School loses Supreme Court bid over Christian staff member sacked for LGBT posts
In February, she won a Court of Appeal battle related to her dismissal, with three senior judges finding that the decision to sack her for gross misconduct was 'unlawfully discriminatory' and 'unquestionably a disproportionate response'.
The school sought to appeal against the ruling at the Supreme Court in March, but three justices refused to give the school the green light to challenge the decision in the UK's highest court.
In a decision on Thursday, which was published on Monday, Lord Reed, Lord Hamblen, and Lady Simler said that the school had asked for the go-ahead to appeal against the ruling on four grounds.
But they said that the Supreme Court 'does not have jurisdiction' to hear three of the grounds, and the fourth 'does not raise an arguable question of law'.
In response to the decision, Mrs Higgs said: 'I am relieved and grateful to the Supreme Court for this common-sense decision.
'Christians have the right to express their beliefs on social media and at other non-work-related settings without fear of being punished by their employer.'
Andrea Williams, chief executive of the Christian Legal Centre – which supported Mrs Higgs' case, said: 'We welcome the Supreme Court's decision, which brings a decisive closure to this extraordinary case.'
She continued: 'The Court of Appeal confirmed, loud and clear, that ideological censorship in the workplace, particularly against sincerely held Christian convictions, is illegal.
'This latest decision from the Supreme Court is further proof that our tireless work at the Christian Legal Centre, in defending so many Christian freedoms cases, has not been in vain.'
Mrs Higgs, who worked as a pastoral administrator and work experience manager at the school, shared two posts on a private page under her maiden name in October 2018 to about 100 friends, which raised concerns about relationship education at her son's Church of England primary school.
She either copied and pasted from another source or reposted the content, adding her own reference in one post to 'brainwashing our children'.
BREAKING: The Supreme Court has today refused to hear the appeal of Farmor's School in Fairford, Gloucestershire of the landmark Kristie Higgs Court of Appeal ruling.
In February 2025, in a seminal judgment for Christian freedom and free speech, the Court of Appeal had reversed… pic.twitter.com/ngiF80EVjQ
— Christian Concern (@CConcern) June 9, 2025
Pupils were to learn about the No Outsiders In Our School programme, a series of books that teach the Equality Act in primary schools.
An employment tribunal found in 2020 that while Mrs Higgs' religion was a protected characteristic, her dismissal was lawful, but this decision was overturned by an Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) in 2023.
But the EAT ruled the case should be sent back to an employment tribunal for a fresh decision, which Mrs Higgs' lawyers challenged in the Court of Appeal as 'unnecessary'.
In a judgment, Lord Justice Underhill, sitting with Lord Justice Bean and Lady Justice Falk, ruled in Mrs Higgs' favour in February, stating: 'The dismissal of an employee merely because they have expressed a religious or other protected belief to which the employer, or a third party with whom it wishes to protect its reputation, objects will constitute unlawful direct discrimination within the meaning of the Equality Act.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Spectator
25 minutes ago
- Spectator
What Lewis Goodall gets wrong about inheritance tax
Do you want to live in a world in which you are forbidden from giving things, such as your time, your money or your labour, to other people? It has become increasingly common in recent years for those on the left of British politics to argue that it is illegitimate for people to receive a gift after someone has died – what we call 'inheritance'. For that is all that 'inheritance' is. A dead person gives you some things and you receive them. On Thursday, clips of Lewis Goodall's LBC show showed him saying people have no right to inherit from their parents and that he'd be happy if inheritance tax were 100 per cent. Abi Wilkinson argued for the same thing a few years ago in the Guardian. The position is that the only legitimate source of income or wealth is work. Money that is 'unearned' (of course it isn't actually unearned, unless it was stolen – it was earned by someone at some point then given to others) is not legitimate. How far does this objection to gifts go? Should people be forbidden from buying a car for their children or supplying the money for a house deposit? May spouses give things to each other? Could I give a friend money to help him set up a business? Can I give money to a charity or a church? Can I give money to my niece to help her with her maintenance costs through university? Can I pay for my son's food and let him live at home if he becomes unemployed? If the answer to all the above is 'yes' – as I suspect Lewis Goodall will say it is – then what is supposed to be different about gifts given upon death? Why does the fact that the giver (perhaps explicitly, through a will) decides to gift things only at the point of death make them any less legitimate than if the same gift were given ten minutes or ten years earlier? As alluded to at the start, if you ban receiving gifts (such as inheritance) you are also banning the making of gifts. Do you want to live in a world in which you are forbidden from giving things (your money; time; or labour) to other people? And of course money is only one kind of gift. We've already mentioned gifts such as cars, housing or food. But I might give someone my labour – for example, by helping paint a mate's garage; or helping my son learn finance by educating him from my own knowledge. People also give others advice and wisdom, or the gift of moral training, or the gift of praise (in Christian Communion services the Eucharist is described as a 'sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving'). If we banned financial gifts, how could we not also ban gifts in kind – especially if the ability to give gifts in kind depended upon the giver's financial circumstances (a rich person might be more able to take a day off work to help paint her friend's garage than a poor person would be)? Many people claim there is an inconsistency here, because those on the left do not typically object to gifts in the form of state benefits or public services. So their opponents say, 'Fine – if gifts are banned then let's ban benefits!' But to be fair to those on the left this point can be easily evaded by saying that benefits and public services aren't gifts. Instead, what happens is that all property – including all the fruits of everyone's labour – is owned collectively. Then 'we' decide how that property is spread out across society. So benefits are actually just like wages – they are the allocation that 'we', through our laws, make and permit. It is only when individuals attempt to subvert that collectively-determined allocation by giving things to other individuals that the problems start. Yet I reject the premise. I own my labour as myself. I am not a slave or intrinsically only a part of a social 'us'. The fruits of that labour are genuinely mine and I, as the genuine moral owner, am entitled to give them to other people. At which point it becomes genuinely theirs and they are entitled in turn to give it to or trade it with others. The fundamental defence of the moral ownership of property, including the moral right to gift that property to others and to receive such gifts myself, is that we own ourselves as individuals. And the fundamental objection to gifting – including to gifting in the form of inheritance – always boils down ultimately to the denial that we own ourselves. Which side are you on?
The Guardian
2 hours ago
- The Guardian
The umpire who picked a side: John Roberts and the death of rule of law in America
On 4 March, Donald Trump delivered his epic 100-minute speech to Congress, the longest such presidential address in US history. Having finished speaking, in time-honored fashion, he walked down the line of supreme court justices, gladhanding each in turn before coming to a stop before the chief justice, John Roberts. 'Thank you again, thank you again,' Trump said, taking Roberts's hand into both his own and shaking it vigorously. Then, as he began to step away, the president tapped Roberts on the arm in a gesture of buddy-buddy intimacy, and said: 'Won't forget.' Supreme court watchers have wondered why Trump thanked the chief justice so effusively. Was it because the Roberts court had, exactly a year earlier, allowed Trump to stay on the electoral ballot even though he had inspired a violent mob attack on the US Capitol on 6 January 2021? Could it have been that Roberts had written the ruling that immunised Trump from criminal prosecution for that January 6 insurrection and for any other criminal misdeed he might commit while in the White House? Or was it, as Trump later claimed, more innocent than that: a simple thank you to Roberts for having taken the oath of office at Trump's second inauguration? Whatever the truth, time has moved on since that friendly encounter five months ago. Were the president to bump into the chief justice today, one might expect an even more extravagant display of gratitude. In the past 10 weeks America has witnessed an extraordinary outpouring of decisions from its highest court that should make Trump very happy indeed. The six rightwing justices who control the court – three of them given their lifetime seats by Trump himself – have effectively greenlighted the president's explosive and law-busting agenda. The supermajority has granted Trump 18 straight victories in the administration's requests for emergency relief. Steve Vladeck, a leading supreme court scholar at Georgetown University Law Center, has tracked the decisions in his Substack, One First, noting that the rulings have been handed down largely in the legal darkness. They have been piped through the court's so-called 'shadow docket', where important affairs of state are decided at speed and with little or no debate or deliberation. By Vladeck's count, seven of the orders have been issued without any explanation, leaving the American people clueless as to the justices' thinking. Yet the emergency rulings, though temporary in nature, could have seismic consequences. For as long as they hold they have the potential to cause untold suffering to millions of people targeted by Trump. That includes countless federal employees who can now be fired at whim after decades of loyal public service; transgender people purged from the military; more than 1 million individuals from Venezuela, Haiti, Cuba and other countries who are being stripped of their status to remain in the US; immigrants singled out for deportation to war-torn third countries where their lives are in danger. Legally, the consequences are also profound. Several of Trump's actions given temporary go-ahead are of dubious legality, violating congressional or international laws and running roughshod over fundamental tenets of the US constitution. By conceding to Trump's wishes, the justices have for now approved what Vladeck has called 'a truly unprecedented amount of lawlessness by the executive branch'. The liberal-leaning justice Sonia Sotomayor has sounded a similar alarm in a series of increasingly despairing dissenting opinions. Her conservative peers on the court, she has written, are 'rewarding lawlessness', and undermining the bedrock principle that America is a 'government of laws, not of men'. All of this has put Roberts, 70, in a strange and uncomfortable position. Just as he should be celebrating the completion of his 20th year at the pinnacle of the US judiciary, he is being accused of betraying the very legal edifice he is supposed to protect. Prominent jurists have held Roberts responsible for emboldening Trump's drive towards an authoritarian presidency. J Michael Luttig, who served on a federal appeals court for 15 years, put the criticism starkly. 'The chief justice is presiding over the end of the rule of law in America,' Luttig told the Guardian. In Luttig's view, the court under Roberts is 'acquiescing in and accommodating the president's lawlessness. And it is doing so without briefing, without argument, without deliberation – and without even a single word of explanation of its decisions.' For Luttig, this is more than just the 6-3 supermajority of the court expressing its conservatism. This is a fundamental distortion of the American legal system. 'The supreme court was never intended to function like this. Never before has it entertained such challenges from the president, and never before has it decided them so flippantly.' When it comes to assessing the chief justice's record, Luttig has special standing. He was himself a one-time contender for a supreme court seat, and has known Roberts as a friend since they worked together in their 20s in the Reagan administration. Roberts asked Luttig to be a groomsman at his wedding in 1996. 'I have had four decades of knowing and respecting him,' Luttig said. Having had a ringside seat for so many years, Luttig has no doubts about how the chief justice is conducting himself in the current fraught moment. 'John Roberts knows exactly what he is doing,' the judge said, 'and he knows exactly the message he is sending to America.' Luttig's characterisation of Roberts as a disciplined individual with absolute self-awareness chimes with the chief justice's reputation as someone who cares deeply about public image. His attention to detail is legendary: he is known to rehearse his questions and fine-tune his jokes before oral arguments. He speaks so smoothly – and disguises his inner convictions so thoroughly – that he has been able to straddle political and personal divides. As one lawyer who has presented before Roberts at the supreme court put it: 'There is no person I would rather deliver my eulogy, even if I knew that he hated me.' The roots of Roberts's controlled conservatism lie in Buffalo, New York, where he was born on 27 January 1955, and in north-west Indiana where his family moved when he was 10. He was brought up in a devout Catholic well-to-do family enjoying the benefits of the post-war boom. His parents came from Johnstown, now a struggling hollowed-out town in western Pennsylvania but then one of the world's great steel-producing centers. His father, John Glover 'Jack' Roberts Sr rose to be a manager of a steel plant and moved the family to Long Beach, Indiana, a heavily segregated white enclave on Lake Michigan. As a teenager, Roberts imbibed a fusion of Catholic morality and a powerful work ethic. He went on to attend an elite Catholic boarding school, La Lumiere, that had been recently founded by local businessmen. 'I have always wanted to stay ahead of the crowd,' he wrote in an application letter to the school at age 13. 'I'm sure that by attending and doing my best at La Lumiere I will assure myself of a fine future.' Harvard and its law school followed. He remarked in 2006 that the culture shock of being an Indiana boy surrounded by liberal students protesting against the Vietnam war helped cement his conservatism. 'I didn't view myself as conservative until I went there and kind of reacted against the orthodoxy,' he said. Joan Biskupic, who wrote a 2019 biography of Roberts, describes him as having emerged from Harvard with a 'flawless veneer' and an eye for appearances. In The Chief, she writes: 'He has always shown a keen interest in how he is portrayed in the media. Even as a young lawyer in the Reagan administration, he demonstrated an awareness of the importance of messaging.' The message for which Roberts is most famous was deployed during his Senate confirmation hearings for the role of chief justice in 2005. In a speech dripping with faux humility, he presented himself as the impartial arbiter of the law. 'Judges are like umpires,' he said. 'Umpires don't make the rules, they apply them … Nobody ever went to a ball game to see the umpire.' Over the past 20 years he has honed that umpire character, modelling himself as a modern institutionalist. He has kept his personal convictions largely hidden, shrouding himself and his leanings in mystery; as Biskupic puts it, he is 'his own enigma'. Meanwhile, the court he leads has marched – through Trump's three nominations of Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett – in an ever more rightward direction. Over time, the gulf has steadily widened between Roberts's media representation as a moderate conservative and the increasingly extreme actions of his court. 'Supreme court reporting has been generous to Roberts, and has reinforced the idea that what is happening in his court is a sort of normalcy, when it is not normal at all,' said Lisa Graves, the former chief counsel for nominations for the Senate judiciary committee and founder of True North Research, a watchdog investigating rightwing groups that undermine democracy. Graves has reappraised the chief justice's 20-year record and come up with a very different narrative than that of Umpire Roberts. Her conclusions are laid out in her forthcoming book, Without Precedent, which will be published next month. In it, she argues that Roberts is anything but the modest judge he claims to be. Rather, he has used his power as chief justice to promote a rightwing agenda from the moment George W Bush placed him in the court's central seat in 2005. 'He has consistently shown hostility towards civil rights, trade unions and environmental protections, approaching the law with the rigidity of a rightwing ideologue. That was true from the time when as a young man he chose to clerk for the most regressive supreme court justice, William Rehnquist, and it remains true today,' Graves said. Roberts cut his legal teeth not in the wood-panelled setting of a federal court, but in the executive branch as an eager young pup in the Reagan administration. He began in 1981 working for Ken Starr, then chief of staff to the US attorney general (and later Bill Clinton's bete noire), before joining the White House counsel's office where he became friends with Luttig. Those early days of Ronald Reagan's first term bear comparison with Trump's second. Both presidents wielded a strong media presence, both were vitriolically dismissive of liberals whom they blamed for destroying America, both were committed to radical tax and spending cuts and slashing what they regarded as the bloated federal government. Roberts adopted Reagan's mission with zeal. 'I felt he was speaking directly to me,' he once recalled about listening to the newly ensconced president's 1981 inaugural speech. Within the Reagan administration, Roberts began to formulate rightwing passions that have endured through his years on the top court. They included hostility towards civil rights and voting protections for racial minorities, and skepticism of racially based affirmative action. At the justice department he wrote a series of spiky legal memos in which he let down his mild-mannered guard. Out came a stream of aggressive and combative missives designed to boost Reagan's power and stature. The memos make for a chilling read in the context of today. Roberts lambasts fellow government officials whom he accused of standing in the way of the Reagan agenda – an echo of Trump and Doge's war on the 'deep state' civil service. He railed against affirmative action programs seeking to redress the balance for women and Black people – a view that was made manifest in 2023 when his court put an end to affirmative action in universities. The future head of the US judiciary went so far in his memos as to berate federal judges for what he called 'unwarranted interference' in executive branch affairs. Fast forward four decades, and we now see the Roberts court repeatedly overturning the rulings of lower court judges who have resisted Trump's lawless actions. Just how far federal courts should go in reining in presidents is a perennial question that has divided jurists and politicians for years. What disturbs some supreme court watchers about the present moment is the context in which this wrangling is happening: with Trump so brazenly challenging the rule of law, is now the time for the top court to be clipping the wings of federal judges struggling to hold him back? As Graves points out, Roberts's approach to lower court judges would be more understandable if it were consistently applied – or to put it another way, if he actually did behave like a neutral umpire free of political motives. 'When a Democrat was in the White House, the chief justice went out of his way to block student loan debt relief, which was a modest effort by the Biden administration that in no way compares to the extreme actions that Roberts is now greenlighting for Trump.' Roberts's early musings on the importance of a strong executive in the White House, so evident in those Reagan memos, run as a theme through his jurisprudence. It culminated with him authoring Trump v US. That was last year's shattering ruling that gave Trump absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for his official presidential acts. The chief justice justified this extraordinary decision to shield the president from basic accountability by invoking the desire of the framers – the men who drafted the US constitution – for a 'vigorous' and 'energetic' executive. He conveniently overlooked the framers' other core executive requirements: 'responsibility', and an obligation to 'take care that the laws be faithfully executed'. Trump has repeatedly ignored that duty over the past six months. He has disregarded congressional laws, such as the 1974 Impoundment Control Act which limits the president's power to withhold funds approved by Congress from federal agencies. He has also violated constitutional laws such as birthright citizenship – a right that is written in plain, unambiguous English into the 14th amendment. Graves believes that Roberts's immunity ruling has had devastating consequences. 'It paved the way for Trump's return. It sent a signal to some sections of the American people that not only did Trump do no wrong, he could do no wrong – that if he returned to power, he would be above the law.' When Trump did return to the White House on 20 January, Roberts was widely seen as the last great hope for constitutional government. The chief justice would draw a line in the sand that Trump, thirsting for supremacy, would not be allowed to cross. Initially there were signs that such hopes might be founded. At 1am on 19 April – in the early hours of a Saturday morning – the supreme court issued an order that could be deemed to draw precisely such a line in the sand. It barred the Trump administration from deporting undocumented Venezuelans summarily to a notorious prison in El Salvador. The Roberts court had struck a blow for due process and, yes, the rule of law. The rosy glow of that pre-dawn intervention did not last for long. Since then the supreme court has used the shadow docket to grant Trump virtually his every wish, trampling over the separation of powers in the process. The most recent emergency order from 23 July allowed Trump to fire without cause three Democratic members of the federal Consumer Product Safety Commission. The decision was a direct affront to Congress, which had created the agency and only permitted the president to fire its commissioners on grounds of neglect of duty, or malfeasance. Just days earlier, the justices cleared the way for Trump to eviscerate the federal education department even though, as Sotomayor pointed out in one of her withering dissents, only Congress has the power to do so. And a week before that they gave the green light to the mass firing of thousands of federal workers, delivering a potential death knell to the US government as we know it. The court's most egregious shadow docket rulings relate to cases in which Trump has not only violated the law, he has done so in open defiance of federal judges. On 23 June and 3 July the justices released two emergency orders which had the combined effect of allowing the Trump administration to deport people to third countries such as South Sudan, a nation devastated by civil war and with a shaky human rights record. Federal judges in lower courts had expressly forbidden the deportations, ordering that the individuals had to be given a chance to prove they faced torture in those destinations. Under the international Convention against Torture, to which the US is a signatory, it is prohibited to expel people to places where they might be subjected to such illegal treatment. The Trump administration ignored the court rulings, deporting the individuals regardless. Roberts's willingness to preside over a court that sides with Trump over the judiciary itself, even in cases involving brazen defiance of federal judges, has profoundly shocked the legal world. 'The supreme court is the ultimate guardian of the rule of law, and it appears to have abdicated that role,' said Amrit Singh, director of the Rule of Law Lab at New York University. 'The court has clearly indicated that it is willing to tolerate the Trump administration's violation of federal court orders.' Singh's charitable interpretation is that Roberts was trying to 'appease the Trump administration to avoid direct confrontation'. Were that the case, she said, the chief justice was pursuing an 'extremely dangerous strategy'. 'He is letting the Trump administration get away with it. When district court orders are ignored, and the supreme court turns a blind eye, then the rule of law has already been sacrificed.' Some supreme court watchers have cautioned against assuming that the justices' emergency rulings are their final word. Bob Bauer, Barack Obama's White House counsel who co-chaired Joe Biden's presidential commission on the supreme court, has pointed out that the court has yet to rule on several of Trump's biggest provocations. They include birthright citizenship, and the use of the Alien Enemies Act under which third-country deportations are being carried out. 'There is yet no final resolution of these issues,' Bauer has written in his Substack, Executive Functions. It is true that, if and when those issues are fully addressed by the supreme court, Roberts could surprise us once again. He could dust off his old umpire's uniform, revisit his carefully crafted posture as a moderate institutionalist, and confound us all – Trump included – with nuanced rulings. But for his longtime friend Luttig, that is besides the point. The price of what Roberts is doing here and now, in the legal darkness of the shadow docket, is just too high. 'The supreme court has pulled the rug out from under the lower federal courts, and it has done so deliberately and knowingly,' Luttig said. 'The chief justice has no higher obligation than to protect the federal judiciary from attacks by this president, and in my view he has utterly failed.'
Leader Live
3 hours ago
- Leader Live
Ex-president Bolsonaro planned to seek asylum in Argentina, police say
Bolsonaro is currently awaiting a Supreme Court ruling about an alleged coup attempt and learned on Wednesday he might face another case as police formally accused him and one of his sons, Eduardo Bolsonaro, of obstruction of justice in connection with his trial. The 170-page report said Bolsonaro had drafted a request for political asylum from Argentine President Javier Milei's government dated February 10 2024. He saved the document two days after authorities searched his home and office as part of the alleged coup plot investigation. Close to that date, Bolsonaro admittedly spent two nights at the Hungarian Embassy in Brasilia, fuelling speculation he may have been attempting to avoid arrest. The Argentina plot is part of the wider police accusation of obstruction of justice, in which Bolsonaro has allegedly ignored precautionary measures established for his house arrest and spread content to his allies 'to directly hit Brazilian democratic institutions, notably the Supreme Court and even Brazil's Congress,' according to the report. The Associated Press reviewed the police evidence, which included messaging app exchanges and voice messages, after police forwarded the documents to Brazil's Supreme Court. Bolsonaro would face another trial if the attorney-general decides to charge him. Justice Alexandre de Moraes, who oversees the case, gave Bolsonaro's lawyers 48 hours to explain why the former president sought political asylum in Argentina and failed to comply with other precautionary measures of his house arrest, such as avoiding contact with people outside his family circle. In a 33-page letter addressed to Mr Milei, Bolsonaro claimed he was being politically persecuted in Brazil. Both are staunch supporters of US President Donald Trump, who has recently repeated some of the former president's claims in his decision to impose 50% tariffs on Brazilian exports. Brazil's federal police gathered several messages between Bolsonaro and his son in which they show interest in praising Trump to affect legal proceedings back home. 'You won't have time to reverse the situation if the guy here turns his back on you. Everything here is very touchy, every little thing affects you,' Eduardo Bolsonaro told his father in one of the exchanges. Eduardo Bolsonaro also said he had secured U.S. government support 'with great difficulty,' claiming that he and an ally, Paulo Figueiredo, were the only ones with access to the White House. He also told his father that Trump's pressure was the only chance Bolsonaro had to avoid prison. A verdict and sentence in the coup trial will come from a supreme court panel of five justices. They are scheduled to announce their rulings between September 2 and 12. The new findings will not be part of that decision.
