U.S. Supreme Court Puts a Stop to Students’ Rights Case

Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal in our case of student versus teacher.  Our client, Chad Farnan, was a sophomore in a high school Advanced Placement European History class, when he had to endure almost daily statements from his teacher that Chad argued were an unconstitutional attack on Christianity and religion, including the statement: “When you put on your Jesus glasses, you can’t see the truth.” A district court decided that one of the teacher’s statements was unconstitutional, as it expressed "an unequivocal belief that creationism is 'superstitious nonsense.’"  Both parties appealed this case to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which overturned the district court’s decision and declared that the teacher involved had qualified immunity – meaning that, since there was no clear precedent of a teacher being held liable for his or her statements expressing disapproval of religion, this teacher could not have known that his statements would be unconstitutional.

We then appealed this case to the U.S. Supreme Court, in hopes that they would reconsider the case and provide a final decision in this landmark, precedent-setting case.  However, they have decided not to hear our appeal.

We are disappointed that the highest Court in our nation will not hear this important case, and we agree with Douglas Laycock, a constitutional scholar at the University of Virginia School of Law, who was quoted last year in the Orange County Register:

"They can't hold the teacher liable because the law was not clearly settled. Because they can't hold him liable, the law will never become clear on what teachers can say in class."

Please join us in prayer as we continue to work in defense of the religious and individual freedoms of our students!

This information is provided by Advocates for Faith & Freedom, a non-profit religious law firm dedicated to protecting religious liberty in the courts!  To help us in our ongoing battle for religious freedom, click here to donate to Advocates.

Is President Obama’s “Compromise” Enough?

In January, President Obama announced that, as part of his Obamacare program, employers would have to include free access to birth control pills in their health coverage plans.  Churches and other houses of worship got an exception from this policy, but other religious institutions would only get an additional year to work out the issue and start providing this coverage to employees. Instantly, this announcement caused a great backlash from faith-based organizations, including hospitals and charities – and particularly those associated with the Catholic Church – who would not receive the exemption.  Birth control of any kind goes against the teachings of the Catholic Church, and the issue quickly became one of freedom of religion and rights of conscience.

In response, President Obama proposed a “compromise” last Friday, stating that the religious institutions themselves would not have to pay for access to birth control pills and services…however, the insurance companies would have to supply coverage free of charge.

This does not in any way solve the underlying concern of these faith-based organizations – which is that they do not want to be forced to provide something that goes against the very tenets and intimate beliefs of their faith!

A House panel is meeting today to discuss whether President Obama’s decree goes against the First Amendment rights of all Americans.

What do you think?  Let your voice be heard by leaving a comment on our Facebook page.

This information is provided by Advocates for Faith & Freedom, a non-profit religious law firm dedicated to protecting religious liberty in the courts!  To help us in our ongoing battle for religious freedom, click here to donate to Advocates.

"Obamacare" Offers Little Room for Religious Liberty

Recently, the Obama administration announced that, as part of Obama’s healthcare mandate known as “Obamacare”, religious and church-affiliated institutions will have to cover free birth control for their employees.  Kathleen Sebelius, the Health and Human Services Secretary, said that nonprofit religious organizations could have an additional year to implement this new requirement. The backlash against this new policy came immediately after the announcement.  Religious institutions will have to comply with this condition, or fight back, or else drop healthcare for their employees altogether and pay a fine to the government.  This particular mandate does give a very limited religious exemption to the rule, but still, only “certain religious employers” will be able to take this protection.  It is not enough.  (You can find the specific religious exemptions at http://www.hrsa.gov/womensguidelines/) What about the freedom of conscience that should be afforded to these religious workers?  If something goes directly against their moral beliefs – such as use of contraception or sterilization – how can they, with good conscience, provide this for their employees?

Sister Carol Keehan, President of the Catholic Health Association, responded to this new mandate, saying, “This indicates the need for an effective national conversation on the appropriate conscience protections in our pluralistic society, which has always respected the role of religions.”

Time will tell how many religious institutions will take a stand and defend their religious freedoms and their right to freedom of conscience.  If you work for a religious or church-affiliated organization and are concerned about your rights in this matter, please contact Advocates.

This information is provided by Advocates for Faith & Freedom, a non-profit religious law firm dedicated to protecting religious liberty in the courts!  To help us in our ongoing battle for religious freedom, click here to donate to Advocates.

Victory in Supreme Court Church Case

In January, the freedom of religious institutions to choose their staff and ministers who best reflect the beliefs and values they hold dear was supported by the highest court in our country – the United States Supreme Court.

A teacher at a school run by the Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church in Michigan was fired, and she told the school that she had consulted with an attorney and planned to fight back about her job termination.  However, the case went before the Supreme Court, who ruled that the teacher’s case would not move forward.

In the court’s decision, Chief Justice John Roberts asserted that the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment ensure that the government will not have a say in whom a religious organization hires or fires.  In his opinion, Roberts said:

“The Establishment Clause prevents the government from appointing ministers,” and the “Free Exercise Clause prevents it from interfering with the freedom of religious groups to select their own. ” 

Advocates celebrates the decision of the high court, which solidifies the liberties of churches and religious organizations to make decisions that will best serve their congregations and constituents – without fear of governmental interference. 

We have defended countless churches and religious institutions from unconstitutional intrusion by the government into their affairs.  If you, your church, or your religious organization encounter discrimination or violation of your religious freedoms, we are here to help!

This information is provided by Advocates for Faith & Freedom, a non-profit religious law firm dedicated to protecting religious liberty in the courts!  To help us in our ongoing battle for religious freedom, click here to donate to Advocates.

Blockbuster Case in Education Goes to the U.S. Supreme Court

Four years ago, Chad Farnan was a high school student at Capistrano High School in Orange County, CA.  Day after day, he would attend his Advanced Placement European History class and have to endure anti-religious statements from his teacher, such as, “When you put on your Jesus glasses, you can’t see the truth.”  Chad realized that this offensive speech was an attack on religion and thus violated his First Amendment rights. He came to Advocates for help, and we have brought this case before several different Courts.  We had a victory in the District Court, where the Judge ruled that this teacher violated the Establishment Clause in at least one instance when he expressed "an unequivocal belief that creationism is 'superstitious nonsense.’"

The case was appealed to the Ninth Circuit, which overturned that ruling and said that the teacher was immune from a lawsuit since there was no case like this before.  Then, the Ninth Circuit refused to rule on the constitutionality of the teacher’s conduct as it should have done, leaving future teachers free to discriminate.

We have fought for Chad and his family since the beginning, and we are now taking his case to the highest Court in our nation  ⎼⎼ the U.S. Supreme Court.  Why?  Because we believe that this case is supremely important to establish once and for all that public schools must provide a neutral educational environment.  Although we support the majority of teachers who teach responsibly, we cannot tolerate those public school teachers who abuse their position to force anti-Christian ideology onto our students!

We will be working diligently over the next month preparing our petition to the U.S. Supreme Court asking the Court to accept Chad’s case for review.

Chad, his family, and all of us at Advocates appreciate your prayers and support as we pursue this case further.  Our hope is that this landmark education case will provide powerful precedent for the future.

The 9/11 Cross – Offensive or Inspiring?

Ten years ago on September 11, the most devastating act of terrorism on American soil took place when two planes crashed into the World Trade Center in New York City.  When the rubble fell to the ground, two steel beams remained, and they formed the shape of a cross.

Some would call this a reminder from God – that he endures through tragedy, and that he is with us through all circumstances.  However, one group – The American Atheists – have filed a lawsuit saying that the “the 9/11 Cross” should not be included in a Memorial being constructed on the site of the incident.  They say it is unconstitutional and represents a “mingling of church and state.”  If no other religions or philosophies are represented in the memorial, then they want the cross removed.

The group’s president, Dave Silverman, issued this statement: "The WTC cross has become a Christian icon. It has been blessed by so-called holy men and presented as a reminder that their god, who couldn't be bothered to stop the Muslim terrorists or prevent 3,000 people from being killed in his name, cared only enough to bestow upon us some rubble that resembles a cross.”

This cross was not man-made – the beams fell into this position, and the resulting cross has become a symbol of hope for many people.  We support the inclusion of this cross in the Memorialand Museum being constructed at the site, and we plan to help in the legal battle in whatever way we can.

What do you think?  Should the Cross remain at the 9/11 Memorial Site?  Let your voice be heard – leave your comment on our Facebook page: www.facebook.com/Advocates.

This information is provided by Advocates for Faith & Freedom, a non-profit religious law firm dedicated to protecting religious liberty in the courts!  To help us in our ongoing battle for religious freedom, click here to donate to Advocates.

Hemet Free Speech Case Goes to Court

“Free speech” is a revered and often talked about principle enshrined into our Constitution.  It is as much a part of the fabric of American political and social life today as it has been throughout our Nation’s history.  It is, however, a principle that must be vigilantly protected and defended as it is increasingly under attack in today’s culture.  As we seek to do just that, those who are tasked with protecting and defending it often do so at great cost.

            Ultimately, “free speech” is not truly free.  Protecting our constitutional rights by becoming embroiled in a lawsuit takes a great toll on those individuals who are willing to do so despite the costs to their families and everyday life.  Several months ago three individuals began a fight to protect against an erosion of our right to engage in free speech in Hemet, California when they read the Bible out loud in front of the Department of Motor Vehicles and were then arrested.  All three men have subsequently experienced the costs that maintaining truly “free speech” can exact.

The non-monetary costs are enumerable and often difficult to bear.  While we may not all agree with the particular method of sharing the Gospel of Jesus Christ used by these three men, it is indisputable that they are carrying a burden for us all. Should we all choose to remain silent in the face of great costs, our rights will slowly erode and diminish to such an extent that we will not be able to speak freely in the public square.

This month, the first round of the court battle that looms ahead occurred in federal district court in Los Angeles, California.  While we don’t agree with the entirety of the Court’s decision as the Court chose to dismiss a portion of the lawsuit, the most significant aspects of the case will move forward. Please be in prayer as this case forges ahead, recognizing that while “free speech” is not free, it is paramount to our ability to spread the Gospel and live our faith out loud.

Ninth Circuit Rules - Student v. Teacher

On August 19, 2011, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a ruling in the case of Farnan v. Capistrano Unified School District.

Please read this important update as we make preparations to take this case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

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 we believe were 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.”

We filed a federal lawsuit arguing that the public school teacher was creating an environment of religious hostility, thereby violating the federal Establishment Clause.  We believe that a child should be able to go to school without being bullied by his own public school teacher.

In May 2009, a federal District Court judge issued a 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 was a great victory in the furtherance of religious liberty.

On appeal, the Ninth Circuit agreed with us that the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment requires that government officials must maintain neutrality toward “religion and nonreligion.” The court even said that “[a]t some point a teacher’s comments on religion might cross the line and rise to the level of unconstitutional hostility.”

Despite these statements, the Ninth Circuit chose not to give a ruling on the main constitutional question presented on appeal. Instead, the Ninth Circuit chose to simply say that the court could “not conclude that a reasonable teacher standing in [the teacher’s] shoes would have been on notice that his actions might be unconstitutional.” Therefore, the Court granted immunity to the school teacher.

This begs the question: Why didn’t the Ninth Circuit rule on the constitutional question and provide guidance to the millions of school children and tens of thousands of school teachers? This case could have been used to place boundaries on teachers who feel free to improperly express hostility toward religion in public schools.

We believe that the Ninth Circuit had the responsibility to issue a ruling that clarified the law by declaring that the teacher’s conduct was unconstitutional. Instead, the Court intentionally avoided making any determination on the substantive legal issue and simple granted immunity.

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.

It is our goal to have the Ninth Circuit, and ultimately the U.S. Supreme Court, issue a precedent setting ruling on this important legal issue, regardless of whether the teacher is granted immunity from monetary damages.

The teacher may have won a mid-level procedural victory - being granted immunity, but he certainly has not won the moral victory.  So far, the only court to address the constitutionality of the teacher’s conduct is the District Court and that court determined that the teacher’s conduct was unconstitutional.

A teacher who spews hostility toward Christianity or other faiths is no more acceptable than the bully on the playground that is verbally hostile toward other students. This case is not about immunity for the teacher or money for our clients, it’s about protecting our kids from a hostile environment in the classroom.

This case, however, is far from over. We plan to file a petition for rehearing and for en banc review before the Ninth Circuit within the next week or so. If the petition is not successful, we will ask the U.S. Supreme Court to review the Ninth Circuit’s decision.

Please stand in prayer with our legal team and Chad Farnan.  We greatly appreciate your prayers and would appreciate your immediate financial support as we prepare our legal briefs over the next two weeks.

ObamaCare – One Mandate Down

Although the national health insurance debate may not directly relate to religious liberty, we felt the Eleventh Circuit’s refreshing decision concerning health care is certainly worthy of reporting.  Last week, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the individual mandate required in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (known as “ObamaCare”) is unconstitutional.

According to the Court, Congress cannot "mandate that individuals enter into contracts with private insurance companies for the purchase of an expensive product from the time they are born until the time they die."

The Court further went on to say:

“Few powers, if any, could be more attractive to Congress than compelling the purchase of certain products. Yet even if we focus on the modern era, when congressional power under the Commerce Clause has been at its height, Congress still has not asserted this authority. Even in the face of a Great Depression, a World War, a Cold War, recessions, oil shocks, inflation, and unemployment, Congress never sought to require the purchase of wheat or war bonds, force a higher savings rate or greater consumption of American goods, or require every American to purchase a more fuel efficient vehicle.”We celebrate the 2-1 majority vote of the Court to call the ObamaCare mandate unconstitutional.  Since this decision differs from another federal appeals court ruling earlier this year which upheld the individual mandate, this case will very likely go to the US Supreme Court next.

Once a new federal law is established, there are often hundreds of pages of regulations adopted by non-elected officials who implement the law. ObamaCare has raised serious concerns regarding how politicians and regulators will use this new law to promote abortion and other causes that are repugnant to the Christian faith.

If the Supreme Court does not overturn ObamaCare for its individual mandate, we will monitor the implementation of ObamaCare in order to protect religious liberty and traditional values.  We will keep you updated on what happens in the ongoing case of ObamaCare.

Do you know the TRUE story behind our national anthem, “The Star-Spangled Banner”?

In the midst of the War of 1812, three US hostages aboard a British ship wait through the night, hearing the devastating sounds of war raging against a strategic US fort.  In the morning, they wake up at dawn, head to the deck, and look out to see whether the US flag is still flying, or if it has been replaced with a British flag….

Want to know the rest of the story?  Click here to watch a video from David Barton, President of WallBuilders, explaining this amazing moment in our history.

We are excited that David Barton will be our keynote speaker at this year’s Justice Gala!  His intimate knowledge of history – particularly from a religious viewpoint – is incredible, and we are blessed to have him share more about our nation’s forgotten heroes and Christian heritage at our event.

As the icing on the cake, we have Mike Williams – one of the greatest Christian comics today – as our Master of Ceremonies. Be ready to laugh the night away while supporting Advocates for Faith & Freedom!

Justice 2011, taking place on October 1 in Newport Beach, CA, will be one you will always remember…we hope you will join us!