In April 2020, the Fellowship of Christian Athletes (FCA) at Pioneer High School sued the San Jose Unified School District, alleging the district violated its free exercise rights. The FCA is a national Christian sports ministry created to allow student athletes to engage in their faith with one another. Any student can join its meetings, but to serve in leadership roles, one must sign a “Statement of Faith” and a “Sexual Purity” statement. Extramarital sex or homosexual acts would necessitate resignation from leadership for a student. The FCA requires those in leadership to hold the same core beliefs as the organization; sexual intimacy is only to occur within the confines of a marriage between a man and a woman. The sports ministry had been active within the district for nearly ten years until 2019 when a teacher complained to the principal and a leadership committee at Pioneer High school about the group’s faith requirements. Shortly after, the San Jose Unified School District removed the FCA’s ability to operate as an official student club at multiple schools within the district, arguing that the organization violated the district’s non-discrimination policies. The FCA was still allowed to meet on campus as a “student interest group,” but it could no longer maintain its Associated Student Body (ASB) status, have an ASB bank account, or have access to faculty advisors. The FCA’s student leaders subsequently met with district officials to petition for formal recognition, and later sought help from the courts. They felt the district had removed their recognition because of their specific religious beliefs and speech. On June 1, 2022, the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California denied the FCA’s request for a preliminary injunction that would have required the district to grant FCA official ASB recognition again. The FCA appealed this decision and on August 29, 2022, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the previous decision and required the district to reestablish the ASB status of the club. In October of 2022, Americans United for Separation of Church and State filed a petition for a rehearing of the appeal by a larger panel of the Ninth Circuit. On September 13, 2023, the court reaffirmed the previous decision, arguing that the FCA should be reinstated.
According to the School District’s non-discrimination policy, the district “prohibits discrimination, harassment, intimidation or bullying on the basis of age, sex, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, gender expression, ethnic group identification, race, ancestry, national origin, religion…in its educational programs and activities….” The FCA’s practice of only allowing those who affirm its religious beliefs on human sexuality to serve in leadership positions within its club seems to be at odds with the district's non-discrimination policy. The FCA felt as if it had to either risk removal from formal recognition at the school by only electing leaders who shared its religious beliefs, or compromise its beliefs in order to keep its ASB status. The basis of this case pertains to whether the district’s non-discrimination policy, and thus its derecognition of the FCA given its perception of the club’s discrimination based on sexual orientation, violates the FCA’s rights to religious free exercise. Another salient issue present in this case centers around the concept of the “limited public forum,” and the role that government actors can play in regulating expression within the forum.
A past case, Christian Legal Society v. Martinez (2010), relates to this current one. In the prior case, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a publically-funded school has the right to require student clubs, pursuing official school recognition, to abide by the non-discrimination policy of its school, as long as the policy is equally applied to all clubs on campus. The court used a limited public forum analysis to argue that a public educational institution can withhold official recognition of a club, if doing so is both viewpoint-neutral and reasonable for the forum.
In my opinion, the actions taken by the district did not pose a substantial burden on religion, or deprive the FCA from exercising its religion freely. Despite losing its ASB-recognition, the club could still organize and meet on campus under the title of a “student interest group,” where it could continue to require an affirmation of its religious beliefs on human sexuality by potential group leaders. Additionally, had the FCA chosen to abide by the district’s non-discrimination policy and retract its mandatory human sexuality statements, the policy would only been able to require that all students gain equal access to the opportunity to serve in an FCA leadership position; the FCA would still have been able to elect which members it wanted as leaders.
Lastly, I believe future rulings in favor of the FCA could generate a slippery slope, leading to further violations of the district’s non-discrimination policy. As argued by Justice Ginsburg in Christian Legal Society v. Martinez, barring exclusion based on status but allowing it because of belief could produce a daunting challenge to schools, and could lead to clubs hiding their true intentions for excluding a member. Should higher court rulings allow the FCA to continue applying their religious leadership standards, the protections afforded to students under the district’s non-discrimination policy could be jeopardized further. I believe there is a compelling state interest in protecting students from being denied access to opportunities based on their sexual orientation, and this outweighs the FCA’s interests in having potential leaders affirm a statement of religious beliefs. What do you think?
Sources
https://www.becketlaw.org/case/sinclair-v-san-jose-school-district/
Hi Bella! This is a very interesting case discussing where we draw the line between free exercise claims and discriminatory actions. I agree fully with your legal analysis of the case. After reading the facts I too would argue that FCA's free exercise of religion was not violated by the district removing its ASB status. As you pointed out, they are still able to participate on campus as a "student-interest group" which does not subject members to discrimination under the limited public forum doctrine. I would argue that if the school district were to continue FCA to be an ASB organization that there would be a strong Establishment Clause case against them. The organization requires student leaders to be holders of strong Christian values such as homophobia and being sexually pure. These requirements are impeding into the lives of students and how they conduct themselves. I feel like these are personal values and no religious organization with a school affiliation should be allowed to require them or discuss them. There is no secular purpose, in my opinion, to this club. There are other forums that are not publicly funded where students can engage with these discussions. Another point that you made and I agree with is the slippery slope argument. Allowing for sponsored discrimination (to an extent) is harmful and is in violation to a strong state interest. I feel like this state interest of protecting minority groups reigns supreme to the free exercise claims of FCA and it would therefore not be religious discrimination.
ReplyDeleteBella,
ReplyDeleteThis was a great post! Very interesting and well written! I agree with your holding that the FCA had not been deprived of their religious rights. The issue of the “limited public forum” arises again, where this public school can deny the FCA as long as it treats other clubs with a neutral viewpoint. I think that adding the example of the admittance of the “Pioneers for Christ” club into the school is important because it supports this very statement. Pioneers for Christ did not violate the school’s non-discriminatory policy. Despite this, they still held religious views, many synonymous with the FCA. The very approval of Pioneers for Christ and rejection of the FCA does not prove to be a discriminatory act, but a plain reaction of the FCA’s failure to abide by the schools non-discriminatory policies. Additionally, I agree with the argument you made at the end of the post that ruling in favor of the FCA may lead to a slippery slope in future cases surrounding the validity of school clubs. Ruling in favor of the FCA may invite other clubs to mask their true intentions with falsities.
Hi Bella,
ReplyDeleteThis was such an interesting case to read about. I agree with your analysis on the holding. Based on the facts of the case, if the schools maintained these regulations for all clubs, they did this for a state interest of protecting all students at the school, not to impede on their religious beliefs. Like you mentioned, they were still able to participate on campus, which is not discriminatory. I also agree with your slippery slope argument and I believe that is an important point when looking at this case.
Hi Bella,
ReplyDeleteTerrific Post! It was a great case you picked out and you presented the facts in superb fashion. I would agree with your holding on this case as well. The school had the right to not allow FCA to be an ASB organization because they violated their non-discriminatory policy. Since it was a limited public forum, the school has the right to deny clubs based on their judgement if any club violates one of their policies. An interesting point that furthered my stance on the holding was that they allowed the Pioneers for Christ be an ASB organization. It is evident that this is neutral and if FCA abided by the non-discriminatory policy they would have the ability to be an ASB organization.
I agree with your evaluation and reasoning of this case that the FCA’s Free Exercise was not violated due to them losing their Associated Student Body status. It is clear that the FCA’s requirement of officials having the same religious beliefs violates the non-discriminatory policy. I do not believe that the FCA losing their ASB status stops the members from practicing their religious beliefs. Especially since the school is continuing to allow the FCA to go on but as a student interest group instead of ASB. Your discussion of the Pioneers of Christ club is very beneficial to proving that this was not a violation of their Free Exercise Clause. This demonstrates that the school is not discriminating against the religious beliefs of the FCA and the district's discussion to not allow the group as an ASB is on the basis of its violation of the non-discriminatory policy.
ReplyDeleteGood post Bella, I agree that the district's stance seems reasonable to ensure inclusivity. I also agree that the FCA's free exercise wasn't violated by the district simply taking away its ASB label. They can still operate just under as a different type of organization. I liked Your reference to the Christian Legal Society v. Martinez which was definitely a similar case. I tend to agree that prioritizing student inclusivity over strict religious standards aligns with a compelling state interest, and I thought you outlined that well.
ReplyDeleteThis is case that can have great influence on a number of cases. I do think the FCA was not completely stripped of their religious rights. As long as this club is treated the same as the others their should be no issue. If we prohibit a group that is admitting and discriminating against groups it could lead to issues down the road. The state must be very careful with this as it could set a dangerous precedent. Ruling with FCA will bring about its fair share of issues.
ReplyDelete