Attorney says policies restricting LifeWise, like those in Columbus schools, could violate First Amendment
COLUMBUS, Ohio (WCMH) – LifeWise Academy's attorneys are challenging religious release time policy recommendations, warning they could lead to lawsuits for school districts like Columbus City Schools.
First Liberty Institute is representing biblical education provider LifeWise in its fight against Neola, the North East Ohio Learning Associates. Neola, an educational policy consultant group, received a letter Wednesday from First Liberty that alleged its sample religious release time policies violate the First Amendment. The letter warned school districts that implement Neola's policies could face litigation.
Is 3rd time a charm? Marysville schools puts levy on ballot
'What Neola is doing, and other school districts seem to want to do, is throwing a bunch of tacks in the road for parents to be able to access released time education, and that they cannot do,' Jeremy Dys, First Liberty's senior counsel, said.
Neola provides sample policies and advice to more than 500 Ohio schools, including many in central Ohio. Senior adviser Patrick Corbett said Neola did not require any districts to implement any policy. He said Neola simply offers a variety of suggestions and told clients to be prepared to defend their choices if they choose a more involved RTRI policy.
Neola has offered guidance on religious release, or short-term absences for religious instruction during the school day, since 2016, but the need for policy guidance recently intensified in Ohio. As of April 9, all public schools are required to implement policies permitting religious release time instruction.
Ohio law requires districts to collaborate with providers to schedule release time, but otherwise leaves district policy obligations fairly open-ended. The law allows districts to require background checks for instructors and volunteers and says boards of education shall determine how those checks are conducted.
'Corporate greed': Moreno sends scathing letter to CEOs over Chillicothe paper mill closure
Dys said there is nothing in Ohio law permitting school districts to take liberties with their policies. However, there is also nothing prohibiting them from doing so.
'Whether it is materials being sent home through release time education or other levels of bureaucracy that are not mandated under this statute, school districts are taking an inch of authority and turn it into a mile of power to prevent release time education from going forward at all,' Dys said.
LifeWise voiced concerns with three facets of Neola's sample policy, which have already been implemented in districts like Columbus, Upper Arlington and Worthington schools. In turn, Neola alleged LifeWise's legal challenge failed to meet legal requirements.
'My sense from the latest volley of correspondences is that providers want to tell districts what to do, which is not collaboration,' Corbett said.
LifeWise alleges policies that ban groups from distributing trinkets, candy or other materials violate the First Amendment by not extending the same restrictions to other groups. Corbett said Neola did not force any schools to implement that restriction but said districts have a right to set policies.
New tenants coming soon to Easton, including Princess Polly, burger restaurant
On April 10, Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost acknowledged districts have freedom to dictate their policies but cautioned against inhibiting any religious group's operations. Yost said banning distribution of materials prevents programs from sending literature, lesson books or Bibles home with students, which could violate the First Amendment if these restrictions are not mirrored for secular organizations.
'We did not suggest — and I don't believe districts are — imposing any restrictions on what organizations do within the confines of their programs off campus,' Corbett said.
Critics of LifeWise have claimed sending candy or toys back with students can be distracting and makes nonparticipating kids feel left out. Dys placed the responsibility to limit distractions back on teachers.
'This would be second nature to teachers and administrators across the state of Ohio,' Dys said. 'They don't need to resort to censoring otherwise protected First Amendment activity, and that's precisely what Neola has recommended that school districts do.'
Ohio's biggest school district, Neola client Columbus City Schools, implemented a policy banning these handouts in March. At the time, LifeWise CEO and Founder Joel Penton said the requirements would not change parents' reasons for sending students to LifeWise.
Ohio has few laws dictating what religious organizations can and cannot do. Generally, case law says districts cannot make rules that only apply to religious expression. Under those interpretations, districts could only make rules for groups if they also apply to other groups that take students out of the school day with parent permission.
Ohio calls out weight-loss drug false advertising
LifeWise also voiced concerns about Neola's background check policies, which said a district could refuse to release students to an organization that does not complete a 'satisfactory' background check. Dys said the word 'satisfactory' is too subjective and could allow districts to use the term to stop RTRI participation entirely.
Corbett said they included those provisions because the law specifically allowed them to require background checks. He said they based the language off what Neola uses for its employees.
LifeWise proposed replacement policies requiring annual confirmation that it has completed criminal background checks and no workers have criminal convictions that would result in a teacher losing their license.
LifeWise already completes background checks for all of its volunteers and instructors. However, parents voiced concerns about these background checks last July when NBC4 revealed a LifeWise director had been fired from an Ohio school and surrendered her license after allegedly sexting a minor student.
Ohio law prohibits students from leaving during a core curriculum subject course, but districts have some freedom to determine what qualifies. One Neola policy suggestion reads, 'The Board deems all graded courses to be core curriculum.' This could leave lunch or recess in theory, but Dys said it could also be used to stop organizations from operating altogether.
Chocolate lovers may see sticker shock due to Trump's tariff tactics
Dys said districts with policies like these on the books should consider the letter to Neola as a 'warning.'
'They have an opportunity to correct that behavior and open up into the avenues to release time education that the legislature clearly mandated,' Dys said. 'If they choose to do otherwise, then that liability remains.'
First Liberty requested a response from Neola within 30 days, including a list of all districts that have adopted Neola's policy or received advice from Neola on their policies. Corbett said he did not think such a list existed.
NBC4 reached out to LifeWise, Worthington schools and Columbus for comment but did not receive responses.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
6 hours ago
- Yahoo
Federal judge denies 2 bids to halt Oak Flat land transfer for copper mine
A federal judge in Phoenix has denied two motions for preliminary injunctions that sought to halt a land swap that would transfer ownership of Oak Flat, a parcel of U.S. Forest land located 60 miles east of Phoenix, to a company that intends to open a huge copper mine. In a packed courtroom on June 6, U.S. District Judge Dominic W. Lanza heard arguments in two lawsuits seeking to stop the land exchange until the merits of the cases had been heard. The judge also heard from lawyers representing the U.S. Forest Service and Resolution Copper, who asserted that the law requires the government to transfer the federal property to the mining company within 60 days of the publication of a Final Environmental Impact Statement. The government's lawyers indicated that the environmental impact statement would be made available to the public on June 16, but officially published in the federal register on June 20, when the 60-day countdown would begin. The judge set a timeline for the cases after the government publishes the final environmental review. The two lawsuits challenged the environmental review of the land exchange and the value of the land being swapped to the government by Resolution Copper. One lawsuit was brought by the San Carlos Apache Tribe, a federally recognized tribe, and the other by the Inter Tribal Association of Arizona Inc. and a coalition of environmental and outdoor recreation groups including the Arizona Mining Reform Coalition, Earthworks, the Center for Biological Diversity, Access Fund and the Sierra Club Grand Canyon chapter. In May, U.S. District Judge Steven Logan issued an injunction sought by the grassroots group Apache Stronghold to block the land swap. Logan ruled that the federal government could not issue the final environmental impact statement for the exchange, but that order was set to expire if the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear Apache Stronghold's request for a review. On May 27, the high court said it would not hear the case. Critical minerals: Why can't the US mine and refine all its copper? What to know about new Trump order The land at the center of the dispute, Oak Flat, also known as Chi'chil Biłdagoteel, is considered sacred to the Apache and other Native peoples and the site of religious ceremonies. It is also a popular site for outdoor recreationists and habitat for rare desert species, like the endangered Arizona hedgehog cactus and ocelot. Beneath the land sits one of the largest copper deposits on the continent, according to Resolution Copper, whose method of underground mining would sink the land into a nearly two mile wide crater approximately 1,000 feet deep. Resolution Copper is a subsidiary of multinational mining companies BHP and Rio Tinto. Oak Flat has been at the center of ongoing debate over First Amendment religious rights, environmental conservation, mining reform and the green energy revolution since Congress authorized the land exchange in 2014. In exchange for about 5,000 acres of ecologically valuable properties around Arizona, Resolution Copper would gain ownership of Oak Flat to create one of the largest copper mines in the country. While Resolution Copper says the mine would create jobs and benefit the local and state economy, environmentalists say the huge copper mine would destroy the environment and deplete ground and surface water. In April, the Trump administration added the proposed Resolution Copper mine, along with nine other mining projects, to a priority list to increase the domestic production of critical minerals in accordance with an executive order issued in March. In May, the U.S. Supreme Court declined the hear the lawsuit brought by Apache Stronghold, despite dissents from Justices Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas. The Apache Stronghold argued that their First Amendment rights to religious freedom were violated by the land exchange. John Leos covers environmental issues for The Arizona Republic and azcentral. Send tips or questions to Environmental coverage on and in The Arizona Republic is supported by a grant from the Nina Mason Pulliam Charitable Trust. Follow The Republic environmental reporting team at and @azcenvironment on Facebook and Instagram. This article originally appeared on Arizona Republic: Federal judge denies bid to halt land swap for copper mine at Oak Flat
Yahoo
7 hours ago
- Yahoo
Federal judge denies 2 bids to halt Oak Flat land transfer for copper mine
A federal judge in Phoenix has denied two motions for preliminary injunctions that sought to halt a land swap that would transfer ownership of Oak Flat, a parcel of U.S. Forest land located 60 miles east of Phoenix, to a company that intends to open a huge copper mine. In a packed courtroom on June 6, U.S. District Judge Dominic W. Lanza heard arguments in two lawsuits seeking to stop the land exchange until the merits of the cases had been heard. The judge also heard from lawyers representing the U.S. Forest Service and Resolution Copper, who asserted that the law requires the government to transfer the federal property to the mining company within 60 days of the publication of a Final Environmental Impact Statement. The government's lawyers indicated that the environmental impact statement would be made available to the public on June 16, but officially published in the federal register on June 20, when the 60-day countdown would begin. The judge set a timeline for the cases after the government publishes the final environmental review. The two lawsuits challenged the environmental review of the land exchange and the value of the land being swapped to the government by Resolution Copper. One lawsuit was brought by the San Carlos Apache Tribe, a federally recognized tribe, and the other by the Inter Tribal Association of Arizona Inc. and a coalition of environmental and outdoor recreation groups including the Arizona Mining Reform Coalition, Earthworks, the Center for Biological Diversity, Access Fund and the Sierra Club Grand Canyon chapter. In May, U.S. District Judge Steven Logan issued an injunction sought by the grassroots group Apache Stronghold to block the land swap. Logan ruled that the federal government could not issue the final environmental impact statement for the exchange, but that order was set to expire if the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear Apache Stronghold's request for a review. On May 27, the high court said it would not hear the case. Critical minerals: Why can't the US mine and refine all its copper? What to know about new Trump order The land at the center of the dispute, Oak Flat, also known as Chi'chil Biłdagoteel, is considered sacred to the Apache and other Native peoples and the site of religious ceremonies. It is also a popular site for outdoor recreationists and habitat for rare desert species, like the endangered Arizona hedgehog cactus and ocelot. Beneath the land sits one of the largest copper deposits on the continent, according to Resolution Copper, whose method of underground mining would sink the land into a nearly two mile wide crater approximately 1,000 feet deep. Resolution Copper is a subsidiary of multinational mining companies BHP and Rio Tinto. Oak Flat has been at the center of ongoing debate over First Amendment religious rights, environmental conservation, mining reform and the green energy revolution since Congress authorized the land exchange in 2014. In exchange for about 5,000 acres of ecologically valuable properties around Arizona, Resolution Copper would gain ownership of Oak Flat to create one of the largest copper mines in the country. While Resolution Copper says the mine would create jobs and benefit the local and state economy, environmentalists say the huge copper mine would destroy the environment and deplete ground and surface water. In April, the Trump administration added the proposed Resolution Copper mine, along with nine other mining projects, to a priority list to increase the domestic production of critical minerals in accordance with an executive order issued in March. In May, the U.S. Supreme Court declined the hear the lawsuit brought by Apache Stronghold, despite dissents from Justices Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas. The Apache Stronghold argued that their First Amendment rights to religious freedom were violated by the land exchange. John Leos covers environmental issues for The Arizona Republic and azcentral. Send tips or questions to Environmental coverage on and in The Arizona Republic is supported by a grant from the Nina Mason Pulliam Charitable Trust. Follow The Republic environmental reporting team at and @azcenvironment on Facebook and Instagram. This article originally appeared on Arizona Republic: Federal judge denies bid to halt land swap for copper mine at Oak Flat
Yahoo
9 hours ago
- Yahoo
Google Going to Trial After Doing Something Super Sketchy to Android Users
In the information age, data is gold — and Google has enough to make King Midas blush. But in this new economic paradigm, all that data comes at a price: privacy lawsuits. To amass its wealth, Google's been caught collecting personal information from users even in incognito mode, tracking location data even when location tracking is off, collecting children's personal information in violation of child safety laws, and selling millions of Americans' health data to a healthcare conglomerate — and that's just a taste. Now, Reuters reports that Google's going to trial in California after a class action lawsuit representing some 14 million state residents alleged the company gathered personal data from their phones even when they were off. The suit alleges that Google enables Android phones to send and receive info "for Google's own purposes," draining users' cellular data as they do. While the California suit is unique for going to trial, it's just one of 50 separate state class action lawsuits being brought against the tech company. Altogether, there are billions of dollars on the line. It's a big case with some major implications: can the companies that sell our phones — and in Google's case with Android, create the underlying operating system — decide whether or not we can ever turn them off? Google's response is telling. Rather than deny that it had collected data on powered-off Androids, it's saying that Android users gave their consent to Google's "passive" data harvesting when they agreed to the company's terms of service agreement, which is required to use the phone. Google is also challenging the core of the plaintiffs' argument — basically, that cell phone data doesn't count as personal property under California law. And if it isn't, then there's nothing wrong with Google taking it without permission. Ultimately, there's a lot of money riding in how the state classifies that nebulous data. George Zelcs, a lawyer representing the plantiffs, told Reuters that Android users aren't arguing against data collection when the phones are on and the apps are fired up. Instead, he notes that "these phone users unknowingly subsidize the same Google advertising business that earns over $200 billion a year." Googles usual tactic when it's caught nabbing data — to settle out of court for millions or sometimes billions of dollars — probably won't fly here, as the timeline reaches all the way back to 2016. With millions of defendants and unfathomable quantities of data at play, any sort of settlement is likely to run in the "tens of billions," according to Reuters. Time will tell whether that's less costly than if Google were to lose all that juicy data altogether. More on law: A Mother Says an AI Startup's Chatbot Drove Her Son to Suicide. Its Response: the First Amendment Protects "Speech Allegedly Resulting in Suicide"
