Tanner Cross, Teacher in Loudoun County, Wins Court Ruling Allowing Him To Refuse To Use Transgender Students' Pronouns

Byron "Tanner" Cross

Court Backs A Teacher Who Refused To Use Transgender Students' Pronouns

August 31, 2021, AP

RICHMOND, Va. — The Supreme Court of Virginia has upheld a lower court ruling that ordered the reinstatement of a northern Virginia gym teacher who said he won't refer to transgender students by their pronouns.

Loudoun County Public Schools appealed to the state Supreme Court after a judge ruled that the school system violated the free speech rights of teacher Tanner Cross by suspending him after he spoke up at a school board meeting.

Cross, a teacher at Leesburg Elementary, cited his religious convictions at a May board meeting in which the school board debated proposed changes to its policies in treatment of transgender students. Cross said he would not use transgender students' pronouns.

School boards across the state have been revising their policies to be more inclusive of transgender students in accordance with a new state law. But Loudoun County, outside the nation's capital, has been a particular flashpoint in the debate over not just transgender students but also how students learn about racism and race relations.

The school system said it suspended Cross in part because his comments caused a disruption at the school. But the lower court judge, James Plowman, and the state Supreme Court agreed that the handful of calls fielded by school administrators did not cause the type of disruption that warranted a suspension.

Tuesday's ruling leaves in place a temporary injunction that bars the school system from suspending Cross. A trial is scheduled for next week in Loudoun County to settle the issue permanently.

Since Cross filed his lawsuit in May, two additional teachers in Loudoun County have joined him as plaintiffs.

In this April 30, 2021, file photo, Florida Gov.Ron DeSantis speaks at 

the end of a legislative session at the Capitol in Tallahassee, Fla.

Wilfredo Lee/AP

On The First Day Of Pride Month, Florida Signed A Transgender Athlete Bill Into Law

June 2, 2021, AP

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. — Florida's Republican governor signed a bill Tuesday barring transgender females from playing on public school teams intended for student athletes born as girls, plunging the state into the national culture war over transgender rights.

"In Florida, girls are going to play girls sports and boys are going to play boys sports," Gov. Ron DeSantis said as he signed the bill into law at a private Christian academy in Jacksonville that would not be subject to the law. "We're going to make sure that that's the reality."

The new law, sure to be challenged as unconstitutional, inflames an already contentious discussion unfolding nationally as Republican-controlled states move to limit the rights of LGBTQ people, whose advocates were particularly annoyed that the legislation was signed on the first day of Gay Pride Month.

The NCAA, which oversees college athletics, has said it has "a long-standing policy that provides a more inclusive path for transgender participation in college sports." The NCAA currently requires transgender women to get treatment to lower their testosterone levels before they can compete in women's sports.

When the Florida Legislature was considering the measure in April, the NCAA said it would commit championship games to "locations where hosts can commit to providing an environment that is safe, healthy and free of discrimination."

High-profile athletic events, such as football bowl games and basketball tournaments, generate millions of dollars for local communities.

The measure approved by the GOP-led Legislature takes effect July 1. It says a transgender student athlete can't participate without first showing a birth certificate saying she was a girl when she was born. It's not clear whether all females must show their birth certificates, or only those whose gender is questioned. The proposal allows another student to sue if a school allows a transgender girl or woman to play on a team intended for biological females.

The final wording of the "Fairness in Women's Sports Act" stripped away some of its most contentious elements, including a requirement that transgender athletes in high schools and colleges undergo testosterone or genetic testing and submit to having their genitalia examined.

But the legislation signed by the governor advances an underlying principle asserted by supporters: Biological differences between males and females make it unfair for athletes identified as boys at birth to compete on teams for girls and women. The law would not bar female athletes from playing on boys' or men's teams.

Human Rights Campaign President Alphonso David said the new law would not only harm transgender girls. "All Floridians will have to face the consequences of this anti-transgender legislation — including economic harm, expensive taxpayer-funded legal battles, and a tarnished reputation."

Democrats and LGBTQ advocates said the law is discriminatory and will be challenged in court as unconstitutional.

"This is yet another hate-driven attack from the governor and Republican legislators, and it's insulting that they've staged this morning's photo-op on the first day of Pride Month," said state Sen. Shevrin Jones. "At the end of the day, transgender kids are just kids."

The ban was tucked at the last minute of the legislative session into a measure allowing public universities and colleges to sponsor charter schools — a point the governor did not mention during the bill signing. It was the transgender athletes provision that was front and center in Tuesday's rhetoric.

"This bill is very simply about making sure that women can safely compete, have opportunities and physically be able to excel in a sport that they trained for, prepared for and work for," said state Sen. Kelli Stargel, a Republican who championed the bill.

"This is nothing about anybody being discriminated against," she said. "It's solely so that women have an opportunity to compete in women's sports."

The Florida law mirrors an Idaho law, the first of its kind when enacted last year, that is now mired in legal challenges. GOP governors in Arkansas, Mississippi and Tennessee recently signed similar measures.

Efforts by conservatives to restrict rights of gay, lesbian and transgender people have spawned numerous battles in key arenas — not only in legislatures and courtrooms but also across the economy, and critics warned of looming consequences.

According to a 2017 Associated Press study, North Carolina stood to lose $3.8 billion over a dozen years because of a so-called "bathroom bill." Those losses were averted when a 2019 settlement kept the state from barring transgender people from using bathrooms that conformed to their gender identity.

"Let me say very clearly: In Florida, we're going to do what's right to stand up to corporations, they are not going to dictate the policies in this state," DeSantis said while flanked by students at the religious school. "We will stand up to groups like the NCAA who think that they should be able to dictate the policies in different states. Not here, not ever."

A Connecticut track athlete, Selina Soule, joined the Florida governor at the news conference to talk about how she failed to advance in competitions because she competed against transgender athletes. She called it unfair.

That Soule was from out of state was not lost on critics who contend that the matter was not an urgent one for Florida, noting that just 11 athletes applied for screening by the Florida High School Athletic Association since adopting its transgender participation policy in 2013.

"This is not out of need or necessity," said Orlando Gonzales, the executive director of SAVE, a South Florida gay rights advocacy group, during a news conference. "This is really just to throw red meat out there to really rally the base of people who are anti-LGBT."

Thomas More Law Center Wins a Landmark First Amendment Case Against Former California Attorney General Kamala Harris

Kamala Harris

Thomas More Law Center Wins Landmark First Amendment Case for Every American in the U.S. Supreme Court

Press Release July 1, 2021

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) issued a landmark First Amendment decision holding that Americans are free to support nonprofit organizations without fear of harassment. In 2015, a federal lawsuit was filed against then-California Attorney General (AG) Kamala Harris, who had threatened severe sanctions against the Thomas More Law Center (TMLC) if names and contact information of its major donors were not disclosed to her office.

In a 6-3 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court sided with TMLC, a leading national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, in its case Thomas More Law Center v. Bonta. In doing so, SCOTUS held that California’s law requiring donor disclosure was facially unconstitutional.

“When it comes to the freedom of association,” Chief Justice Roberts wrote in the Court’s opinion, “the protections of the First Amendment are triggered not only by actual restrictions on an individual’s ability to join with others to further shared goals. The risk of a chilling effect on association is enough, because First Amendment freedoms need breathing space to survive.”

Richard Thompson, TMLC’s President and Chief Counsel, hailed the Supreme Court’s ruling as a “landmark victory for the First Amendment.” He said, “Today’s victory is attributable to the superb legal work of attorney John J. Bursch and the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) legal team who represented TMLC in the Supreme Court, as well as San Francisco-based attorney Louis H. Castoria, who singlehandedly tried the case in the federal district court against a phalanx of California assistant district attorneys.”

Bursch, ADF senior counsel and Vice President of Appellate Advocacy, said, “The Court has confirmed that every American is free to peacefully support causes they believe in without fear of harassment or intimidation.”

On March 24, 2015, then-California AG Harris threatened in a letter to TMLC that if the Law Center did not provide her office with a list of its major donors within 30 days, the Law Center could lose its right to solicit donations in California and TMLC’s officers and tax preparers could be held personally liable for any penalties. Rather than comply under threat, TMLC filed a federal case claiming the AG was violating TMLC’s and its donors’ First Amendment rights of free speech, freedom of association, and the free exercise of religion, citing the 1958 SCOTUS ruling in NAACP v. Alabama as precedent.

A 3-day bench trial was held by Federal District Court Judge Manuel Real beginning on September 13, 2016. Auditors and investigators from the AG’s office testified that they never had a complaint against TMLC; they have never investigated TMLC; and they do not normally use major donation reports to start investigations.

On November 16, 2016, Judge Real permanently enjoined the AG from requiring TMLC to file a copy of its major donor list. The AG appealed Judge Real’s decision to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which vacated the injunction. On August 26, 2019, TMLC asked the U.S. Supreme Court (petition for certiorari) to review the Ninth Circuit’s ruling. The Supreme Court agreed, and on April 26, 2021, the Court heard oral arguments on the case.

In the Internet Age, where doxing one’s opponents has led to job loss, boycotts, ostracization, and violence, the fear of such repercussions should one’s charitable contributions become public could be enough to stymy giving, leaving the personal beliefs of many Americans to go unrepresented in the public square. While TMLC is considered by the media as a conservative Christian organization, an array of organizations across the political spectrum filed amicus briefs in support of the First Amendment arguments being made by the Thomas More Law Center.

To read the full opinion, click here.

SOURCE Thomas More Law Center

CONTACT: Tom Lynch, 734-707-5160, tlynch@thomasmore.org

            Photography via Creative Commons

Kamala Harris’ appointment is historic but don’t ignore her problematic past

The vice president-elect’s record as a prosecutor is more than troubling.

Shahed Ezaydi, 11 NOV 2020

After endless days of international anxiety, the United States finally elected a new president. Yet it’s his vice president-elect, Kamala Harris, grabbing the headlines around the world. The former prosecutor and attorney general of dual Black and South Asian heritage, has made history by becoming the first woman and person of colour to be America’s VP. And everyone is overjoyed – news outlets and social media are heralding her as the queen of feminism, the ultimate Girl Boss and an icon of representation. But beneath all the jubilation, there are people like me, wary of painting her as the epitome of progressiveness, given that Kamala Harris’ record is uncomfortable at best.

Remember all the memes about Kamala Harris being a cop? Though the sources of their dispersal were questionable at the time, it did highlight people’s legitimate concern around the senator’s tenure as San Francisco’s District Attorney and California’s Attorney General. The memes aptly summarised her problematic years of working in the criminal justice system, and told voters that she often used the law to harm people of colour, rather than helping them. Let’s not forget that she also once called herself a ‘top cop’.

“Let’s not forget that she once called herself a ‘top cop'”

During her time as District Attorney, she brought in an anti-truancy programme criminalising the parents of children who skipped school, knowing full well that communities of colour would be hit the hardest. Instead of looking at the causes of truancy, Harris decided that the children would benefit from more disruption, in the form of their parents possibly going to prison.

It gets worse. Harris also fought to keep people in prison, even after their innocence was proven. The most well known example is the case of Daniel Larsen, who was serving a life sentence under California’s Three Strikes Law. However, a court later found that Larsen was innocent and ordered his release. A “progressive prosecutor” would probably just accept this ruling and go home, but Harris chose to appeal on technical grounds that he filed his petition too late. The court denied Harris’ appeal, but this also happened in a number of other cases.

Unsurprisingly, Harris fought to release fewer prisoners in the past. California’s prisons, like most US prisons, are overcrowded, and the federal courts ordered the state to establish a new parole programme that would release some non-violent prisoners. The courts even called the overcrowding “unconstitutional cruel punishment”. But Harris wasn’t happy with this, stating that “prisons would lose an important labour pool”, as though retaining labour is a good enough reason to ignore horrendous, overcrowded conditions.

There’s more. Harris also defended California’s decision to deny a trans woman incarcerated in a men’s prison the surgery for her diagnosed gender dysphoria, arguing that the surgery wasn’t necessary.

And of course, with Black people significantly more likely to come into contact with the American criminal justice system, the positions she’s taken are in direct opposition to what racial justice and civil rights groups are fighting for. She even rejected calls from these groups to investigate deadly police shootings in Los Angeles and San Francisco, following the killing of Micheal Brown in 2014. Even though she’s been vocal about racial justice following the Black Lives Matter protests this year, she’s also been accused of frequently siding with the police unions and not pursuing aggressive enough reforms. It’s safe to say she won’t be joining in the chants to abolish the police any time soon.

“With Black people significantly more likely to come into contact with the American criminal justice system, the positions she’s taken are in direct opposition to what racial justice and civil rights groups are fighting for”

During her presidential campaign, Harris said she’d “end the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and protracted military engagements in places like Syria, but she’ll do so responsibly”. She’s also not denounced the possibility of future US invasions, evidenced in the fact she hasn’t co-sponsored the bill which would prohibit US intervention in Venezuela. This “responsible” rhetoric echoes Barack Obama’s stance, who promised a “responsible end” to the war in Afghanistan, whilst continuing the US intervention in the region.

A Black American president didn’t stop the mass bombing of countries in the Middle East or bring an end to imperialism. Just like a partially brown Tory cabinet in the UK hasn’t suddenly reformed the immigration system or stopped the high levels of stop and search against Black communities, highlighting that representation doesn’t always equate to progress.

Another area Harris doesn’t fare particularly well in is around sex work. In 2008, she was a vocal opponent of Proposition K – a measure to decriminalise sex work – and led operations against the ‘Backpage’, a site sex workers could safely use for adverts. For someone who prides herself on fighting for marginalised groups, she made life for sex workers more difficult and risky. However, in a 2019 interview, she stated she would be open to decriminalising sex work. Harris still seems to support criminalising the act of purchasing sex, which is a position that would negatively impact sex workers, by increasing surveillance and policing around their work.

“It feels as though she’s being perceived as progressive because she’s a biracial woman, and not because of her politics”

The vice president-elect has argued that during her presidential campaign, she’s fought for racial justice reform, the reversal of incarceration and putting a stop to the death penalty. And she did manage a few policies that would be considered “progressive”, such as bringing in a scheme that would allow first time drug offenders to get an education and a job, instead of time in prison. Plus, she also refused to pursue the death penalty in a case where a police officer was shot, even when it was a widely unpopular stance.

However, we need to be careful in painting her as the beacon of progress and instead focus on her actions. It feels as though she’s being perceived as progressive because she’s a biracial woman, and not because of her politics. Yet we all know that not all Black and brown people are liberal by nature – look at Priti Patel.

Kamala Harris has made history, and that is something we should absolutely celebrate. Representation of women of colour in top positions is really great to see, and to be honest, long overdue. But representation alone doesn’t help the communities being represented if they there aren’t policies in place to support them. Black and brown faces in politics won’t solve the deep-rooted and systemic issues that people of colour face every day, especially if those faces support policies that uphold white supremacy.

As we celebrate this historic milestone, we shouldn’t lose sight of Harris’ track record. Instead, let’s hold her accountable and allow her to prove to American society that she’s fighting for progress.

Inside Kamala Harris’ polarizing record as a prosecutor

Kamala Harris’ rampant prosecutorial abuses

Tom Kulik: 3 Big Misconceptions About Section 230 Of The Communications Decency Act

No one has the right to stop you from saying your opinion about anything unless what you are saying is knowingly false and said with the intent to harm, distress, harass, or destroy another person's rights.

Betsy Combier
Editor, ADVOCATZ.com
Editor, ADVOCATZ blog
Editor, Parentadvocates.org
Editor, New York Court Corruption
Editor, NYC Rubber Room Reporter
Editor, NYC Public Voice
Editor, National Public Voice
Editor, Inside 3020-a Teacher Trials 

Idle Chatter: 3 Big Misconceptions About Section 230 Of The Communications Decency Act

Regardless of one’s political persuasion, most of us can agree that First Amendment expression is, indeed, a bedrock constitutional principle.

by Tom Kulik, June 1, 2020, Above The Law

First Amendment expression is a significant pillar of our constitutional freedoms in the United States, and when it comes to free expression online, the protections for vigorous debate over the internet should be no exception. Now, more than ever, online platforms such as Facebook and Twitter are providing incredible means through which to share not only ideas but news and events. The interesting fact is that none other than President Donald Trump himself enjoys using Twitter to directly reach his more than 81 million followers. His tweets, however, are not without controversy, and it seems some of them have now fanned the flames of “censorship” of content (or users) by online platforms, claiming that the social media platform (and others) may be engaging in activity that is eroding the very bedrock principle of First Amendment expression. Whether you agree with him or not, the underlying premise and its context is worth a look, and may even open your eyes to seeing online content liability in a new light.

How this issue came to a head recently is no surprise. After Trump posted a number of tweets on Twitter about potential fraud in mail-in voting, Twitter apparently added an alert within those tweets encouraging users to “[g]et the facts about mail-in ballots.” This drew an immediate and intense response from Trump against Twitter, claiming that “@Twitter is now interfering in the 2020 Election” by relying on fact-checking from “fake news” CNN and The Washington Post. Seems like some robust free expression to me, but the interesting point here is that Twitter itself acknowledged that Trump’s tweets did not violate Twitter’s terms of use and policies, yet Twitter felt obliged to add the warning label. Trump was less than amused — this interaction prompted him to recently sign an executive order directing federal agencies to alter their interpretation of the liability protections afforded internet service providers under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Interesting, indeed — but for different reasons than you may think.

To those who are not familiar, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 helped shape the internet as it stands today. Under Section 230(c)(1), “no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.” In essence, Section 230 protects internet service providers from being treated like publishers, affording them immunity from liability for the content that is posted on their platforms. Further, Section 230 allows such providers to avoid liability for taking action “in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected.” What does this mean? It means that such providers can regulate certain content that meets such criteria without fear of civil liability for removing it.

From my experience with Section 230 since its inception, I find the current debate striking because many policymakers (and many lawyers) seem to misunderstand certain aspects of Section 230 and its application that are affecting the debate. Here are the three biggest misconceptions regarding Section 230 that everyone needs to keep in mind:
Don’t Get Caught Up With “Publisher” And “Platform.” Given the text of Section 230(c)(1) and the jurisprudence prior its enactment, it is easy to fall into the trap of seeing a legal distinction between “platform” and “publisher” and the extent of control over the content; however, this would be in error. The focus should remain on whether a platform is a “speaker” of the content. For example, if someone posted a defamatory reaction (i.e., comment) to an article posted by a staff writer for Yahoo News, then Yahoo News would not be liable for such defamation simply because it posted the comment. On the other hand, if any of Yahoo’s news editors or staff writers posted defamatory content on the Yahoo News website, then Yahoo News could be held liable for such posting because they would be the “information content provider.” For lack of better words, the online platform must not be the originator of the defamatory content at issue for Section 230 immunity to apply.

Copyrights Are NOT The Issue In Section 230. The fact that an internet service provider may store content it does not know to be infringing or otherwise “take down” such content under its policies and procedures and not be held liable for doing so should not be confused with Section 230 immunity. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), and more specifically, Section 512, not only addresses immunity for the transmission and caching of infringing content through automated means, but the requirements for receiving immunity from liability for the storage of infringing content it does not know to be infringing that resides on the platform. Of course, the DMCA is a lot more involved than the thumbnail reference above, but the point is that the DMCA is addressing immunity from liability for actions taken with respect to copyright infringement. Section 230, however, deals with immunity from liability for the posting of defamatory, obscene, excessively violent content, etc., whether or not such material is constitutionally protected.

Section 230 Does NOT Provide Blanket Immunity. Section 230 definitely provides very broad immunity (by design), however, it is not blanket immunity. Section 230 does not, in fact, protect an internet service provider against criminal prosecution under federal statutes. For example, Section 230 does not grant immunity to websites that facilitate and profit from revenge pornography and sextortion, among others. With the enactment of the “Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act” (FOSTA) signed by Trump in 2018, it became illegal for internet service providers to knowingly assist, support, or facilitate sex trafficking as well. As a result, Section 230 does nothing to immunize an internet service provider from criminal prosecution under such relevant federal statutes.

Regardless of one’s political persuasion, most of us can agree that First Amendment expression is, indeed, a “bedrock” constitutional principle. Does this mean that Twitter’s actions on Trump’s tweets merit a remake of Section 230? At best, Twitter’s action seems ill-advised because it is not something consistently applied across the entire service — the notion of a social media platform potentially “taking sides” is repugnant to our notions of justice and fair play and undermines legitimate discourse. That said, do these facts merit a re-evaluation of Section 230 immunity? Given the broad interpretation of Section 230 by the courts since the law’s enactment, there is a good chance that more restrictive interpretation of Section 230 in line with Trump’s executive order will face an uphill constitutional battle. Perhaps that is the point. Inquiring minds will definitely differ, but the point here is that any debate should maintain the correct perspective on Section 230 and what is does (and does not) do. Anything else is just, well, idle chatter.

Tom Kulik is an Intellectual Property & Information Technology Partner at the Dallas-based law firm of Scheef & Stone, LLP. In private practice for over 20 years, Tom is a sought-after technology lawyer who uses his industry experience as a former computer systems engineer to creatively counsel and help his clients navigate the complexities of law and technology in their business. News outlets reach out to Tom for his insight, and he has been quoted by national media organizations. Get in touch with Tom on Twitter (@LegalIntangibls) or Facebook (www.facebook.com/technologylawyer), or contact him directly at tom.kulik@solidcounsel.com.

Hemstead Schools Superintendent Blew The Whistle on Corruption, Was Fired, Sued. The Supreme Court Declined To Hear His Case

Hempstead Long Island N.Y. Schools Superintendent Shimon Waronker. 

Credit: Jeffrey Basinger, Newsday

Many readers, like myself, of the case of Shimon Waronker believe that the decision of the Supreme Court is a denial of free speech under the First Amendment.

Leagle.com:

WARONKER v. HEMPSTEAD UNION FREE SCHOOL DISTRICT

Reply Brief for Shimon Waronker by Erwin Chemerinsky

Summary:

The case detailed below involves Shimon Waronker, the superintendent of the Hempstead Union Free School District on Long Island. He was hired in 2017 to reform a district plagued by academic difficulties and corruption, court papers say. 

Waronker hired investigators and a forensic accounting firm to root out corruption in the district, and he reported some findings to law enforcement. The school board placed him on administrative leave without pay in January 2018.

Waronker sued, alleging violations of his First Amendment free speech rights, 14th Amendment due-process rights, and of state whistleblower laws. He lost in a federal district court and in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, in New York City, which both held that the superintendent's speech about school operations was part of his official duties and thus not protected under the First Amendment.

Supreme Court Declines Superintendent's Case on Reporting Corruption

By Mark Walsh April 20, 2020

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear the appeal of a school superintendent in New York state who alleges he was fired for reporting corruption in his new district to law enforcement as he was required to do.

Also, over the dissent of two justices, the high court also declined to hear the case of an individual who was blocked from suing the U.S. Department of Education for alleged violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

The actions came on a busy day of orders and opinions for the court, which is soldiering on with its docket amid the contstraints of the coronavirus pandemic. The court has set May 11 as the date it will hear telephone arguments in Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru (Case No. 19-267), about whether religious schools are exempt from civil rights laws for employment decisions involving lay teachers.

The denial in the New York state case involved Shimon Waronker, who was hired as the superintendent of the Hempstead Union Free School District on Long Island in 2017 to reform a district plagued by academic difficulties and corruption, court papers say.

Waronker hired investigators and a forensic accounting firm to root out corruption in the district, and he reported some findings to law enforcement. The school board placed him on administrative leave without pay in January 2018.

Waronker sued, alleging violations of his First Amendment free speech rights, 14th Amendment due-process rights, and of state whistleblower laws. He lost in a federal district court and in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, in New York City, which both held that the superintendent's speech about school operations was part of his official duties and thus not protected under the First Amendment.

The former superintendent's appeal in Waronker v. Hempstead Union Free School District (No. 19-893) argued that the 2nd Circuit's decision conflicted with a 2014 Supreme Court ruling, Lane v. Franks , which held that a public employee's truthful testimony in court subject to a subpoena was protected speech.

"Waronker was obligated by law to expose the corruption he saw in his school district," says the former superintendent's brief. "If a superintendent of schools sees illegal corruption and does not report it to law enforcement, he has breached his fiduciary duty and may well be an accessory after the fact."

The school district, in a brief urging the court not to take up the case, said that part of the superintendent's job duties were to communicate with outside agencies, and that his communications were not like the compelled testimony at issue in Lane.

"This case is a poor vehicle to provide more general guidance on the question of when speech that exposes corruption may be protected by the First Amendment," the district's brief said.

The justices declined Waronker's appeal without comment.

Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru

Consolidated with:

• St. James School v. Biel

Docket No.	Op. Below	Argument	Opinion	Vote	Author	Term
19-267	9th Cir.	May 11, 2020 Tr.Aud.	TBD	TBD	TBD	OT 2019

Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is counsel on an amicus brief in support of the respondent in this case.

Issue: Whether the First Amendment's religion clauses prevent civil courts from adjudicating employment-discrimination claims brought by an employee against her religious employer, when the employee carried out important religious functions.

SCOTUSblog Coverage

• Educational seminar: Debrief of Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru (Katie Bart)
• Argument analysis: Justices divided in debate over “ministerial exception” (Amy Howe)
• Educational seminar: Preview of Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru (Katie Bart)
• Argument preview: Justices to consider what makes a minister a minister (Corrected) (Amy Howe)
• Event announcement: SCOTUSblog oral argument seminars (Updated) (Kalvis Golde)
• Court sets cases for May telephone arguments, will make live audio available (Amy Howe)
• Justices postpone March argument session (Amy Howe)
• Justices issue March argument calendar (Amy Howe)
• Court fills out spring calendar with new grants (Amy Howe)

Date	Proceedings and Orders (key to color coding)
Jul 18 2019	Application (19A80) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from July 29, 2019 to August 28, 2019, submitted to Justice Kagan.
Jul 19 2019	Application (19A80) granted by Justice Kagan extending the time to file until August 28, 2019.
Aug 28 2019	Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due September 30, 2019)
Sep 11 2019	Brief amicus curiae of The National Catholic Educational Association filed.
Sep 26 2019	Motion to extend the time to file a response from September 30, 2019 to October 18, 2019, submitted to The Clerk.
Sep 27 2019	Brief amici curiae of Professors Douglas Laycock, et al. filed.
Sep 27 2019	Brief amici curiae of Church of God in Christ, Inc. and Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America filed. VIDED
Sep 27 2019	Brief amici curiae of State of Alaska, et al. filed.
Sep 30 2019	Brief amici curiae of The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, et al. filed.
Sep 30 2019	Brief amici curiae of Christian Legal Society et al. filed.
Sep 30 2019	Brief amici curiae of General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, et al. filed.
Sep 30 2019	Brief amicus curiae of Stephen Wise Temple filed.
Sep 30 2019	Brief amicus curiae of National Legal Foundation filed.
Oct 01 2019	Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including October 18, 2019.
Oct 17 2019	Motion to extend the time to file a response from October 18, 2019 to October 28, 2019, submitted to The Clerk.
Oct 18 2019	Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including October 28, 2019.
Oct 28 2019	Brief of respondent Agnes Morrissey-Berru in opposition filed.
Oct 28 2019	Waiver of the 14-day waiting period under 15.5 filed.
Oct 30 2019	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/15/2019.
Nov 01 2019	Reply of petitioner Our Lady of Guadalupe School filed. (Distributed)
Nov 12 2019	Rescheduled.
Nov 26 2019	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 12/13/2019.
Dec 18 2019	Petition GRANTED. The petition for a writ of certiorari in No. 19-348 is granted. The cases are consolidated, and a total of one hour is allotted for oral argument. VIDED.
Dec 18 2019	Because the Court has consolidated these cases for briefing and oral argument, future filings and activity in the cases will now be reflected on the docket of No. 19-267. Subsequent filings in these cases must therefore be submitted through the electronic filing system in No. 19-267. Each document submitted in connection with one or more of these cases must include on its cover the case number and caption for each case in which the filing is intended to be submitted. Where a filing is submitted in fewer than all of the cases, the docket entry will reflect the case number(s) in which the filing is submitted; a document filed in all of the consolidated cases will be noted as “VIDED.”
Jan 27 2020	Blanket Consent filed by Petitioner, Our Lady of Guadalupe School. VIDED
Jan 31 2020	SET FOR ARGUMENT on Wednesday, April 1, 2020. VIDED
Feb 03 2020	Joint appendix filed. (Statement of costs filed.) VIDED
Feb 03 2020	Brief of petitioner Our Lady of Guadalupe School filed. VIDED
Feb 06 2020	Brief amicus curiae of Foundation for Moral Law filed. VIDED.
Feb 07 2020	Brief amici curiae of The Christian and Missionary Alliance, et al. filed. VIDED.
Feb 07 2020	Brief amicus curiae of Judicial Watch, Inc. filed. VIDED.
Feb 07 2020	Brief amici curiae of COLPA, et al. filed. VIDED.
Feb 07 2020	Brief amici curiae of State of Alaska, et al. filed (in 19-267).
Feb 10 2020	Brief amici curiae of InterVarsity Christian Fellowship/USA, World Vision Inc., Young Life filed. VIDED.
Feb 10 2020	Brief amici curiae of The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, et al. filed. VIDED.
Feb 10 2020	Brief amicus curiae of National Catholic Educational Association filed. VIDED.
Feb 10 2020	Brief amici curiae of Church of God in Christ, Inc. and Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America filed. VIDED.
Feb 10 2020	Brief amicus curiae of Torah Umesorah filed. VIDED.
Feb 10 2020	Brief amicus curiae of Franciscan University of Steubenville filed. VIDED.
Feb 10 2020	Brief amicus curiae of United States Conference of Catholic Bishops filed. VIDED.
Feb 10 2020	Brief amici curiae of General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists and Jewish Coalition for Religious Liberty filed. VIDED.
Feb 10 2020	Brief amicus curiae of Asma T. Uddin filed. VIDED.
Feb 10 2020	Brief amicus curiae of Independent Women's Law Center filed. VIDED.
Feb 10 2020	Brief amicus curiae of National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, Inc. filed. VIDED.
Feb 10 2020	Brief amicus curiae of United States filed. VIDED.
Feb 10 2020	Brief amici curiae of American Civil Liberties Union, et al filed. VIDED.
Feb 10 2020	Brief amicus curiae of Partnership Schools filed. VIDED.
Feb 10 2020	Brief amici curiae of Stephen Wise Temple and Milwaukee Jewish Day School filed. VIDED.
Feb 10 2020	Brief amici curiae of Columbia International University and Sixth Mount Zion Missionary Baptist Church filed. VIDED.
Feb 10 2020	Brief amicus curiae of American Center for Law and Justice filed. VIDED.
Feb 10 2020	Brief amicus curiae of The Rutherford Institute filed. VIDED.
Feb 10 2020	Brief amicus curiae of Professor John D. Inazu filed. VIDED.
Feb 10 2020	Brief amici curiae of The Association of Classical Christian Schools, et al., filed. VIDED.
Feb 10 2020	Brief amici curiae of Senator Mike Lee, et al. filed. VIDED.
Feb 10 2020	Brief amicus curiae of Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence filed. VIDED.
Feb 10 2020	Brief amici curiae of Christian Legal Society, et al. filed. VIDED.
Feb 10 2020	Brief amicus curiae of Ethics and Public Policy Center filed. VIDED.
Feb 10 2020	Brief amicus curiae of Inner Life Fund filed. VIDED.
Feb 10 2020	Brief amici curiae of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, et al. filed. VIDED.
Feb 10 2020	Brief amici curiae of American Jewish Committee and United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism filed. VIDED.
Feb 10 2020	Brief amicus curiae of First Liberty Institute filed. VIDED.
Feb 10 2020	Brief amici curiae of Council for Christian Colleges and Universities and Forty Individual Religious Colleges and Universities filed. VIDED.
Feb 10 2020	Brief amici curiae of Billy Graham Evangelical Association, et al. filed. VIDED.
Feb 10 2020	Brief amici curiae of Professors Douglas Laycock, et al. filed. VIDED.
Feb 10 2020	Brief amicus curiae of United States filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Feb 19 2020	CIRCULATED
Feb 19 2020	Record requested from the U.S.C.A. 9th Circuit.
Mar 04 2020	Brief of respondents filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Mar 04 2020	The record of the USCA 9th Circuit is available on Pacer.
Mar 10 2020	Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument filed. VIDED.
Mar 10 2020	Brief amici curiae of The Freedom From Religion Foundation, et al. filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Mar 11 2020	Brief amici curiae of Center for Inquiry, Inc., et al. filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Mar 11 2020	Brief amici curiae of National Women's Law Center, et al. filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Mar 11 2020	Motion of Virginia, et al. for leave to participate in oral argument as amici curiae and for divided argument filed. VIDED.
Mar 11 2020	Brief amici curiae of Virginia, et al. filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Mar 11 2020	Brief amici curiae of National Employment Lawyers Association, et al. filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Mar 11 2020	Brief amici curiae of Clergy and Laity United for Economic Justice and Bet Tzedek filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Mar 11 2020	Brief amici curiae of CHILD USA, et al. filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Mar 16 2020	ORAL ARGUMENT POSTPONED. VIDED.
Mar 23 2020	Motion of Virginia, et al. for leave to participate in oral argument as amici curiae and for divided argument DENIED. VIDED.
Mar 23 2020	Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument GRANTED. VIDED.
Apr 03 2020	Reply of petitioners filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Apr 13 2020	Argument to be rescheduled for May 2020.
Apr 15 2020	RESCHEDULED FOR ARGUMENT on Monday, May 11, 2020. VIDED.
May 11 2020	Argued. For petitioners: Eric C. Rassbach, Washington, D. C.; and Morgan L. Ratner, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.). For respondents: Jeffrey L. Fisher, Menlo Park, Cal. VIDED.