Last week, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled unanimously that a California school district did not violate a teacher\u2019s free speech rights by ordering him to remove posters bearing the national motto, among other phrases.<\/p>\n
In late 2006, Bradley Johnson, a San Diego County math teacher and sponsor of the school\u2019s Christian club, received complaints regarding two large banners displaying phrases including: \u201cIN GOD WE TRUST,\u201d \u201cONE NATION UNDER GOD,\u201d \u201cGOD BLESS AMERICA,\u201d \u201cGOD SHED HIS GRACE ON THEE,\u201d and \u201cAll men are created equal, they are endowed by their CREATOR.\u201d\u00a0 The school\u2019s principal ordered Johnson to remove the signs \u2013 a demand Johnson believed infringed upon his free speech rights.<\/p>\n
The Ninth Circuit disagreed<\/a>.\u00a0 The ruling has drawn attention<\/a> because the objectionable posters all contained quotes taken from the national motto, the National Anthem, and the Declaration of Independence.\u00a0 From a legal standpoint, however, the ruling is largely uncontroversial.<\/p>\n Why didn\u2019t the school district\u2019s action violate Johnson\u2019s free speech rights?<\/strong><\/p>\n Johnson is a government employee and, as such, faces restrictions regarding what he can say in the classroom.\u00a0 As the Ninth Circuit noted, \u201cJust as the Constitution would not protect Johnson were he to decide that he no longer wished to teach math at all, preferring to discuss Shakespeare rather than Newton, it does not permit him to speak as freely at work in his role as a teacher about his views on God, our Nation\u2019s history, or God\u2019s role in our Nation\u2019s history as he might on a sidewalk, in a park, at his dinner table, or in countless other locations.\u201d<\/p>\n As a public school teacher, Johnson serves as the government\u2019s mouthpiece: he is the Government\u2019s voice in the classroom.\u00a0 Accordingly, the Government gets a say in what Johnson gets to say \u2013 at least within the scope of his employment.\u00a0 The fact that Johnson may have had some freedom to choose what he displayed in his classroom did not change the reality that the Government \u2013 not Johnson \u2013 was responsible for the speech that appeared on his classroom\u2019s walls.<\/p>\n Did the school district violate the Establishment Clause by ordering Johnson to take down his posters?<\/strong><\/p>\n The Establishment Clause requires \u201cgovernment neutrality\u201d with respect to religion.\u00a0 Stated simply, the Government may not \u201cplace its prestige, coercive authority, or resources behind a single religious faith or behind religious belief in general.\u201d \u00a0Nor may it \u201cbe overtly hostile to religion.\u201d\u00a0 Johnson argued that the school district\u2019s directive to remove his posters evinced hostility toward religion and was thus unconstitutional.<\/p>\n The Ninth Circuit disagreed.\u00a0 Legal precedent holds that governmental actions taken to avoid potential Establishment Clause violations do not represent hostility toward religion.\u00a0 Since a reasonable observer might have construed Johnson\u2019s posters \u2013 with their repeated references to God and use of disproportionately large font to spell out words like \u201cCREATOR\u201d \u2013 as religious endorsements, the school district\u2019s actions were not unconstitutional.<\/p>\n What about other purportedly religious displays in the school?<\/strong><\/p>\n On appeal, Johnson argued that other teachers at his school decorated their classrooms with other forms of religious iconography, including Tibetan prayer flags and a Malcolm X poster.\u00a0 By ordering him to remove his posters but not the other religious symbols present at the school, officials were sending a message of hostility toward Christianity.<\/p>\n Again, the Ninth Circuit disagreed.\u00a0 The fact that these other displays may have had some religious content does not mean that they ran afoul of the First Amendment.\u00a0 Rather, \u201c[e]ach [display] would be violative [of the Constitution] only if used to endorse or inhibit religion.\u201d\u00a0 Because depictions of Malcolm X and Tibetan prayer flags do not send the same kind of overtly religious message as the word \u201cGod\u201d written repeatedly in all caps across a poster, their presence in the school was unobjectionable.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Last week, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled unanimously that a California school district did […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":35,"featured_media":3235,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_exactmetrics_skip_tracking":false,"_exactmetrics_sitenote_active":false,"_exactmetrics_sitenote_note":"","_exactmetrics_sitenote_category":0,"site-sidebar-layout":"default","site-content-layout":"","ast-site-content-layout":"default","site-content-style":"default","site-sidebar-style":"default","ast-global-header-display":"","ast-banner-title-visibility":"","ast-main-header-display":"","ast-hfb-above-header-display":"","ast-hfb-below-header-display":"","ast-hfb-mobile-header-display":"","site-post-title":"","ast-breadcrumbs-content":"","ast-featured-img":"","footer-sml-layout":"","ast-disable-related-posts":"","theme-transparent-header-meta":"","adv-header-id-meta":"","stick-header-meta":"","header-above-stick-meta":"","header-main-stick-meta":"","header-below-stick-meta":"","astra-migrate-meta-layouts":"default","ast-page-background-enabled":"default","ast-page-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"ast-content-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":true,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,48],"tags":[56,126,127,212,864,248,451,479],"coauthors":[],"class_list":["post-3230","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-amicus","category-freedom-of-expression","tag-9th-circuit","tag-civil-liberties","tag-civil-rights","tag-establishment-clause","tag-first-amendment","tag-free-speech","tag-religion","tag-schools"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/peZrWS-Q6","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/crcl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3230","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/crcl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/crcl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/crcl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/35"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/crcl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3230"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/crcl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3230\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/crcl\/wp-json\/"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/crcl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3230"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/crcl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3230"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/crcl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3230"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/crcl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/coauthors?post=3230"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}