Woman sues Kearsarge 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 school board announced that it would revisit its decision to enforce HB 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.'
Heated debate
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 board had previously voted to follow the law, but after the incident with Scaer, the 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,' said Scaer, who does not live in the Kearsarge district. '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
CNN
7 minutes ago
- CNN
Analysis: How Sly Stallone and Gloria Gaynor explain Trump and his presidency
President Donald Trump would love cultural elites to sniff at his Kennedy Center honorees. He relished unveiling the stars he'll fete at the iconic arts center's annual gala later this year, after motorcading to the complex Wednesday through streets now patrolled, on his orders, by federal agents and army reservists. The line-up explains a lot about him, his power and why he's president. 'Rocky' star Sylvester Stallone, Broadway legend Michael Crawford, disco icon Gloria Gaynor, country crooner George Strait and glam rock band KISS are more populist than 'high' culture. That's not to say that they are unworthy. Who could argue that Stallone didn't leave an 'indelible' mark on his art form? That's one of the criteria for selecting nominees. And Kennedy Center honorees have been trending toward the popular arts for decades, under presidents of both parties. As always, Trump was setting a trap for his political foes. Any criticism of his choices as too lowbrow or undeserving will only bolster his claims to be a scourge of the establishment and endear him more to supporters who lionize him as the ultimate outsider. Trump's critics see his takeover of the Kennedy Center and his efforts to destroy progressive values in the arts, the universities and elsewhere as cultural warfare. He pretty much agrees, proclaiming that he'd scrubbed his list for 'wokesters.' He admitted he'd even considered using his newly seized power over the citadel of American cultural life to honor himself. No wonder critics — including, no doubt, many liberal Kennedy Center subscribers, given the capital region's progressive lean — perceive a would-be authoritarian who wants to dominate and dictate every aspect of American life. Presidents don't generally select honorees. You'd think the world's most powerful man would have bigger fish to fry. Most commanders in chief just throw a White House reception and turn up for the show. But Trump is a ravenous consumer of pop culture and is unusually skilled at leveraging it for political gain. He's the executive producer of his own life and political career. So there was no chance he'd pass up a chance to stage-manage this show — and even plans to host the televised gala himself. He professed to have been press-ganged into it by White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles. She probably didn't have to twist his arm for too long. More seriously, Trump's Kennedy Center Honors will also represent another important victory for his 'Make America Great Again' movement and his hostile takeover of Washington institutions. 'I would say I was about 98 percent involved,' Trump said, of the selection process. 'No, they all went through me … I turned down plenty. They were too woke. I turned them — I had a couple of wokesters.' There's an important political dimension to this. Trump's base voters, and many other conservatives, believe that liberal elites spent decades cementing an ideological takeover of multiple areas of US life — in the arts, the media, academia, and even in sports — and dragged them to the left. The anger of millions of Americans about this pulsated from Trump's rallies in three consecutive campaigns. Voters gravitated toward a candidate who was mocked for his brassy ways by sophisticated Manhattanites. This is why Hillary Clinton's ill-judged insult of Trump supporters in 2016 as 'deplorables' became a badge of honor and a source of power for the president. When Trump's critics bemoan what they see as a takeover of top political and cultural institutions, his fans think he's taking those entities back. On conservative media, hosts lash out at movie stars for demeaning Hollywood with progressive views, or socially conscious NFL or NBA stars for 'ruining sports.' Previously, Kennedy Center honorees were chosen by a nominally bipartisan panel of arts and entertainment industry luminaries. But try convincing a conservative that these judges were free of bias, since they were drawn from the liberal arts milieu that Trump is seeking to destroy by taking over the Kennedy Center. Trump celebrated his dominance of yet another liberal bastion by admitting he was politicizing it — in another show of his unchecked power. 'I shouldn't make this political because they made the Academy Awards political, and they went down the tubes,' he said. The president went on, 'So they'll say, 'Trump made it political,' but I think if we make it our kind of political, we'll go up, OK?' But while Trump aimed for levity, his actions are threatening. On its own, his takeover of the Kennedy Center would be unusual, even a little bizarre. Taken against the backdrop of everything else he's doing, it's more worrying. He's weaponized the Justice Department against his political enemies, including members of the Obama administration. Trump's federalizing of the Washington, DC, police and deployment of the National Guard on the capital's streets and endless offensives against judges mirror the tactics of authoritarian rulers. The administration plans to scrub exhibits at the Smithsonian so they don't conflict with Trump's hardline views ahead of America's 250th birthday next year. His attempts to control the curricula of elite universities and his attacks on the media along with his dominance of the Kennedy Center make it feel like he's trying to control what Americans see, learn and even do in their leisure time. It's easy to believe that Trump chose the honorees himself because they all reflect aspects of his own character and experience. Stallone plays rough guys like John J. Rambo and Rocky Balboa, who trampled political correctness. It's not hard to see that Trump sees himself in them. 'He's a little bit tough, a little bit different, I will tell you. He's a little, tough guy,' Trump said, noting that Stallone, too, has his star in cement in Hollywood. 'In fact, the only way that's a bigger name on the Hollywood Walk of Fame, they say, is a guy named Donald Trump.' Strait is a massive recording star known as the 'King of Country' and a titan of rural America whose traditional sound evokes the kind of down-home appeal that Trump seeks to emulate. Crawford, who starred in the original London and Broadway productions of 'Phantom of the Opera,' shows the president's affinity for musicals. Like Trump, the show was big in New York in the 1980s. And the score, composed by Andrew Lloyd Webber, was considered mass market by trendy elites, while being widely popular among the masses. Crawford is also famous for another role — PT Barnum, a 19th-century showman, impresario, businessman and ring master whose carnival-barker style foretold Trump's. 'Barnum's' most famous number is 'There's a sucker born ev'ry minute' and sums up the business philosophy of a hero remembered for publicity stunts and hoaxes that blurred truth and reality. Sound familiar? KISS, a band with a catalogue of platinum albums, is also known for over-the-top stagecraft. And there's no better anthem for Trump's life of personal, business and political scandals that almost but never quite destroy him than Gaynor's biggest hit: 'I Will Survive.'
CBS News
7 minutes ago
- CBS News
Trial over California National Guard deployment concludes as judge questions limits of president's authority
The trial over President Trump's deployment of thousands of National Guard troops to Los Angeles earlier this summer reached its third and final day Wednesday, as lawyers for the Justice Department and the state of California argued over the validity of Gov. Gavin Newsom's lawsuit and whether the Posse Comitatus Act — which generally bars the military from engaging in domestic law enforcement – applied to the troop deployment. Mr. Trump in June deployed 4,000 California National Guard troops and 700 Marines to Los Angeles, saying they were needed to protect federal property and law enforcement agents amid June protests against Immigration and Customs Enforcement operations. Newsom did not approve of the use of his state's Guard forces and responded with a lawsuit requesting an injunction limiting the military's role in the city. In addition to claiming the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act does not apply, Eric Hamilton, a lawyer for the Department of Justice, argued that there is no precedent for the lawsuit, for injunctive relief or money damages under the act, and that Newsom and the state of California have not suffered the harm required to sue. "It is, in fact, the federal government who is engaged in unprecedented conduct," said Deputy Attorney General Meghan Strong, representing the State of California, explaining that the government has never used the military in this way before. U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer seemed perplexed by several of the government's assertions, particularly what he called the apparent "absence of any limits to a national police force." He questioned the Justice Department's claim that the 19th century law at the center of this trial is not relevant, and the assertion that his court lacks jurisdiction to issue an injunction against the president. "So then what is the remedy?" Breyer asked Hamilton, raising the issue of presidential immunity from criminal prosecution. "You're saying there's a criminal remedy? The president can be prosecuted? You say that in light of the Supreme Court decision, the Trump decision. Isn't he immune?" "So that's it. Too bad. So sad. It's over," he added emphatically. "And that's the end of the case." California has asked Breyer for an injunction that would allow the military to protect federal property — such as courthouses and ICE facilities — but block it from continuing the support for immigration enforcement operations, which the state's lawyer called an "unlawful military crusade." "The constitution and the law and the facts are on Governor Newsom's side," said Josh Kastenberg, a professor at the University of New Mexico Law School. "But that doesn't mean he's going to win. Ever since World War II, the courts have embraced this military deference doctrine, which really is presidential deference in matters of military command and control." "We're going to see federal officers everywhere if the president determines that there's some threat to the safety of a federal agent," Breyer said to Hamilton. "And it's his determination. Not mine, it's his. That's what you're saying. That's what the law is." Hamilton said that wasn't "quite what I'm saying." He asserted the troops are not enforcing federal law, but providing protection, and that it is lawful for guardsmen and marines to provide protection for federal buildings – the one point he agreed with California's attorney on. But, he argued, there is no distinction between protecting federal property and protecting federal law enforcement working out in the field. Breyer pointed out that federal employees "are everywhere." The judge further questioned why any National Guard members remain in Los Angeles, and expressed concern about the justification for continued operations. Hamilton testified that 300 guardsmen remain, a 90% reduction in the force. Strong countered that it is still a significant number of soldiers, and certainly enough to violate the law. "Thank goodness for the National Guard, but why is the federalized National Guard still in place?" asked Breyer. "What's the threat today? What was the threat yesterday?" "I go back to the thing that I'm really troubled by: What limiting factors are there to the use of this force?" he said, "Once you have a force in place, and maybe legitimately do so, and the threat that gave rise to the force in that place subsides … how does one look at this national police force that goes out of where the threat was and starts executing other laws?" Breyer appeared to take issue with the Justice Department's argument that the Posse Comitatus Act does not apply, noting that a key witness, Major General Scott Sherman – who was at one point the commanding general of the Guard task force in Los Angeles – had testified that the troops were trained to act within the bounds of that law. "Then why is it the excellent Major General sought assurance that the Posse Comitatus Act was followed?" said Breyer. "Why did I spend a day looking at slide after slide, and regulation after regulation, and reports after reports on conduct of the soldiers to ensure that they were in compliance with the Posse Comitatus Act if the Posse Comitatus Act is irrelevant?" Strong argued that all of the Department of Defense's leaders agreed that the Posse Comitatus Act applied to the Task Force 51 troops in Los Angeles. She said they substituted the word "protection" for "security" when describing the troops' activities because they knew that "security" would violate the act. She asserted that the secretary of defense had released a memorandum invoking a constitutional exception to the Posse Comitatus Act, and affirmatively instructing soldiers to engage in activities that violated it — but the memo was issued after those activities had taken place. On Tuesday, Sherman testified that he was advised of a "constitutional exception" that enabled the troops to conduct certain activities that would normally violate the Posse Comitatus Act. Strong called this an attempt by the Department of Defense to justify their actions after the fact that "itself reveals a knowledge and awareness of their violations." The federal government is "disregarding the law, and so we need show nothing more than that," said Strong. She further argued that the Constitution seeks to make sure the president cannot control a standing army the way the king had in 1776. She said that it would deny the basic principles of federalism for the state to have "no legal recourse to challenge the conduct of these troops." "If you look at the plain language of the Posse Comitatus Act, and the fear of standing armies that existed at the time of the Constitution," Kastenberg said. "...One of the biggest issues in the state conventions and in the framing of the Constitution to begin with was to significantly curtail the president's authority over the standing army, and keep the standing army very small." Breyer did not give a timeline for his ruling, stating at the end of the day, "I will decide the case as soon as I can decide the case."Joe Walsh contributed to this report.
Associated Press
7 minutes ago
- Associated Press
Trump's friendly-to-frustrated relationship with Putin takes the spotlight at the Alaska summit
WASHINGTON (AP) — Donald Trump's summit with Vladimir Putin in Alaska on Friday could be a decisive moment for both the war in Ukraine and the U.S. leader's anomalous relationship with his Russian counterpart. Trump has long boasted that he's gotten along well with Putin and spoken admiringly of him, even praising him as 'pretty smart' for invading Ukraine. But in recent months, he's expressed frustrations with Putin and threatened more sanctions on his country. At the same time, Trump has offered conflicting messages about his expectations for the summit. He has called it 'really a feel-out meeting' to gauge Putin's openness to a ceasefire but also warned of 'very severe consequences' if Putin doesn't agree to end the war. For Putin, Friday's meeting is a chance to repair his relationship with Trump and unlace the West's isolation of his country following its invasion of Ukraine 3 1/2 years ago. He's been open about his desire to rebuild U.S.-Russia relations now that Trump is back in the White House. The White House has dismissed any suggestion that Trump's agreeing to sit down with Putin is a win for the Russian leader. But critics have suggested that the meeting gives Putin an opportunity to get in Trump's ear to the detriment of Ukraine, whose leader was excluded from the summit. 'I think this is a colossal mistake. You don't need to invite Putin onto U.S. soil to hear what we already know he wants,' said Ian Kelly, a retired career foreign service officer who served as the U.S. ambassador to Georgia during the Obama and first Trump administrations. Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, a longtime Russia hawk and close ally of Trump's, expressed optimism for the summit. 'I have every confidence in the world that the President is going to go to meet Putin from a position of strength, that he's going to look out for Europe and Ukrainian needs to end this war honorably,' Graham wrote on social media. A look back at the ups and downs of Trump and Putin's relationship: Russia questions during the 2016 campaign Months before he was first elected president, Trump cast doubt on findings from U.S. intelligence agencies that Russian government hackers had stolen emails from Democrats, including his opponent Hillary Clinton, and released them in an effort to hurt her campaign and boost Trump's. In one 2016 appearance, he shockingly called on Russian hackers to find emails that Clinton had reportedly deleted. 'Russia, if you're listening,' Trump said, 'I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing.' Questions about his connections to Russia dogged much of his first term, touching off investigations by the Justice Department and Congress and leading to the appointment of special counsel Robert Mueller, who secured multiple convictions against Trump aides and allies but did not establish proof of a criminal conspiracy between Moscow and the Trump campaign. These days, Trump describes the Russia investigation as an affinity he and Putin shared. 'Putin went through a hell of a lot with me,' Trump said earlier this year. 'He went through a phony witch hunt where they used him and Russia. Russia, Russia, Russia, ever hear of that deal?' Putin in 2019 mocked the investigation and its ultimate findings, saying, 'A mountain gave birth to a mouse.' 'He just said it's not Russia' Trump met with Putin six times during his first term, including a 2018 summit in Helsinki, when Trump stunned the world by appearing to side with an American adversary on the question of whether Russia meddled in the 2016 election. 'I have great confidence in my intelligence people, but I will tell you that President Putin was extremely strong and powerful in his denial today,' Trump said. 'He just said it's not Russia. I will say this: I don't see any reason why it would be.' Facing intense blowback, Trump tried to walk back the comment a full 24 hours later. But he raised doubt on that reversal by saying other countries could have also interfered. Putin referred to Helsinki summit as 'the beginning of the path' back from Western efforts to isolate Russia. He also made clear that he had wanted Trump to win in 2016. 'Yes, I wanted him to win because he spoke of normalization of Russian-U.S. ties,' Putin said. 'Isn't it natural to feel sympathy to a person who wanted to develop relations with our country?' Trump calls Putin 'pretty smart' after invasion of Ukraine The two leaders kept up their friendly relationship after Trump left the White House under protest in 2021. After Putin invaded Ukraine in 2022, Trump described the Russian leader in positive terms. 'I mean, he's taking over a country for $2 worth of sanctions. I'd say that's pretty smart,' Trump said at his Mar-a-Lago resort. In a radio interview that week, he suggested that Putin was going into Ukraine to 'be a peacekeeper.' Trump repeatedly said the invasion of Ukraine would never have happened if he had been in the White House — a claim Putin endorsed while lending his support to Trump's false claims of election fraud. 'I couldn't disagree with him that if he had been president, if they hadn't stolen victory from him in 2020, the crisis that emerged in Ukraine in 2022 could have been avoided,' he said. Trump also repeatedly boasted that he could have the fighting 'settled' within 24 hours. Through much of his campaign, Trump criticized U.S. support for Ukraine and derided Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy as a 'salesman' for persuading Washington to provide weapons and funding to his country. Revisiting the relationship Once he became president, Trump stopped claiming he'd solve the war in Ukraine in 24 hours. In March, he said he was 'being a little bit sarcastic' when he said that. Since the early days of Trump's second term, Putin has pushed for a summit while trying to pivot from the Ukrainian conflict by emphasizing the prospect of launching joint U.S.-Russian economic projects, among other issues. 'We'd better meet and have a calm conversation on all issues of interest to both the United States and Russia based on today's realities,' Putin said in January. In February, things looked favorable for Putin when Trump had a blowup with Zelenskyy at the White House, berating him as 'disrespectful.' In late March, Trump still spoke of trusting Putin when it came to hopes for a ceasefire, saying, 'I don't think he's going to go back on his word.' But a month later, as Russian strikes escalated, Trump posted a public and personal plea on his social media account: 'Vladimir, STOP!' He began voicing more frustration with the Russian leader, saying he was 'Just tapping me along.' In May, he wrote on social media that Putin 'has gone absolutely CRAZY!' Earlier this month, Trump ordered the repositioning of two U.S. nuclear submarines 'based on the highly provocative statements' of the country's former president, Dmitry Medvedev. Trump's vocal protests about Putin have tempered somewhat since he announced their meeting, but so have his predictions for what he might accomplish. Speaking to reporters Monday, Trump described their upcoming summit not as the occasion in which he'd finally get the conflict 'settled' but instead as 'really a feel-out meeting, a little bit.' 'I think it'll be good,' Trump said. 'But it might be bad.' ___ Isachenkov reported from Moscow. Associated Press writer Matthew Lee contributed to this report.
