Woman sues Keararge board, saying rights violated during trans-athlete debate
Attorneys from the Institute for Free Speech, along with local counsel Roy S. McCandless, say Beth Scaer attended the Aug. 29, 2024, meeting to speak out against transgender athletes in girls high school sports, after members of the Kearsarge Regional School Board announced that it would revisit its decision to enforce House Bill 1205, a state law that limited participation in interscholastic girls sports to biological females.
Free Speech Complaint
The Kearsarge Regional School District is based in New London.
The lawsuit, filed Thursday in U.S. District Court in Concord, claims Kearsarge board members silenced Scaer 'just seconds' into her remarks, with board Chair Alison Mastin declaring Scaer's speaking time forfeited, and warning her that police would intervene if she continued speaking and threatening to have the police remove her for violating an unwritten policy against 'derogatory comments' for referring to a biologically male athlete on the girls' soccer team as a 'tall boy."
While Scaer was speaking, many attendees in the meeting room "jeered, and hissed to express their opposition to her comments," the lawsuit claims.
"Some audience members applauded Mastin for interrupting Beth and cutting her off early," the lawsuit says. "Scaer attempted to protest Mastin's silencing her, but — due to the jeers, hissing, and applause — it was difficult to hear Scaer. Mastin and the school board made no attempt to quiet the crowd so that Scaer's comments could be heard."
The lawsuit claims other speakers were given a full three minutes to express support for the transgender athlete by name, with one attendee displaying a sign with the athlete's name on it — which the board allowed.
The lawsuit claims the board's actions are unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination that violates the First Amendment. The suit also argues that the unwritten 'no derogatory comments' rule is unreasonable, vague, overbroad, and selectively enforced against disfavored viewpoints.
'School boards cannot invent speech rules on the fly to silence citizens expressing views they dislike,' Institute for Free Speech attorney Nathan Ristuccia said. 'This unwritten rule about 'derogatory' comments gives the board unchecked power to determine which speech is acceptable and which isn't — precisely what the First Amendment prohibits."
The Kearsarge meeting featured a heated debate over the state's Fairness in Women's Sports Act, a law reserving girls sports for biological females.
The district had previously voted to follow the law, but following the incident with Scaer, the Kearsarge board reversed course, voting 5-1 to allow the transgender athlete to compete on the girls soccer team.
'Everyone deserves an equal opportunity to address their elected officials without fear of censorship,' Scaer said. 'This case is about ensuring that all citizens — regardless of their viewpoint — can participate in public meetings and comment on issues that are important to the community.'
The lawsuit seeks to enjoin enforcement of the 'no derogatory comments' rule, prevent discrimination against speech based on viewpoint, and establish that Scaer's First Amendment rights were violated.
Scaer's attorneys also say the lawsuit aims to ensure that Scaer, and others, can speak freely at future board meetings without fear of censorship, retaliation, or removal simply for expressing controversial or dissenting views.
A request for comment from Kearsarge school officials was not immediately answered.
In a separate lawsuit filed last year, Beth Scaer and her husband, Stephen, claimed their free speech rights were violated after they applied to fly two different flags, a pro-life flag and a Pine Tree flag on flagpoles at City Hall Plaza in Nashua. A federal judge ruled Nashua officials didn't violate the couple's First Amendment rights when they rejected their application, denying their request for a preliminary injunction.
The Scaers are appealing that decision.
pfeely@unionleader.com
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Immigrants seeking lawful work and citizenship are now subject to 'anti-Americanism' screening
Immigrants seeking a legal pathway to live and work in the United States will now be subject to screening for 'anti-Americanism',' authorities said Tuesday, raising concerns among critics that it gives officers too much leeway in rejecting foreigners based on a subjective judgment. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services said officers will now consider whether an applicant for benefits, such as a green card, 'endorsed, promoted, supported, or otherwise espoused" anti-American, terrorist or antisemitic views. 'America's benefits should not be given to those who despise the country and promote anti-American ideologies,' Matthew Tragesser, USCIS spokesman, said in a statement. 'Immigration benefits—including to live and work in the United States—remain a privilege, not a right.' It isn't specified what constitutes anti-Americanism and it isn't clear how and when the directive would be applied. 'The message is that the U.S. and immigration agencies are going to be less tolerant of anti-Americanism or antisemitism when making immigration decisions," Elizabeth Jacobs, director of regulatory affairs and policy at the Center for Immigration Studies, a group that advocates for immigration restrictions, said on Tuesday. Jacobs said the government is being more explicit in the kind of behaviors and practices officers should consider, but emphasized that discretion is still in place. "The agency cannot tell officers that they have to deny — just to consider it as a negative discretion,' she said. Critics worry the policy update will allow for more subjective views of what is considered anti-American and allow an officer's personal bias to cloud his or her judgment. 'For me, the really big story is they are opening the door for stereotypes and prejudice and implicit bias to take the wheel in these decisions. That's really worrisome," said Jane Lilly Lopez, associate professor of sociology at Brigham Young University. The policy changes follow others recently implemented since the start of the Trump administration including social media vetting and the most recent addition of assessing applicants seeking naturalization for 'good moral character'. That will not only consider 'not simply the absence of misconduct' but also factor the applicant's positive attributes and contributions. 'It means you are going to just do a whole lot more work to provide evidence that you meet our standards,' Lopez said. Experts disagree on the constitutionality of the policy involving people who are not U.S. citizens and their freedom of speech. Jacobs, of the Center for Immigration Studies, said First Amendment rights do not extend to people outside the U.S. or who are not U.S. citizens. Ruby Robinson, senior managing attorney with the Michigan Immigrant Rights Center, believes the Bill of Rights and the U.S. Constitution protects all people in the United States, regardless of their immigration status, against government encroachment. 'A lot of this administration's activities infringe on constitutional rights and do need to be resolved, ultimately, in courts,' Robinson added. Attorneys are advising clients to adjust their expectations. 'People need to understand that we have a different system today and a lot more things that apply to U.S. citizens are not going to apply to somebody who's trying to enter the United States," said Jaime Diez, an immigration attorney based in Brownsville, Texas. Jonathan Grode, managing partner of Green and Spiegel immigration law firm, said the policy update was not unexpected considering how the Trump administration approaches immigration. 'This is what was elected. They're allowed to interpret the rules the way they want,' Grode said. 'The policy always to them is to shrink the strike zone. The law is still the same.'
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Fifth Circuit halts West Texas A&M drag show ban as free speech lawsuit continues
A federal appeals court Monday blocked West Texas A&M University President Walter Wendler from enforcing a campus drag show ban, ruling that the performances are likely protected under the First Amendment. The 2-1 ruling from the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reverses a lower court's decision upholding Wendler's 2023 cancellation of a drag show, which he argued was demeaning to women and compared to blackface. The decision means Spectrum WT, the student group that brought the lawsuit, can produce drag shows on campus while its lawsuit continues in a lower court. Judge Leslie H. Southwick, who wrote for the majority, said the context of the students' event made its message of supporting the queer community clear. 'The viewers of the drag show would have been ticketed audience members attending a performance sponsored by LGBT+ student organizations and designed to raise funds for LGBT+ suicide-prevention charity, ' wrote Southwick, who was appointed by George W. Bush. 'Against this backdrop, the message sent by parading on a theater stage in attire of the opposite sex would have been unmistakable.' [How plans for a West Texas drag show turned into a war over the First Amendment] The court concluded that Legacy Hall, where the drag show was scheduled to take place, was a designated public forum open to a variety of groups, including churches and political candidates. That meant banning drag shows targeted the content of the event, something the Constitution allows only in the rarest cases. Finally, the court found that students faced ongoing irreparable harm to their speech rights, noting Wendler had canceled another drag show planned for 2024 and declared that no drag shows would ever be allowed on campus. That conclusion gave the judges another reason to block the ban for now, since courts only grant such relief when plaintiffs have a strong case and risk being harmed without it. In March 2023, Wendler canceled Spectrum WT's drag show intended to raise money for the Trevor Project, a nonprofit that works to reduce suicides in the LGBTQ+ community. He explained in a letter to the campus community that he thought drag shows — where participants often use exaggerated clothing and makeup to explore, celebrate or parody gender roles — were misogynistic. 'As a university president, I would not support 'blackface' performances on our campus, even if told the performance is a form of free speech or intended as humor. It is wrong. I do not support any show, performance or artistic expression which denigrates – in this case, women – for any reason,' he wrote. In September 2023, U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, a President Donald Trump appointee and former attorney for a conservative legal group that opposed LGBTQ rights, sided with Wendler. The case arose as Texas lawmakers were also targeting drag more broadly. The same year, they passed a law restricting some drag performances in public spaces, but a federal judge later struck it down as unconstitutional under the First Amendment. West Texas A&M isn't the only campus to ban drag shows. This year, the Texas A&M System adopted a systemwide prohibition, and the University of Texas and University of North Texas systems enacted similar restrictions following pressure from conservative officials, including Tarrant County Judge Tim O'Hare. In March, however, a federal judge temporarily blocked the Texas A&M System's ban, allowing the 'Draggieland' event at the flagship campus to proceed, also finding that students were likely to succeed on their First Amendment claims. That lawsuit is also still working its way through the courts. Judge James C. Ho dissented in the West Texas A&M case. Ho, who was appointed to the 5th Circuit by Trump and is the former Solicitor General of Texas, wrote that Spectrum WT had not shown it was entitled to such an 'extraordinary remedy' as a court order blocking the drag show ban. The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, which represents Spectrum WT in the West Texas A&M case and the Queer Empowerment Council in the Texas A&M System lawsuit, hailed the ruling as a major victory for student speech. 'We're overjoyed that our clients will now be able to express themselves freely, and we'll be watching to make sure that President Wendler obeys the laws of the land while the case proceeds,' FIRE Attorney Adam Steinbaugh said in a statement. A spokesperson for West Texas A&M could not immediately be reached for comment, so it's unclear how the university will respond to the ruling. The case now returns to district court in Amarillo, where the fight over whether West Texas A&M's drag ban is constitutional will continue. The Texas Tribune partners with Open Campus on higher education coverage. Disclosure: West Texas A&M University has been a financial supporter of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune's journalism. Find a complete list of them here. More all-star speakers confirmed for The Texas Tribune Festival, Nov. 13–15! This year's lineup just got even more exciting with the addition of State Rep. Caroline Fairly, R-Amarillo; former United States Attorney General Eric Holder; Abby Phillip, anchor of 'CNN NewsNight'; Aaron Reitz, 2026 Republican candidate for Texas Attorney General; and State Rep. James Talarico, D-Austin. Get your tickets today! TribFest 2025 is presented by JPMorganChase. Solve the daily Crossword
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
2025 SCOTUS Decisions That Could Affect Your Wallet
While the Supreme Court is the highest power of America's judicial branch, it might not be thought of as a force that dictates economic policy. However, many of the Court's decisions — particularly those related to the tax system — can definitely have an impact on your wallet. Check Out: Also See: As Shane Lucado, attorney and founder/CEO of InPerSuit, told GOBankingRates, 'When the Supreme Court turns policy into precedent, it rattles risk forecasts, freezes capital and creates trillions in downstream effects that are rarely accounted for in the headlines. … That ripple affects capital markets within hours, pricing strategies within days and litigation exposure within weeks.' Below are a few cases from the highest court's 2024-25 term, as well as cases from the upcoming term, that could affect your wallet. Catholic Charities Bureau, Inc. v. Wisconsin Labor & Industry Review Commission In this case, SCOTUS unanimously decided that the state of Wisconsin had violated the First Amendment when it denied tax exemptions to the Catholic Charities Bureau (CCB). Initially, Wisconsin had denied tax exemption because the CCB, while a religious organization, did not actively proselytize Catholicism. SCOTUS ruled that denying tax exemptions to religious organizations that choose not to proselytize is a form of discrimination and a violation of First Amendment rights. Bishop James Powers said the ruling enables the church 'to continue serving those in need.' On a larger scale, the decision could cause revenue losses for states as a result of more nonprofit organizations being able to claim religious tax exceptions (which increases the taxpayer burden of others), as well as allow for costly litigation against states that similarly discriminate against organizations like the CCB. According to a 2021 Tax Foundation study, religious exemptions already cost the federal government — and thus taxpayers — $2.4 billion annually. See More: Also Read: Commissioner v. Zuch On June 12, 2025, SCOTUS ruled to limit taxpayer access to the U.S. Tax Court. Essentially, the Tax Court cannot oversee IRS collection disputes once the debt has been settled — such as through a refund offset, as happened in this case. Taxpayers must challenge refund offsets in federal district court instead — which can cost a lot more and be prohibitive for people without the financial means to advance such a legal challenge. Chad D. Cummings, attorney and CPA at Cummings & Cummings Law, told GOBankingRates that the decision 'gives the IRS a procedural advantage by allowing it to cut off Tax Court review through internal adjustment. As a result, taxpayers will have less time to request hearings or file petitions, making early engagement with counsel and prompt filing of Tax Court petitions more critical than ever.' Discover More: D.V.D. v. Department of Homeland Security This is an instance in which SCOTUS ruled in favor of the Trump administration, allowing for the White House's continued push for the deportation of undocumented immigrants. Specifically, the SCOTUS ruling undoes a lower court order that blocked Trump's administration from deporting undocumented immigrants to other countries (not their countries of origin) without first allowing the immigrants to make the case that such deportations might lead to persecution or death. While a clear victory for Trump and the Department of Homeland Security's continued efforts to curtail undocumented immigration, these mass deportations also could have a deleterious impact on the average American's wallet. As the Herman Legal Group has reported, an increase in immigration enforcement typically leads to labor shortages, specifically in the fields of agriculture, construction, restaurants and hospitality, housing and cleaning, and factories and manufacturing. Such labor shortages create decreased production and disrupted supply chains. The ultimate result of all that? Consumers pay more for groceries, for meals at a restaurant, for construction costs and more. The Herman Legal Group suggests the loss of immigrant workers could lead to 'federal and state tax losses in the range of $25 billion annually due to the departure of workers, reduction in consumer spending and the closure of immigrant-owned businesses.' Trump's recently passed spending bill earmarks as much as $170 billion for immigration and border security — a cost that taxpayers will shoulder for the rest of the decade. Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo In this case, SCOTUS overturned a previous 1984 ruling, Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, holding that courts are no longer required to defer to federal agencies' interpretations of ambiguous laws. Only judges can decide what laws mean, in an effort to prevent bureaucrats from shaping the laws. This could create a wave of costly litigation challenging various previously established federal regulations, especially in the realms of health care, labor, consumer rights and environmental protection. It also could lead to reductions in the enforcement of things like worker safety, healthcare and student loans. As the Public Health Law Center at Mitchell Hamline School of Law has noted, the ruling 'will impact the work of federal agencies like the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration, likely making it more difficult for such agencies to pass important regulations that protect public health.' This could lead to increased healthcare costs or even expensive lawsuits if legally actionable public health outbreaks were to occur. Moore v. United States In Moore v. United States, SCOTUS ruled that the Mandatory Repatriation Tax (a one-time tax on foreign company profits) is constitutional, even if the taxpayer never receives income from the profits being taxed. Chad D. Cummings, attorney and CPA, made clear to GOBankingRates that this ruling 'cements existing MRT liabilities and underscores the necessity of maintaining liquidity for tax obligations that may arise without a corresponding cash distribution. … Individuals with substantial foreign holdings, closely held businesses or large investment portfolios should view this as a prompt to revisit tax strategies now, before similar measures are enacted that could impose significant, unexpected financial obligations.' Find More: TikTok Inc. v. Garland By unanimous decision, SCOTUS upheld the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act. At its core, this SCOTUS decision will force ByteDance, the Chinese owner of TikTok, to sell off the social media platform. If ByteDance does not sell, TikTok will be permanently banned in the U.S., making it inaccessible in America to over 170 million users (including many influencers who profit from the app). President Trump has continually extended the deadline, which is currently Sept. 17, 2025. A TikTok ban could be devastating to the social media influencers who have monetized the platform. A recent Ziprecruiter study found that the average successful American TikTok influencer makes approximately $132,000 per year via the app. In America in 2023, TikTok reportedly generated approximately $16 billion in revenue. Speaking to GOBankingRates about other consequences of a TikTok ban, Sapana Grossi, managing partner in venture capital at the Shah Grossi Law Firm, said TikTok's absence would be especially hard on micro-brands, 'because it will be much more expensive to operate.' 'When the platform went down for a short time earlier this year, the ad prices on other platforms spiked almost immediately,' Grossi said. 'For example, the price for impressions on Meta shot up by 10%. Based on that experience, we know that a ban could raise advertising costs significantly and make it almost impossible for micro-brands, or brands that entirely rely on TikTok's algorithm, to stay in business.' Cox Communications, Inc. v. Sony Music Entertainment In the Supreme Court's upcoming session (which begins in October), the Court will hear Cox Communications, Inc. v. Sony Music Entertainment. Sony (among others) has sued Cox Communications, accusing the telecommunications giant of enabling copyright infringement via its customers, some of whom engage in illegal file sharing while utilizing Cox's internet service. Sony maintains Cox has not done enough to prevent such criminality across its broadband service. Even if Cox wins, the case will be a costly one, forcing the company to potentially spend millions to defend itself. Yet if it loses, Grossi told GOBankingRates, 'Customers should expect to pay more as (Cox) will likely offset their increased expenses. (Cox) would essentially be acting as online police and monitoring accounts aggressively …(cutting) off households and public networks due to illegal activity by someone on the network. 'As a result, (Cox) will have to invest in larger compliance staff, monitoring/filtering software, and in-house legal departments to deal with a rise in litigation. It's very likely they will try to recover these costs through a quiet steady climb through higher monthly rates, administrative fees and reconnection charges. … Such fees rarely disappear, which means that a broad ruling here could lock in higher internet costs for years to come.' Cox's current internet connection plans range from $50 to $100 per month — whether those prices remain the same could hinge on this case. Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections and Public Safety This 2025-26 session case seeks to determine whether a person may sue a government official — rather than the governmental body that official works for — over violations of federal law regarding the religious rights of incarcerated criminals. The case stems from Damon Landor, a practicing Rastafarian who was forced by his prison's warden to have his dreadlocks cut off. As a result, Landor has argued in federal court that his religious rights were violated by the warden. If Landor were to win, it's possible that the taxpayer burden could be increased to cover the legal defense costs of government officials. Currently, the Prison Policy Initiative estimates the total U.S. government cost of prisons and jails to be $80.7 billion yearly. Also See: Louisiana v. Callais Louisiana v. Callais is a 2025-26 redistricting case that will dictate the state of Louisiana's congressional map going forward by deciding whether the creation of a second majority-Black congressional district in 2024 is a Constitutional violation or if it upholds the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment and the Voting Rights Act. After the 2020 census, Louisiana drafted a congressional map with six districts. Black voters made up the majority of only one district in that map, despite the fact that approximately one-third of Louisiana voters are Black. A new map was drawn in 2024, adding a second majority-Black voting district. This case could have serious political implications, both for Louisiana and other states. Redistricting and gerrymandering is already a deeply contentious issue, with the makeup of congressional maps having the power to determine the outcomes of local, state and national elections. The financial impacts could be wide ranging. If Black voters are underrepresented, it could lead to less funding for healthcare, social services, etc., in their districts. Uncertainty around voting rights can affect investor sentiment in areas perceived as politically unstable. And the taxpayer costs of these political battles continue to add up. National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission Another case of major financial import is National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission, in which SCOTUS will decide to uphold or strike down its 2001 ruling in Federal Election Commission v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee. That ruling upheld federal limitations on political parties with regards to campaign advertising. If SCOTUS were to strike down the original ruling, political party influence on elections could increase by a substantial margin, with far fewer constraints on political advertising. Like the aforementioned Louisiana v. Callais, this is a case that has the power to sway presidential elections, which in turn could dictate the economic future of the nation. Editor's note on political coverage: GOBankingRates is nonpartisan and strives to cover all aspects of the economy objectively and present balanced reports on politically focused finance stories. You can find more coverage of this topic on More From GOBankingRates 5 Old Navy Items Retirees Need To Buy Ahead of Fall 7 Tax Loopholes the Rich Use To Pay Less and Build More Wealth This article originally appeared on 2025 SCOTUS Decisions That Could Affect Your Wallet
