The Association of Christian Schools International, one of its member schools, and 5 of that school’s students sued the University of California officials who are responsible for determining whether high school courses qualify as “college preparatory” courses. These officials had denied that status to 38 course by Christian schools. Unfortunately, the district court and the court of appeals ruled against the plaintiffs.
It is difficult to overstate what the court below has done. Simply put, and contrary to precedent from this Court and the United States Supreme Court, the court below created new law grounded in nothing more than a passing reference by this Court—a reference noting that some courts have found an equitable interest in custody and visitation matters on a de facto or psychological parenting theory.
After the California Supreme Court declared homosexuals could marry, voters amended the state Constitution to prohibit homosexual marriage. Then activists tried to have the amendment declared unconstitutional. This time the Supreme Court ruled correctly by refusing to undo the amendment. However, that left open the question of what to do about same-sex “marriages” that had been solemnized in the interim. The court held those marriages were valid.
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.
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.
Kentucky Baptist Homes for Children (KBHC) is a private organization that receives some funding from the Commonwealth of Kentucky for its services to at-risk children. Kentucky Baptist Homes for Children (KBHC) is a private organization that receives some funding from the Commonwealth of Kentucky for its services to at-risk children. Because of the religious beliefs held by KBHC, a lesbian employee was fired. She along with another lesbian who claimed that she wanted to apply for employment but would not because it would be futile, sued KBHC for employment discrimination. They also sued Kentucky officials along with KBHC for violating the Establishment Clause.
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.
Pro-life Missouri challenged the denial of its request for a specialty plate. The district court and court of appeals ruled that that denial was unconstitutional.
The city of Pittsburgh passed a ordinance that created both a 15-foot buffer zone and a 100-foot bubble zone around hospitals and abortion clinics. A pro-life protester challenged the ordinance under the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment and Pennsylvania’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act. In a complicated ruling, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled that the combination of the two zones was unconstitutional, while ruling against the protester on some other arguments.
As explained by the court:
“When defendant Department of Civil Service announced that it would recognize the parties to a same-sex marriage as spouses if their marriage were valid in the jurisdiction where it was solemnized, thereby allowing such spouses of state employees access to the benefits provided under the New York State Health Insurance Program . . . plaintiffs commenced this action as individual taxpayers seeking a declaration that the Department’s recognition of such marriages is illegal, unconstitutional and results in the unlawful disbursement of public funds.”