LifeWise, Inc. v. Everett Public School District
LifeWise, Inc. is a religious instructional institution that provides off-site education to students at upwards of 400 public schools. This instruction takes place on two days per week, known as “release time religious instruction,” with each day dedicated to a different age group. LifeWise additionally provides Bibles to its students in order to ensure unanimity and, therefore, “unique teaching and editorial material” in lesson summaries. It was proposed by parents, specifically the Co-Plaintiff Sarah Sweeny, that LifeWise join the Everett Public School District in Washington State. At this point of request, LifeWise included over 60 children at Emerson Elementary within the Everett Public School District in its programming.
However, the Everett Public School District required some caveats to joining. The District is clear that there is no contract or partnership with LifeWise and therefore requires parents or guardians of children attending religious instructions to give permission slips for a student to leave. In 2025, the District expanded this requirement by mandating that a new permission slip or request for release “must be made for each instance separately” and for each individual student being released. This changed from previous years, allowing students to be released in groups of four with one slip and for a longer period of time. LifeWise proposed semester-long or multiple-absence permission slips, but the District rejected them.
Additionally, the School District barred LifeWise from participating in Emerson’s annual Community Resource Fair in May of 2025. The District argues that because this event is sponsored by the public school, and therefore its taxpayers, they “do[es] not allow religious-based organizations of any type to participate in school-sponsored events.” LifeWise seeks to participate in the May 2026 Community Resource Fair and argues that, in the past, the policy has permitted religious organizations to use District facilities, as long as it doesn’t interfere with educational activities.
LifeWise, in its partnership with Emerson, had displayed paper flyers in the school lobby to advertise its religious services. Everett allows this and additionally allows for electronic flyers. Sweeny, a parent and member of LifeWise, used this opportunity. However, in June of 2025, the District barred further flyers from LifeWise from being displayed in the lobby because it was a use of school resources by a non-student to promote religion. Sweeny then offered to distribute an electronic flyer, but was met with further requests to change it before distribution, such as “replacing the photo of the boy praying.” The District explained that it could be viewed as coercive. LifeWise was eventually granted permission to distribute after the suggested changes were made.
Emerson Elementary began receiving complaints from parents whose children were not attending LifeWise religious instruction. These parents explained that children at LifeWise were encouraging their peers to join throughout the school day. LifeWise students would also come back to class with bags of candy, and sometimes other LifeWise items such as religious instructional materials, leading to distractions in the classroom. Subsequently, Emerson Elementary required LifeWise students to keep items received during LifeWise religious instruction in “a sealed envelope in their backpacks during the school day” to minimize the stated distractions.
As a result, Sweeny and LifeWise filed suit on December 18, 2025, against the Everett Public School District and its Superintendent. The plaintiffs filed four claims, two of which were claims in violation of the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause: the new RTRI guidelines applied to LifeWise, adopted in September 2025, and the new RTRI guidelines applied to Sweeny. As of now, a federal district judge has granted a preliminary injunction against the Everett Public Schools District. This injunction, granted by U.S. District Judge, allows LifeWise’s participation in community fairs, printed flyers on school grounds, semester-long permission slips for up to four individuals, and for religious materials to be used during free times at school. First Liberty, on behalf of the Co-plaintiffs, explained that the lawsuit arose from its substantial burden and lack of neutrality.
Beyond its discussion of Free Speech, the constitutional issue as it relates to the free exercise clause then remains: Does the District’s new RTRI guidelines neutral or burdensome and therefore a violation of the Free Exercise Clause under the First Amendment?
The most relevant court precedent to LifeWise, Inc. v. Everett Public School District is the 1948 case McCollum v. Board of Education. The issue in question for this case was whether religious classes within public school systems violated the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause. The court argued yes because of its use of tax dollars to support religious instruction. An additional case, Zorach v. Clauson, followed this decision in 1952 and challenged a New York program that designated a “release time” for students to participate in religious instruction off campus. The court concluded that this program did not violate the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause or Free Exercise because it did not use public facilities and was not coercive.
In the consideration of neutrality, First Liberty reported after an initial inquiry to Everett Public School District, a board member replied with “hostility.” Charles Adkins, said board member, openly stated “"I want to make it very, extremely, abundantly clear, that, yes, I do in fact hold animus toward LifeWise Academy," Adkins said. "It is an organization of homophobic bullies who are active and willing participants in the efforts to bring about an authoritarian theocracy," as reported by Fox News. As it appears to LifeWise, this is targeted. As it appears to some school officials, they argue their compelling interest to avoid “authoritarian theocracy” made of “bullies.”
Based on these previously upheld cases, I believe the Supreme Court may uphold Zorach v. Clauson in its conclusion of LifeWise, Inc. v. Everett Public School District and rule that the Everett District’s new RTRI guidelines about the distribution of religious materials and the use of religious materials in classrooms violate the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. If this is the conclusion they reach, which seems likely given their most recent preliminary injunction, I would have to agree. Placing my own opinions aside about LifeWise, I would argue that on a Constitutional basis the District’s updated guidelines violate the Free Exercise Clause because of its lack of neutrality, and substantial burden. While I see how these updates can be facially neutral in its compelling interest of remaining religiously unestablished and a coercive free zone, I think it warrants hesitation. Prohibiting a students’ ability to read religious material in their own freetime at school places a substantial burden on a student who may then believe their religion is something they must keep quiet and hide. That goes the same for keeping their religious materials hidden. This burden outweighs its possible coercive effects to their peers. I would argue, however, that filling out a permission slip once a week for lawful “release time” is not a substantial burden, as permission is required either way. Lastly, the requirement for flyers to be filtered, as well as barred from certain areas on campus, appears to be a slippery slope. It allows for school officials to decide what is coercive or not which is ultimately subject to bias. As it appears to school officials, like the quote from the board member, there is bias and subsequent targeting of LifeWise when it comes to these update RTRI guidelines.
Citations:
https://firstliberty.org/cases/lifewise-everett-washington/
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/washington/wawdce/2:2025cv02604/356406/43/
https://www.aol.com/news/judge-orders-washington-school-district-140019601.html
Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U.S. 306 (1952) https://www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1955/343us306
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1955/333us203
No comments:
Post a Comment