Religious Freedom Archives - Page 3 of 4 - National Legal Foundation

Morgan v. Plano Independent School District

This is the famous “Jesus is the Reason for the Season” pencils case. Four families challenged the constantly changing policies of the Plano Independent School District that governed student distribution of written materials. The district court ruled in favor of the school district on some points and in favor of the parents on other points. In turn, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upheld the district court’s decision on some points and reversed it on others.

Corder v. Lewis-Palmer School District No. 38

In her valedictorian speech, Erica Corder mentioned Jesus Christ, His death, and resurrection. In retaliation her school told her she would not receive her diploma until she publicly apologized. She sued the district for violation of her rights of free speech, free exercise of religion, and related rights. Unfortunately, both the district court and the court of appeals ruled in favor of the school district.

Croft v. Govenor of Texas

Parents of public school children sued, alleging the Texas Moment of Silence law violated the Establishment Clause because it mentioned that children could silently pray among other choices. Both the district court and the court of appeals ruled against the parents and upheld the law.

Netherland v. City of Zachary

There are two arguments being addressed: First, the City of Zachary is squelching free speech and the Court below appropriately issued a preliminary injunction, enjoining this violation of Mr. Netherland’s constitutional rights. Second, the District Court correctly noted that the protestors in Ovadal were protesting on a pedestrian overpass and the police were called because the signs were causing traffic problems. The District Court reasoned that there was a significant difference between holding a sign on an overpass, and speaking on an open easement.

Hankins v. New York Annual Conference

When a Methodist minister turned 70 and was forced to retire, he sued the NY Annual Conference of the United Methodist Church for age discrimination. The issue here is that the “ministerial exception” protects churches from government interference.

Storman’s, Inc. v. Selecky

Following a period of national attention, the Washington Board of Pharmacy issued a regulation that effectively excluded a right of conscience for pharmacists who could not fill Plan B prescriptions because of their religious convictions. One of the arguments that Appellees presented in their Motion for Preliminary Injunction was that the Board was denying pharmacists the same fundamental right that other health care professionals enjoyed in contravention of the two statutes, and that denial was a violation of the Equal Protection Clause.

Nuxoll v. Indian Prairie School District No. 204

The District Court erred because a Heckler’s Veto can not be employed to foreclose Freedom of Speech. In addition, the District Court erred because school administrators are diluting Nuxoll’s message by restricting his chosen message, and because school officials are compelling speech by refusing to allow Nuxoll to express any message which is not tolerant of homosexuality. Finally, the District Court erred because it misconstrued several of this court’s precedents.

Bowman v. United States of America

The District Court should be reversed in the following instances: First, Congress’s primary purpose was reducing the military forces and encouraging early retirement; Second, the Secretary of Defense acted Ultra Vires in promulgating the regulation of organizations that former service personnel could work.

Byrne v. Rutledge

The District Court erred when it held that Mr. Byrne withdrew his facial challenge to the statute and regulations at the preliminary injunction stage. Second, Amicus expands upon Mr. Byrne’s discussion regarding the statute’s viewpoint discrimination. Amicus’s argument is compatible with, but different from, Mr. Byrne’s argument concerning viewpoint discrimination.

M.A.L. v. Kinsland

The District Court’s decision should be affirmed because it will not lead to confusing and complex legal rules and it comports with controlling Supreme Court precedent. Furthermore, the District Court’s decision should be affirmed because the decisions of other courts that have applied forum analysis to student free speech ignore the plain language of Tinker. Finally, the District Court’s decision should be affirmed because in addition to the fact that most of the cases appellants cite are bad law under Tinker, several of them are also inapposite.

Religious Freedom

Subscribe to email updates