Supreme Court Review Sought by High School Pro-Life Group Over Free Speech Rights

 A petition for certiorari (full text) was filed yesterday with the U.S. Supreme Court in E.D. v. Noblesville School District, (Sup. Ct., cert. filed 1/28/2026). At issue in the case is a high school's refusal to permit a student pro-life group to post flyers in the school because of the political content of the flyers. The dispute eventually led to the suspension of the pro-life group for several months. The 7th Circuit upheld the school's action. The petition for review filed with the Supreme Court sets out the Question Presented in part as follows:

The Seventh Circuit upheld the school’s censorship under Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, ... on the theory that a “reasonable observer could easily conclude that the flyers reflected the school’s endorsement.”... In so doing, it exacerbated a deep, longstanding circuit split over when Hazelwood’s reduced speech protection applies. 

The question presented is: 

Whether Hazelwood applies (1) whenever student speech might be erroneously attributed to the school, as the Fifth, Seventh, and Tenth Circuits have held; (2) when student speech occurs in the context of an “organized and structured educational activity,” as the Third Circuit has held; or (3) only when student speech is part of the “curriculum,” as the Sixth and Eleventh Circuits have held.

ADF issued a press release announcing the filing of the cert. petition.

4th Circuit: School Gender Identity Guidelines Do Not Violate Teacher's 1st Amendment Rights

 In Polk v. Montgomery County Public Schools, (4th Cir., Jan. 28, 2026), the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision, affirmed a Maryland federal district court's denial of a preliminary injunction sought by a substitute teacher who objected on free speech and free exercise grounds to the school district's Guidelines for Student Gender Identity. The court rejected plaintiff's free exercise claim, concluding that the Guidelines are neutral and generally applicable and that they satisfy the rational basis standard. The majority said in part:

... Polk believes that gender is rigid, based on her understanding of Christianity.  And referring to her students by a gender that is not consistent with the student’s gender assigned at birth places a requirement on Polk, that she says is at odds with her faith....

Distilled to its core, the thrust of Polk’s appellate position is that, because persons who hold religious views are those most impacted by the Guidelines, they cannot be deemed “neutral.” But that logic turns the well-established neutrality analysis on its head.  As the court explained, the Complaint “alleges no facts from which the Court could infer religious animus.” ...  That a certain religious practice is incidentally burdened by the Guidelines is not sufficient. Rather, the Guidelines must be motivated by religious hostility....

The majority also rejected plaintiff's free speech claim, saying in part:

 ... [W]e agree with the district court that the Guidelines’s mandate does not concern the speech of a private citizen, but establishes the official duties of a public-school teacher.  More pointedly, how a teacher addresses a particular student in a particular classroom — and whether a teacher communicates with a student’s parent — is merely a part of that teacher’s job description....

 ... And “[w]hen an employee engages in speech that is part of the employee’s job duties, the employee’s words are really the words of the employer.  The employee is effectively the employer’s spokesperson.” ...

Judge Wilkinson dissented, contending that the Guidelines violated plaintiff's free speech rights.  He said in part:

In holding instead that the Free Speech Clause does not provide even qualified protection to Ms. Polk’s speech, the majority leaves teachers completely vulnerable to becoming the unwilling mouthpieces of government messaging. Although transgender rights advocates may now cheer the majority opinion, they will find today’s cure in truth a poison when states enact legally indistinguishable policies preventing teachers from using preferred pronouns in schools. And because nothing prevents school systems from pushing this newfound control much further than mere pronoun usage, I respectfully dissent....

This case is, without question, about compelled speech—a detail to which the majority gives short shrift....

... My qualm with the majority is simply that we cannot categorically write all in-class speech out of the First Amendment. Garcetti has its place, but chiefly with regard to core curricular functions. Speech at the noncurricular margins of a teacher’s job should remain subject to the same standards that we have always applied. This is no jurisprudential revolution....

 Ms. Polk’s case is one of many plaguing our nation’s educational system. Across all levels of education—elementary to college—LGBT rights, DEI, antisemitism, systemic racism, and innumerable other issues have made our schools hotbeds of vehement sociopolitical debate. Silencing voices and compelling affirmations to government preferred messaging do nothing to temper the vitriol; on the contrary, such actions foster further hostility....

5th Circuit En Banc Hears Challenges To 2 States' Laws Requiring Posting of 10 Commandments in Classrooms

The U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday, sitting en banc, heard oral arguments in two cases raising the question of the constitutionality of state laws requiring the posting of the Ten Commandments in public school classrooms. (Audio of full oral arguments.)   Roake v. Brumley challenges the Louisiana statute.  In that case a 3-judge panel of the 5th Circuit affirmed a district court's grant of a preliminary injunction, after which the 5th Circuit granted en banc review. In Nathan v. Alamo Heights Independent School District, a Texas federal district court issued a preliminary injunction barring 11 Texas school districts from complying with Texas SB 10 that requires posting of a particular version of the Ten Commandments in every classroom. On appeal, the 5th Circuit consolidated it for argument with the previously granted en banc hearing on the Louisiana law without a prior 3-judge panel hearing the appeal. NOLA reports on the cases.

California's Law Combatting Antisemitism In Public Schools Survives Constitutional Challenge

In Prichett v. Bonta, (ND CA, Dec. 31, 2026), a California federal district court refused to preliminarily enjoin enforcement of California AB 715 which is directed at preventing antisemitism in the curriculum of public schools. Among other things, the new law provides that the Biden Administration's National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism should be a basis to inform schools on how to identify, respond to, prevent, and counter antisemitism. Plaintiffs are California teachers and students who allege that AB 715 violates their free speech rights and is overbroad and void for vagueness. The court said in part:

Teacher Plaintiffs worry that AB 715 exposes them “to charges of unlawful discrimination and corresponding discipline if they convey ideas, information, and instructional materials to their students that may be considered critical of the State of Israel and the philosophy of Zionism—thus, creating a chilling effect and infringing on the First Amendment rights of both the teacher and student.” ...Student Plaintiffs allege ...that AB 715 undermines their “rights to receive information” related to “Palestinian and Arab culture” because teachers will be forced to self-censor to remain within the confines of AB 715....

The Court is not persuaded by Plaintiffs’ argument that the uncertainty created by AB 715’s inexact definition of antisemitism casts an unconstitutional pall over the entire bill....

Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the California legislature’s references in AB 715 to the Biden National Strategy ... were unconstitutional. However, even if Plaintiffs had proved that those two references were unconstitutional, the Court could, and would, properly sever those two references from the remainder of AB 715....

While Teacher Plaintiffs’ claims pass the standing hurdle, those claims are not currently ripe for adjudication....

As public-school education belongs to the government, the government may regulate Teacher Plaintiffs’ speech to accord with the government’s educational goals. It is of no significance that the curricula and the attendant speech required to teach it may advance a single viewpoint to the exclusion of another....

The Court does not find the word antisemitism in AB 715 to be vague....  A reasonable person reading AB 715 would sufficiently understand what the legislature meant by the word “antisemitism.”...

The Forward reports on the decision.

Lower Court Applies Supreme Court's Classroom Religious Opt-Out Decision

In Alan L. v. Lexington Public Schools, (D MA, Dec. 30, 2025), a Massachusetts federal district court, relying on the Supreme Court's recent decision in Mahmoud v. Taylor, held that the father of a 5-year-old kindergartener has the right to opt his child out of classroom lessons and activities that deal with sexual orientation and gender identity and violate plaintiff's Christian religious beliefs. Plaintiff identified ten books of concern. The court's injunction (full text) provides in part:

3. Defendants shall make reasonable efforts to ensure that J.L. is not taught or otherwise exposed to the content of the Identified Books, whether in the classroom or any other school setting. 

4. By January 20, 2025, defendants shall provide plaintiff with copies of any Other LGBTQ+ Educational Materials in their possession. 

5. By January 27, 2025, plaintiff shall specifically identify in writing any Other LGBTQ+ Educational Materials that he contends would burden his free-exercise rights by “substantially interfer[ing] with” J.L.’s “religious development” or posing a “very real threat of undermining the religious beliefs and practices” he wishes to instill in J.L.   

6. After receipt of plaintiff’s written response, defendants shall make reasonable efforts to ensure that J.L. is not taught or otherwise exposed to all Other LGBTQ+ Educational Materials identified by plaintiff, whether in the classroom or any other school setting....

9. Defendants shall make reasonable efforts to ensure that J.L. is able to receive reasonable and age-appropriate alternative instruction during any time he is removed from his classroom or any school assembly or activity in order to comply with this order.....

California Policy Barring School's Disclosure of Student's Change in Gender Expression Is Unconstitutional

In Mirabelli v. Olson, (SD CA, Dec. 22, 2025), a California federal district court held unconstitutional the policy of California school boards that bars public school teachers and staff from informing parents about changes in a child’s gender expression unless the child consents. The court concluded:

[The policies] harm the parents by depriving them of the long-recognized Fourteenth Amendment right to care, guide, and make health care decisions for their children, and by substantially burdening many parents’ First Amendment right to train their children in their sincerely held religious beliefs.  And finally, they harm teachers who are compelled to violate the sincerely held beliefs and the parent’s rights by forcing them to conceal information they feel is critical for the welfare of their students.

Justifying its conclusion, the court said: 

The constitutional question is about when gender incongruence is observed, whether parents have a right to be informed and make the decision about whether further professional investigation or therapy is needed.  Put another way, the question is whether being involved in potentially serious medical or psychological decision-making for their school student is a parent’s constitutional right. It is. "Simply because the decision of a parent is not agreeable to a child or because it involves risks does not automatically transfer the power to make that decision from the parents to some agency or officer of the state...."

The State Defendants argue... that a parent “does not possess a religious exercise right to dictate that a school reject their child’s gender identity.”...  Nevertheless, this Court disagrees....

Defendants concede that parents “may find notification that their child is expressing a transgender identity at school helpful in the general exercise of their right to direct a religious upbringing for that child.” ... So, the State Defendants are aware that notification would be helpful to religious parents, but provide no room for those parents to exercise those federal constitutional rights.... [T]he California state education parental exclusion policies provide no exceptions for religious parents....

The four teacher Plaintiffs and class representatives sincerely hold religious beliefs that that are being severely burdened by the imposition of the parental exclusion policies....

The teachers successfully make out a First Amendment freedom of speech claim when they are compelled to speak in violation of the law or to deliberately convey an illegal message....

Daily Wire reports on the decision.

Oklahoma Supreme Court Invalidates Religion-Based Social Study Standards

In Randall v. Fields, (OK Sup. Ct., Dec. 16, 2025), the Oklahoma Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision held that the Oklahoma State Board of Education violated the Open Meeting Act when it approved the 2025 Oklahoma Academic Standards for Social Studies. Plaintiffs had objected to the new Standards because of their religious content. According to the Court:

¶4 Petitioners are Oklahoma taxpayers who object to their tax dollars being used to promote religion in a public school. They allege the 2025 Standards interfere with their ability to direct and control the upbringing of their children including moral religious training and education they teach their children. They allege the 2025 Standards favor Christianity over all other religions in violation of the religious freedoms guaranteed by statutes and the Oklahoma Constitution. Petitioners allege that promotion and favoritism of Christianity will cause their children to feel ostracized and harm their education. Petitioners raising their children in the Christian faith allege the 2025 Standards promote theological doctrines and ideas contrary to the parents' Christian beliefs and their children will also be similarly harmed.

¶5 Petitioners object to the 2025 Standards requiring teachers to teach and students to learn that events depicted in a Bible are historical facts. Petitioners allege historicity of these events is disputed. Petitioners object to 2025 Standards requiring teachers to teach and students to learn that the validity of results in the 2020 Presidential Election should be questioned, and that the COVID 19 virus was caused by a leak in a laboratory in China. Petitioners point to Superintendent Ryan Walters' public statements asserting that the 2025 Standards were created and adopted to promote Judeo-Christian values and to teach a Bible as a "foundational text, helping students understand its undeniable influence on our nation's history and values." Petitioners allege the 2025 Standards require teaching stories and events depicted in a Bible to first and second grade students, and the material is not appropriate for students who are usually 6-8 years of age.

Oklahoma Voice reports on the decision.  (See prior related posting.)

Suit Challenges High School's Ban on Religious and Political Messages on Its Spirit Rock

A suit was filed this week in a North Carolina federal district court by a high school student whose patriotic and religious tribute to the late Charlie Kirk painted on her high school's Spirit Rock led to controversy and revision of school rules. The 66-page complaint (full text) in G.S. v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, (WD NC, filed 12/8/2025), reads in part:

3. In a desire to emulate Charlie Kirk’s boldness for his faith, G.S. wanted to remind her classmates, friends, and others in the Ardrey Kell High School community that Charlie Kirk had received and was enjoying eternal life with his Savior, Jesus Christ, and to create a space where students could memorialize him. 

4. After receiving permission from school officials to paint the Ardrey Kell High School spirit rock with a patriotic message related to Charlie Kirk, that’s exactly what G.S. and two friends did. They painted the spirit rock with a heart, a United States flag, the message “Freedom 1776,” and a tribute to Charlie Kirk: “Live Like Kirk—John 11:25.” Then they placed flowers in a vase at the base of the spirit rock....

John 11:25 reads: "Jesus said to her, 'I am the resurrection and the life. The one who believes in me will live, even though they die'."

School authorities quickly painted over the tribute and promulgated a Revised Spirit Rock Speech Code which barred students from expressing “political” or “religious messages” on the spirit rock. According to the complaint, authorities also investigated her for a few days for vandalism. 

The complaint, among other things seeks:

A declaratory judgment that Defendant’s Unwritten Spirit Rock Speech Code, Vandalism Policy, and Revised Spirit Rock Speech Code, and the unconstitutional actions against G.S. pursuant to it—including censoring her speech, publicly accusing her of misconduct, searching her cell phone, refusing to clear her name, and adopting a new viewpoint-based policy—violated her rights under the First, Fourth, Fifth, and/or Fourteenth Amendments....

In detailing her claims, plaintiff alleged in part:

458. G.S.’s views and expression on the Ardrey Kell High School spirit rock were motivated by her sincerely held religious beliefs, are avenues through which she expressed her religious faith, and constitute a central component of her sincerely held religious beliefs.

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

Court Enjoins School Districts from Complying with Texas Mandate to Post 10 Commandments in Classrooms

In Cribbs Ringer v. Comal Independent School District, (WD TX, Nov. 18, 2025), a Texas federal district court issued a preliminary injunction barring 14 Texas school districts from complying with SB 10, a recent Texas statute requiring the posting of the Ten Commandments in every public-school classroom. The court concluded that the case is factually indistinguishable from the U.S. Supreme Court's 1980 decision in Stone v. Graham. The court held that the Supreme Court's later decision in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District abandoned the Lemon test in Establishment Clause cases, the Supreme Court "gave no indication it was abrogating or overruling any of its public school cases." The court said in part:

Even if Kennedy undermined Stone to some extent, it would still control this case. Lower courts must apply controlling Supreme Court precedent even when it appears to rest on "reasons rejected in some other line of decisions."

Eleven other Texas school districts were previously enjoined from complying with SB 10. (See prior posting.) 

ACLU issued a press release announcing yesterday's decision.

Texas AG Sues School District to Require Posting of 10 Commandments

Last week, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton filed suit in a Texas state trial court against the Galveston School District and its board members seeking to order them to display copies of the Ten Commandments in every classroom as mandated by Texas law. The complaint (full text) in State of Texas v. Galveston Independent School District, (TX Dist. Ct. filed 11/7/2025) reads in part:

Defendants are openly violating the law in Texas. In order to prevent irreparable harm to the State of Texas’s interests and to bring Defendants back into the bounds of the law, the State of Texas requests temporary and permanent injunctive relief from this Court. 

In August 2025, a Texas federal district court enjoined eleven school districts from complying with the Texas statute that requires posting of the Ten Commandments in classrooms. (See prior posting.) The Galveston district is not one of those eleven. Attorney General Paxton has directed school districts that were not defendants in that case to comply with the display requirement. (See prior posting).

Friendly Atheist blog discusses the lawsuit.

6th Circuit En Banc: Banning Student-on-Student Use of Biological Pronouns Violates Free Speech Rights

In Defending Education v. Olentangy Local School District Board of Education, (6th Cir., Nov. 6, 2025), the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in a 10-7 en banc decision held that the free speech rights of public-school students are infringed when the school prohibits them from calling fellow-students who are transgender by their biological pronouns rather than the pronouns preferred by their fellow students.  A 3-judge panel of the 6th Circuit had reached an opposite conclusion. (See prior posting.) Plaintiff students and parents hold religious beliefs that gender is immutable. Opinions in the en banc case span 112 pages. The en banc court's majority opinion said in part:

A school district may not restrict personal speech on matters of public concern unless the speech would “materially and substantially disrupt” school activities or infringe the legal “rights of others” in the school community.  Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Cmty. Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. 503, 513 (1969).  In this case’s current posture, the school district has fallen far short of meeting this demanding standard.  It introduced no evidence that the use of biological pronouns would disrupt school functions or qualify as harassment under Ohio law....

 ... [T]he School District has regulated personal expression—the use of biological pronouns to convey a student’s scientific and religious beliefs—that addresses a “sensitive topic of public concern.” ... As part of the broader debate over transgender rights, the question whether speakers should use preferred pronouns to refer to transgender individuals—and whether we should treat the commonplace (and non-antagonistic) use of biological pronouns as proper or offensive—has stirred a “passionate political and social debate” in our society....

... [T] the School District has not just entered this policy debate.  It has taken a side.  The School District has “targeted” a speaker’s use of biological pronouns as improper while allowing students to use preferred pronouns (no matter how novel)....

... The School District is right that schools may bar abusive “invective” that targets “specific” students—whether transgender students, religious students, female students, Hispanic students, or any others.... That is, a school could bar a student from abusively ridiculing a transgender classmate’s “physical characteristics” in the same way it could bar a student from abusively ridiculing a smaller student’s physical characteristics.... But the School District is wrong to treat the use of biological pronouns alone as analogous to this abusive invective.  Defending Education’s members want to use biological pronouns not because they seek to ridicule others but because they want to speak what they view as the truth.... 

Ohio law defines “harassment, intimidation, or bullying” to cover speech directed at another student only if the speech both “[c]auses mental or physical harm to the other student,” and “[i]s sufficiently severe, persistent, or pervasive that it creates an intimidating, threatening, or abusive educational environment for the other student.”  Ohio Rev. Code § 3313.666(A)(2)(a).  And the School District has offered no evidence that the commonplace use of biological pronouns would create an intimidating, threating, or abusive environment....

Judge Batchelder filed a concurring opinion, saying in part:

... [E]ven if the School District were to produce overwhelming evidence of disruption, that evidence would still not justify the compelled-speech or viewpoint-discrimination aspects of its preferred-pronoun policies.

Judge Kethledge filed a concurring opinion, saying in part:

 ... [T]o determine whether the plaintiffs here should prevail on their First Amendment claim, we should begin with the right question:  namely, whether the historic common law would have subjected a student to punishment (as a matter of public law or private) for referring to a classmate with biological pronouns that the classmate had insisted the student not use.  Considering the speech alone, the answer is likely no.  For one thing, as noted above, offense or dignitary harm was not cognizable at law....  And the right to express one’s opinions in good faith would almost certainly protect the speech at issue here....

A final point is hortatory rather than legal.  That the law permits certain action does not mean that an individual should necessarily engage in it....

Judges Thapar and Nalbandian filed a concurring opinion, saying in part:  

In the end, the School District’s policy “mandates orthodoxy, not anti-discrimination,” and fails to recognize that “[t]olerance is a two-way street.”...  The District chose a side in a hotly contested debate and tried to squelch the opposing viewpoint by imposing an ideological speech code.  When it did so, it unlawfully discriminated based on viewpoint.  And while we appreciate the majority’s thoughtful Tinker approach, we worry that students’ rights to speak freely on important matters of public interest should not hang in the balance while district courts perform ad hoc inquiries into how “disrupt[ive]” they find the students’ viewpoint....

Judge Bush filed a concurring opinion, saying in part:

Rather than employ the traditional monsieur (for a man) and madame or mademoiselle (for women) or use longstanding aristocratic titles..., the French revolutionaries replaced those words with the masculine citoyen or feminine citoyenne (both translated as “citizen”) to refer to all men and women, respectively, regardless of station....  

Like the French revolutionaries, communists also sought to revolutionize forms of address for political ends.  Communist regimes strongly encouraged and sometimes mandated use of “comrade” instead of traditionally employed honorifics to refer to another person, just as the French revolutionaries insisted on the use of “citizen.”  That was not surprising.  “[T]he history of authoritarian government . . . shows how relentless authoritarian regimes are in their attempts to stifle free speech . . . .” ...

Governments in the United States—federal or state—never operated that way.  Our Constitution forbids mandatory use of certain titles to refer to others....

American history and tradition uphold the majority’s decision to strike down the school’s pronoun policy.  Over hundreds of years, grammar has developed in America without governmental interference.  Consistent with our historical tradition and our cherished First Amendment, the pronoun debate must be won through individual persuasion, not government coercion.  Our system forbids public schools from becoming “enclaves of totalitarianism.”

Judge Stranch joined by Judges Moore, Clay, Davis, Mathis, Bloomekatz and Ritz, filed a dissenting opinion, saying in part:

In this case, the School District has repeatedly affirmed that the children of Defending Education members will have the right to express beliefs about transgender identities.  Those children will be permitted to express the view that sex is immutable.  But it is not viewpoint discrimination to require those students to share those beliefs in a manner that does not disrupt the education of others....

The District made clear in its Policies that the purpose of the ban on intentional use of non-preferred pronouns is to prevent disruption in the form of trauma to transgender or nonbinary students of a degree likely to hamper those students’ ability to learn.  Evidence of that purpose was before the district court.....

Though the record satisfied Tinker’s requirement that the School District’s forecast be reasonable, the majority opinion concluded otherwise, positing and applying a new approach:  that “the closer the speech resembles political expression at the First Amendment’s core, the more evidence a school must present of the potential disruption or violation of rights.”...

... Existing precedent provides educators—those most attuned to the issues in their schools—with a reasonable level of agency to develop productive, civilized educational settings while protecting both student rights and student safety.

Columbus Dispatch reports on the decision.

Religious College Challenges Exclusion from Chicago's Student Teacher Program

Suit was filed this week in an Illinois federal district court by the Moody Bible Institute challenging the Chicago Board of Education with excluding its students from participating in the Chicago student teacher program in violation of the Constitution and of state law. The complaint (full text) in Moody Bible Institute of Chicago v. Board of Education of the City of Chicago, (ND IL, filed 11/4/2025), alleges in part:

... Chicago Public Schools insists that Moody sign two agreements that contain provisions prohibiting Moody from employing only those who share its religious beliefs and agree to comply with its standards of Christian conduct (the “Employment Provisions”)....

Chicago Public Schools has allowed other universities and colleges to participate in the Pre-Service Teaching Program even though they have similar hiring practices to Moody....

Plaintiff alleges that this violates their rights under the First Amendment's religion and speech clauses, the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause and the Illinois Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

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

School May Bar Teacher from Hanging Crucifix on Classroom Wall

In Arroyo-Castro v. Gasper, (D CT, Nov. 3, 2025), a Connecticut federal district court in a 54-page opinion rejected claims of a public middle-school teacher that her free speech and free exercise rights were violated when she was disciplined for hanging a crucifix on a classroom wall near her desk.  The court said in part:

... Ms. Castro acted pursuant to her job duties as a teacher when she decorated the walls of her classroom with items the students would see during instructional time. The question is whether Ms. Castro was doing otherwise when she hung items she calls “personal expressive items” on the wall, including the crucifix. Ms. Castro specifically states that posting such items makes the classroom environment more conducive to learning because the items humanize the teacher to their students. In that way, therefore, Ms. Castro was acting pursuant to her official duties as a teacher by displaying the items....

Accepting Ms. Castro’s argument that teachers have a First Amendment free speech right to post “personal expressive items” related to matters of public concern on classroom walls—where they are visible to students during instructional time—would mean the District could not control the messages conveyed to students while the students are required to be present in the classroom for learning. Instead, with respect to each such item a teacher posted on the classroom wall, the District would need to engage in a Pickering balancing analysis and could prohibit only those items that are sufficiently disruptive.  

... I conclude that Ms. Castro is unlikely to prevail on her claim that her display of the crucifix on the wall of the classroom constitutes speech as a private citizen rather than pursuant to her job duties as a teacher. Therefore, I conclude she is not likely to prevail on her free speech claim....

Ms. Castro says that she “sincerely believes that her religion compels her to display her crucifix, not hide it under her desktop” and “[s]tifling her religious expression through concealment of the crucifix ‘would be an affront to [her] faith....  

I have already concluded that the crucifix display on the classroom wall was pursuant to Ms. Castro’s official duties and is therefore speech attributed to the District. The speech is thus, for constitutional purposes, the government’s own speech....

Defendants argue that allowing the crucifix to remain on the classroom wall would constitute a violation of the Establishment Clause or, at the very least, expose the District to a risk of liability for such a violation....

Based on the existing record, I conclude that Ms. Castro is unlikely to show that Defendants did anything other than make “a reasonable, good faith judgment” that permitting Ms. Castro to hang the crucifix on the classroom wall during instructional time “runs a substantial risk of incurring a violation of the Establishment Clause.... I agree with Defendants, therefore, that a preliminary injunction should not issue....

As noted, under binding Second Circuit cases, the District must be afforded some leeway in balancing the free exercise rights of its employees and the risk of an Establishment Clause violation.... Unlike the coach’s prayer in Kennedy, the crucifix display is a religious message on the classroom wall broadcast to a “captive audience” of students required to be in the classroom. ...

First Liberty Institute issued a press release announcing the decision.

[Thanks to Eugene Volokh via Religionlaw for the lead.] 

5th Circuit Grants En Banc Review of Louisiana 10 Commandments Law

On Oct. 6, the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals granted en banc review in Roake v. Brumley, (Full text of court's Order.) In the case, a 3-judge panel affirmed a district court's grant of a preliminary injunction against enforcement of a Louisiana statute that requires public schools to display the Ten Commandments in every classroom. (See prior posting.) The court's Order vacates the panel decision and calls for new briefs and oral arguments in the case. Baptist News Global reports on the court's action.

IDEA Requires New York To Pay for Kindergartener's Judaic Studies Class

In Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York v. E.L., (SD NY, Sept. 30, 2025), a New York federal district court upheld a decision by a State Review Officer who decided that under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), New York schools must pay for a Judaic Studies class that is part of the curriculum of a private school which a kindergarten student with a disability attends. The private school was found to be an appropriate placement for the student after public schools failed to offer the student a free appropriate public education (FAPE). At issue was whether paying for the Judaic studies part of the curriculum violates federal regulations or constitutional provisions. The court said in part:

Here, there is no dispute that the IDEA’s guarantee of a FAPE and reimbursement for tuition at an appropriate school is a neutral program. There is no dispute that funding appropriately provided under that program adheres to federal regulations and the Constitution. The DOE, however, appears to argue that the Judaic Studies classes are not covered by that neutral program—that they are unnecessary religious instruction falling outside the IDEA educational guarantee. This issue is best resolved with an understanding of what a child of E.L.’s age needs to obtain a FAPE and whether the absence of his enrollment in Judaic Studies classes would prevent him from obtaining that FAPE. In other words, this question implicates educational expertise that is best left to the administrative officers. 

... [T]he Court finds that the Judaic Studies classes are a core part of E.L.’s FAPE. The SINAI School director testified that Judaic Studies classes work on reading comprehension skills, and expressive and receptive language skills.... Moreover, the classes comprise a key part of the school day, taking place for thirty minutes to an hour in the morning, between other classes such as language studies, art therapy, and educational therapy.... For a five-year-old, these are critical periods of learning and development. To deny funding for these specific class periods would effectively exclude the child from these periods of learning.

Teacher Loses Challenge to School's "Controversial Issues" Policy

In Cahall v. New Richmond Exempted Village School District Board of Education, (SD OH, Sept. 29, 2025), an Ohio federal district court dismissed a teacher's constitutional challenges to a 3-day suspension she received for violating the school's "controversial issues" policy. Plaintiff, a third-grade math and science teacher, added four books with LGBTQ+ themes to a book collection in her classroom that students can read during in-class free time. In upholding the school's action, the court said in part:

To the extent that [plaintiff] relies on the Free Exercise Clause... —teachers do not have a First Amendment right (whether under its free speech component or its free exercise component) to make their own “curricular and pedagogical choices” in a public school.... If Cahall wants to keep religious materials for her own use—for example, a Bible in a desk drawer that she reads herself during free time—the analysis gets more difficult. Or similarly if she wants to speak as a citizen on matters relating to LGBTQ+ or other issues—for example, commenting at a Board meeting.... But the District pays her to instruct students, and as part of that, it has the right to specify the materials that she uses to accomplish that objective....

Cahall also invokes the Establishment Clause. Her claim ... appears to be that the District chose to treat other religious expressions, by other school personnel, better than hers.... But assuming that is her claim, ... she has not plausibly alleged that a similarly-situated employee was treated more favorably, and thus has not plausibly alleged that the District is favoring one religion over another.  

If instead she is arguing that she has some kind of constitutional right to share her religiously motivated beliefs, the Establishment Clause actually works against her.

The court also rejected vagueness and equal protection challenges.

Canceling Church's Sunday Lease on School Gym Violated 1st Amendment

 In Truth Family Bible Church Middleton v. Idaho Housing and Finance Association, (D ID, Sept. 22, 2025), an Idaho federal district court held that plaintiff's First Amendment rights were violated when its lease to use a public charter school's gymnasium for Sunday services was terminated. The court said in part:

... Truth Family had a month-to-month lease with Sage International Network of Schools (“SAGE”), a public charter school, where they would pay rent for the use of the school’s gymnasium on Sundays for church services.... SAGE submitted an application to IHFA to participate in the Public Charter School Facilities Program [under which] it could receive bonds for facility improvements and construction.  

IHFA reviewed SAGE’s application and indicated the lease with Truth Family could be a problem because the bond proceeds could not be used for religious purposes under Article IX Section 5 of the Idaho Constitution (otherwise known as the “Blaine Amendment”).... Ultimately, SAGE decided to terminate the lease in order to proceed with bond financing.....

IHFA did not single out Truth Family’s lease in a way that was neutral or generally applicable, and SAGE did not terminate Truth Family’s lease in a manner that was neutral or generally applicable. Therefore, Truth Family met its burden of showing there was a violation of the Free Exercise Clause here....

To refuse the issuance of bonds to anyone who contracts with a religious organization to use their facilities is likely not narrowly tailored to any government interest that could possibly be served by the Blaine Amendment....

... [T]he government is still indicating a preference for a certain religion or non-religion when it excludes another. When Truth Family was prevented from using facilities to participate in worship services, that indicated IHFA and SAGE’s preference for non-religion in violation of the Establishment Clause....

SAGE terminated the lease solely due to Truth Family’s status as a religious organization. While the motivation might have been money rather than a direct issue with the message itself, the result is the same: Truth Family could no longer spread its message at the school because it was a religious one. This is a violation of the Free Speech Clause, and summary judgment is proper....

Idaho Ed News reports on the decision.

School's Policy on Disclosure of Students' Social Transitioning Violated Due Process, But Not Parents' Free Exercise Rights

In Mead v. Rockford Public School District, (WD MI, Sept. 18, 2025), parents of a middle school student, referred to as G.M., challenged a school's policy on non-disclosure of their child's social transitioning of gender. The school referred to G.M. by a female name and pronouns when speaking with the parents. However, teachers and other employees referred to the child by a masculine name and with masculine pronouns at school. A Michigan federal district court held that this did not violate parents' free exercise rights, but that parents had stated due process claims.  The court said in part:

Plaintiffs argue that the District has conditioned the privilege of their child attending public school on their willingness to abandon their sincere religious beliefs.  Not so.  As parents, the Meads “are not being coerced or compelled into recognizing any individual in any particular way inconsistent with their religious beliefs.” ... The District allows its students to request their preferred name and pronouns....  In no way does that compel students or their parents to recognize a preferred name or pronouns of the opposite sex.  

Accordingly, the court finds the District’s policy and practice to be neutral and generally applicable.  As a result, the policy and practice are not subject to strict scrutiny but must have a rational basis....

Defendants proffer the legitimate purpose of promoting a safe and supportive learning environment for LGBTQ students.... Plaintiffs do not dispute that the policy is rationally related to this purpose....

Plaintiffs allege two fundamental rights under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, (1) the parental right to direct the upbringing of their child and their child’s education, and (2) the parental right to direct their child’s healthcare.  Plaintiffs plausibly allege that the District infringed upon the first set of rights when it failed to inform them of their child’s requested gender transition and when it deceived them so they wouldn’t find out besides their child telling them.  Plaintiffs plausibly allege that the District infringed upon the second set of rights when it conducted a “psychosocial intervention” to treat their child’s gender dysphoria and other mental health disorders.

ADF issued a press release announcing the decision.

Oklahoma Supreme Court Stays Implementation of New Social Studies Standards While Litigation Is Pending

 As previously reported, in July a suit was filed asking the Oklahoma Supreme Court to assume original jurisdiction and enjoin implementation of the State Board of Education's 2025 Academic Standards for Social Studies in grades K-8. The Standards call for teaching of stories from the Bible with a Christian perspective on them.  Now, in Randall v. Walters, (OK Sup. Ct., Sept. 15, 2025), the Oklahoma Supreme Court, by a vote of 5-2, assumed original jurisdiction for the purpose of issuing a temporary stay while the challenge to the new Standards is being litigated. The Court ordered that the 2019 Social Studies Standards be used while the litigation proceeds.

California Legislature Passes Law Aimed at Combatting Antisemitism and Other Bias in Schools

On September 12, the California legislature gave final passage to AB 715 (full text) which amends the state Education Code to create a state office of Civil Rights. The new Office is to work directly with local educational agencies to address discrimination and bias. It is to provide educational resources to identify and prevent antisemitism and other forms bias. The bill also requires the Office to employ an Antisemitism Prevention Coordinator who is to provide antisemitism education to school personnel and make recommendations to the legislature on legislation that is needed to prevent antisemitism in educational settings. The bill provides in part:

The United States National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism, published by the Biden Administration on May 25, 2023, shall be a basis to inform the Antisemitism Prevention Coordinator on how to identify, respond to, prevent, and counter antisemitism.

The bill also provides in part:

51500. (a) (1) A teacher shall not give instruction and a school district shall not sponsor any activity that promotes a discriminatory bias on the basis of race or ethnicity, gender, religion, disability, nationality, or sexual orientation or because of a characteristic listed in section 220....

(2) Discriminatory bias in instruction and school-sponsored activities does not require a showing of direct harm to members of a protected group. Members of a protected group do not need to be present while the discriminatory bias is occurring for the act to be considered discriminatory bias.

(3) If the governing board or body of a local educational agency finds that instruction or school-sponsored activities are discriminatory pursuant to this section, corrective action shall be taken.

(b) Teacher instruction shall be factually accurate and align with the adopted curriculum and standards ..., and be consistent with accepted standards of professional responsibility, rather than advocacy, personal opinion, bias, or partisanship.

The bill now goes to Governor Gavin Newsom for his signature. JNS reports on the passage of the legislation. KQED reports on the controversy that surrounded the bill.