Connecticut Teacher Sues School District After Refusing to Take Down Crucifix

In a case that highlights the ongoing tension between religious expression and government neutrality, a Connecticut middle school teacher has sued her school district after being removed from the school for displaying a crucifix in her classroom. The school district argues that permitting the Crucifix to be hung would violate the Establishment Clause, while the teacher claims prohibiting it infringes on her Free Exercise rights. This dispute mirrors the legal debates surrounding Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, a controversial Supreme Court decision from 2022 that reshaped how courts approach religious expression in public schools.

This case raises fundamental constitutional questions: Where is the line between personal religious expression and government endorsement of religion? And does the Kennedy ruling suggest that the teacher’s removal was unconstitutional?

After being ordered to remove a crucifix from her classroom and refusing to do so, Marisol Arroyo-Castro was suspended without pay for insubordination by the Consolidated School District of New Britain. The leaders of the school district claimed that hanging the crucifix in a classroom owned by the New Britain Board of Education endorses the religion, which ultimately violates the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause’s objective to keep public schools neutral in religious matters. The school district maintains that visible religious displays by teachers could make students feel excluded or pressured. Students of different faiths or no faith could be particularly subjected to this. 

Castro recently filed a lawsuit against the School District in response to these claims, accusing them of using the Establishment Clause as an excuse to restrict her free speech and free exercise rights. Castro’s lawsuit suggests that other teachers are permitted to have secular images and items in their classrooms to express their personal interests and beliefs. Castro’s lawyer claims that allowing secular objects in classrooms but not religious objects is not treating religion neutrally. 

Similarities in this Connecticut crucifix case and Kennedy v. Bremerton School District were noted by Castro’s legal team. The Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District significantly altered the legal landscape for religious expression in public schools.  The case involved a high school football coach, Joseph Kennedy, who was disciplined for praying on the field after games. The Court ruled in his favor, arguing that his personal religious expression did not constitute government endorsement of religion, and that religious expression cannot be prohibited solely because of its religious nature.

The Kennedy ruling could strengthen Castro’s claim. If a coach publicly praying on the football field was deemed private religious expression, it is arguable that Castro’s choice to display a crucifix is also personal expression rather than an endorsement of religion by the school. The Court’s emphasis on protecting individual religious expression suggests that outright bans on teachers displaying religious symbols might not hold up under scrutiny.

However, a key distinction between the cases is that Kennedy involved voluntary post-game prayer. In contrast, this case involves a religious display in a classroom, which is a space where students are a captive audience. Courts might view a teacher’s in-class religious display as more coercive than a coach’s prayer on a football field.

In my opinion, while Castro may use the Kennedy decision to argue that her crucifix is a personal expression of faith rather than an official endorsement by the school, the school district's argument is more compelling because a classroom is different from a football field in terms of student exposure and potential coercion. Unlike voluntary post-game prayer, a crucifix displayed in a classroom is a permanent, visible symbol that students—a captive audience—see daily. This could create an implicit endorsement of Christianity, making non-Christian students feel uncomfortable or excluded. 

This case has significant implications for treating religious expression in public schools. A ruling for Castro would expand public employees' ability to express religious beliefs at work, ultimately reshaping the balance between personal expression and government neutrality. This could further erode the Establishment Clause’s traditional safeguards, potentially opening the door for more open religious expression by public school employees. On the other hand, if the school district prevails, it would reaffirm the precedent that public schools must remain neutral spaces where teachers cannot visibly promote religious symbols. It would set the standard that personal expression is allowed to public school employees unless it interferes with the educational environment or violates policies such as the Establishment Clause.

Ultimately, the outcome of this lawsuit could have significant consequences for how religious expression is treated in public schools moving forward. Courts must decide whether the teacher’s crucifix was merely a personal expression or an impermissible endorsement of religion—a question at the heart of First Amendment law.

Sources: 

Teacher Booted from Classroom Over Crucifix Sues District, Alleges Religious Discrimination

Court's Excellent Ruling in Coach Kennedy Case

ACLU Comments on Supreme Court Decision in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District