#Eleventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals

[weatherman667]

To support this apparently extravagant lifestyle, each pimp kept a stable of prostitutes with a well-defined pecking order. At the top of each pimp's organization was his "bottom girl," a trusted and experienced prostitute or female associate. Next in the pimp's chain of command was a "wife-in-law," a prostitute with supervisory duties similar to those of the bottom girl. A pimp's bottom girl or wife-in-law often worked the track in his stead, running interference for and collecting money from the pimp's other prostitutes. The bottom girl also looked after the pimp's affairs if the pimp was out of town, incarcerated, or otherwise unavailable.

--U.S. v. Charles Floyd Pipkins, No. 02-14306.

--United States Courts of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit

[thatstormygeek]

The problems of today’s federal judiciary have been clear for some time, but the U.S. Supreme Court’s order allowing lower courts to block the Biden administration’s entire 423-page sex discrimination education rule while litigation continues brought many of those problems together in a jarring way that further highlights how incredibly imbalanced today’s judiciary is. At its base, the August 16 ruling is an order from five justices allowing anti-transgender arguments to block an entire multifaceted federal rule — regardless of the fact that very little of the rule addresses transgender protections. ... As I’ve written about previously, the right, from Chief Justice John Roberts on down, is setting up contingent planning — two divergent paths it can take depending on who wins the White House in November. A question that the Title IX rule order raised for me is whether the Democratic appointees on the court might be doing the same — and what that would look like when it is three doing so. Regardless of what the justices are doing, however, the order made clear how necessary it is for the left to be making its own two-path contingency preparations. And to do so openly and aggressively in these next two and a half months.

The rule at issue was promulgated under Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972 and had been a long time coming. To the extent states are complaining about this being a new issue or being caught off guard, that’s just a lie. ... As I’ve detailed extensively at Law Dork, the right — both Republican-led states and far-right organizations — began filing lawsuits carefully in conservative jurisdictions, initially even in ways aimed at getting particular judges, to block the rule. ... Every district court judge save one did so, and the one who didn’t — Judge Annemarie Axon (a Trump appointee in Alabama) — had her ruling almost immediately blocked “administratively” by an unidentified panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. The lower courts here felt free to block the entire rule because the conservatives on the Supreme Court have empowered lower-court judges to do as they wish, tossing out precedent and ignoring procedural rulings as they desire in efforts to move the law right. And while those lower courts have ultimately been reversed on occasion when they go too far, the reversals hide the reality that the Supreme Court also lets stand or even affirms many other extreme rulings that move the law significantly rightward.

[pashterlengkap]

Court blocks Idaho’s deeply transphobic student bathroom bill

Idaho’s bathroom ban for transgender students has been temporarily blocked by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The law, SB1100, banned trans kids from using school facilities that align with their gender identity and offered children a $5,000 bounty for reporting trans students who use the restroom that matches their gender identity. Challengers of the law say that it violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the U.S. Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, a federal law that prohibits sex-based discrimination in any school or any other education program that receives funding from the federal government. Related: Illinois high school stands up to bullies after district postponed LGBTQ+ musical The school district’s superintendent said that it has developed a safety plan to protect LGBTQ+ students and staff from harassment and threats. The transphobic legislation defines sex as “immutable biological characteristics at birth,” wholly ignoring the existence of intersex children who have sex traits that aren’t entirely male or female. The legislation also states that the mere presence of trans students might inflict “psychological injury” on cisgender peers and increases “the likelihood of sexual assault, molestation, [and] rape,” trans independent journalist Erin Reed pointed out. Get the Daily Brief The news you care about, reported on by the people who care about you: Subscribe to our Newsletter When the law first came before Judge David Nye, a judge appointed by former President Donald Trump, he initially blocked it for further review. However, Nye later decided to let it go into effect, ignoring the Supreme Court precedent established in Bostock vs. Clayton County, which said that gender discrimination is a form of sex discrimination. Reversing his initial decision, Nye claimed that sex and gender are two distinctly separate things and that Title XI allows “sex-segregated facilities” in schools. The LGBTQ+ legal advocacy group Lambda Legal appealed Nye’s decision, and the Ninth Circuit blocked the law while lawyers on both sides of the issue prepare their cases. “For years, transgender students have been able to use restrooms consistent with their gender at schools across Idaho for years without incident. This order will allow that inclusive practice to continue while we pursue our challenge,” Lambda Legal Staff Attorney Kell Olson told The Windy City Times. Reed noted that appeals courts across the nation have been divided on this issue, establishing the high likelihood that the issue will likely come before the conservative-leaning Supreme Court. While the Fourth, Seventh, and Ninth Circuit Courts have all ruled in favor of trans bathroom access, the Eleventh Circuit ruled in December 2022 that trans school bathroom bans don’t violate Title IX. http://dlvr.it/Sy3FVD

[angelinas-corner]

U.S. Supreme Court Set to Review Cases Regarding Copyright Infringement Limitations

On Friday, September 29th, the Supreme Court agreed to take on an appeal to a court case between Warner Chappell Music and Artist Publishing Group and Atlantic Records that could affect the amount of time that rights holders have to file infringement complaints. 

The case that will be reviewed is a case filed by Sherman Nealy in 2018. Within this case, Sherman Nealy and Tony Butler co-wrote songs together, one called Jam The Box. Nealy alleges that some of the songs that they wrote together were “improperly sold off by… Tony Butler” since he did not have a say in the matter. The songs were licensed to “Flo Rida… [and were] interpolated musical elements of "Jam the Box" in his 2008 song ‘In the Ayer’” along with other artists like Pitbull and the Black Eyed Peas. So, due to improper licensing of music, “Nealy sued Flo Rida's label Atlantic Records, as well as Warner Chappell and Artist Publishing Group.”

How does this case relate to the time limits for filing infringement complaints?

This case becomes complicated because, in 1957, there was an amendment to the US copyright law which stated that you must  “file a lawsuit… within three years of the infringement taking place”. When the rights to Nealy’s songs were sold, he was incarcerated at the time. It was only until after being released from prison, past the three years of the copyright infringement taking place, that he found out that his rights were infringed upon. This case was brought before many different courts and many interpreted this rule differently. The Second Circuit Court of Appeal decided that “the three-year limit applies from the moment the copyright infringement took place”. The Ninth Circuit and Eleventh Circuit disagreed and ruled that it is three years after the copyright holder discovers the infringement of their rights. To remove confusion and contradictions regarding this rule the Supreme Court will be reviewing copyright law and decide whether the three years applies from the date infringement takes place or the date of discovery.

Word Count: 339

[cavenewstimes]

DOJ Says Federal Appeals Court ‘Incorrectly Decided’ That Gun Ban For Marijuana Consumers Is Unconstitutional

Marijuana Moment Read More  The Justice Department has informed a federal appeals court that it believes a separate court’s ruling in a marijuana and gun rights case was “incorrectly decided” as it seeks a favorable decision in a related lawsuit. In a one-page brief filed on Friday, the federal government notified judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit that the separate U.S.…

[kayla1993-world]

Disney filed a federal lawsuit this week against Florida's Republican Governor Ron DeSantis and other state officials after a board he appointed nullified two agreements that gave the company significant control over the expansion of its resort. The company is accusing DeSantis of trying to "weaponize government power" against it, and the lawsuit comes as some Republicans have criticized the governor for his ongoing feud with Disney. The case will be presided over by Chief U.S. District Judge Mark E. Walker of the Northern District of Florida, who has previously been involved in lawsuits brought against DeSantis' administration. Walker was nominated to the U.S. District Court by then-President Barack Obama in 2012 and was confirmed by the Senate, becoming chief judge in 2018. Since his appointment, he's issued rulings on several high-profile cases in the state. In August last year, Walker made headlines for his ruling in a case involving Florida's Individual Freedom Act (IFA), also known as the "Stop WOKE Act," where the judge blocked parts of the law signed by DeSantis. Walker's reference to the hit Netflix series Stranger Things garnered particular attention has seemed like a First Amendment upside down," he said. Nonetheless, Walker only blocked parts of the law that deal with corporate training after two companies and a consultancy that provides such training applied for an injunction. He denied the applicants against the IFA at that time. In November last year, Walker granted a preliminary injunction against the IFA in a 139-page ruling that the Stop WOKE Act was "positively dystopian" and found it violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution. Walker was educated at the University of Florida College of Law, graduating with a J.D. in 1992. He has clerked at the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, the Florida Supreme Court, and the District Court for the Northern District of Florida. In addition to spending several years in private practice, Walker was an assistant public defender in Florida's Second Judicial Circuit from 1997 to 1999 and served as a judge on the Circuit Court of Florida, Second Judicial Circuit from 2009 to 2012. During Republican Governor Rick Scott's administration, Walker made several rulings against the governor, including in January 2018 when he ordered Scott to restore voting rights to felons following their release from prison. In September 2021, Walker blocked a Florida "anti-riot" law as unconstitutional, calling it "vague and overbroad" and First Amendment rights. It remains to be seen how Judge Walker might rule in the case Disney is taking against DeSantis, who is widely expected to formally enter the race for the Republican presidential nomination in the coming months.

[nycannabistimes]

#Repost @marijuanadistribution ・・・ The new agriculture commissioner of Florida will not be moving forward with a lawsuit filed by his predecessor to challenge the federal ban blocking medical marijuana patients from purchasing and possessing firearms—though the case is moving forward through an appeal filed by remaining non-governmental plaintiffs. While former Commissioner Nikki Fried (D) had worked to secure a ruling deeming the ban unconstitutional and appealed a district court’s ruling against the lawsuit in November, current Commissioner Wilton Simpson (R) has declined to take up the mantle. In a filing with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit on Monday, three individuals who are either current medical cannabis patients or wish to become patients and who were previously involved in the case are listed as the appellants against the Justice Department. They’re seeking an opportunity for an oral hearing on the case, making the same key arguments that were raised in district court while seeking a judgment on whether the district court “construed all well-pled allegations in the Amended Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief in the light most favorable to the Appellants in the Order.” (at SUMMIT One Vanderbilt) https://www.instagram.com/p/CoJo8ujO-qe/?igshid=NGJjMDIxMWI=

[moazdijkot]

En Banc Eleventh Circuit Rejects Legal Challenge to School District's Bathroom Policy #politics #news #headlines #latestnews #breakingnews

En Banc Eleventh Circuit Rejects Legal Challenge to School District’s Bathroom Policy #politics #news #headlines #latestnews #breakingnews

Today the en banc  U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit rejected a transgender student’s statutory and constitutional challenge to a school-district policy barring students from using single-sex bathrooms that do not correspond with the student’s biological sex (or, as it appears from the facts of the case, the student’s sex when initially enrolled). Specifically, the court concluded…

[scottiestoybox]

THE BULWARK: Court Implodes Trump’s Mar-a-Lago Defense (and the Errant Judge Who Bought It)

THE BULWARK: Court Implodes Trump’s Mar-a-Lago Defense (and the Errant Judge Who Bought It)

Court Implodes Trump’s Mar-a-Lago Defense (and the Errant Judge Who Bought It) On Thursday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit finally put to rest the special master nonsense that Donald Trump set in motion late August, when he persuaded U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon to interfere with the FBI’s investigation of his illegal harboring of classified and other presidential records…

[technsavi]

Eleventh Circuit Rules for Viacom in FLORA-BAMA Trademark Case

Eleventh Circuit Rules for Viacom in FLORA-BAMA Trademark Case

“Creative works of artistic expression are firmly ensconced within the protections of the First Amendment.” – Eleventh Circuit Images taken from Eleventh Circuit Opinion The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit earlier this week ruled in favor of Viacom in a trademark fight over the media conglomerate’s Floribama Shore reality television show. MGFB, the company that filed the appeal,…

[virginiaprelawland]

Jackson V. Birmingham Board Of Education And Sex Discrimination In Schools

By Autumn Andin, George Mason University Class Of 2023

December 1, 2022

Petitioner Roderick Jackson coached a girls’ high school basketball team at Ensley High School in Birmingham, Alabama. He discovered that in comparison to the school’s male sports teams, he discovered that his team was not receiving equal funding and equal access to athletic equipment and facilities. He then complained to his supervisors about these violations. Subsequently, he received negative work evaluations and his job as coach was terminated in May 2001.[1]

The school board’s argument was on the basis that the plaintiff was an indirect victim of discrimination and was not entitled to the damages.[2]

Therefore, they are not liable for the damages because Title IX was enacted pursuant to the spending clause of the U.S. Constitution (Article 1, Section, 8, clause 1), which requires that those receiving federal funds should be given adequate notices that they could be sued for certain conduct.

Jackson then filed suit under Title IX of the Federal Education Amendment of 1972,

which states that “no person in the U.S. shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected form participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.”[3]

The District Court for the Northern District of Alabama dismissed Jackson’s complaint on the ground that Title IX’s private cause of action did not include retaliation claims. The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed that ruling Title IX does not provide a private right of action for retaliation. The Eleventh Circuit relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275. In Sandoval, the Supreme Court held that individuals may not vindicate their rights in court under Title VI if those rights stem from regulations that go beyond the language of the statute. Applying this decision to Jackson’s Title IX case, the Eleventh Circuit relied on the Supreme Court ruled that if Title IX prohibited retaliation, Jackson was not part of the class of people protected by the statute.

On November 30, 2004, the case was argued before the U.S. Supreme Court. The court reviewed the precedents and concluded that the plaintiffs have the private right to action for damages under Title IX. The court explained that discriminating against employees who complain about sex discrimination is in itself sex discrimination. Although the coach was not the subject of discrimination, the court held that retaliating against him made him a victim of discrimination.

Therefore, the basis that the board was not liable for the damages is invalid because the previous ruling should have placed the school system on notice because Title IX prohibits many diverse forms of sexual discrimination. Therefore, the Supreme court reversed the decision of the Eleventh Circuit.

This case is significant because although Title IX provides that no person in the United States shall be excluded from participating in or be denied the benefits of or be subjected to discrimination under any educational program or activity receiving federal financial assistance on the basis of sex.

This case also accounts that discriminating against employees who complain about sex discrimination is also itself sex discrimination because without it, then Title IX would have little meaning.

______________________________________________________________

[1] https://scholarship.law.uwyo.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1159&context=wlr

[2] https://www.britannica.com/topic/Jackson-v-Birmingham-Board-of-Education

[3] https://www.justice.gov/osg/brief/jackson-v-birmingham-bd-ed-amicus-brief-merits

[absolute-immunities]

if there’s no traceable property wrongfully withheld, there’s nothing necessarily subject to a constructive trust, or to disgorgement, damages, etc.

if there’s no traceable property impressed with a trust, there’s no trustee liable to an order for specific performance, or an accounting

if your property isn’t traceable, or you’re otherwise trying to get relief out of general funds, you’re boned

that’s what I’m getting out of Louisiana v. Jumel, 107 U.S. 711 (1882), at least, which distinguishes itself Osborn v. Bank of the U.S., 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 738 (1824), Davis v. Gray, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 203 (1873), and United States v. Lee, 106 U.S. 196 (1882), on these grounds

and given what’s said in Osborn v. Bank of the U.S., 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 738 (1824), it seems to make some sense

as the Jumel Court notes, Chief Justice Marshall was careful to show that the property at issue was still properly traceable, in a way that allows the Court to enter a judgment against the particular officers

understanding the problem of tracing might even help make sense of Chief Justice Marshall’s most cryptic Eleventh Amendment opinion, Governor of Georgia v. Madrazo, 26 U.S. (1 Pet.) 110 (1828) (enslaved persons at issue)

once you sort out problems of jurisdiction and pleading—that the District Court never took possession of the property at issue; that the Circuit Court had no original statutory jurisdiction in this class of cases, and no jurisdiction to take possession on appeal; and that because the Governor was named in his official capacity, the suit was in fact a suit against a state, which meant the Supreme Court had exclusive original jurisdiction, if any federal court did—you have to restart the suit

but by then, you have a traceability problem: your identifiable property—the enslaved persons, unlawfully captured at sea, taken into Georgia, and lawfully seized by state officers under the nonimportation acts—has become untraceable

why? because the Georgia state legislature had disposed of the property—gifted it away—by the time the Supreme Court decided the case

as a result, Madrazo’s only claim against state officers in any new suit would have been for relief in lieu of the traceable property—for general relief, out of the state treasury—and that would have been unambiguously barred by state sovereign immunity

I don’t have a great understanding of tracing itself, so I might be totally off-base here, but I think there’s something to it

oh! oh! sovereign immunity is a tracing problem

[yourreddancer]

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

September 9, 2022 (Friday)Today, President Joe Biden’s administration released an  “economic blueprint” to show how the new laws and policies it has put in place “are rebuilding an economy that works for working families.”

The Biden-Harris Economic Blueprint notes that Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris took office in the midst of unprecedented crises, including “an economy that for many decades had been failing to deliver for working families—with workers and middle-class families left behind, stagnating wages and accelerating costs, crumbling infrastructure, U.S. manufacturing in decline, and persistent racial disparities.” In the past year and a half, it says, the Democrats have set the nation “on a new course,” investing in a historic economic recovery based on a long-term strategy to make lasting changes to the economy that will carry the nation into the future, making sure that no one is left behind.

The blueprint calls for empowering workers through unionization and new jobs; restoring the country’s manufacturing base by investing in infrastructure and clean energy; helping families by lowering costs and expanding access to affordable and high-quality health care, child care, education, housing, and so on; promoting industrial competition to open the way for entrepreneurs and bring down costs; and “rewarding work, not wealth,” by reforming taxation so that taxes do not go up on anyone who makes less than $400,000 a year, and that the wealthy and corporations pay their fair share.

This blueprint pulls together much of what Biden has been saying all along, and it is quite clear about what this means. What the blueprint calls “new architecture” must, it says, “replace the old regime.” The old system sent economic gains to the top while outsourcing industries, and the end of public investment hollowed out the middle class. The new system will drive “the economy from the bottom up and middle out” because that system “ensures that growth benefits everyone.”

While Biden and Harris are focused on the economy and the future, the Department of Justice is still handling crises created by the former president.Yesterday the Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a motion to request a partial stay of Judge Aileen Cannon’s order last week, the one that said the DOJ couldn’t use the items the FBI seized when they searched the Trump property at Mar-a-Lago on August 8. In her Civil Discourse newsletter, law professor, host of the Sisters In Law podcast, and former U.S. attorney Joyce White Vance explained that the DOJ has asked for that order to be stayed as far as it concerns the classified records. 

That request is separate from an appeal of the order itself to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which the DOJ has indicated it will undertake. With the motion it filed yesterday, the DOJ wants the court to hold off on enforcing the judge’s order that the government can’t review and use the materials seized “for criminal investigative purposes,” and the part that says the government must turn the records over to a special master. 

The DOJ pointed out that the intelligence community’s assessment of the damage done to our national security is tied together with the ongoing criminal investigation. Because the FBI is central to both, the judge’s order has shut down the national security review, which is vitally important to the country.“In plain English,” Vance writes, “DOJ is asking how the guy who took the classified nuclear secrets he wasn’t entitled to have is harmed if law enforcement gets to look at those materials to protect our national security.”

The judge has given Trump’s lawyers until Monday to respond.

 Meanwhile, at Just Security, Michael Stern points out that in Nixon v. GSA,  everyone—including President Richard M. Nixon—agreed that “the very specific privilege protecting against disclosure of state secrets and sensitive information concerning military or diplomatic matters…may be asserted only by an incumbent President,” suggesting that Trump has no grounds to assert executive privilege over the classified information seized. 

Also today, Judge Donald Middlebrooks of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida dismissed a lawsuit Trump launched in March 2022 against Hillary Clinton and a number of his favorite villains alleging that “the Defendants, blinded by political ambition, orchestrated a malicious conspiracy to disseminate patently false and injurious information about Donald J. Trump and his campaign, all in the hopes of destroying his life, his political career and rigging the 2016 Presidential Election in favor of Hillary Clinton.” The people he was suing dismissed his lawsuit, saying, “[w]hatever the utilities of [the Amended Complaint] as a fundraising tool, a press release, or a list of political grievances, it has no merit as a lawsuit.” The judge agreed and demolished the 193-page lawsuit as lacking evidence, legal justification, and good faith. 

 The lawsuit rehashed the Russia investigation, which Trump used to great effect during his term to deflect investigations into his wrongdoing. Two investigations, one by an independent investigation by Special Counsel Robert Mueller and another by the Republican-dominated Senate Intelligence Committee, revealed that Russia had attacked the U.S. presidential election in 2020 and that the Trump campaign had, at the very least, played along.

But by using the machinery of government, including by putting loyalists into key positions, Trump reversed reality to argue that he was an innocent victim and that the investigators were actually the ones who had broken the law. He and his allies saturated the media with accusations that government officials, including FBI agents—many of whom he named in this lawsuit—were members of the “Deep State,” out to get him. 

Trump is resurrecting this old trope at a time when he is in the midst of yet another investigation for which the evidence against him is monumental. Now out of power, though, he has had to turn to the courts and, interestingly, contrived to get this case in front of Judge Cannon, who was rushed onto the court with very little experience after Trump had already lost the 2020 election.

[gingerteaonthetardis]

Anthony Wint was never offered a plea bargain and went to trial. He was never identified by any of the victims or witnesses. He did not match DNA samples produced at trial. His finger prints were never matched at the scene of the crime. Anthony Wint, up until the onset of his mental illness, maintained his innocence. Only the testimony of Nelson Baptiste convicted Anthony Wint. The state used a government informant who bartered his compliance with the court to gain leniency.

Anthony Wint proceeded to a dual-trial with a co-defendant in July 2011. He was convicted on different charges from that which he was arrested or indicted, and was sentenced to consecutive terms of 45 years imprisonment on all counts of the new charges.

Anthony Wint’s Constitutional rights were violated.

A habeas corpus petition is currently under review in U.S. District Court, Case No. 917CV80631 and Eleventh Circuit Appeal No. 1713459J.

We are asking Governor Ron DeSantis, for an inquiry into the violations of Anthony Wint’s Constitutional Rights. To contact the governor use the information below:

Office of Governor Ron DeSantis

State of Florida

The Capitol

400 S. Monroe St.

Tallahassee, FL 32399-0001

Call: (850) 717-9337

Anthony Wint deserves justice. Sign the petition. #IncarceratedLivesMatter

[creepingsharia]

U.S. Supreme Court Declines to Resolve Public Schools’ Double Standard in Promoting Islam while Disparaging Christianity

La Plata High School and teacher failed student for not reciting the Islamic prayer of conversion.

October 15, 2019

ANN ARBOR, MI—The U.S. Supreme Court today declined to review the case of Caleigh Wood, a Christian eleventh-grade public high school student in Maryland who, despite threats of receiving a failing grade, refused to deny her faith by making a written profession of the Muslim conversion prayer known as the Shahada—“There is no god but Allah and Muhammad is the messenger of Allah.”

She was also forced to view a series of pro-Islamic PowerPoint slides, including one that stated, “Most Muslims’ faith is stronger than the average Christian.”  The high school’s content specialist, Jack Tuttle, testified that use of such comparative statement was inappropriate and that he would have advised the teacher not to use it.  Nevertheless, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals opined that the teaching did not violate the Establishment Clause.

The Thomas More Law Center (“TMLC”), a national nonprofit public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, represented Caleigh Wood in the federal lawsuit against LaPlata High School.  Richard Thompson, president and chief counsel of the Law Center, commented on the Supreme Court’s refusal to hear the case:

“I’m not aware of any public school which has forced a Muslim student to write the Lord’s Prayer or John 3:16: ‘For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.’”  

Thompson continued, “Yet, under the pretext of teaching history or social studies, public schools across America are promoting the religion of Islam in ways that would never be tolerated for Christianity or any other religion.  It’s disappointing that the Supreme Court did not take this opportunity to clarify the test which lower courts should use when ruling on establishment clause and free speech challenges to public school classes on religion.”

The legal question at stake was whether La Plata High School violated the First Amendment’s Establishment and Free Speech Clauses when it gave Caleigh Wood an assignment she was unable to complete without violating her religious conscience as a Christian.

She believes it is a sin to profess the existence of any other god but the Christian God. She stood firm in her Christian beliefs and was punished for it. School officials refused her father’s request that she be allowed to opt-out or be given an alternative assignment.  She refused to complete her anti-Christian assignment and consequently received a failing grade.

Thompson added: “Many public schools have become hot beds of Islamic propaganda. Teaching Islam in schools has gone far beyond a basic history lesson. Prompted by zealous Islamic activism and emboldened by confusing court decisions, schools are now bending over backwards to promote Islam while at the same time denigrating Christianity.”

“Although the Supreme Court passed up an opportunity to provide clearer constitutional guidance on this important issue, there will be other chances as this issue isn’t going away anytime soon,” he said.

Many schools have become willing instruments of Islamic indoctrination. And in Caleigh Wood’s case, the weapon of choice was the PowerPoint presentation, which included the following statements:

“Most Muslim’s faith is stronger than the average Christian.”

“Islam at heart is a peaceful religion.”

Jihad is a “personal struggle in devotion to Islam, especially involving spiritual discipline.”

“To Muslims, Allah is the same God that is worshiped in Christianity and Judaism.”

“Men are the managers of the affairs of women” and “Righteous women are therefore obedient.”

Read TMLC’s Petition for Certiorari here.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

More via: Schools pushing the envelope on Islamic proselytization

"This issue isn't going to go away," he continues. "We have other cases right now where we are challenging school districts where seventh-graders are being taught that the only true faith is Islam. They're also being taught the five pillars of the Islamic faith, the Shahada."