tibetan prayer flag on their classroom walls. This favoritism of some religious messages over others was also seen by the court as an Establishment Clause violation.

Rejecting the school's argument that it was concerned about future Establishment Clause litigation because of Johnson's banners, the court said: "That God places prominently in our Nation’s history does not create an Establishment Clause problem requiring curettage and disinfectant of Johnson’s classroom walls." The court concluded:

Public schools play an important role educating and guiding our youth through the marketplace of ideas and instilling national values. One method used by the Poway Unified School District to accomplish this task is to permit students to be exposed to the rich diversity of backgrounds and opinions held by high school faculty. In this way, the school district goes beyond the cramped view of selecting curriculum and hiring teacher speech to simply deliver the approved content of scholastic orthodoxy.... By squelching only Johnson’s patriotic expression, the school district does a disservice to the students of Westview High School and the federal and state constitutions do not permit such one-sided censorship.

Today's San Diego Union Tribune reports on the decision, noting that the Poway school district has been involved in other free speech litigation as well. (See prior posting.) Thomas More Law Center which represented Johnson also issued a release on the decision.

Supreme Court Upholds Football Coach's Prayer Rights; Repudiates the "Lemon Test"

 In Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, (Sup. Ct., June 27, 2022), the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, held that a school district violated the First Amendment's Free Speech and Free Exercise clauses by disciplining a football coach for visibly praying at midfield immediately after football games. Justice Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion. In discussing whether the school district could regulate Coach Kennedy's speech because Kennedy was a government employee, Justice Gorsuch said in part:

[W]hat matters is whether Mr. Kennedy offered his prayers while acting within the scope of his duties as a coach. And taken together, both the substance of Mr. Kennedy’s speech and the circumstances surrounding it point to the conclusion that he did not.

In reaching its contrary conclusion, the Ninth Circuit stressed that, as a coach, Mr. Kennedy served as a role model “clothed with the mantle of one who imparts knowledge and wisdom.”... Teachers and coaches often serve as vital role models. But this argument commits the error of positing an “excessively broad job descriptio[n]” by treating everything teachers and coaches say in the workplace as government speech subject to government control.... On this understanding, a school could fire a Muslim teacher for wearing a headscarf in the classroom or prohibit a Christian aide from praying quietly over her lunch in the cafeteria. Likewise, this argument ignores the District Court’s conclusion (and the District’s concession) that Mr. Kennedy’s actual job description left time for a private moment after the game to call home, check a text, socialize, or engage in any manner of secular activities.... That Mr. Kennedy chose to use the same time to pray does not transform his speech into government speech To hold differently would be to treat religious expression as second-class speech and eviscerate this Court’s repeated promise that teachers do not “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.”.... 

Justice Gorsuch also found it clear that Coach Kennedy seeks to engage in a sincerely motivated religious exercise. The more difficult question was whether the school district could bar this because of Establishment Clause concerns. In deciding that it could not, the Court repudiated the Lemon test which had been relied upon by the lower courts in deciding the case. Justice Gorsuch said in part:

It is true that this Court and others often refer to the “Establishment Clause,” the “Free Exercise Clause,” and the “Free Speech Clause” as separate units. But the three Clauses appear in the same sentence of the same Amendment.... A natural reading of that sentence would seem to suggest the Clauses have “complementary” purposes, not warring ones where one Clause is always sure to prevail over the others....

To defend its approach, the District relied on Lemon and its progeny....

What the District and the Ninth Circuit overlooked, however, is that the “shortcomings” associated with this “ambitiou[s],” abstract, and ahistorical approach to the Establishment Clause became so “apparent” that this Court long ago abandoned Lemon and its endorsement test offshoot.... This Court has since made plain, too, that the Establishment Clause does not include anything like a “modified heckler’s veto, in which . . . religious activity can be proscribed” based on “‘perceptions’” or “‘discomfort.’” ...

In place of Lemon and the endorsement test, this Court has instructed that the Establishment Clause must be interpreted by “‘reference to historical practices and understandings.’” Town of Greece, 572 U. S., at 576.... “‘[T]he line’” that courts and governments “must draw between the permissible and the impermissible” has to “‘accor[d] with history and faithfully reflec[t] the understanding of the Founding Fathers.’”... An analysis focused on original meaning and history, this Court has stressed, has long represented the rule rather than some “‘exception’” within the “Court’s Establishment Clause jurisprudence.”

Justice Gorsuch then focused on the alternative argument that students were being coerced to pray. He said in part:

No doubt, too, coercion along these lines was among the foremost hallmarks of religious establishments the framers sought to prohibit when they adopted the First Amendment. Members of this Court have sometimes disagreed on what exactly qualifies as impermissible coercion in light of the original meaning of the Establishment Clause..... But in this case Mr. Kennedy’s private religious exercise did not come close to crossing any line one might imagine separating protected private expression from impermissible government coercion....

Naturally, Mr. Kennedy’s proposal to pray quietly by himself on the field would have meant some people would have seen his religious exercise. Those close at hand might have heard him too. But learning how to tolerate speech or prayer of all kinds is “part of learning how to live in a pluralistic society,” a trait of character essential to “a tolerant citizenry.”

Justice Thomas filed a brief concurring opinion, saying in part:

[W]e have held that “the First Amendment protects public employee speech only when it falls within the core of First Amendment protection— speech on matters of public concern.”... It remains an open question, however, if a similar analysis can or should apply to free-exercise claims in light of the “history” and “tradition” of the Free Exercise Clause...

Justice Alito filed a brief concurring opinion, saying in part:

The Court does not decide what standard applies to such expression under the Free Speech Clause but holds only that retaliation for this expression cannot be justified based on any of the standards discussed. On that understanding, I join the opinion in full.

Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justices Breyer and Kagan, filed a dissenting opinion, saying in part:

Official-led prayer strikes at the core of our constitutional protections for the religious liberty of students and their parents, as embodied in both the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.

The Court now charts a different path, yet again paying almost exclusive attention to the Free Exercise Clause’s protection for individual religious exercise while giving short shrift to the Establishment Clause’s prohibition on state establishment of religion....

Properly understood, this case is not about the limits on an individual’s ability to engage in private prayer at work. This case is about whether a school district is required to allow one of its employees to incorporate a public, communicative display of the employee’s personal religious beliefs into a school event, where that display is recognizable as part of a longstanding practice of the employee ministering religion to students as the public watched. A school district is not required to permit such conduct; in fact, the Establishment Clause prohibits it from doing so....

The Court now goes much further, overruling Lemon entirely and in all contexts. It is wrong to do so....

The Free Exercise Clause and Establishment Clause are equally integral in protecting religious freedom in our society. The first serves as “a promise from our government,” while the second erects a “backstop that disables our government from breaking it” and “start[ing] us down the path to the past, when [the right to free exercise] was routinely abridged.” ...

Today, the Court once again weakens the backstop. It elevates one individual’s interest in personal religious exercise, in the exact time and place of that individual’s choosing, over society’s interest in protecting the separation between church and state, eroding the protections for religious liberty for all. Today’s decision is particularly misguided because it elevates the religious rights of a school official, who voluntarily accepted public employment and the limits that public employment entails, over those of his students, who are required to attend school and who this Court has long recognized are particularly vulnerable and deserving of protection. In doing so, the Court sets us further down a perilous path in forcing States to entangle themselves with religion, with all of our rights hanging in the balance. As much as the Court protests otherwise, today’s decision is no victory for religious liberty.

CNN reports on the decision.

6th Circuit: County's Use of Religiously Sponsored School For Alternative Program Did Not Violate Establishment Clause

In Smith v. Jefferson County Board of School Commissioners, (6th Cir., June 11, 2015), the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, reversing the trial court, held that a Tennessee school board did not violate the Establishment Clause when, in the context of a budgetary crisis, it contracted with Kingswood, a private Christian school, to provide a state-mandated alternative program.  District students who had been suspended or expelled from their regular middle- or high-school were enrolled in Kingswood's "day" (as opposed to its more religious "residential") program. In a suit brought by two teachers who lost their jobs when the prior the board-run alternative school closed, the court said in part:

Here, a reasonable observer would not interpret the School Board’s relationship with Kingswood as a governmental endorsement of religion. Parents and students, for example, encountered only de minimis religious references in Kingswood’s day program. The evidence indicates that students in the day program were not exposed to any religious instruction, prayer, or any mentions of religion at all. Their school building was devoid of any religious imagery. Their assemblies in the chapel were as close as the day students came to religious exposure, and yet those assemblies were completely secular activities.

Perhaps the most overt religious references were the Biblical quotes on the report cards, family-feedback forms and—for those who sought them out—the annual report and school improvement plan.   But a reasonable observer would view all of these in the specific context of the arrangement that Kingswood had with Jefferson County. A budgetary crisis forced the Board to close its alternative school and, needing to accommodate the alternative-school students on short notice, the Board selected a high-performing, state-certified alternative school...

An ACLJ press release discusses the decision.

UPDATE: In the case, Judge Batchelder filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the result, but saying: "I cannot agree with the lead opinion’s dismissing as irrelevant last year’s Supreme Court opinion in Town of Greece." She said that while lower courts are required to follow Supreme Court decisions invoking the "endorsement" test until the Court explicitly overrules them, the Supreme Court appears to have rejected that test in favor of the historical "coercion" test.

Consent Decree Ends Religious Practices In Tennessee School District

Earlier this week, a Tennessee federal district court issued a consent decree in Butler v. Smith County Board of Education, (MD TN, Sept. 14, 2020), enjoining various religious practices in the Smith County schools. The Consent Decree and Order provides in part:

Complaint alleged that the Board has a custom, policy, and practice of violating the Establishment Clause by, among other actions, incorporating official prayer into school events; proselytizing students; and subjecting students to religious iconography via displays in classrooms, hallways, and other locations....

School Officials are enjoined from promoting, advancing, endorsing, participating in, or causing Prayers during or in conjunction with School Events for any school within the School District....

School Officials are enjoined from planning, organizing, financing, promoting, or otherwise sponsoring in whole or in part a Religious Service....

Defendants are enjoined from permitting School Officials at any school within the School District to promote their personal religious beliefs to students in class or during or in conjunction with a School Event....

School Officials are enjoined from taking retaliatory action against Plaintiffs or any member of their family for bringing this lawsuit or otherwise objecting to unconstitutional practices.

WZTV reports on the case.

Suit Claims High School Extensively Promotes Evangelical Christianity Through Activities With Church

A Jewish teacher in a southern Colorado school district filed suit yesterday in federal district court alleging that the Florence, Colorado High School extensively promotes evangelical Christian activities through arrangements with a church, The Cowboy Church at Crossroads. The complaint (full text) in Basevitz v. Fremont RE-2 Schol District, (D CO, filed 5/26/2015), alleges in part:

The Cowboy Church at Crossroads is lead by Pastor Randy Pfaff, and meets every Sunday in the cafeteria of the School. The Church is advertised by two large signs that are hung on school property and are clearly visible to motorists.... 

The cornerstone of Pastor Pfaff and the Church’s “mission work” at the School is daily morning prayer in front of the School, at the flagpole.  Either Pastor Pfaff or another member of the Church has been present for this ceremony every day for the last three years. With the School’s support, Pastor Pfaff has led these services, ministering to the School’s students and staff while holding a bible and using a public address system to preach his evangelical Christian messages.... Numerous faculty members, in including Principal Schipper, participate in services.....

... Pastor Pfaff and the Church, with the support of the School’s administration, routinely minister to staff and students through the distribution of flyers promoting their evangelical Christian views...

Through the Fellowship’s front group, Pastor Pfaff and the Church also hold weekly lunches at the School. The students refer to this event as “Jesus Pizza.” This meeting is promoted to the School’s students and staff through the presence of a large sign in the hallway that reads “God loves you and has a plan for your life. Jeremiah 29:11.” ....  During these “Jesus Pizza” sessions, which are led by Pastor Pfaff, he preaches to and prays with Florence students....

Denver Post reports on the lawsuit.

Liberty Law School Profiled

Last Saturday, the Roanoke (VA) Times carried an interesting article on Liberty University's School of Law, and more generally on "faith-based law schools". Liberty University's founder Jerry Falwell says the law school is training "lieutenants for the Lord". Most of the school's 160 students share conservative Christian views on school prayer, abortion, homosexuality and the death penalty. The law school's new interim dean is Mat Staver, executive director of the Liberty Counsel. He says: "[W]e are a Christian school, but we teach law and the foundation of the law. We're not opening up the book on Exodus to find our position on capital punishment."

Defending Liberty University's approach, Nikolas Mikas, president of the Bioethics Defense Fund says, "Without a true Christian rooting of a legal education, all you have is law as power instead of law as justice." Criticizing the law school, Jeremy Leaming on Wall of Separation blog says "Jerry Falwell’s law school aspires to produce lawyers committed to wrecking the First Amendment principle of church-state separation. " Liberty Law School received provisional accreditation from the American Bar Association in February.

Times Tells Of Incidents Behind Delaware School District Lawsuit

Earlier this month, Religion Clause reported on the continuing controversy in the Indian River, Delaware School District over school prayer and the promotion of Christianity in the school system. (See prior posting.) Today’s New York Times carries an excellent article on the exact events that led the Dobrich family—which has now moved out of the district—to file suit in 2004. At Samantha Dobrich’s high school graduation, a minister's prayer proclaimed Jesus as the only way to truth. Samantha's mother, Mona Dobrich, then asked the school board to consider more inclusive prayers for graduation. That led to letters to the editors and school board meetings attended by hundreds carrying signs praising Jesus. A radio talk show host said that people were asking the Dobrich's to "Stop interfering with our traditions, stop interfering with our faith and leave our country the way we knew it to be." Dobrich’s son, Alex, was ridiculed for wearing a yarmulke in school. A classmate drew a picture of a pathway to heaven for everyone except "Alex the Jew". At a school board meeting, one speaker from the community said, "If you want people to stop calling [Alex] 'Jew boy', you tell him to give his heart to Jesus."

Contempt Findings In Louisiana School Prayer Case

On Wednesday, a federal judge in New Orleans partially granted two civil contempt motions against the Tangipahoa Parish School Board for violating an August 2004 consent order regulating prayer in the school system. 2theadvocate.com today reports on this development in the three-year battle between the ACLU and the school board. At issue were two school banquets at which students offered prayers. The school board claimed that in each case the school board president who attended did not know in advance about the prayers, and the school principals at the banquets believed-- incorrectly-- that student initiated prayers were permissible under the consent decree. Federal district Judge Helen G. Berrigan said in her ruling that school officials should have intervened to stop the prayers, and that good faith belief by the principals that the prayers were permissible is not a defense in a civil contempt action.

Suit Challenges Teacher's Involvement In Weekly High School Prayer Group

The American Humanist Association yesterday announced the filing of a federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of a weekly Christian prayer session sponsored by the Fellowship of Christian Students at Fayette, Missouri High School. The complaint (full text) in American Humanist Association v. Fayette R-III School Distrct, (WD MO, filed 11/20/2013), alleges that the devotional sessions, held before the beginning of first period in the classroom of Gwen Pope, adviser to the Christian student group, violate the Establishment Clause. Plaintiffs say that Pope participated in the prayer sessions, in violation of school policy. Her husband, a former youth minister for a local Methodist church also attended the sessions. Plaintiffs also allege that the school principal endorsed and promoted the devotional sessions.