Top Court Rejects Suit Over School Ban on Christian Gifts

[cbayer]

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-06-11/top-court-rejects-suit-over-school-ban-on-christian-gifts

By Bob Drummond on June 11, 2012


The U.S. Supreme Court today declined to let two families sue elementary school principals who kept their children from giving out Christian-themed gifts during classroom parties.

The justices, without comment, rejected an appeal by the families, who said officials at Texas grade schools should be held personally liable for stifling the free-speech rights of children seeking to proselytize grade-school classmates.

“All students, including elementary school students, have at the very least the basic First Amendment right to be free from discrimination against their private, non-curricular speech based solely upon its religious viewpoint,” the families said in their appeal.

The case involved questions about when government officials can be sued as individuals for on-the-job conduct that violates someone’s constitutional rights. Under a standard known as qualified immunity, courts shield government employees from personal liability, except in cases where the law is so clear that reasonable people would know their actions were unconstitutional.

more at link

[no_hypocrisy]

1. Those items were called "gifts" but they were tools of unlawful prosthelization of Christianity.

If the kids wanted to give out the gifts, there's before and afterschool time, not during compulsory public education.

[cbayer]

2. So you support the school's decision then.

[no_hypocrisy]

3. Yes. The criteria is the gift-giving was during school hours and the items were

religious.

[cbayer]

4. I agree.

[kelly1mm]

9. The Court found that the school was wrong in banning the gifts. That was already decided. This

case was about the consequences of that wrond doing. Basically, once it was found it was wrong, would the school system be on the hook solely for the damages and court costs, or if the administration members personally would be liable as well.

[kelly1mm]

8. Actually, no, they are not unlawful gifts according to the 5th Circuit rulling. This case was not

if the school was wrong to ban the gifts (the Court already deciuded it was wrong) but rather if the school administration should be personally liable for damages or if qualified immunity applied.

[no_hypocrisy]

10. Thanks for the clarification.

[cbayer]

11. I appreciate this. You are clearly more informed on this than I.

edited for typo

[edhopper]

5. The question addressed

was not whether the children should have been allowed to give the gifts. It is whether the Principles can be personally sued for something done within their job.
This wasn't suing the School Distract for 1st Amendment rights, it was a personal law suit aimed at individuals.

[cbayer]

6. Good points and that is really why the court rejected the suit.

[dmallind]

7. It's not the gift giving that's the issue though is it?

IANAL but I can't imagine a ban on otherwise safe and acceptable Christian-themed gifts passing muster, as long as other gifts are allowed and as long as they are the choice of the children (or more likely parents). As long as Muslim or Jewish or atheist-themed gifts are also ok, I see no reason Christian ones should not be. Whether the staff can be sued for banning them is the crux here. I think it's a safe assumption that this, like almost all "bans on Christianity" will turn out to be a move the staff made reluctantly knowing that if they accept Christian-themed gifts they would have no ability to ban Muslim, Jewish atheist etc themes either, and so they banned all - an overstep, but not a culpable one legally. I know for a fact if my kid was going to be faced with Chick tracts, they'd be handing out Ingersoll books in return. I'm pretty sure I can guess which the admins really want to avoid.

[bongbong]

12. Well.....

You can be 1000% positive that if a Muslim-themed gift was given within that school system, Holy Hell would break out.