SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
For Immediate Release
May, 08 2009, 01:59pm EDT
Contact:
Will Matthews, ACLU National, (212) 549-2582 or 2666; media@aclu.org
Brandon Hensler, ACLU of Florida, (786) 363-2737; media@aclufl.org
Federal Judge Approves Order Requiring Santa Rosa, FL Schools To Abide By First Amendment
ACLU Lawsuit Results In Consent Decree Ensuring Religious Freedom For All Students
PENSACOLA, FL
A
federal judge today made public a consent decree requiring school
officials in Santa Rosa County, Florida to stop promoting their
personal religious beliefs in public schools.
The consent decree is the result of
a lawsuit filed last year by the American Civil Liberties Union and the
ACLU of Florida on behalf of two Pace High School students who alleged
that school officials regularly promoted religion and led prayers at
school events. Among other things, it prohibits school officials from
promoting or endorsing prayers during school functions and organizing
school-sponsored religious services.
"The court has ensured that
decisions about religion will be left in the hands of families and
faith communities and not public school officials," said Benjamin
Stevenson, an ACLU of Florida staff attorney based in Pensacola who led
the case. "Religious freedom is best promoted when the government stays
out of religion. Now, students and their families can feel comfortable
holding and expressing their own religious beliefs, knowing that school
officials will no longer impose their particular religious beliefs on
students at school. This is a truly victorious day for the Constitution
and for religious freedom in Florida."
The ACLU lawsuit was filed in August
2008 and charged school officials with committing widespread violations
of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution. After months of litigation and discovery, the school
board, the superintendant and the principal filed an "Admission of
Liability" with the court, owning up to the district-wide
constitutional violations.
Following the school board's
admission, ACLU attorneys worked closely with district officials to
develop an accord that would bring the school district into compliance
with the U.S. and Florida Constitutions. The resulting consent decree,
signed by U.S. District Court Judge M.C. Rodgers, states that:
* School officials' promotion of
their personal religious beliefs in school and at school functions
violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment and the "no
aid" provision of the Florida Constitution;
* School officials are
permanently prohibited from promoting, advancing, endorsing,
participating in or causing prayers during or in conjunction with
school events;
* School officials are
permanently prohibited from planning, organizing, financing, promoting
or sponsoring religious services, including baccalaureate services;
* School officials are
permanently prohibited from holding school events at a religious venue
when an alternative secular venue is reasonably suitable;
* School officials are
permanently prohibited from promoting their personal religious beliefs
to students in class or during a school event;
* The district shall pay damages to both plaintiffs in the amount of $1.00; and
* School officials shall comply with the Federal Equal Access Act.
"The parties' agreement and the
court's order go a long way toward securing religious liberty in Santa
Rosa County public schools," said Daniel Mach, Director of Litigation
for the ACLU Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief. "In our
constitutional system, students and parents should have the right to
practice their faith - or no faith at all - without school officials
endorsing or promoting any particular religious viewpoints."
The order also requires that school officials distribute it to all district employees.
Attorneys on the case are Mach and
Heather Weaver from the ACLU Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief,
and Stevenson, Glenn Katon, Randall Marshall and Maria Kayanan of the
ACLU of Florida.
A copy of the consent decree is available online at: www.aclu.org/religion/schools/39547lgl20090508.html
Additional information about the ACLU Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief is available online at: www.aclu.org/religion/index.html
Additional information about the ACLU of Florida is available online at: www.aclufl.org
The American Civil Liberties Union was founded in 1920 and is our nation's guardian of liberty. The ACLU works in the courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to all people in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States.
(212) 549-2666LATEST NEWS
House GOP Accused of 'Waging War on America's Wildlife' With Proposed Spending Cuts
"This budget proposal shows yet again the extremes to which anti-wildlife members of Congress will go to sacrifice endangered species," said one conservationist.
Jul 14, 2025
As Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives begin work on spending legislation for fiscal year 2026, conservationists and congressional Democrats are blasting a key appropriations bill released Monday.
"House Republicans are once again waging war on America's wildlife in yet another giveaway to their industry allies," said Stephanie Kurose, deputy director of government affairs at the Center for Biological Diversity, in a statement. "Extinction isn't inevitable, it's a political choice. The Appropriations Committee has one job to do, which is to fund the government, not decide whether our most vulnerable animals get to survive."
The bill that the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Subcommittee is set to consider on Tuesday morning would not only slash funding for the U.S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)—by 23%—and the Fish and Wildlife Service, but also strip Endangered Species Act (ESA) protections from animals including gray wolves, the center noted.
"This budget proposal shows yet again the extremes to which anti-wildlife members of Congress will go to sacrifice endangered species," declared Robert Dewey, vice president of government relations at Defenders of Wildlife. "The bill is loaded with riders that attack the Endangered Species Act and would put some of America's most iconic species, including the grizzly bear and wolverine, at serious risk of extinction."
"The bill and all who support it are compromising the crucial habitats, outdoor recreation areas, and natural resources that Americans and wildlife rely on."
The legislation would block funding for listing the greater sage-grouse as well as money to protect the northern long-eared bat, the lesser prairie-chicken, and captive fish listed under the ESA. It would also block the Biden administration's rules for the landmark law.
"By blocking protections for public lands while also providing short-sighted lease sales for the benefit of oil and gas corporations, the bill and all who support it are compromising the crucial habitats, outdoor recreation areas, and natural resources that Americans and wildlife rely on," Dewey said.
Democrats on the committee put out a statement highlighting that, along with attacking wildlife, worsening the fossil fuel-driven climate emergency, and jeopardizing public health by favoring polluters, the GOP legislation would hike utility bills, promote environmental discrimination against rural and poor communities, and cut national park funding.
"With the release of the FY26 Interior bill, it's clear House Republicans are once again pushing an agenda that accelerates the climate crisis, upends our national parks system, and leaves local communities to fend for themselves—all while undermining the power of the Appropriations Committee and of Congress," said Rep. Chellie Pingree (D-Maine), ranking member on the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Subcommittee.
"We are still living with the fallout of last year's failure to negotiate a full-year funding bill. Instead of correcting course, the bill released today delivers more of the same: It cuts water infrastructure funding, slashes EPA programs, and wipes out environmental justice and climate initiatives. It even blocks the EPA from completing its risk assessment on PFAS in sewage sludge," she continued, referring to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, also called forever chemicals. "On top of the environmental attacks, Republicans are taking aim at the arts and cultural institutions that enrich communities and drive local economies."
Pingree asserted that "any arguments that these irresponsible cuts are somehow fiscally responsible ring hollow in the wake of Republicans adding $3.4 trillion to the national deficit thanks to their disastrous so-called 'One Big Beautiful Bill.' I urge my Republican colleagues to come to the table and support the essential work of this subcommittee: Protecting public health, conserving our lands and waters, investing in resilience, and ensuring that every community—from rural Maine to urban centers—has access to a healthy environment and a vibrant cultural life."
House Appropriations Committee Ranking Member Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) pointed out that President Donald Trump "promised to address the cost-of-living crisis, but instead, he and House Republicans are making it worse."
"House Republicans' 2026 Interior funding bill raises utility bills and energy prices to benefit billionaires and big corporations," DeLauro said. "Republicans are threatening the air we breathe and the water we drink and taking steps that damage our public lands, promote dirty energy, and hinder our ability to confront the climate crisis."
"In addition to these dangerous cuts, Republicans' proposal would mean fewer trips to national parks and less access to museums and the arts," she warned. "House Republicans are more focused on lining the pockets of big oil companies than lowering prices for working-class, middle-class, rural, and vulnerable families; protecting our public health; and preserving the planet."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Dems Denounce Trump Official for Hiding Social Security Service Metrics
"The agency's removal of comprehensive customer service data calls into question whether this administration seeks to hide from the public the negative customer service impacts of its staffing cuts," said reads a letter led by Rep. Judy Chu.
Jul 14, 2025
As the Trump administration pushes to cut 7,000 jobs held by federal employees at the Social Security Administration, the agency that oversees the crucial anti-poverty program for senior citizens and people with disabilities has made numerous efforts to disguise the customer service crisis that the cuts have caused—and Democrats on Monday demanded answers about what one progressive lawmaker recently denounced as a "cover up" to hide long wait times.
U.S. Rep. Judy Chu (D-Calif.) led 18 Democratic members of the House Ways and Means Committee in writing to Social Security Commissioner Frank Bisignano, urging the former Wall Street executive to explain why several customer service metrics were deleted from the SSA's website just as Americans were facing longer wait times and a reduced ability to speak with customer service representatives rather than having their claims and questions handled through automation.
Chu spearheaded the letter weeks after the SSA stopped publishing more than 30 metrics related to the performance of its 1-800 number, retirement claims processing times, and disability decision reconsideration wait times.
"Early last month SSA abruptly removed that comprehensive menu of data from its website and replaced it with a new webpage that provides much more limited and sometimes misleading information on the agency's customer service performance," wrote the Democrats. "We are concerned that this new menu is far less helpful for our constituents in knowing what to expect when interacting with SSA."
In addition to omitting crucial information about how long retirees and people with disabilities can expect to wait to receive their benefits or to talk to a representative, Chu noted that the metrics that are currently shown "seem designed to pressure beneficiaries to use online tools instead of talking to live people, an option that simply doesn't work for all beneficiaries, especially the very old and people in rural areas with poor Internet access."
"The agency's removal of comprehensive customer service data calls into question whether this administration seeks to hide from the public the negative customer service impacts of its staffing cuts," reads the letter.
"Early last month SSA abruptly removed that comprehensive menu of data from its website and replaced it with a new webpage that provides much more limited and sometimes misleading information on the agency's customer service performance."
The letter was sent days after The Washington Post reported that the SSA is pulling staff from its field offices to act as customer service representatives for its 1-800 number following a surge in complaints about dropped calls and website crashes.
That change is likely to slow down responses to complicated claims cases that are often handled by field office staff, Jessica LaPointe, president of Council 220 of the American Federation of Government Employees, told the Post.
"So it's just going to create a vicious cycle of work not getting cleared, people calling for status on work that's sitting because the claims specialists now are going to have to pick up the slack of the customer service representatives that are redeployed to the teleservice centers," LaPointe said last week.
Alex Lawson, executive director of the advocacy group Social Security Works, told the Post last month as the metrics were deleted from the SSA website that the Trump administration's attempts to conceal the effects of its mass layoffs would not succeed.
"People notice when they can't get an appointment because their local field office has lost half its staff. When checks and decisions are delayed. When they get the runaround from an AI chatbot on the phone, instead of getting to talk to a real person," said Lawson.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) criticized the agency for "playing musical chairs to try and fill in the gaps" and suggested Bisignano "stop gutting the critical workforce that helps Americans every single day."
Chu and the other Ways and Means Committee Democrats emphasized that the agency recently restored one metric to its new website: a chart showing the six-year trend of disability determination processing times.
"That the agency chose to cherry pick and restore only this metric," they wrote, "and not any of the others that had been removed, only deepens our concern about why your agency continues to keep hidden certain metrics that had previously been publicly available."
The Democrats demanded that the SSA restore "all the robust public data that the agency had previously reported prior to June 2025, including historical data, and to regularly update that data."
Keep ReadingShow Less
After Passage of GOP Medicaid Cuts, Congress Debates Nearly $1 Trillion Military Budget
In a closed-door session last week, senators advanced legislation that would authorize $925 billion in military spending for the coming fiscal year.
Jul 14, 2025
Fresh off the passage of a Republican budget measure that includes more than $1 trillion in cuts to Medicaid over the next decade, Congress this week is set to consider legislation that would authorize close to that same amount for the U.S. military for the coming fiscal year.
The House Armed Services Committee, controlled by Republicans, will mark up its version of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) on Tuesday. In a closed-door session late last week, the Senate Armed Services Committee advanced its military spending authorization package, which has a topline of roughly $925 billion for Fiscal Year 2026—an increase of around $30 billion compared to the current fiscal year.
Unlike the GOP reconciliation package that President Donald Trump signed into law earlier this month, the NDAA is likely to clear Congress with bipartisan support. Just one Democrat on the Senate armed services panel—Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.)—voted against advancing the legislation out of committee last week.
Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.), the top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, called the NDAA "a critical, bipartisan measure that ensures our military remains prepared to meet the growing and complex challenges of a dangerous world."
The $925 billion Senate NDAA topline does not include the more than $150 billion Pentagon boost that Republicans inserted in their partisan reconciliation package for fiscal year 2025, pushing the nation's approved military spending above $1 trillion for the year. Trump has openly bragged about his push for a $1 trillion military budget.
"This militarized MAGA agenda harms working families and our communities," Lindsay Koshgarian and Hanna Homestead of the National Priorities Project said following passage of the GOP reconciliation bill. "It will be paid for with cuts to programs that help people meet their basic needs and will disproportionately benefit private contractors, further enrich billionaires, and exacerbate waste, fraud, and abuse of taxpayer dollars."
U.S. Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) asked Monday, "How do we always find money for war but never enough money for the children, the poor, and the hungry?"
Breaking Defense noted that the Senate NDAA proposes "an increase of Air Force F-35 procurement from 24 to 34 jets—a sum that, if enacted, would take the [Pentagon's] annual total to 57 jets." Watchdogs have long described the F-35 program as a ridiculous boondoggle.
Lawmakers are set to consider another increase in annual military spending following the release of a report estimating that more than half of the Pentagon's discretionary spending between 2020 and 2024 went to private contractors.
The report, released by the Costs of War Project and the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, notes that "the arms industry has used an array of tools of influence to create an atmosphere where a Pentagon budget that is $1 trillion per year is deemed 'not enough' by some members of Congress." Such tools include lobbying and sizable campaign contributions.
"The vast bulk of the arms industry's campaign contributions go to candidates for Congress," the report observes. "The industry favors incumbents, and concentrates much of its giving to members of the armed services committees and defense appropriations subcommittees in the House and Senate—the members with the strongest role in shaping the Pentagon budget."
This story has been updated to include comment from Rep. Ilhan Omar.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular