Paved with Belief

Oliver v. City of Brandon

    Gabriel Oliver, an evangelical Christian, was arrested after sharing his beliefs on a public sidewalk near the city park in Brandon, Mississippi. Gabriel Oliver expresses his faith through many means, including oral dialogue, signs, literature, and expressive clothing. However, these actions are deemed prohibited by local law in Brandon, Mississippi. Oliver was then forced to relocate to a remote area where his message could not reach as many people, which he found disappointing. Determined to reach as many people as possible, Oliver moved to a more populated area, a city park sidewalk, where more people could hear his message. Following this, Oliver was arrested for violating the city’s ordinance on religious speech. Oliver was then fined and released. Oliver found his arrest unconstitutional and filed a lawsuit for the violation of the Free Exercise Clause under the First Amendment with the federal court. However, the district court dismissed his case because Oliver was never imprisoned and only fined. Oliver then petitioned for this to be heard by the United States Supreme Court for the right to challenge his fine and the ordinance that he believes infringes on his constitutional rights. 

    The central legal issue is whether Oliver had the right to evangelize on a public city sidewalk under the religious exercise clause of the First Amendment. The First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause guarantees individuals the right to practice and express their religious beliefs without interference from the government, with the condition that it doesn’t affect peace and good order. Oliver’s case depends on whether his actions on the public sidewalk coincide with religious freedom or if they violated the local laws in a way that justified his arrest and fine. 

    A key precedent relevant to this case is Cantwell v. Connecticut. In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that the government cannot suppress religious speech or evangelism unless it poses a clear threat to peace and good order of the public. The Cantwell's were Jehovah’s Witnesses and were arrested for soliciting religious materials without a permit. The Court held that requiring a permit for religious solicitation was unconstitutional because it gave the state too much power to restrict and discriminate against religious speech and expression. Furthermore, the State cannot suppress the communication of religious views if it does not threaten the public good and order of the State. Similarly, Oliver’s religious speech was prevented on a public sidewalk because he violated the City of Brandon's public ordinance laws. Like the Cantwell's, Oliver was not causing harm or disrupting public order; he simply shared his beliefs in a public space. While some may disagree with his message, this does not justify restricting his speech. 

    Another relevant case is Widmar v. Vincent, which establishes that the State cannot discriminate against any viewpoint or restrict religious speech in a public forum, such as city sidewalks. In Widmar, the Supreme Court ruled that a public university could not exclude religious groups from using campus facilities available to other student organizations. The Court emphasized that once the government opens a space for public use, it cannot discriminate against specific viewpoints, like religious ones. Comparably, Oliver on a public sidewalk puts him in a public forum, which means that the State cannot discriminate against the speech that Oliver decides to partake in. The only restriction of his religious speech that can be justified in this case is if he violates peace and good order, which I do not believe he does. Oliver should not be excluded from using this sidewalk to host religious speech just because his content is religious.

    In conclusion, Gabriel Oliver’s case raises important questions about the limits of religious expression in public forums. Based on precedents like Cantwell v. Connecticut and Widmar v. Vincent, I believe it is clear that the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment protects Oliver’s evangelism on a public sidewalk. His speech did not threaten public peace or order, and the city of Brandon’s ordinance unfairly targets religious viewpoints in public forums. I am excited to see if the Supreme Court decides to look at this case and if they will decide in favor of Oliver. 

https://firstliberty.org/cases/gabriel-olivier/#simple1 

Religious Freedom or Just a Paperwork Problem? Breaking Down Malone-Bey v. Mississippi

Malone-Bey v. Mississippi State Board of Health        

Recently, the case of Malone-Bey v. Mississippi State Board of Health (2025) brought to light the potential tensions that can be seen between one's expression of their religious identity and board-approved government documentation. This case raises key constitutional questions about religious free exercise and equal protection under the law, presenting an interesting intersection of the First and Fourteenth Amendments and challenging us to consider the limits of religious accommodations in official state records.

        Kent Malone-Bey, a self-identified Moorish American, petitioned the Mississippi State Board of Health to amend his Certificate of Live Birth to reflect his racial identity as “white: Asiatic/Moor.” Malone-Bey, representing himself in court, filed his petition in the Lauderdale County Chancery Court, arguing that the Board’s refusal to modify his birth certificate violated his rights to religious free exercise, due process, and equal protection. He asserted that the inability to have his religiously significant racial identity recognized on his birth certificate impeded his full expression of identity and faith, placing an undue burden on his religious beliefs. However, both the chancery court and the Mississippi Court of Appeals rejected these claims, ruling that the state had no obligation to alter its records to accommodate an individual's religious identity preferences, asserting that birth certificates in the state do not designate race, nationality, or religion of any child, and therefore, no religions discrimination had taken place. 

The court's opinion, delivered by Judge Wilson, emphasized that Mississippi’s birth certificates do not include racial or religious identifiers for anyone. Therefore, the state was not treating Malone-Bey differently from others, nor was it discriminating against him based on religion. The court added that neither state law nor constitutional provisions require the government to adjust its internal records to align with an individual’s religious beliefs - in so far as it is applied equally to all. 

Constitutional Issues

This case primarily engages with the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. 

1. Free Exercise of Religion: Malone-Bey’s argument centered around the idea that because he was unable to fully reflect his religious identity on his birth certificate, his right to free exercise was restricted. The Court, in response, relied on Bowen v. Roy (1986), a Supreme Court case in which the government’s use of a Social Security number for a Native American child was contested for religious reasons. The Court (in Bowen) ruled that the Free Exercise Clause does not require the government to alter its internal processes to align with an individual's religious beliefs. Like in Malone-Bey’s case, the court determined that Mississippi’s decision not to amend his birth certificate did not burden his religious practice - instead, it only upheld a neutral, generally and equally applicable policy.

2. Equal Protection Clause: Malone-Bey claimed that the state’s refusal to amend his birth certificate amounted to religious discrimination. However, the Equal Protection Clause requires proof that the government intentionally treats a group differently without justification. Since Mississippi’s birth certificates exclude racial and religious designations for all citizens, the court found no that there was no discrimination occurring. The state was simply applying a uniform policy, not targeting or burdening a specific religious group like Moorish Americans. 

Analysis and Implications

As seen very early on in Reynold v. United States (1897), religious beliefs are to be protected under the Constitution, but religious conduct can still be regulated by general laws. This is the scenario I believe Malone-Bey finds himself in.

His case parallels previous Supreme Court rulings on neutral and generally applicable laws that incidentally burden religious exercise. One case discussed in class was Braunfeld v. Brown (1961), where a group of Orthodox Jewish merchants challenged a Pennsylvania Sunday Closing Law, which required most businesses to close on Sundays. Those who observed the Jewish Sabbath on Saturday, argued that the law placed them at an economic disadvantage by forcing them to close their stores two days a week - once for religious observance and once due to state law. They contended that this violated their First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion by imposing a government-mandated burden on their economic livelihood. The court ruled in a 5-4 decision (very close) that the law was constitutional, and set the precedent that laws can incidentally burden religious practice, insofar as they do not actively target any particular religious group and have a legitimate secular purpose - which in this case was to provide a uniform day of rest for workers. In Braunfeld, the Court found that the law did not force Jewish business owners to violate their faith, only made practicing it more difficult.

Additionally, the case of McGowan v. Maryland (1961) also supported the idea that the government may enact laws that incidentally align with religious practices if their primary intent is secular.

Another case to mention and that I find important to address was the case of Sherbert v. Verner (1963), where a Seventh-day Adventist was denied unemployment benefits for refusing to work on Saturdays. The Supreme Court ruled in her favor and weakened the court's decision in both Braunfeld v. Brown (1961) and  McGowan v. Maryland (1961). This case strengthened religious liberty and led to the establishment of the Sherbert Test, which strengthened protections under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. Under the Sherbert test, laws that place a “substantial” burden on religious practice must be backed by a compelling government interest and use the least restrictive means. So what wins out in the case of Malone-Bey?

Religious or Secular: The Mandate of Bible Teachings in Public Schools in Oklahoma

In June of 2024, Oklahoma’s state superintendent, Ryan Walters, mandated public schools to teach the Bible in grades 5 through 12. Each classroom would contain a physical hard copy of the Bible, and teachers were required to read and teach from it; compliance was necessary. To fund the supply of Bibles, Walters planned to use taxpayers' money. Walters, who is a strict conservative, exclaims that the Bible is both a historical and cultural “touchstone” and thus, without basic knowledge of it, the students attending Oklahoma public schools are unable to understand the foundation of the United States fully. In teaching students about verses from the Bible, Walters believes that students would gain a profound understanding of Western Civilization, ethics, and history. These books would be used for historical purposes, which he argues makes them secular, as they are not being used for religious purposes.

On October 15, 2024, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, the Oklahoma Appleseed Center for Law & Justice, the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Oklahoma Foundation, and the Freedom From Religion Foundation filed a lawsuit in the Supreme Court of the state of Oklahoma on behalf of 32 plaintiffs. The plaintiffs included parents, public school teachers, religious leaders, and Lori Walke, all of whom come from different religious backgrounds (Baptist, Catholic, Atheist, United Church of Christ, and Presbyterian). They sued Ryan Walters and the State Department of Education under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment in the case of  Rev. Lori Walke v. Ryan Walters, arguing that by mandating Bible teachings in public schools and using tax-payers money to purchase Bibles, Walters and the DOE are establishing a religion; intertwining Church and State. Further, the religious freedom provisions of Oklahoma’s Constitution prohibit spending state funds to support religion. By spending millions of dollars on Protestant Bibles, Walters, and the DOE are both directly violating the separation between Church and State and endorsing one religion, which the Constitution prohibits. 
Adam Soltani, a parent, exclaims “We adamantly oppose any requirements that religion be forcefully taught or required as a part of lesson plans in public schools, in Oklahoma, or anywhere else in the country.” Likewise Rachel Laser, president and CEO of Americans United for Separation of Church and State exclaims “Public schools are not Sunday schools… This is textbook Christian Nationalism: Walters is abusing the power of his public office to impose his religious beliefs on everyone else’s children. Not on our watch.”

The constitutional issue in this case deals with the Establishment Clause, which states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” The Establishment Clause was intended to create a wall of separation between Church and State to prevent the State from establishing a religion. The use of public schools, which are tax-funded by the State, for religious instruction and education, or the use of tax-payer funds to fund religious activities, is a violation of the Establishment Clause, as the State would be entangled with the Church. By mandating the teaching of the Bible for grades 5 through 12 in Oklahoma public schools and using taxpayer funds to purchase Bibles, did Walters violate the Establishment Clause? This is the question that the Court must answer.

When Abbington v. Schempp is applied to the case at hand, there are stark parallels. In Schempp, a Pennsylvania law had been enacted that required 10 Bible verses to be read at the start of each school day in public schools. The Shempp family, who had kids that attended these public schools, sued on behalf of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, exclaiming that the law violated the First Amendment. In an 8-1 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the law violated the Establishment Clause because its purpose was religious, not secular. It violated the constitutional principle of the separation between Church and State. This landmark case, which set boundaries between public schools and religion, can be compared to Lori Walke. Given that the schools in Oklahoma are public and are therefore government institutions, any mandate involving religious content, especially one that promotes a specific religion, violates the Establishment Clause. In Schempp, the government found that even having voluntary Bible readings and prayers could lead to the idea that the government is endorsing religion. In the case at hand, teachers and students have no choice but to comply with the Bible mandate, as all teachers are required to teach the Bible in their classrooms. This appears to be an even more direct violation of the Establishment Clause than in Schempp. In this sense, Lori Walke seems to be a direct violation of Schempp, which ruled that state-mandated religious teachings in public schools are unconstitutional.

I strongly believe that this case should be ruled in favor of Lori Walke. In my opinion, it seems that the goal of the Bible mandate is to spread Christian beliefs. Walter exclaimed that teachers were required to have the Bible in every classroom and “teach from it.” This mandate is not education, but rather, indoctrination. Though Walters argues that the Bible would be used for secular purposes, specifically for teaching students about United States history, the Bible is an inherently religious text. The public schools in Oklahoma would be extremely entangled with religion, as religious doctrine teaching would be required. The Establishment Clause prohibits the government from establishing, favoring, or endorsing religion. Public schools, which are funded by the State are required, under the Constitution, to remain neutral when it comes to religion. They therefore cannot promote or mandate anything religious. In this case, by mandating Bible teachings in public schools in all classrooms, the State is directly using its resources to promote Christianity, and thus endorsing religious teachings. This is a direct violation of the Establishment Clause, as any state-sponsored teaching of the Bible, especially when it is mandatory and strict compliance is expected, can be seen as the government sponsoring religion. Further, in making the Bible teachings mandatory in the curriculum, the government appears to be favoring Christianity over other religions, which is not neutral. In my opinion, there is unquestionably a violation of the Establishment Clause.

I ask you all to consider these questions. Do you think that the purpose of the Bible mandate in public schools is secular, as Walters exclaims? Does the mandate violate the Establishment Clause? Is there a constitutional way to incorporate Bible teachings in public schools? What do you guys think?

Is There a Compelling State Interest in Police Officers Creating Havoc?

On August 14th, 2024 in Manhattan, New York, a peaceful protest was held advocating for the United States government to call for a ceasefire in Gaza. The Anti-war protest occurred directly outside the “New York City Kick off” fundraiser event. The New York City police officers followed the harmonious walk toward West 146th Street. At the concluding point of the protest, the crowd became extremely large and was completely enclosed by the NYPD officers along with a special team of strategic response officers on bicycles. To maintain crowd control law enforcement began kettling the crowd (containing them all in one place without the ability to move). The officers yelled “Move back”, while forcefully pushing protesters closer to one other. Amongst the protesters were two women Zarmeen Azam and Shajnin Howlader, separate but similar experiences during the chaos.

Shajnin Howlader was on the edge of the crowd at this time. She was consistently pushed back by one of the officers, Assistant Chief Stephenson, although there was nowhere to physically go. She spoke out telling the officers she could no longer move, yet they continued to stride further. Sergeant Spalding grabbed the end of Howlader’s hijab, ripping it halfway off her head and leaving it constricting around her neck. The tighter he pulled the more Howlader lost her ability to breathe. She pleaded for help making the officers aware of her choking, while another officer pepper sprayed her. Close by in the crowd, Assistant Chief Stephenson sought out Zarmeen Azam. He pushed through other members walking toward Azam claiming she had placed hands on him. He specifically targeted her as she was the only protester in that vicinity wearing a hijab. He grabbed her by her headscarf, threw her to the ground, and began hitting any bystander who attempted to help with his baton. This cut off her ability to breathe, eventually ripped her hijab completely off her head, and pulled up her shirt. Another officer took a picture of Zarmeen Azam without her hijab on. Both Zarmeen Azam and Shajnin Howlader were taken advantage of and failed by the justice system. 

It is blatantly obvious that Howlader and Azam were religiously targeted based on their appearance and stripped of their undeniable civil rights regarding equal protection. But the constitutional question at hand is whether or not police officers have the compelling state interest to take off an individual's religious headwear or attire while attempting to control a crowd/make arrests? Or is this removal a violation of the First Amendment rights, specifically of the Free Exercise Clause? 

It is important to recognize that hijabs are worn as a religious obligation by Muslim women as a symbol of modesty. Muslim women must have their hair and body covered when they are in the presence of the opposite sex, that is not their close family member or husband. This is meant to reject attention in their direction and appear as humble as possible in the eyes of God. This is a mandatory practice within their religion that not adhering to is considered a sin that could result in serious eternal consequence. In Hearn & United States v. Muskogee Public School District, a Muslim sixth-grade student was suspended for refusing to remove her hijab. The school district claimed that the student’s hijab violated the “no hat” dress code. The United States government intervened in this case stating the school's dress code was a violation of religious expression and could not be applied in this circumstance. This set the precedent that religious clothing or head coverings can not be discriminated against, no matter the dress code. While this case does not touch on compelling state interest, it is extremely important as it recognizes the government's responsibility to protect an individual’s right to free exercise through wearing religious garments. It sets the standard that the United States government holds much respect for religious clothing obligations and will not let citizens' rights be taken advantage of like Zarmeen Azam and Shajnin Howlader experienced. 

Similarly in November of 2020, the New York Police Department vowed to end its discriminatory action of forcing muslims to remove hijabs for mugshot images. The lawsuit reached a settlement causing the police department to change its policy. This change affected not only Muslims but other religious headwear like “skull caps and wigs worn by Orthodox Jews and the turbans worn by Sikhs” (NYT). This demonstrates the NYPD taking steps towards ending discriminatory practices towards religious attire, which should be upheld in every action theytakee. If the police department can’t legally require individuals to remove their religious headwear then how is it acceptable for officers to forcefully rip it off of women protesting?

I’d argue in the case of Council on American-Islamic Relations New York v. City of New York the police officers had no compelling state interest to impede on either of Howlader and Azam’s free exercise rights. The women were peacefully protesting and forced against their will into a violent situation. In Azam’s circumstance, she was subjected to prejudice by being sought out and manipulated for her choice to exercise her religion. I find it especially disgusting that Howlader and Azam’s hijabs were weaponized against them by the authorities. There is no logical explanation here that vouches for any advantageous benefit of weaponizing or removing either of the individuals' hijabs. The officers did not protect any other protestors or stop potential violence through this action. They simply ripped the rights away from two women trying to follow their religious obligations. 

Sources:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1tpkGrDRBb4BwY-vW3xWGjt2fdo7QdxHr/view

https://ecbawm.com/news/ecbawm-obtains-settlement-forcing-nypd-to-end-discriminatory-hijab-removal-policy/

https://www.google.com/search?q=hearn+%26+united+states+v.+muskogee+public+school+district+summary

https://casetext.com/analysis/case-summary-hearn-united-states-v-muskogee-public-school-district

https://gothamist.com/news/muslim-women-sue-the-nypd-allege-excessive-force-at-anti-war-protest

https://www.cair.com/press_releases/federal-civil-rights-lawsuit-filed-on-behalf-of-cair-ny-protesters-assaulted-by-nypd-officers/

https://www.nydailynews.com/2025/03/10/lawsuit-muslim-women-hijabs-dislodged-nypd-gaza-protest/

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/09/nyregion/hijab-muslim-nypd-mugshot-scarves.html#

Bible Battles in Oklahoma: Why Walters’ Plan Violates the First Amendment

     In October 2024, the lawsuit Rev. Lori Walke v. Ryan Walters was filed on behalf of many Oklahoma families, teachers, and faith leaders to block Oklahoma Superintendent of Public Instruction Ryan Walters and the Oklahoma State Department of Education (OSDE) from spending taxpayer dollars on Bibles and Bible-infused instructional materials to integrate into public school education. Earlier this month, the Oklahoma Supreme Court temporarily blocked any attempt to buy Bibles and Bible-based instructional materials, in addition to Waltersn dropping the Bible-buying plan after pushback from the legislature. 

    However, the same day Walters dropped the plan to buy Bibles, Walters announced a Bibles Back in School Campaign, which functions as an indirect purchasing scheme to integrate the Bible into the classroom. This campaign asks people to buy President Trump’s “God Bless the USA Bibles” through a special website. The Bibles purchased are automatically donated to the OSDE, run by Walters, to be then distributed to the Oklahoma public schools. 

    In the most recent filing by the plaintiffs, they ask the court to issue an order prohibiting state officials from taking any action to implement the Bibles Back to School Camplagn and distributing bibles to public schools, ultimately trying to stop Walters’ latest action from getting bibles in public school classrooms. 

    Are Walters’ and the OSDE’s attempts and actions, including direct purchasing of Bibles for the classroom and the Bibles Back to School Camplagn, in violation of the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause? I say absolutely yes. 

    I draw on McCollum v. Board of Education (1948) and Stone v. Graham (1980) to come to this conclusion.

 McCollum held that a program that allowed the use of public school classrooms for religious classes constituted the use of tax-supported property for religious instruction and the close cooperation between school authorities and the religious council, and thus is in violation of the Establishment Clause. This case sets a reinforced precedent of a strict separation of church and state, which works against Walters and the OSDE's push to get Bibles in the classroom. Just as McCollum struck down religious instruction in public schools, placing Bibles in classrooms—even if they are not required reading—sends an implicit government endorsement of religion, violating the Establishment Clause.

    The Stone case involved a number of parents who challenged Kentucky state statute that required posting a copy of the Ten Commandments in each public classroom and filed a claim against James Graham, the superintendent of public schools in Kentucky. These copies of the Ten Commandments were purchased with private contributions. This case is eerily similar to the issue present in Oklahoma today. In Stone, the majority held that the Kentucky law violated the Establishment Clause of the Consitution, stating that the requirement that the Ten Commandments be posted in public school classrooms has no secular legislative purpose and was plainly religious in nature, despite its historical relevance. 

    In reaction to the lawsuit, Walters states, “It is not possible for our students to understand American history and culture without understanding the Biblical principles from which they came”. However, the outcome of Stone explicitly rejects this defense, as it set the precedent that the government cannot use public schools to promote religion/religious texts, even if they can be considered historically or morally significant. 

    Additionally, it can be argued that mandated Bibles are more religious than the Ten Commandments, meaning if posting the Ten Commandments in public school classrooms is unconstitutional, placing Bibles in the classroom is even more so. 

    Furthermore, even if the Bibles are not a mandatory reading, they still send a religious message. The Kentucky Law did not require students to engage with the Ten Commandments, yet it was still struck down in part because of the message it could send. Likewise, just having Bibles in classrooms sends a government-sponsored religious message.

    In addition to drawing on precedents set by McCollum and Stone, I have used the Lemon Test from Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971) to determine whether the actions of Oklahoma Superintendent Walters and the OSDE violate the Establishment Clause. Although the Lemon Test was recently abandoned in the outcome of Kennedy v. Bremerton School District (2022), I still find the Lemon Test to be a useful tool to evaluate the actions of Walters and the OSDE. The Lemon Test states that for a government action to be constitutional, it must 1) have a secular purpose, 2) neither advance nor inhibit religion, and 3) avoid excessive government entanglement with religion. Walters and the OSDE’s actions to put Bibles in public schools ultimately fails the Lemon Test. The primary intent of these actions is to promote religious values, has the primary effect of advancing Christianity, and the actions excessively intertwine the government with religion. Thus, the action of Walters and the OSDE violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. 

    The actions of Walters and the OSDE doesn't just use state-funded resources to support religion; it favors one religion over others. The version of the Bible Walters wants to put in the classroom, the “God Bless the USA Bibles”, is a Protestant version of the Bible. As I mentioned before, simply having the Bible in the classroom constitutes a government-sponsored religious message which the Supreme Court has consistently ruled unconstitutional. By selecting a Protestant version of the Bible, Walters and the OSDE are not only endorsing Christianity but also favoring one Christian denomination over others, exacerbating the Establishment Clause violation. It sends a clear message that Protestant Christianity is the preferred or endorsed religion in Oklahoma public schools.

    In conclusion, Walters’ and the OSDE’s actions to integrate Bibles into public schools, whether through direct purchases or the Bibles Back to School Campaign, clearly violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. McCollum and Stone set strong precedents against using public schools to promote religious texts, and even under the Lemon Test, these actions fail constitutional scrutiny. By favoring a Protestant version of the Bible, Walters is not only promoting religion but also favoring one denomination, further deepening the constitutional violation. Ultimately, this initiative is an unconstitutional government endorsement of religion and should be struck down.

Sources:

https://www.au.org/the-latest/press/oklahomans-urge-supreme-court-stop-ryan-walters/

https://www.news9.com/story/671134636b0f12d4031e328a/okla-families-teachers--faith-leaders-file-lawsuit-against-ryan-walters-bible-education-mandate

https://ministrywatch.com/ok-legislative-turndown-sparks-fundraising-campaign-for-school-bibles/

Legal Battle Over Pronouns in Virginia Schools

In a recent case title Peter Vlaming v. West Point School Board, actions of a former teacher named Peter Vlaming sparked a debate between himself and the school board. The conflict ultimately raised attention around the country to the debate over religious freedom and gender identity in public schools. Back in 2018, Vlaming was laid off for refusing to use a transgender student’s preferred pronouns. Fast forward to October 2024, the school board agreed to pay him $575,000 due to damages and attorneys’ fees. This case raises extremely pressing questions about teachers’ rights, and how far schools can go in enforcing personal belief in a public education setting.

Peter Vlaming was a French teacher at West Point High School for six years. When one of his students decided to identify as male, Vlaming began to use the student’s name as opposed to pronouns all around. However, he did not feel comfortable using male pronouns like he/him because it went against his Christian beliefs. Instead, he made an effort to avoid using pronouns. After this attempt to find a middle ground, when school officials got wind of this, he was told to use the preferred pronouns or face consequences. When Vlaming ultimately refused to comply, he was fired.

Vlaming retaliated with a strong argument: that he wasn’t fired for anything he said or did, but rather for something he couldn’t say due to religious beliefs. It is clear that he wasn’t being disrespectful toward the student, he was simply trying to stay true to his beliefs while still treating the student with respect. Additionally, sincerity should not be in question here. Vlaming was not attempting to harm a student or create a hostile environment. Yet, he was punished for his refusal to say something that he fundamentally did not believe.

Recently, in December, the Virginia Supreme Court acknowledged that the case deserved a closer look. They reopened his lawsuit, stating that Virginia’s Constitution provides individuals protection for both free speech and religious freedom. One justice argued a key idea, that the government can’t force people to say things that go against their deeply held religious beliefs, unless there is a compelling reason to do so. This is central to this case, raising the question of whether the government can truly force a teacher to say something they do not believe in.

This situation shares similarities to previous free speech cases. A famous 1943 decision, West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, ruled that students may not be forced to recite the Pledge of Allegiance if they did not choose to. The Court argued that no government official has the right to force people to embrace any official opinion. This principle should still be upheld today.

Many argue that Vlaming’s actions were discriminatory and made the student feel unsafe. However,

Devil’s Advocate: Should The Satanic Temple Get a Spot in School?

In 2019, the Saucon Valley School District in Pennsylvania allowed a local chapter of the Good News Club, an evangelical Christian organization, to hold after-school meetings at one of its elementary schools. This Christian group’s meetings, which promote religious teachings to children, have been allowed in public schools across the United States in the past. However, when The Satanic Temple, a non-theistic religious group, requested permission to also hold after-school meetings, the school district denied the request. The Satanic Temple claimed that its beliefs were being discriminated against, as the district had allowed another religious group to meet on school grounds. The group contended that this violated the Equal Access Act, which ensures that religious groups have the same rights as other student groups to access public school facilities for extracurricular activities, so long as those activities do not disrupt the educational environment. The district argued that The Satanic Temple was not an official religious organization in the same vein as more traditional religious groups and that allowing the group to meet on school property would lead to disruption, controversy, or backlash from the community. The case raised a crucial issue: does the refusal to grant access to The Satanic Temple violate the religious equal access principle protected by the Constitution?

At the core of this case is a debate surrounding the balance between the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses of the First Amendment. The Free Exercise Clause protects individuals' right to practice their religion freely, while the Establishment Clause prohibits the government from establishing an official religion or favoring one religious group over another. The Satanic Temple argued that the school district’s refusal to allow them access to its facilities violated the Free Exercise Clause because it was denying them equal treatment based on their religious beliefs. On the other hand, the district’s concern about potential disruption points to the Establishment Clause, which seeks to prevent the government from endorsing or favoring any particular religion. The question, then, is whether allowing The Satanic Temple to use public school facilities would be considered an endorsement of their beliefs, thereby violating the separation of church and state, or if denying them access would constitute discrimination and a violation of their right to religious freedom. This case highlights the tension between the two important constitutional principles of religious equality and the separation of church and state. This creates an unequal situation where one religious group is granted access while another is not because of the nature of its beliefs.If The Satanic Temple prevails, it will send a message that public institutions must treat all religious groups equally, regardless of how controversial or unconventional their beliefs may be. Conversely, if the district’s actions are upheld, it could set a dangerous precedent where religious discrimination based on the perceived popularity or acceptability of beliefs becomes normalized in public schools. 

This case also underscores a broader issue in the interpretation of religious freedom the ongoing struggle to apply constitutional principles to new and diverse religious movements. While the First Amendment guarantees freedom of religion, it doesn’t provide a clear roadmap for how to deal with fringe or unconventional belief systems. A relevant precedent is Reynolds v. United States (1878), which involved the prosecution of polygamy in the context of religious practices. Although the Court ruled that certain practices (such as polygamy) could be prohibited under the government’s interest in regulating social order, it simultaneously affirmed that religious beliefs themselves are protected by the First Amendment, even if practices stemming from those beliefs might be limited. This case provides some insight into the broader scope of how the Court has balanced religious freedom with societal interests. Moreover, Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940), which reinforced the principle of religious freedom in public spaces, established that religious groups cannot be discriminated against on the basis of their beliefs when seeking to practice freely. This case, in particular, highlights the importance of treating all religious groups equally, which could be crucial for interpreting the situation of The Satanic Temple.

In my opinion, The Satanic Temple should be granted the same rights as any other religious group under the Equal Access Act. While I understand the district’s concerns about community backlash, the principle of religious equality is paramount. Allowing the Good News Club to meet while denying access to The Satanic Temple is a clear violation of religious freedom. We shouldn’t have a system where the government discriminates against certain belief systems simply because they are unpopular. The First Amendment guarantees religious freedom for all, and public schools should serve as a model of how we can respect that diversity without favoring one religion over another.

https://www.aclu.org/cases/the-satanic-temple-v-saucon-valley-school-district
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/After_School_Satan
https://thesatanictemple.com/blogs/news/2024-recap-after-school-satan-club?srsltid=AfmBOorjCD4hDkzmGlNNRC6FW9tdw_fdW7IDKi3driPPR23Z4whjNQSU
https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/pennsylvania-school-district-agrees-to-pay-200000-after-discriminatory-decision-to-block-after-school-satan-club-from-school-facilities