School's Transgender Policy Does Not Violate Teacher's 1st Amendment Rights

In Polk v. Montgomery County Public Schools, (D MD, Jan. 17, 2025), a public-school substitute teacher alleged that a Maryland school system violated her free exercise and free speech rights when it insisted that she affirm Guidelines on dealing with transgender students. The Guidelines required her to refer to students by their preferred pronouns and barred them from discussing a student's gender identity with the student's parents without the student's consent. Plaintiff insisted that the Guidelines conflict with her religious beliefs. She also contended that under Title VII she is entitled to a reasonable accommodation of her beliefs. The court dismissed plaintiff's free exercise claim, finding that the Guidelines are neutral and generally applicable. It dismissed her free speech claim because the speech required by the Guidelines are part of plaintiff's official duties as a teacher. The court however, while refusing to issue a preliminary injunction, permitted plaintiff to move ahead on her Title VII failure to accommodate claim against the school board saying that the Board's undue hardship defense should be raised at the summary judgement stage of the proceedings rather than on a motion to dismiss.

Suit Challenges Federal Agency Rule Changes Protecting Against Gender Identity Discrimination

Suit was filed last week in a Louisiana federal district court challenging rule changes interpreting five federal statutes. Defendants are HHS, Department of Agriculture, EEOC and the Department of Justice. The rule changes define sex discrimination and sexual harassment as including discrimination or harassment on the basis of gender identity and define gender dysphoria as a disability. The complaint (full text) in Rapides Parish School Board v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, (WD LA, filed 1/17/2025), contends that the rule provisions are not authorized by the various statutes being implemented, are arbitrary and capricious and violate the Spending Clause of the Constitution. It also alleges that various of the rule provisions compel speech in violation of the First Amendment and are unconstitutionally vague. ADF issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

National Guard Officer Sues After Dismissal for His Religion-Based Anti-LGBTQ Views

Suit was filed last week in an Idaho federal district court by an Idaho National Guard officer who was removed from a command position that he had just assumed because of his Christian religious views on sexuality that he had expressed during his previous campaigns for mayor and state senator. The complaint (full text) in Worley v. Little, (D ID, filed 1/17/2025), reads in part:

74. The Investigating Officer stated, in his findings, that Major Worley had “well documented discriminatory views against the LGBTQ community” that “suggest an inability to uphold the values of equality, respect, and impartiality expected of a company commander.”...

75.... In addition to his unconstitutional and unconscionable findings as it relates to Major Worley’s religious beliefs, views, expression, and exercise, the Investigating Officer also recommended to Defendants that they institute a “No Christians in Command” Policy. ...

The complaint alleges that this violates plaintiff's free speech, free exercise and equal protection rights.

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

9th Circuit: Police Department's LGBTQ Outreach Was Government Speech That Did Not Violate 1st Amendment

In Sangervasi v. City of San Jose, (9th Cir., Jan. 14, 2025), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a California federal district court's denial of a preliminary injunction sought by a police officer who objected to the police department's authorizing officers to wear an LGBTQ Pride uniform patch and to the raising of a Pride flag at police headquarters.  Plaintiff wanted to create other uniform patches and flag designs featuring Christian or anti-LGBTQ themes. His proposal was denied and he was placed on indefinite administrative leave. He sued, claiming violation of his equal protection, free speech and free exercise rights. The court said in part:

The district court properly dismissed Sangervasi’s free speech and free exercise claims because Defendants were engaging in government speech and Sangervasi was speaking as a government employee....  The district court properly dismissed Sangervasi’s equal protection claims because he failed to allege facts demonstrating a discriminatory intent.

Court Invalidates New Title IX Rules That Protected Transgender Students

In State of Tennessee v. Cardona, (ED KY, Jan. 9, 2025), a Kentucky federal district court issued a vacatur order invalidating rules under Title IX adopted by the Department of Education last April. Plaintiffs challenged provisions that extended sex discrimination bans to discrimination on the basis of gender identity. The court said in part:

Because the Final Rule and its corresponding regulations exceed the Department’s authority under Title IX, violate the Constitution, and are the result of arbitrary and capricious agency action, the plaintiffs’ motions for summary judgment will be granted....

... [T]he Final Rule’s definitions of sex discrimination and sex-based harassment, combined with the de minimis harm standard, require Title IX recipients, including teachers, to use names and pronouns associated with a student’s asserted gender identity....

The plaintiffs reasonably fear that teachers’ (and others’) speech concerning gender issues or their failure to use gender-identity-based pronouns would constitute harassment under the Final Rule.  Put simply, the First Amendment does not permit the government to chill speech or compel affirmance of a belief with which the speaker disagrees in this manner....

The Final Rule also is vague and overbroad. ....

... [A] vacatur order “takes the unlawful agency action ‘off the books’”—“an entirely appropriate response when a plaintiff successfully establishes that the agency’s conduct violates the law.”...  Vacatur operates on the rule itself and prevents the rule’s “application to all who would otherwise be subject to its operation.” ... See Kentucky, 728 F. Supp. 3d at 522 (quoting East Bay 

Although the Court has discretion to craft a different remedy, there is no reason to do so here.

ADF issued a press release announcing the decision.

Challenges to School Policy on Disclosure of Gender Identity Change May Move Ahead

In Mirabelli v. Olson, (SD CA, Jan. 7, 2025), a California federal district court denied motions to dismiss a suit brought by teachers and parents challenging a policy of the state board of education that schools are not to disclose a student's announced change of gender identity to the student's parents without the student's consent. The policy is intended to protect student privacy.  Among other challenges, plaintiffs claimed that the policy violates their 1st Amendment free exercise and free speech rights. The court said in part:

According to the Complaint, the policies force parents to accede to a school’s plan to neither acknowledge nor disclose information about their child’s gender dysphoria.  By concealing a child’s gender health issues from the parents, parents are precluded from exercising their religious obligations to raise and care for their child at a time when it may be highly significant, because they are kept uninformed of the need for their child’s religious guidance.  “....

... Teachers do not completely forfeit their First Amendment rights in exchange for public school employment.  To the extent that teachers allege (as they do here) that EUSD has hired their speech to speak falsely or deceptively to parents of students, the teachers make out a plausible claim for relief under the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause.  Likewise, to the extent teachers allege (as they do here) that EUSD’s curriculum includes what the teachers sincerely believe to be lies and deceptions for communications with school parents and that such prevarications are religiously or morally offensive, the teachers make out a plausible claim for relief under the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause.  EUSD contends that it is not a lie to not answer a question.  That the teachers sincerely held religious beliefs to the contrary cannot be simply dismissed....

There are no controlling decisions that would compel this Court to limit or infringe parental rights, notwithstanding the State’s laudable goals of protecting children.  This Court concludes that, in a collision of rights as between parents and child, the long-recognized federal constitutional rights of parents must eclipse the state rights of the child.  Therefore, the Court finds that the Plaintiffs have stated plausible claims upon which relief can be granted and the motions to dismiss are denied.

Suit Challenges Museum's Diversity Policy as Violative of Employee's Religious Beliefs

Suit was filed last week in a New York federal district court by an employee of the Genesee Country Museum who was fired from her managerial position because her religious beliefs were inconsistent with the Museum's Diversity, Equity, Acceptance and Inclusion Policy. The complaint (full text) in Berkemeir v. Genesee County Museum, (WD NY, filed 1/2/2025), alleges that plaintiff's dismissal violates her free exercise and free speech rights, the Equal Protection Clause, and Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act as well as other statutes. The complaint specifically focuses on requirements to address individuals by their preferred pronouns, but also sets out broader objections, stating in part:

80. Plaintiff also has the sincerely held religious belief, compelled by Scripture, that she is to “take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness,” but to “expose them.”... 

81. Plaintiff also has the sincerely held religious belief, compelled by Scripture, that silence in the face of evil is evil itself....

84. Plaintiff also has the sincerely held religious belief that for her to fail to speak out against things she knows are wrong results in the eternal condemnation of her soul....

228. Plaintiff’s sincerely held religious beliefs that compelled her to view all people as created by God in His image and equally deserving of respect did not comport with Defendants’ newly minted program of requiring all employees to view white people as “born oppressors” and somehow undeserving of identical respect and treatment. 

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

Church of Satanology's Suit to Display Banner in Schools Moves Ahead

In Stevens v. School Board of Broward County, Florida, (SD FL, Jan. 2, 2025), a Florida federal district court refused to dismiss free exercise, free speech and Establishment Clause claims brought by a minister of The Church of Satanology and Perpetual Soiree whose request to display a religious banner at a high school and a middle school were denied. Schools had permitted other churches to display banners, but refused plaintiff's request to display a banner reading "Satan Loves the First Amendment". The court said in part:

... Reverend Stevens has adequately alleged that he “has engaged in the exercise of religion.”... The school board’s arguments as to the lack of evidence regarding the Church’s tenets are better addressed on a motion for summary judgment or at trial, not on a motion to dismiss. And by preventing Reverend Stevens from displaying these banners, the school board has allegedly “substantially burdened this religious exercise.”...

The Court concludes that Reverend Stevens has stated a claim for viewpoint discrimination.  

The school board has arguably created a limited public forum at its schools by allowing some advertisements to be displayed on school grounds. ...

To the extent that Reverend Stevens’s First Amendment claim is brought as an Establishment Clause claim, rather than a Free Exercise Clause claim, the school board has not established that it should be dismissed....

Christian Haven for Sex Trafficking Victims Sues to Receive Federal Funding

Gracehaven, a Christian organization that cares for young survivors of sex trafficking, filed suit this week in an Ohio federal district court challenging the county's refusal to contract with it to receive federal Title IV-E funding for foster care services.  The complaint (full text) in Gracehaven, Inc. v. Montgomery County Department of Job and Family Services, (SD OH, filed 12/9/2024), says in part:

12.  Because Gracehaven is a Christian ministry that requires all employees to share and live out its religious beliefs, it told Montgomery County that it was not waiving or surrendering its right to employ only those who share its faith by signing the contract, and that it would sign the contract “as is.”  

13. The County responded that it would no longer “move forward with the renewal” of the contract with Gracehaven because of the ministry’s religiously based employment practices.  ...

15. But Defendants’ position conflicts with federal law, which expressly allows religious organizations to prefer members of their own faith as employees. 

18. The United States Supreme Court has clearly established—indeed, has held three times in the past seven years—that the government “violates the Free Exercise Clause when it excludes religious observers from otherwise available public benefits.”

The complaint also alleges that the county's action violates its freedom of expressive association and its religious freedom rights under the Ohio Constitution. ADF issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Good News Clubs Sue California School District for Access

Suit was filed yesterday in a California federal district court by Child Evangelism Fellowship alleging that a California school district has prevented Good News Clubs from meeting in district elementary schools. The complaint (full text) in Child Evangelism Fellowship NORCAL, Inc. v. Oakland Unified School District Board of Education, (ND CA, filed 12/11/2024), alleges in part:

1. For over two years, Defendant OUSD and its officials have unconstitutionally and impermissibly prohibited CEF from hosting its Good News Clubs in public elementary school facilities owned by OUSD. The Good News Club provides free moral and character training to students from a Christian viewpoint and strategically meets at public schools after school hours for the convenience of parents. CEF’s Good News Club has enriched the emotional, physical, and spiritual well-being of students across OUSD for over a decade. 

2. ... CEF was forced to temporarily end its Good News Club meetings in 2020 due to COVID-19 but sought to resume its meetings starting in January 2023. Despite having a long and storied history of providing after-school enrichment programs to students in OUSD, numerous schools within OUSD inexplicably denied the Good News Club access to use OUSD facilities while allowing numerous secular organizations and activities to resume meeting after school hours.  

3. CEF seeks a judgment declaring Defendants’ discriminatory use policies unconstitutional, both on their face and as applied, under the Free Speech, Establishment, and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. CEF also seeks preliminary and permanent injunctive relief ... together with damages....

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

2nd Circuit: Lawyers Have Standing to Challenge Bar Rule That Limits Comments on Transgender and Religious Subject Matter

In Cerame v. Slack, (2d Cir., Dec. 9, 2024), the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals held that two Connecticut lawyers have standing to bring a pre-enforcement challenge to a state Rule of Professional Conduct which prohibits lawyers from engaging in harassing or discriminatory conduct against members of various protected classes in the practice of law. It bars harassment or discrimination on the basis of  race, sex, religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, age, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status or socioeconomic status. Commentary to the Rule defines discrimination as including harmful verbal conduct directed at an individual that manifests bias or prejudice. The attorneys allege that they often speak out on legal blogs, in articles and legal seminars in ways that could be construed as personally derogatory.  According to the court:

Moynahan and Cerame ... allege... that “[t]here are numerous examples of speech” fully protected by the First Amendment that members of the Connecticut bar will be reluctant to engage in, given the fear of a misconduct complaint...."  These include using “the pronoun associated with a transgender individual’s biological sex when addressing that individual”; using the term “‘gender preference’ rather than ‘gender orientation’”;  ... and publishing cartoons that “satiri[ze] or mock[]” “a religious deity”..... 

Appellees argue that the commentary to Rule 8.4, providing that an attorney “does not violate paragraph (7) when the conduct in question is protected under the first amendment to the United States constitution,”  ...“unambiguously shows that the Rule does not proscribe protected speech”....

Although the First Amendment carve-out may make it more likely that the SGC will conclude that some speech that would otherwise fall within the text of Rule 8.4(7) is not in fact proscribed, the carve-out is not enough, on its own, to render Appellants’ fear of a misconduct complaint and its professional repercussions “imaginary or wholly speculative” for Article III purposes...

At this stage in the proceedings, Appellants have alleged plausibly that they intend to engage in speech proscribed, at least arguably, by a recently enacted, focused regulation.  This gives rise to a credible threat of enforcement.

Reuters reports on the decision.

Street Preacher Who Refused to Leave Restricted Area Around Kentucky Derby Loses Challenges to His Arrest

In Blankenship v. Louisville-Jefferson County Metro Government, Kentucky, (WD KY, Dec. 6, 2024), a Kentucky federal district court dismissed free speech, free exercise and vagueness challenges to action by local law enforcement against a street preacher, Jacob Blankenship, who refused to leave a restricted area around Churchill Downs on Kentucky Derby Day. The Court said in part:

... [I]f the restriction of Blankenship’s speech was content-neutral, it makes no difference whether Blankenship was arrested in a traditional or limited public forum....

[B]ecause the restrictions of access to the permitted and ticketed areas served purposes unrelated to the content of speech, those restrictions were content-neutral. The purpose of establishing the permitted area—facilitating ingress and egress for Churchill Downs—can be justified without reference to the content of any speech.... Accordingly, Blankenship’s free speech claim calls for intermediate scrutiny....

...Those restrictions survive intermediate scrutiny. The ticketed area was narrowly tailored to serve Metro’s significant interests in traffic control and public safety. It also left open ample alternative channels for Blankenship to share his message with essentially the same audience.....

The purpose of Metro’s permitting scheme is not to infringe upon or restrict religious practices.... The ticketed area restricted Blankenship’s preaching no differently than it restricted non-religious conduct.... 

... Because the ticketed area’s restrictions only incidentally effected Blankenship’s preaching, on his free exercise claim, Metro and Young are entitled to judgment as matter of law....

Because Blankenship has not tethered his due process void-for-vagueness claim to any liberty or property interest, it fails as a matter of law.

9th Circuit Narrows Preliminary Injunction Against Idaho's Abortion Trafficking Law

 In a 2-1 decision in Matsumoto v. Labrador, (9th Cir., Dec. 2, 2024) the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals significantly narrowed an Idaho federal district court's preliminary injunction against enforcement of the state's ban on assisting a minor in various ways to obtain an abortion without her parent's consent. The majority concluded that plaintiffs were likely to succeed only in their challenge to one part of the law.

 Idaho Code §18-623 provides:

An adult who, with the intent to conceal an abortion from the parents or guardian of a pregnant, unemancipated minor, either procures an abortion ... or obtains an abortion-inducing drug for the pregnant minor to use for an abortion by recruiting, harboring, or transporting the pregnant minor within this state commits the crime of abortion trafficking.

The majority held that the statute is not void for vagueness, nor does it burden the right of expressive association. It concluded, however, that the statute's ban on "recruiting" is an unconstitutionally overbroad regulation of protected speech. The court said in part:

 ... “[R]ecruiting” has broad contours that overlap extensively with the First Amendment. It sweeps in a large swath of expressive activities—from encouragement, counseling, and emotional support; to education about available medical services and reproductive health care; to public advocacy promoting abortion care and abortion access. It is not difficult to conclude from these examples that the statute encompasses, and may realistically be applied to, a substantial amount of protected speech....

In our view, the “recruiting” prong of Section 18-623 is neither integral nor indispensable to the operation of the statute as the Idaho legislature intended and therefore may be severed from the rest of the law. Without the “recruiting” prong, the statute criminalizes “harboring or transporting” a minor to “procure an abortion” “with the intent to conceal [the abortion] from the parents or guardian” of the minor— an intelligible crime that reaches the problems the legislature sought to rectify.

Judge Bea dissented in part. He argued that plaintiffs lack standing and therefore the district court should dismiss the suit. Idaho Capital Sun reports on the decision.

Suit Challenges Illinois Requirements for Insurance Policies to Cover Abortions

Suit was filed yesterday in an Illinois federal district court challenging on both constitutional and federal statutory grounds Illinois statutes that requires health-insurance policies to cover elective abortions on the same terms as other pregnancy-related benefits and to cover, without co-pays, abortion inducing drugs. The complaint (full text) in Students for Life of America v. Gillespie, (ND IL, filed 11/20/2024), alleges that these provisions violate free exercise rights, the right of expressive association, the federal Comstock Act, the Coates-Snow Amendment and the Weldon Amendment. Thomas More Society issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Parents Sue California High School Alleging Long History of Tolerating Antisemitism

Suit was filed last week in a California federal district court by parents of six high school students in the Sequoia Union High School District charging the high school with tolerating antisemitism expressed by students and teachers.  The complaint (full text) in Kasle v. Puttin, (ND CA, filed 11/15/2024), alleges in part:

SUHSD has a long history of tolerating casual antisemitism on its campuses.  Students and faculty have openly joked about Nazis and the Holocaust, while certain teachers have peddled antisemitic falsehoods about Middle East history without facing consequences.  District leadership has consistently turned a blind eye to such behavior.  SUHSD’s antisemitism problem worsened significantly after October 7, 2023, when Hamas—a U.S.-designated terrorist organization—invaded southern Israel and then mutilated, raped, and murdered more than 1,200 people.  Although quick to address other global injustices, SUHSD remained conspicuously silent about this historic massacre of Jews, contradicting the District’s professed commitment to equity....

The 64-page complaint alleges violation of Title VI, of the 1st and 14th Amendments as well as of parallel provisions of California law and asks for an injunction in part:

prohibiting Defendants’ discriminatory and harassing treatment of Plaintiffs in violation of Plaintiffs’ constitutional and statutory rights; 

prohibiting the District, its employees, agents, and representatives from engaging in any form of antisemitic behavior or conduct, including, but not limited to, verbal, written, or physical actions that demean, harass, or discriminate against individuals based on their Jewish identity or their identification with and commitment to Israel;

ordering the District to adopt and implement a clear and comprehensive policy specifically addressing antisemitism, as defined by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s Working Definition of Antisemitism....

It also asks the court to appoint a Special Master to monitor the district's implementation of policies against antisemitism. 

Ropes & Gray issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit. 

7th Circuit Vacates Injunction Against Indiana's Ban on Gender Transition Treatment for Minors

In K.C. v. Individual Members of the Medical Licensing Board of Indiana, (7th Cir., Nov. 13, 2024), the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 decision reversed a federal district court's preliminary injunction against Indiana's ban on non-surgical gender transition procedures for minors. Rejecting the district court's conclusion that the treatment ban violates the Equal Protection Clause, the 7th Circuit majority held that the law need only meet the rational basis test. The court said in part:

The only way SEA 480 implicates sex at all is that the medical treatment at issue is sex specific—it denies each sex access to the other’s hormones. A physician could, if not for SEA 480, prescribe two medical treatments: one exclusively to girls with gender dysphoria—testosterone; and one exclusively to boys with gender dysphoria—estrogen.....

When a state regulates a “medical procedure that only one sex can undergo,” the courts apply rational-basis review “unless the regulation is a ‘mere pretex[t] designed to effect an invidious discrimination against members of one sex or the other.’”...

Bostock does not apply to every use of the word “sex” in American statutory and constitutional law. The case decided an interpretive question about Title VII’s reach. Title VII does not apply here, so neither does Bostock.

The majority also rejected the claim that the Indiana law violates the Due Process right of parents to make medical decisions for their children because it does not carve out an exception for treatment when a parent consents. The majority said in part:

SEA 480 is supported by a rational basis.... [P]rotecting minor children from being subjected to a novel and uncertain medical treatment is a legitimate end. And if Indiana had included a parental-consent provision, the exception would swallow the rule...

Finally the majority rejected the claim that the statute's ban on aiding and abetting violates physicians' free speech rights, saying in part:

... [W]hen the physicians and the state do not see eye-to-eye on treatment—and when the state validly regulates that treatment—the state must be able to preclude its physicians from using their authority to help the state’s citizens access the treatment. Otherwise, the physicians would hold a veto over the state’s power to protect its citizens. SEA 480’s secondary liability provision covers unprotected speech, and it reasonably relates to its primary liability provision, which itself is a reasonable regulation.

Judge Jackson-Akiwumi filed a dissenting opinion focusing primarily on the ban on Indiana physicians assisting minors in obtaining treatment in other states, saying in part:

The majority opinion holds that, insofar as the aiding and abetting provision regulates speech, it reaches only unprotected speech—either speech integral to unlawful conduct or speech incidental to regulated conduct. Our law, however, defies both conclusions....

So, Indiana can realize its objectives by enacting a law and punishing those who violate it; it cannot accomplish its objectives by punishing speech that somehow relates to the purpose of a state law, yet amounts to no criminal or civil primary violation.

ADF issued a press release announcing the decision.

6th Circuit Grants En Banc Rehearing in Challenge to School's Ban on Misgendering Fellow Students

In Parents Defending Education v. Olentangy Local School District, (6th Cir., Nov. 1, 2024), the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals sitting en banc vacated a decision issued in July by a 3-judge panel (see prior posting) and granted a rehearing en banc in a free speech challenge to a school district's anti-bullying and anti-harassment policies. At issue are policies that prohibit students from using pronouns that are inconsistent with another student’s gender identity if the use amounts to harassment. In a 2-1 decision in July, the panel rejected the challenge saying in part that "[T]he District’s position that students may communicate their belief that sex is immutable through means other than the use of nonpreferred pronouns, indicate that the District is not attempting to prohibit any viewpoints."

George Mason Law Students Sue Claiming "No-Contact" Order Violates Their Free Speech and Free Exercise Rights

Suit was filed last week in a Virginia federal district court by two Christian female law students at George Mason University contending that a "no-contact" order issued against them by the University's DEI Office violates their free speech and free exercise rights. The complaint (full text) in Ceranksoky v. Washington, (ED VA, filed 11/1,2024), relates that plaintiffs were ordered to avoid contact, including through social media, with a classmate (identified in the complaint only as Mr. Doe) who is the Law School's representative on the Graduate and Professional Studies Assembly. Through an online chat platform, Mr. Doe proposed having hygiene products available in men's rest rooms as well as in women's in order to accommodate transgender men. According to the complaint:

5. [Plaintiff posted] ... her concern that if GMU adopted a policy “allow[ing] biological females into male restrooms to access period products as ‘trans men,’” then that would mean “female bathrooms will welcome male occupants.” She asked her classmate to “recognize the concerns of biological female students” and how they would feel “considerably uncomfortable if there are males using private women’s spaces on campus.” She noted that “[w]omen have a right to feel safe in spaces where they disrobe.” ...

7. Their classmate, who had claimed to be their representative to the student government and initially promised to “advocate for all” students and viewpoints, responded by mocking their concerns and labeling their views as bigoted for questioning others’ gender identity. 

8. Two weeks later ... [plaintiffs] received no-contact orders from GMU’s Office of Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion (“DEI Office”), prohibiting them from having any contact with their classmate....

152....  Defendants have singled out Plaintiffs’ expression and prevented them from engaging in religious expression with Mr. Doe.

153. Defendants’ no-contact orders have also chilled Plaintiffs from engaging in religious expression with other students at the Law School or the rest of GMU....

175.  Plaintiffs are motivated by their sincerely held religious beliefs to speak on-campus on many topics from a Christian worldview. Plaintiffs believe their on-campus speech is a way to share the Gospel of Jesus Christ with non-Christians and a way to disciple and equip other Christians on campus to grow and mature in their faith.

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

7th Circuit Hears Oral Arguments Challenging Schol's Derecognition of "Students For Life" Club

On Tuesday, the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments (audio of full oral arguments) in E. D. v. Noblesville School District, (7th Cir., Docket No. 24-1698), In the case (E.D. v. Noblesville School District, SD IN, March 15, 2024), an Indiana federal district court dismissed various First Amendment and other claims against a school district and district officials who derecognized a high school Students For Life Club on the ground that it was not entirely run by students.  The derecognition followed lengthy discussions over the club's advertising flyers. ADF issued a press release announcing the oral arguments.

Volunteer Prison Minister's Challenge to Requirements for Addressing LGBTQ Inmates Is Rejected

In Kuenzi v. Reese, (D OR, Oct. 28, 2024), an Oregon federal district court rejected 1st Amendment challenges to an Oregon prison system rule requiring volunteers in prison facilities to sign an acknowledgement statement that calls for volunteers to use appropriate gender pronouns when addressing transgender, intersex and non-binary adults in custody.  Plaintiff, a former volunteer Christian minister in a women's correctional facility, contends that this requirement conflicts with her free exercise and free speech rights. She is no longer allowed to minister at the prison facility without signing the statement which conflicts with her religious belief that gender is an immutable characteristic determined by biology, and that homosexual conduct is sinful. The court concluded that the prison policy is neutral and generally applicable and that:

... the policy is rationally related to ODOC’s legitimate interest in “promot[ing] a respectful environment that reinforces prosocial norms for ODOC’s AICs.” 

It also concluded that:

Because Plaintiff was speaking as an employee and not as a private citizen, her speech falls outside the protections of the First Amendment.