This week we learned that a Christian motivational speaking organization was invited to speak at Linton High School in Linton, ND. We sent a letter to the Superintendent to make school officials aware of their Constitutional obligations and to help clarify the law so that they no longer continue to infringe upon the Constitutional rights of their students. That letter is available for download.

Calling all students:

It’s pop quiz time! Let’s find out if you know your religious freedom rights at school. Imagine the following scenario: an assembly is about to take place at a local public school. It features a youth minister who preaches to students and a rock band playing religious songs. Several atheist students feel uncomfortable going to the assembly because it will include prayer. Their teacher tells them they can just watch a movie during the assembly period instead.

Is this assembly:

A. Permissible under the U.S. Constitution; or

B. A violation of religious freedom under the U.S. Constitution

If you picked option B, you’re correct! This assembly violates the constitutional principles of religious freedom. The separation of church and state means that our government, including our public schools, cannot favor one faith over others or religion over non-religion. Under the U.S. Constitution, public school officials cannot preach or promote religious beliefs to students.

In some schools across the nation, public school officials have tried to skirt this rule by inviting outside groups in to preach to students. Courts have repeatedly ruled that this action is also unconstitutional. The bottom line is schools can’t get around the Constitution by bringing in people to preach or promote religion to students as a part of school-sanctioned events. Allowing non-believing students to “opt out” of religious assemblies isn’t a solution, either. The right to believe in no faith at all is just as much a part of our constitutional protections as the right to exercise religious faith, and public schools can’t make non-believers feel like outcasts.

If your school is hosting assemblies that appear to be religiously themed, what should you do? Start by asking yourself a few questions:

1. Is the assembly explicitly religious? Does the speaker reference God or ask students to attend church? If the answer is yes, your school may be violating the U.S. Constitution.
2. Is the assembly completely secular, meaning it is not religious, and does not contain religious references? If so, your school may be in compliance with the U.S. Constitution. It’s okay for schools to bring in speakers who talk about topics such as the dangers of bullying or the importance of kindness, as long as those speakers aren’t preaching to students or proselytizing (in other words: speakers can’t advocate a certain religion or try to convert listeners to a belief system).
3. Is the assembly secular, but the speaker invites students to attend an after-school religious event or promotes church attendance? If yes, your school may be violating the U.S. Constitution. Just as the public school officials themselves cannot promote church attendance, they can’t let speakers come in and promote attendance at religious services. 

If your answers to any of the above questions make you think your school is violating your religious freedom, reach out to your administrators and let them know you have the right to attend your public school free of school-sponsored prayer or proselytizing. Download our letter template to help get you started in you religious freedom advocacy efforts.

The role of religion in schools has been one of the most controversial issues in America, and although the U.S. Supreme Court has long made clear that the Constitution prohibits public school-sponsored prayer or religious indoctrination, violations are common in many parts of the country.

Contrary to what you might read elsewhere on the Internet, the ACLU is not trying to eliminate religion from public schools. Students are free to pray voluntarily on their own or in groups during non-instructional time, as long as they do not disturb others and as long as school official do not sponsor or endorse the prayer. We stand up for students who wish to express their faith by wearing rosaries, kufis, uncut hair, or other attire that outwardly signifies their devotion to a particular creed.

The ACLU works to protect public school students’ religious freedom by curbing the practice of school-sponsored prayer and proselytizing while simultaneously ensuring that students may freely express and exercise their faith.

What is not permitted, and never has been, is allowing public school teachers and other officials to use the positions entrusted to them by the State and parents to impose their religious beliefs on students by officially sanctioning religious activities in public schools. The bottom line is that school officials may not subject students to official prayer or proselytizing. This is clearly forbidden by the Establishment Clause of the Constitution.

For more information on the role of religion in public schools, visit our website. You can find stories of the ACLU’s fights to protect religious freedom here, here, and here. 

Download our letter to the Linton Public School Superintendent below.

Download our religious freedom template for students below.

If you want to experience 2017 in a nutshell, check out the billion-dollar lawsuit filed by an oil and gas company against Greenpeace and other environmental groups for their roles in the Standing Rock protests.

In a 231-page complaint filed by Donald Trump’s old law firm, Energy Transfer Partners, the company behind the Dakota Access Pipeline, claims that Greenpeace and its partners are engaged in a criminal network of fraud and misinformation. The paranoiac complaint, which includes references to “wolfpacks of corrupt” environmental nongovernmental organizations and describes Greenpeace as a “putative Dutch not-for-profit foundation,” would be amusing if it weren’t so dangerous.

It leverages the RICO Act, a statute that was meant for mob prosecutions, and defamation law to wage a scorched-earth campaign against nonprofits that spoke out against the pipeline’s construction near the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation in North Dakota. Fortunately, as we argue in a friend-of-the-court brief filed yesterday with a coalition of public interest groups, the First Amendment prohibits companies from suing their critics out of existence.

ETP’s lawsuit rests on two theories, neither of which holds water.

First, it argues that Greenpeace and the other defendants are engaged in a broad-based conspiracy to defraud the public by defaming the company. But many of the statements ETP alleges as false or defamatory — such as website posts stating that the tribal consultation and environmental review were rushed and lacked proper consultation — are clearly protected opinions on matters of vital public concern. Other offending statements, such as a post by the Sierra Club’s Executive Director stating “it has never been a question of whether a pipeline will spill but only of when the next disaster will happen,” don’t seem very unreasonable, given last month’s 5,000-barrel spill at the Keystone pipeline in South Dakota. ETP can’t demand punishment for this kind of core political speech just because it doesn’t like the message.

ETP’s second legal argument fares no better. It argues that, because Greenpeace and the other defendants are allegedly engaged in a vast “illegal Enterprise” to persecute ETP, they should be held liable for the allegedly unlawful actions of totally unrelated groups that also happen to oppose the Dakota Access Pipeline. For example, ETP alleges that the hacktivist group Anonymous is a “front” for Greenpeace and the other defendants, but this wild accusation is based on nothing more than the observation that Anonymous targeted the same entities being protested by the defendants.

DROP CHARGES AGAINST PEACEFUL PROTESTERS

TAKE ACTION NOW

If accepted, ETP’s theories would make any advocacy group liable for the actions of every fellow traveler, no matter how disconnected. For example, if the ACLU filed a lawsuit challenging a government surveillance program, ETP’s theory of liability could make us civilly, and perhaps even criminally, liable for the actions of any hacker that attempted to take down the program.

If the courts have any sense, this case won’t get to trial. But ETP doesn’t need to win in court to do major damage. Defending major lawsuits like these against deep-pocketed corporations is extremely expensive, time consuming, and stressful, particularly for cash strapped nonprofits. Even if they survive, advocacy groups have to divert serious resources away from their missions to litigate these issues. That’s why it’s important for courts to dismiss these cases early, before things get really expensive.

Protesters and advocacy groups should never have to fear the weight of groups like ETP as a condition for expressing their First Amendment rights. The court should see this lawsuit for what it is and toss it.

The full amicus is available for download below.