Noblesville school didn't violate anti-abortion student's rights, court finds
In 2022, a student and her parents sued the district, claiming a dispute over posting flyers violated their daughter's First Amendment and Equal Access Act rights. They argue that the decision to veto her flyers and suspend the club was "driven by hostility to her pro-life views."
The school maintained it was not discriminating against her beliefs and was instead upholding its policy that student clubs' wall postings remain content-neutral.
"The record shows that school officials approved (the student's) club, reasonably accommodated her speech, and suspended the club only for neutral, conduct-related reasons," Judge Nancy Maldonado wrote in the Aug. 14 ruling.
Marnie Cooke, a spokesperson for Noblesville Schools, said in a statement that the district was appreciative of the ruling. She said the school supports their students in "forming clubs they're passionate about," which span "a wide range of a wide range of interests, activities, and beliefs."
Jordan Butler, a spokesperson for Students for Life of America, was critical of the court decision in a statement, saying it "undermines the First Amendment — an amendment that protects all speech, including pro-life voices."
In 2021, a student gained permission to start a chapter of Students for Life of America at Noblesville High School. The goal of the group's campus clubs is to "change minds of their peers" and advocate for public policy, according to the national organization's website.
To advertise the first meeting, the student submitted flyers to school officials for approval. She pulled them from a template the national organization dispersed, which includes blanks to fill in with meeting details and photos of students holding signs saying 'Defund Planned Parenthood' and 'I Am the Pro-Life Generation."
According to court filings, school administrators repeatedly told the student to revise the flyer to solely include meeting information. They asked her to omit the photos to comply with the school's content-neutral rule for wall postings.
After the student's mother, Lisa Duell, met with leaders to urge the flyer's approval, the school became concerned the club was not entirely student-run, according to court documents.
Principal Craig McCaffrey then suspended the chapter as an approved student club after an "attempt at insubordination led by an outside adult advocating with the student.' He said the student could reapply in January 2022. She did, and the club was reinstated.
The school and the student reached an agreement to allow the club to continue operating while the lawsuit moved through the courts.
In March 2024, Judge Sarah Evans Barker of the Southern District of Indiana ruled in favor of the school district, saying there was no constitutional injury as a result of a policy or decision.
Students for Life previously alleged that Barker had a bias in favor of abortion rights in a failed attempt to have her removed from the case. President Ronald Reagan appointed Barker.
After the case was appealed to the Seventh District, Judges Frank Easterbrook, Candace Jackson-Akiwumi and Maldonado heard arguments in October 2024. Easterbrook was appointed by Reagan, and the latter two by Joe Biden.
In the court's Aug. 14 ruling, they agreed with Barker, writing that the policy and its enforcement do not violate the First Amendment.
Schools generally can limit speech that could be construed as their own, which the court said includes the limited public forum that is its walls. It also found that, based on the handling of other political student clubs, the school did not treat the student's club any differently.
"The District could reasonably conclude that covering its walls with warring political messages would undermine that order and divert attention from the business of learning," Maldonado wrote. "It passes constitutional muster."
The USA TODAY Network - Indiana's coverage of First Amendment issues is funded through a collaboration between the Freedom Forum and Journalism Funding Partners.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Texas classrooms won't have to display the Ten Commandments — for now
In news that's being hailed as a win for religious freedom advocates — but also has major implications for public school parents — the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas issued a preliminary injunction Wednesday halting the state's enactment of legislation that requires all public school classrooms to display the Ten Commandments. Texas Senate Bill 10 was slated to take effect September 1, but U.S. District Court Judge Fred Biery has temporarily blocked the law, citing the likelihood of it infringing upon the First Amendment's Establishment and Free Exercise clauses. While the Establishment clause bars the government from forcing a specific religious doctrine on the public, the Free Exercise clause safeguards individuals' rights to observe their religious faith free of government influence. In Rabbi Nathan v. Alamo Heights Independent School District, Judge Biery ruled that SB 10 could cause students to experience unconstitutional religious coercion and violate their parents' rights to guide their religious instruction. Displays of the Ten Commandments in classrooms, he stated, 'are likely to pressure the child-Plaintiffs into religious observance, meditation on, veneration, and adoption of the State's favored religious scripture, and into suppressing expression of their own religious or nonreligious background and beliefs while at school.' Rabbi Mara Nathan, the lead plaintiff in the case, said in a statement that, as both a faith leader and public school parent, she welcomed the ruling. 'Children's religious beliefs should be instilled by parents and faith communities, not politicians and public schools,' she said. The plaintiffs in the case are public school parents from Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Unitarian Universalist and nonreligious backgrounds. The American Civil Liberties Union of Texas, the national ACLU, Americans United for Separation of Church and State and the Freedom from Religion Foundation represented the families, with Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP participating as pro bono counsel. 'Today's decision will ensure that Texas families — not politicians or public-school officials — get to decide how and when their children engage with religion,' said Rachel Laser, president and CEO of the nonprofit Americans United for Separation of Church and State, in a statement. 'It sends a strong and resounding message across the country that the government respects the religious freedom of every student in our public schools.' Religious freedom advocates have argued that blurring the lines between church-state separation in public schools not only marginalizes students from religious minority groups but may also send harmful messages to girls and students of color. The 10th commandment states, for example: 'You shall not covet your neighbor's house. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his male or female servant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.' This scripture alone could be viewed as framing women as solely the property of others, no different from livestock, be they wives or servants. The Bible has also been used to justify enslavement, which the final commandment also alludes to — an ideological argument that could cause psychological or emotional harm to students whose ancestors were enslaved. More broadly, biblical scriptures that take aim at fornication and same-sex relations have been criticized for instilling shame in youth and adults who have sex before marriage or are LGBTQ+. 'Public schools are not Sunday schools,' said Heather L. Weaver, senior counsel for the ACLU's Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief, in a statement. 'Today's decision ensures that our clients' schools will remain spaces where all students, regardless of their faith, feel welcomed and can learn without worrying that they do not live up to the state's preferred religious beliefs.' Texas is not alone in its failed bid to display the Ten Commandments in all public school classrooms. In November, a federal judge blocked Louisiana's attempt to blur church-state separation in this way. In June, a group of Maryland parents on the opposite side of the political spectrum emerged victorious when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that they could object to LGBTQ+ picture books in their children's classrooms on religious grounds. The ruling has sparked fears that parents will cite their religious beliefs to wield more power over the public school curriculum nationwide. The post Texas classrooms won't have to display the Ten Commandments — for now appeared first on The 19th. News that represents you, in your inbox every weekday. Subscribe to our free, daily newsletter. Solve the daily Crossword
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
West Texas A&M University's drag show ban blocked by appeals court
West Texas A&M University's drag show ban has finally been blocked by an appeals court after a two years-long legal battle. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit overturned a district court ruling on Monday, finding that university president Walter Wendler's unilateral cancellation of a campus drag show hosted by LGBTQ+ student organization Spectrum WT to raise money for suicide prevention was unconstitutional. 'Because theatrical performances plainly involve expressive conduct within the protection of the First Amendment, we find the plaintiffs' drag show is protected expression, discrimination among such shows must pass strict scrutiny," the court wrote in its opinion. "President Wendler did not argue, either before the district court or on appeal, that restricting the intended drag show would survive strict scrutiny. Based on the record before us, the district court erred in concluding that the plaintiffs were not substantially likely to succeed on the merits of their First Amendment claim." Wendler single-handedly made the decision to cancel the event, which was originally scheduled at an on-campus facility on March 22, 2023, announcing in an email to students and staff that 'West Texas A&M University will not host a drag show on campus.' In the message, which contained the subject line 'A Harmless Drag Show? No Such Thing," Wendler stated that humans are 'created in the image of God" and that drag shows supposedly do not 'preserve a single thread of human dignity." 'As a performance exaggerating aspects of womanhood (sexuality, femininity, gender), drag shows stereotype women in cartoon-like extremes for the amusement of others and discriminate against womanhood," he wrote. The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) filed a lawsuit on behalf of Spectrum WT against Wendler and the university, accusing them of violating their freedom of speech. The case escalated to the U.S. Supreme Court, which opted not to intervene in March of last year, leaving in place the district court's ruling that effectively upheld the ban. The appeals court ruling overturns this, allowing for future events to take place. 'FIRE is pleased that the Fifth Circuit has halted President Wendler's unconstitutional censorship and restored the First Amendment at West Texas A&M,' FIRE Supervising Senior Attorney, JT Morris, said in a statement. 'This is a victory not just for Spectrum WT, but for any public university students at risk of being silenced by campus censors.' This article originally appeared on Advocate: West Texas A&M University's drag show ban blocked by appeals court RELATED Texas legislature passes 'Don't Say Gay' law that bans LGBTQ+ student clubs A Texas university president banned drag and compared it to blackface. Students are taking the case to the Supreme Court Republican lawmaker gloats after Texas university kills LGBTQ+ studies program Solve the daily Crossword
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Judge temporarily blocks Texas' Ten Commandments requirement in 11 school districts
A Texas federal judge on Wednesday temporarily blocked from taking full effect a new state law requiring public schools to display donated posters of the Ten Commandments in classrooms. The ruling only applies to the nearly a dozen Texas school districts named in the lawsuit, though attorneys who brought forth the case expressed hope in court that other districts would not implement a law that a federal judge has now found unconstitutional. In his decision, U.S. District Judge Fred Biery concluded that the law favors Christianity over other faiths, is not neutral with respect to religion and is likely to interfere with families' 'exercise of their sincere religious or nonreligious beliefs in substantial ways.' 'There are ways in which students could be taught any relevant history of the Ten Commandments without the state selecting an official version of scripture, approving it in state law, and then displaying it in every classroom on a permanent basis,' Biery wrote in his opinion, adding that the law 'crosses the line from exposure to coercion.' Texas is expected to appeal the ruling. Once that happens, the case will go to the same federal appeals court where a three-judge panel recently blocked Louisiana's Ten Commandments law from taking effect. Louisiana's attorney general has said she would seek further relief from the full appeals court and possibly the U.S. Supreme Court. Oral arguments in the Texas case, Rabbi Nathan v. Alamo Heights Independent School District, concluded on Monday, several weeks after 16 parents of various religious backgrounds, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union of Texas and other religious freedom organizations, sued the state over what their lawyers called "catastrophically unconstitutional' legislation. In court, they argued with a lawyer from the state attorney general's office over the role Founding Fathers like Thomas Jefferson and James Madison played in developing the Bill of Rights and the First Amendment, which protects the freedom of religion. Both parties also debated the influence of the Ten Commandments on the country's legal and educational systems, and whether the version of the Ten Commandments required to go up in schools belongs to a particular religious group. Another group of parents filed a similar lawsuit in Dallas earlier this summer. These suits challenge one of the latest measures passed by the Republican-controlled Legislature earlier this year. Critics say the law injects religion into the state's public schools, attended by roughly 5.5 million children. The background Senate Bill 10, by Republican Sen. Phil King of Weatherford, would require the Ten Commandments be displayed on a donated poster sized at least 16 by 20 inches come September, when most new state laws go into effect. Gov. Greg Abbott signed it in late June, the day after the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found a similar law in Louisiana was 'plainly unconstitutional.' The court ruled that requiring schools to post the Ten Commandments would cause an 'irreparable deprivation' of First Amendment rights. An Arkansas judge ruled similarly in a separate case. Supporters argue that the Ten Commandments and teachings of Christianity broadly are vital to understanding U.S. history, a controversial message that has resurged in recent years as part of a broader national movement to undermine the long-held interpretation of church-state separation. Texas GOP lawmakers have passed a number of laws in recent years to further codify their conservative religious views, a trend encouraged and celebrated by Christian leaders. 'This issue is likely to get to the United States Supreme Court,' Biery, the judge, told a San Antonio courtroom prior to opening arguments in the Texas case. What are the plaintiffs saying 'Posting the Ten Commandments in public schools is un-American and un-Baptist,' Griff Martin, a pastor, parent and plaintiff in the ACLU lawsuit, said in a statement. 'S.B. 10 undermines the separation of church and state as a bedrock principle of my family's Baptist heritage. Baptists have long held that the government has no role in religion — so that our faith may remain free and authentic.' In the lawsuit brought by the North Texas parents, the plaintiffs, who identify as Christian, said the law was unconstitutional and violated their right to direct their children's upbringing. One of them, a Christian minister, said the displays will offer a message of religious intolerance, 'implying that anyone who does not believe in the state's official religious scripture is an outsider and not fully part of the community.' That message, the minister argued, conflicts with the religious, social justice and civil rights beliefs he seeks to teach his kids. Another North Texas plaintiff, a mother of two, is worried she will be 'forced' to have sensitive and perhaps premature conversations about topics like adultery with her young children — and also 'does not desire that her minor children to be instructed by their school about the biblical conception of adultery,' the suit states. The plaintiffs in the ACLU suit come from diverse religious backgrounds, including families who are nonreligious. Allison Fitzpatrick said in a statement that she fears her children will think they are violating school rules because they don't adhere to commandments like honoring the Sabbath. 'The state of Texas has no right to dictate to children how many gods to worship, which gods to worship, or whether to worship any gods at all,' sad Annie Laurie Gaylor, co-president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, which brought the lawsuit alongside the ACLU. The attorneys called the version of the Ten Commandments in SB 10 a "state-sponsored Protestant version," which was corroborated by their witness, constitutional law professor and religious history expert Steven Green. They argued against the notion that the Ten Commandments were central to the development of the country's legal and educational systems, which Green agreed lacks historical support. The court also found Green's testimony more persuasive than the state's. Although the ACLU lawsuit only applies to 11 school districts, attorneys for the religious freedom organizations hope that a ruling in their favor will signal to districts throughout the rest of the state that they should not comply with the law before the dispute gets resolved by the courts. What the state is saying The attorney general's office argued in the August hearing that the Ten Commandments are part of the nation's history and heritage, and that previous rulings from federal courts and the U.S. Supreme Court blocking the commandments from going up in classrooms did not examine that historical significance. Attorneys for the state noted that the Supreme Court recently shot down the test that courts previously relied on to determine when a government had unconstitutionally endorsed or established a religion. And, attorneys pointed out a decades-old ruling in a Nebraska case, regarding a Ten Commandments monument on city property, where an appeals court decided in favor of the monument that displayed the same version of the commandments Texas wants to show in public schools. They relied on that ruling to make the case that SB 10 does not favor a particular religious group. Their viewpoint was supported in court by Mark David Hall, a professor and author who studies religious liberty and church-state relations. Hall, the state's expert witness, recently wrote a book that considers how "Christian Nationalism Is Not an Existential Threat to America or the Church." Attorney William Farrell from the attorney general's office described SB 10's requirement as a "passive display on the wall" that does not rise to the level of coercion. The Ten Commandments posters must only go up if they are donated to the school, he further argued, and the law does not specify what would happen if districts choose not to comply. The state views that as evidence that it poses no threat or harm to families. "SB 10 doesn't restrict anything," Farrell said. "It doesn't exclude anything or specifically require any ... participation by students." What are the schools saying The latest ruling applies to the following school districts: Alamo Heights ISD, North East ISD, Lackland ISD, Northside ISD, Austin ISD, Lake Travis ISD, Dripping Springs ISD, Houston ISD, Fort Bend ISD, Cypress-Fairbanks ISD and Plano ISD. Attorneys from Austin ISD, a defendant in the ACLU lawsuit, said during the August hearing that the district has not adopted any policy in response to SB 10, that there is no evidence that the district is doing anything to infringe on families' rights and that the district should not be held responsible for a law passed by the Legislature. They are asking the court to dismiss the Austin school district from the case. Meanwhile, spokespersons for the Texas Education Agency, a defendant in the North Texas suit, did not respond to requests for comment. The TEA was not included as a defendant in the ACLU's more recent filing. A Lancaster ISD spokesperson said that the district was aware of the suit and monitoring it but did not have further comment. A Dallas ISD spokesperson said the district does not comment on pending litigation. DeSoto ISD administrators said in a statement that the school system, which teaches roughly 6,000 kids, operates in alignment with state and federal laws and also remains committed to creating an inclusive learning environment 'for all students and families, regardless of religious background or personal beliefs.' 'DeSoto ISD recognizes the diverse cultural and religious identities represented in its school community and will continue to prioritize the safety, dignity, and educational well-being of every student,' district officials said. 'The district respects the role of parents and guardians in guiding their children's personal and religious development and will strive to remain sensitive to the varying perspectives within its schools.' Big news: 20 more speakers join the TribFest lineup! New additions include Margaret Spellings, former U.S. secretary of education and CEO of the Bipartisan Policy Center; Michael Curry, former presiding bishop and primate of The Episcopal Church; Beto O'Rourke, former U.S. Representative, D-El Paso; Joe Lonsdale, entrepreneur, founder and managing partner at 8VC; and Katie Phang, journalist and trial lawyer. Get tickets. TribFest 2025 is presented by JPMorganChase. Solve the daily Crossword
