In The Courts

Chad Farnan, a sophomore at Capistrano Valley High School, is taking Advanced Placement European History at this public high school. His teacher, Dr. Corbett, spends a good portion of each lecture attacking Christianity and other religions. In fact, he has specifically stated that "when you put on your Jesus glasses, you can't see the truth." Hours of statements by Dr. Corbett reflect that he is clearly violating the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution by attacking religion, particularly Christianity, and creating a hostile environment for religious students. We have filed a lawsuit in an attempt to have the teacher removed from teaching this class and to establish precedent that will put teachers on notice that attacking students' religious beliefs in class is a violation of law.

Following our filing of the First Amended Complaint, the School District and teacher filed a motion to dismiss the case.  In opposing the School District, Advocates emphasized the need to interpret the First Amendment in such a way that protects Chad's right to attend class without being constantly barraged with the teacher's anti-Christian sentiments.

The Judge denied the School District's motion to dismiss.  Subsequently, the California Teachers Association filed a motion with the Court seeking to intervene on behalf of the School District and Dr. Corbett.  The judge has permitted the intervention. Discovery in the case is ongoing.   

Briefing:

•  First Amended Complaint
•  Answer to FAC by Defendants CUSD, et al.
•  Union Intervenor's Motion to  Intervene
•  Union Intervenor's Answer to FAC

The University of California system has denied applications from Christian schools to gain approval of courses and textbooks written from a Christian viewpoint. As a result, high school students from Christian schools may be unable to attend schools within the University system, despite qualifying grade point averages and standardized test scores, if the high schools they attend are not able to get their courses approved as college prep courses. The UC filed a motion to dismiss the case but lost in court.  Both sides then filed a motion for summary judgment, each asking the federal district court to issue a final judgment in its favor.

In March of 2008, the judge's order denied our motion for summary judgment and only partially granted the state's motion for summary judgment.  The most significant claims remain. Defendants have filed an additional partial motion for summary judgment in efforts to obtain a ruling without the expense and time delay of a trial. Briefing is due over the next several months.

Calvary Chapel San Diego is seeking to expand its current facilities. Despite the City’s specific plan stating that churches and ancillary Christian schools are permitted as a matter of right, the church was required to submit a conditional use permit (CUP) application. The church is now on its second CUP application, and despite time and finances spent to obtain an approval, it has yet to get the City's approval. In fact, the City has been dragging its feet for months. We intend to file a lawsuit in Federal District Court if the City does not comply with our demands that it act constitutionally.

Additionally, Calvary’s Christian school uses the City Park next to its facility for physical education. While other groups and schools have been permitted to use the park during the day for the same type of use, the City informed the church last year that it would no longer be able to use the grounds. We sent a letter to the City demanding that it allow the church to use the park. City staff backed down, and a mutually acceptable agreement was approved by the City Council at a public hearing. The church and school now enjoy equal access to the facility.

Two students sought to form a Bible club at a high school in Kent, Washington. They filed their application with the ASB. With the oversight of the Vice Principal, the ASB denied the club the right to exist as an approved ASB club for two reasons.  First, the club's constitution required its members to sign a statement of faith, which attests to the inerrancy of the Bible. Second, the constitution included a code of conduct based upon Christian values. While any student may attend club meetings and functions, participants must sign a statement of faith to become voting members. The District Court ruled against the club, arguing that the club had no right to discriminate against other non-Christian students. 

We subsequently appealed to the Ninth Circuit, but the Ninth Circuit also ruled against Truth Bible Club in a shocking decision, the implications of which go as far as to threaten the right of churches to maintain similar membership qualifications. We consequently asked the entire Ninth Circuit panel of judges to reconsider the ruling. Our request was denied, and a similar ruling was re-issued. We are now preparing our response.

Praise Christian Center and Pastor Derek Annunciation applied for a conditional use permit (CUP) in the City of Huntington Beach. The City eventually granted the CUP, but with many restrictive conditions that resulted in the Church's inability to use the building. Additionally, the conditions applied were excessive, arbitrary, and disproportionate to conditions enforced on other businesses. The district court ruled that the City's sign ordinance was unconstitutional but ruled against the Church as to its use of the building. We have appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on the basis that the district court erred in reviewing the evidence.

Following our opening brief to the Ninth Circuit, the City filed a motion to dismiss, which the court denied, and we proceeded with the final briefing. Oral arguments were heard in February, 2008. We are now awaiting a decision from the Ninth Circuit.

Following his school's participation in the "Day of Silence," a national LGBT awareness day, Chase Harper wore a t-shirt with a Bible verse expressing his viewpoint regarding homosexuality and his school's support of it. As a result of Harper's stance, he was removed from classes for the day and told that he must remove the message from his shirt or face disciplinary action.

The District Court's denial of a preliminary injunction was heard by the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit ruled against Chase in a strongly worded and highly controversial opinion -- so controversial, in fact, that the United States Supreme Court vacated that opinion and remanded the case to the District Court. The District Court refused to reconsider its denial, however. We have subsequently re-filed in the Ninth Circuit where briefing is ongoing.  

Mindy Barlow and her Bible study group had been meeting in an empty courtroom during their lunch hour for six years when they were suddenly told that they could no longer use the courthouse facilities. The Court then came up with a policy regarding employee use of facilities, by which other social groups and organizations were permitted to meet, but religious groups were not. When Mindy applied for permission, she was denied and informed that such a use of the courthouse would violate the Establishment Clause. We sent a demand letter to the Court, but the Court refused to allow the Bible study to resume. We consequently filed a complaint in the Federal District Court, and, pending the court's ruling on the defendants' motion to dismiss, we will soon engage in the discovery process.

Briefing:

•  First Amended Complaint
•  Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
•  Defendants' Memo of Points & Authorities
•  Plaintiff's Opposition to Motion to Dismiss

In February, 2004, the mayor of San Francisco began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples despite the existence of California law explicitly stating that marriage is limited to a man and a woman. The California Supreme Court granted an emergency order preventing the mayor and city from issuing licenses to same-sex couples and later held that the marriages were void under California law. Subsequently, proponents of same-sex marriage filed a suit challenging the constitutionality of California’s marriage laws. Representing the Proposition 22 Legal Defense and Education Fund, we were victorious in California's Court of Appeals, but the California Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case. Briefing is now complete before the high court, and oral arguments were heard on March 4, 2008.  The Court has rendered its decision (in favor of same-sex marriage), which is available here.

Two physicians specializing in fertility treatment were sued by a lesbian woman because of their religious convictions against inseminating any unmarried woman, including a lesbian. The lesbian woman brought suit against the doctors and the medical group, alleging sexual orientation discrimination under California law. We filed an emergency appeal with the Court of Appeals after the trial court ruled against the doctors and their original attorneys. The Court of Appeals ruled in our favor. This case has been appealed to the California Supreme Court, which has asked all parties to address the following question: Does a physician have a constitutional right to refuse on religious grounds to perform a medical procedure for a patient because of the patient's sexual orientation? The briefing has been completed, and oral arguments were heard in May.  We expect the court's opinion by late summer. 

Downloads

• Opening Brief on the Merits by RPI Benitez
•  Answer Brief on the Merits of Petitioners
•  Reply Brief by RPI Benitez

The Memphis Housing Authority (MHA) owns numerous high-rise apartment buildings where it provides subsidized housing to elderly and disabled persons. After a number of years of the Bible study groups meeting peaceably, MHA suddenly decided that it would be a violation of “separation of church and state” to allow residents to hold Bible studies in the community rooms of the facilities, when many of these residents are physically unable to leave the premises or do not have transportation to attend a church off site.

The MHA's decision to restrict the Bible study came late and was unconstitutional. As a result, Advocates sought a court injunction to allow the Bible studies to resume throughout litigation. Fortunately, such an injunction proved not to be necessary, as MHA attorneys quickly realized the unconstitutionality of their actions and contacted Advocates' attorneys to offer a settlement. According to the terms of the settlement, the MHA has agreed to draft a new, constitutionally-sound policy, and the Bible studies continue to meet without further harassment.