School Board Not Liable for Teacher's Proselytization of Muslim Student

In Chaudhry v. Community Unit School District 300 Board of Education, (ND IL, Dec. 29, 2023), an Illinois federal district court dismissed Establishment Clause, Due Process and Equal Protection claims by Muslim parents against an Illinois school board that employed teacher Pierre Thorsen who convinced their daughter to convert to Christianity.  The court said in part:

[T]he complaint continues to state an implausible theory of Monell liability because it does not plead enough factual matter to raise the inference that any assertedly unconstitutional practice had become so widespread that the Board was bound to have noticed it. It likewise continues to fail to plausibly allege that anyone other than Thorsen was the moving force behind any of the Parents’ asserted injuries.... At best, the Parents have alleged facts consistent only with the “isolated wrongdoing of one . . . rogue employee[].”... Because Monell does not allow for respondeat superior liability, these claims are not plausibly pleaded, and they therefore fail.

Street Preacher Loses His Free Speech Lawsuit

In Sessler v. City of Davenport, (SD IA, Nov. 22, 2022), an Iowa federal district court dismissed a suit for damages and injunctive relief brought by a street preacher who claimed that his free speech rights were violated when he and others with him were required to move from the location at which they were preaching during the city's Street Fest and continue their preaching from another location. According to the court:

Sessler and his group carried signs on extendable poles with messages including: "Hell is enlarged for adulterers . . . homosexuals . . . abortionists" and "Warning! If you are involved in sex out of marriage[,] homosexuality[,] drunkenness[,] night clubbing . . . you are destined for a burning hell[.]" 

The court concluded that Street Fest was a limited public forum, and plaintiff's removal was reasonable and viewpoint neutral.  It went on to say in part:

Sessler has failed to carry his burden of showing Behning, Smith, and Alcala violated a clearly established right, even if Street Fest is considered a traditional public forum. The case law discussed by Sessler does not show a member of the public has a right to continue preaching at a permitted event open to the public after event organizers requested his removal due to complaints that his preaching was driving customers away from fee-paying vendors. Rather, the case law on point suggests a reasonable officer could have concluded Sessler had no constitutional right to continue preaching within the boundaries of Street Fest following such complaints, as long as he was permitted to continue preaching across the street from an entrance to Street Fest. The Officers violated no clearly established right, so they are entitled to qualified immunity from Sessler's claims against them.

Street Preacher Gets Injunction Against Ordinance Limiting Microphones

In Miller v. City of Excelsior, Minnesota, (D MN, Aug. 2, 2022), a Minnesota federal district court granted a preliminary injunction against enforcement of a city's ordinance on amplified sound and portions of its special-event permit regulation. Plaintiff wanted to preach on sidewalks in the downtown business area. The city ordinance effectively prevents use of amplification on the narrow sidewalks of downtown. Outside the business district, to use amplification audible more than 30 feet away requires a permit with a $150 per day fee and 30 days advance notice. The court said in part:

By prohibiting all unpermitted amplified sound that can be heard at the property line from where the sound emanates in the B-1 and B-2 zoning districts, it is more likely than not that Section 16-105(b)(3) burdens substantially more speech than necessary to further the City’s interests. The ... restriction effectively eliminates amplified sound in the public ways of those districts. In doing so, the ordinance becomes untethered to the City’s legitimate interests in protecting the use and enjoyment of those public areas....

Miller has shown a sufficient likelihood that the City’s 30-day notice requirement, as applied, is not narrowly tailored. Miller is a single speaker, and a 30 day-notice period places a substantial burden on his right to speak spontaneously in his desired public forum....

On this record, it’s more likely than not that a $150 per-day fee is not narrowly tailored to the City’s administrative expenses in hosting Miller’s First Amendment activity.

Ban On Proselytizing At City Farmers Market Violates Free Speech Rights

In Denton v. City of El Paso, (WD TX, March 29, 2022), a Texas federal magistrate judge concluded that plaintiff's free speech rights were violated by a policy of the city whose Museums and Cultural Affairs Department refused to allow Plaintiff to proselytize at the Downtown Art and Farmers Market.  The city's policy barred First Amendment expression and religious proselytizing within and during the Market. The magistrate judge recommended granting of nominal damages and injunctive relief.

11th Circuit Rejects Preacher's Challenge To Campus Permit Requirement

In Keister v. Bell, (11th Cir., March 25, 2022), the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected a challenge to the University of Alabama's policy that requires a permit in order for a speaker to participate in expressive conduct on University grounds, with an exception for “casual recreational or social activities.” The challenge was brought by a traveling evangelical preacher who, with a friend, set up a banner, passed out religious literature and preached through a megaphone on a campus sidewalk. The court concluded that the sidewalk was a limited public forum, even if it was technically owned by the city rather than the University. Thus the University could impose reasonable, viewpoint neutral restrictions. It also concluded that the exception for "casual ... activities" was not unconstitutionally vague and that the University's advance notice requirement was constitutional.

Deposit Of Nominal Damages Does Not Moot Student's Claim In Remand From Supreme Court

In March in Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a college student's suit for nominal damages was not mooted when the school changed its challenged policies.  The case involves a challenge to Georgia Gwinnett College's speech policies that led to a student being stopped from distributing religious literature and proselytizing on campus. (See prior posting.) Now on remand, defendants sought to obtain dismissal of the case by depositing nominal damages of $2 with the court and having it paid over to plaintiffs. In Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski, (ND GA, Dec. 22, 2012), a Georgia federal district court held that this would not moot the case.  ADF issued a press release announcing the district court's decision.

Suit Seeking Permission For Sidewalk Proselytizing Moves Ahead

In Peters v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville & Davidson County, Tennessee, (MD TN, Nov. 1, 2021), a Tennessee federal district court allowed plaintiffs who were prevented from religious proselytizing in areas, including the plaza and sidewalks, outside Nashville's Bridgestone Arena to move ahead with most their 1st and 14th Amendment, and failure-to-train, claims. The court said in part:

Drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of the Plaintiffs, it is reasonable to infer that Metro police officers were enforcing the Arena Policies with the approval or direction of the Metro legal department. At the motion to dismiss stage, this is sufficient to allege plausibly the existence of a municipal policy or custom.

5th Circuit: Ban On Proselytizing At Outdoor Market Violates Free Speech Rigths

In Denton v. City of El Paso, Texas, (5th Cir., July 6, 2021), the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals remanded the case to a Texas federal district court ordering it to grant a preliminary injunction barring El Paso from prohibiting religious proselytizing at the weekly outdoor El Paso Art and Farmers Market. The city's rules bar fundraising, political campaigning and religious proselytizing from the market. The court held that these exclusions are content-based, and concluded:

It is unclear whether the City has asserted a compelling government interest. We need not decide this issue because, even assuming that it did assert a compelling government interest, a prior restraint of speech based on a viewpoint is unlikely to be the least restrictive means of regulation available.

8th Circuit: Street Preacher Did Not Show Entitlement To Preliminary Injunction

In Sessler v. City of Davenport, (8th Cir., March 18, 2021), the U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction to a street preacher who in 2018 had been required by police to leave the Street Fest area in Davenport. He was limited to preaching across the street from one of the festival entrances. Plaintiff sought a preliminary injunction to bar enforcement of the city's Special Events Policy against him through December 2022. The court held:

Although Sessler possesses a First Amendment right to communicate his messages in a public forum, he does not have the wholesale right to disrupt an event covered by a permit....

Even if we assume for purposes of this appeal, without deciding, that Sessler has shown a likelihood of success on the merits, we find Sessler’s inability to demonstrate a threat of irreparable harm heavily weighs against granting preliminary injunctive relief....

The facts as alleged by Sessler show that he was allowed to continue preaching in the City’s public sidewalks and streets, just not those demarcated and secured for use by Street Fest in July 2018. And, although Sessler’s Complaint is based on his removal from a festival governed by the City’s Policy, Sessler does not provide any concrete plans to share his messages at future festivals in the City.

In Campus Religious Speech Case, Supreme Court Says Nominal Damage Claim Can Support Standing

The U.S. Supreme Court today decided Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski, (Sup. Ct., March 8, 2021), potentially opening the courts to a larger number of civil rights complaints.  The case involves a challenge to Georgia Gwinnett College's speech policies that led to a student being stopped from distributing religious literature and proselytizing on campus. Subsequently, the school changed its policies, but that did not moot the students' claim for nominal damages. At issue in the case as it reached the Supreme Court is whether a claim for nominal damages satisfies the requirement that for standing a plaintiff must show, among other things, that the remedy will redress the constitutional violation alleged. In an 8-1 decision, through an opinion written by Justice Thomas, the Court said in part:

Because nominal damages were available at common law in analogous circumstances, we conclude that a request for nominal damages satisfies the redressability element of standing where a plaintiff’s claim is based on a completed violation of a legal right.

The dissent worries that after today the Judiciary will be required to weigh in on legal questions “whenever a plaintiff asks for a dollar.” ... But petitioners still would have satisfied redressability if instead of one dollar in nominal damages they sought one dollar in compensation for a wasted bus fare to travel to the free speech zone....

This is not to say that a request for nominal damages guarantees entry to court. Our holding concerns only redressability. It remains for the plaintiff to establish the other elements of standing (such as a particularized injury)....

Justice Kavanaugh filed a concurring opinion. 

Chief Justice Roberts dissented, saying in part:

Today’s decision risks a major expansion of the judicial role. Until now, we have said that federal courts can review the legality of policies and actions only as a necessary incident to resolving real disputes. Going forward, the Judiciary will be required to perform this function whenever a plaintiff asks for a dollar. For those who want to know if their rights have been violated, the least dangerous branch will become the least expensive source of legal advice....

The best that can be said for the Court’s sweeping exception to the case-or-controversy requirement is that it may itself admit of a sweeping exception: Where a plaintiff asks only for a dollar, the defendant should be able to end the case by giving him a dollar, without the court needing to pass on the merits of the plaintiff ’s claims.

ABC News reports on the decision.

Supreme Court Will Hear Arguments Today In College Speech Policy Case

The U.S. Supreme Court hears oral arguments this morning in Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski. The case grows out of a challenge to Georgia Gwinnett College's speech policies that led to a student being stopped from distributing religious literature on campus. Subsequently, the school changed its policies.  The U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals held that the change mooted plaintiff's claim for nominal damages. (See prior posting.) The 10:00 am oral arguments may be viewed live at this link. I will update this post to include a link to the written transcript of the arguments when it becomes available later today. SCOTUSblog's case page contains links to all the briefs filed in the case. Colorado Politics reports on the decisions.

UPDATE: Here are links to the transcript and audio of the oral arguments.

Proselytizing Does Not Rise To Level of Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

In Trombetta v Kruse, (NY Civ. Ct., Nov. 19, 2019), a New York state trial court held that a proselytizing pamphlet and a subsequent e-mail did not amount to intentional infliction of emotional distress, nor was any injury proven. According to the court:

The pamphlet ... shows a cartoon depiction of a catholic who is sent into the "lake of fire" to "burn in hell" for practicing as a catholic, instead of following the version of Christianity promoted by the pamphlet which is evangelical Baptist. The tract urges the reader to reject Catholicism, or be barred from heaven....

... [D]efendant wrote plaintiff an email that included the following statements: ... My family does not believe and, if any of them were to die tomorrow, they would not go to heaven but to hell. I sent them tracts because I do not want them to go to hell. I want them to go to heaven. It is what I want for you too.

The court held in part:

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the courts of this State from evaluating the religious beliefs of a church or individual....

While the court understands why the plaintiff found the tract and email disturbing, the court does not find that the conduct rose to the level of intentional infliction of emotional distress.

[Thanks to Volokh Conspiracy for the lead.]

Data On Russia's Prosecution of Missionary Activity

Forum 18 reported this week:

At least 159 prosecutions of individuals and communities for violating Russia's "anti-missionary" restrictions under Administrative Code Article 5.26, Parts 3, 4 and 5 are known to have reached court in the calendar year 2018.

This marks a decrease in the overall number of such prosecutions compared with the first year of the legislation's implementation (2016-17), which appears to be primarily explained by the sharp drop in the number of cases against Jehovah's Witnesses, whose activities were outlawed as "extremist" by Russia's Supreme Court in 2017.

Forum 18 found 159 cases against 56 organisations and 103 individuals which reached court in 2018. Of these, 132 resulted in conviction, with 129 fines being imposed. 2018 saw a conviction rate of 90 per cent, compared with 82 per cent in 2016-17.

Here is a detailed list of the prosecutions.

Conviction of Baptist Missionary In Russia Upheld On Appeal

As reported by Baptist Press, on Sept. 30 in Oryol, Russia, a city 220 miles southwest of Moscow, an appellate court upheld the conviction of Baptist missionary Donald Ossewaarde who was fined the equivalent of $642 (US) for violating Russia's anti-terrorism law amendments (full text in Russian) adopted earlier this year.  Among other things, the law limits who can operate as a foreign missionary and restricts locations where they can pray or proselytize. (See prior posting.) Ossewaarde, who held religious services in his home without notifying authorities, argued that technically his activities were not banned because he did not represent any officially registered religious organization.

So Far, 6 Charged Under Russia's New Law Limiting Missionary Activities

As previously reported, in July Russia's President signed into law new anti-terrorism legislation that, among other things, banned preaching, praying, proselytizing, and disseminating religious materials outside of officially-designated locations.  Last week, Forum 18 reported that so far six people have been charged under the new limits on missionary activity. Two Baptists, and a third person merely identified as Protestant, have had fines imposed on them.  A Hare Krishna adherent was acquitted.  Charges against two others-- a Pentecostal and a Seventh Day Adventist-- are still pending.  The Forum 18 posting has extensive details on each case.

Court Issues Preliminary Injunction Against College's Speech Permit Policy

In Grace Christian Life v. Woodson, (ED NC, June 4, 2016), a North Carolina federal district court issued a preliminary injunction barring North Carolina State University from enforcing its non-commercial speech permit policy that requires students to obtain prior written permission before distributing leaflets or soliciting passersby on campus. The suit was brought by a Christian student organization that proselytizes on campus. (See prior posting.) According to a press release by ADF, the court issued the preliminary injunction two days after a hearing in the case.  The court adopted plaintiff's allegations as its findings of fact. The preliminary injunction allows the University to still ban disruption of University activities, obstruction of buildings or sidewalks, or interference with educational activities or ceremonies.

8th Circuit Gives Christian Proselytizer At Irish Fair Limited Victory

In Miller v. City of St. Paul, (8th Cir., May 23, 2016), an evangelical Christian who wanted to proselytize at the 2014 Irish Fair of Minnesota won a partial victory.  Police commander Patricia Englund told David Miller that he and his group who planned to carry a banner, hand out literature and preach were not welcome at the fairgrounds.  The Court held that Miller has standing to pursue a claim for damages against Commander Englund, but could not pursue official capacity claims or injunctive relief. Courthouse News Service reports on the decision.

British Employment Appeal Tribunal Upholds Warning To Proselytizing Supervisor

In Wasteney v. East London NHS Foundation Trust, (UK EAT, April 7, 2016), the British Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) rejected a religious discrimination claim brought by the Head of Forensic Occupational Therapy at a public sector mental health clinic who described herself as a born again Christian.  She was issued a written warning for proselytizing a young Pakistani Muslim occupational therapist whom she supervised.  She gave the Muslim woman a book about another Muslim Pakistani woman who had converted to Christianity; during a one-on-one meeting prayed for the Muslim woman by laying hands on her; and invited the Muslim woman to various Christian church events. In upholding the finding of the Employment Tribunal (ET), the EAT said in part:

The ET did not find that the Respondent had pursued disciplinary action against the Claimant and imposed a warning on her because of or for reasons related to her sharing of her faith with a consenting colleague.  It expressly found that the Respondent took the actions it did because the colleague in question had made serious complaints about acts which blurred professional boundaries and placed improper pressure on that colleague.

Christian Post reporting on the decision quotes this reaction from the supervisor who lost her appeal:

I believe the NHS singled me out for discipline because Christianity is so disrespected. Previously a Christian worship service that I set up for patients was closed down, but accommodation for Muslims to practice their faith wholly facilitated and encouraged.

State Trooper Fired For Proselytizing During Traffic Stop

According to WCPO News, last Thursday the Indiana State Police fired state trooper Brian Hamilton after a formal complaint was filed against him by motorist Wendy Pyle who charges that when Hamilton stopped her to give her a warning ticket for speeding, he also asked her what church she attends and whether she was saved.  The ACLU has filed suit over the incident.  Hamilton was sued in 2014 by another woman for similar proselytizing during a traffic stop. (See prior posting.)