A win for free speech in Idaho
Progress.
The University of Idaho ought to be ashamed of itself.
It shouldn’t require the direct intervention of a federal judge for a public university to protect its faculty and student body from rank discrimination, yet here we are.
The University of Idaho lost a major free speech and religious freedom case recently after a federal judge ruled in favor of the three Christian law school students at the center of the suit. Specifically, Judge David Nye, the U.S. District Judge for the District of Idaho, granted a preliminary injunction in favor of the students who were issued “no contact orders” by the university after they expressed basic religious views and defended the Christian organization of which they were a part. University of Idaho Professor Richard Seamon, who is the faculty adviser for the group called the Christian Legal Society, was also “made the subject of such an order,” according to attorney Jonathan Turley.
What’s genuinely remarkable, after you learn the details of the case, is just how clear-cut the situation is. This wasn’t a case in which both parties brought reasonable arguments before the court, each of which required careful weighing by the judge. It’s a black-and-white situation all the way down. The university was absolutely in the wrong, and the plaintiffs were absolutely in the right.
For an explanation of what happened, and the thinking behind the judge’s ruling, it’s best we turn to the text of the opinion itself. You'd be hard-pressed to find a more succinct yet thorough accounting:
On April 1, 2022, the law school at the University of Idaho held a 'moment of community' in response to an anti-LGBTQ+ slur that had been left anonymously on a whiteboard in one of its classrooms in Boise, Idaho. Students, faculty, and staff from the law school gathered in front of the Moscow, Idaho, campus to express support for all students.
Plaintiffs were present at the event. Plaintiffs Perlot, Miller, and Alexander are law students and members of the University’s chapter of the Christian Legal Society ('CLS'). Plaintiff Seamon is a professor at the law school and the CLS faculty advisor. At the event, Plaintiffs gathered in prayer—with members of their society and others—in a showing of support for the LGBTQ+ community. After the prayer concluded, Jane Doe approached the group and asked those present why the CLS constitution affirms that marriage is between one man and one woman. Plaintiff Miller explained that CLS adhered to the traditional biblical view of marriage and sexuality—including the concept that marriage is defined as being between one man and one woman. Jane Doe expressed her opinion that the Bible did not support such a conclusion. Miller explained further that the Bible defines marriage as between one man and one woman in several places and that it condemns homosexuality—along with all other sins. Plaintiff Seamon purportedly affirmed Miller’s explanation of CLS’s position on marriage.
According to both sides, the parties then parted ways without further comment. Shortly after the event, Plaintiff Perlot left a handwritten note on Jane Doe’s carrel. The note read—in its entirety: 'I’m the president of CLS this semester. Feel free to come talk to me if you have anything you need to say or questions you want to ask. I’m usually in my carrel: 6-034. over by the windows. Peter [smiley face].'
A few days later, on April 4, 2022, Plaintiffs Perlot and Alexander attended an event with other students regarding the American Bar Association’s accreditation of the law school. According to Plaintiffs, Jane Doe and others raised concerns about CLS and its members—namely that they held religious beliefs that were bigoted and anti-LGBTQ+. Plaintiff Alexander then spoke up, defended CLS, and stated that the biggest instance of discrimination he had seen on campus was actually against CLS and the administration’s failure to timely recognize and register it as a group.
That same day, several students staged 'walkouts' for two of the courses taught by Plaintiff Seamon—seemingly in response to his participation at the event on April 1. Also on April 4, Defendant Lindsay Ewan—Deputy Director of OCRI—interviewed Miller about the events that took place during the law school’s community event on April 1. Three days later, on April 7, 2022, Plaintiffs Perlot, Miller, and Alexander received no-contact orders from OCRI. Apparently, Jane Doe reported to OCRI that Plaintiffs’ actions at the events described above left her feeling 'targeted and unsafe.' The no-contact orders prohibit Plaintiffs from having any contact with Jane Doe unless they receive advance permission from OCRI. The orders apply on and off campus, do not have termination dates, and state that '[a]ny action deemed to be in violation of this no contact order will be taken seriously and considered retaliation. Further action may be taken by this administration as a result, which could include suspension or expulsion.'
Plaintiffs apparently tried to resolve these issues with the University themselves and then with the aid of legal counsel, but to no avail. This lawsuit followed.
Put more plainly, the university failed utterly to extend even basic protections and respect for the views held by the Christian law students and faculty member. The plaintiffs were railroaded by vindictive peers and discriminatory administrators even despite repeated efforts by the Christian students to maintain comity and facilitate open discussion. The plaintiffs even tried to avoid suing!