In The Courts

In 2007, Chad Farnan, then a student at Capistrano High School in Orange County, CA, brought a case against his Advanced Placement European History teacher.  Farnan had tape recorded numerous lectures for study purposes, but in the meantime, caught his teacher making numerous comments that Farnan argues was an unconstitutional attack on Christianity and religion.  In one instance, his teacher stated, “When you put on your Jesus glasses, you can’t see the truth.”  Farnan believed that the teacher was violating Farnan’s First Amendment right by expressing hostility toward religion in violation of the federal Establishment Clause. 

In May 2009, a federal District Court judge issued a one-of-a-kind ruling in Farnan’s favor.  The judge held that the teacher violated the Establishment Clause in one instance where he expressed "an unequivocal belief that creationism is 'superstitious nonsense.’"  This case has been appealed to the Ninth Circuit.

Because this is the first case in the country to address this issue directly, it should help to place boundaries on teachers who feel free to improperly express hostility toward religion in public schools.  

Jennifer Monk, Associate Counsel for Advocates for Faith and Freedom and Farnan’s attorney, described the significance of this case, saying, “Just as public school teachers are not allowed to promote one religion in the classroom, they should not be able to use their classrooms as a platform to attack religion because the pendulum swings both ways.”  

On the 11th, both sides of this case will present the appeal.  Ms. Monk will argue on behalf of Farnan, asking the Ninth Circuit to broaden the lower court ruling and find more of Dr. Corbett’s statements unconstitutional.  Dr. Corbett has hired Erwin Chemerinsky, constitutional scholar and dean of UC Irvine’s law school, to lead his appeal at the Ninth Circuit. 

Advocates for Faith and Freedom filed a motion on behalf of the County of Imperial to intervene in the federal lawsuit challenging California’s Proposition 8, Perry v. Schwarzenegger.  This is the federal case that will likely decide the “marriage” issue for the entire country if it ends up, as expected, at the U.S. Supreme Court.  Until now, the cases challenging the constitutionality of laws that limit marriage to one man and one woman have generally occurred in state courts and have only concerned each state’s constitution.   

In November, 2008, California voters approved Proposition 8, which amended the California Constitution to provide:  “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”  On May 26, 2009, the California Supreme Court upheld Proposition 8 as a validly enacted amendment to the California Constitution.   

The Plaintiffs in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, now seek to overturn Proposition 8 in federal court arguing that it violates the Equal Protection Clause and Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution. The trial began on January 11, 2010 and testimony concluded on January 27, 2010.  In a few weeks, after the Judge has had an opportunity to review the evidence presented, the attorneys will present closing arguments to the Judge who will then give his ruling.

Approximately 70% of the residents of the County of Imperial voted in favor of Proposition 8.  The Board of Supervisors has voted 3-2 to file the petition to intervene in order to ensure that their residents’ interests in preserving Proposition 8 are adequately represented. Although the “YES ON 8” campaign is a party to the case and is defending Proposition 8, current precedent in the Ninth Circuit states that the campaign may not have standing to appeal if Proposition 8 is declared unconstitutional by the trial court.   

The participation of the County of Imperial is imperative to the defense of Proposition 8 so that a negative decision can be appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and then to the U.S. Supreme Court. We are currently waiting for a decision from the Judge regarding whether he will permit the intervention of the County of Imperial.       

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." In reviewing hours of statements by Dr. Corbett, we believe he is  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. Both sides filed a motion for summary judgment, asking the Court to rule in their favor.   On May 1, 2009, the Court issued rendered a first-of-its-kind decision in Chad's favor.     The Judge held that Dr. Corbett did violate the Establishment clause by stating "an unequivocal belief that creationism is 'superstitious nonsense.'"  The Court went on to hold that Dr. Corbett's statement "constitutes improper disapproval of religion in violation of the Establishment Clause." 

Dr. Corbett filed an appeal with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.  Advocates filed an appeal as well, on behalf of Chad, in the Ninth Circuit.  Advocates has asked the Ninth Circuit to broaden the District Court's ruling as we believe that other statements made by Dr. Corbett in the classroom are a violation of the Establishment Clause.  Our opening brief in the Ninth Circuit is due in April, 2010. 

Briefing:

•  First Amended Complaint
•  Answer to FAC by Defendants CUSD, et al.
•  Union Intervenor's Motion to  Intervene
•  Union Intervenor's Answer to FAC
•  District Court's Order_5.01.09
•  Press Release_5.04.09

The California legislature passed and Governor Schwarzenegger signed into law Senate Bill 777, which redefines the term "gender" for all public schools in California. The term now means any sexual preference imaginable. In other words, you are what you think you are, regardless of your biological make-up. Further, gender is now a protected classification under California's nondiscrimination laws. Among other absurd consequences, as applied this law will require the girls’ locker room to be open to any boy claiming to be a girl and vice versa. We have filed suit to reverse this law and new definition of "gender."

As we began searching for students and teachers who have been directly affected by the implementation of SB 777, two students and their parents have stepped forward and agreed to stand up for all of California's public school children.  It appears the school these student's attend has allowed a female student, who self-identifies as a male, to change clothes in the male locker room.

In order to add these two families as Plaintiffs, Advocates recently re-filed the case against Senate Bill 777 in Sacramento.  The State of California filed  a motion to dismiss the case and Equality California filed a "friend of the court brief" in support of the State's motion to dismiss.  The judge heard oral arguments on May 12, 2009 in Sacramento.  The Judge granted the State's motion to dismiss the case.

Advocates is searching for individuals that have been directly impacted by the implementation of SB 777 in order to file a new lawsuit. 

Join the California Education Committee (CEC) »

What YOU as Parents Need to Know
To receive our booklet "Engaging the Culture: CALIFORNIA Senate Bill 777 and the Redefinition of Gender in Public Schools," contact us at 1.888.588.6888, and we will send one or more copies of this informational material directly to your front door.  ($5.00 donation appreciated).

Briefing:

•  First Amended Complaint
•  State's Demurrer - Motion to Dismiss
•  CEC's Opposition
•  Amicus Brief - Equality California
•  CEC's Response to Amicus Brief
•  Press Release_5.11.09

 

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 have asked the entire Ninth Circuit panel of judges to reconsider this new opinion, which the Ninth Circuit denied.  This case was appealed to the United States Supreme Court and the Court refused to hear it. 

 This case has now gone back to the District Court and we will be filing a brief arguing that the School District violated the Truth Bible Club's consitutional rights by permitting other clubs who restrict membership based on gender, but will not permit Truth to restrict membership based on religious belief.

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.

 The Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the case in its entirety arguing the case had no merit. In August, 2008, the Federal District Court denied the motion to dismiss, and we received a very favorable ruling. 

The Superior Court's Administration agreed to settle this case, and permit Ms. Barlow and the Bible study to meet in the courthouse facilities.    

Briefing:

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

 

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. 

On Friday, August 8, 2008, the court entered a final ruling dismissing the lawsuit brought by Calvary Chapel Christian School (Murrieta, CA) and the Association of Christian Schools International against the UC.  That same day, Advocates filed an appeal to the Ninth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals.  Read press release here.  All briefing in the Ninth Circuit was completed, and oral arguments were held.  In January, 2010, the Ninth Circuit ruled against ACSI  and Calvary Chapel.  Advocates and our co-counsel are currently working on briefing asking the Ninth Circuit to reconsider the case and, if necessary, will file an appeal asking the United States Supreme Court to hear the case. 

*  Complaint 8.25.05

*  Order Granting Defendant's Motion 8.8.08

 

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 and the Ninth Circuit ruled the case could not continue because the Church was no longer able to use that location.  Advocates filed a brief asking the Court to reconsider, and the Court issued a subsequent ruling reversing its earlier decision but stating that Praise was not treated on unequal terms. 

Advocates has again asked the Ninth Circuit to reconsider this ruling and recognize that the Church was not treated on equal terms with secular institutions. 

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.