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
American Bar Association Sues to End Trump 'Law Firm Intimidation Policy'
"There has never been a more urgent time for the ABA to defend its members, our profession and the rule of law itself," said the group's president.
Jun 16, 2025
The American Bar Association sued U.S. President Donald Trump's administration in a Washington, D.C. federal court on Monday over what the ABA called his "law firm intimidation policy."
"Since taking office earlier this year, President Trump has used the vast powers of the executive branch to coerce lawyers and law firms to abandon clients, causes, and policy positions the president does not like," states the ABA complaint, which names various entities and leaders in the administration as defendants.
The document lays out how the administration has carried out this policy using "executive orders designed to severely damage particular law firms and intimidate other firms and lawyers," as well as "'deals' or 'settlements' between the administration and certain law firms in order to avoid such orders or have them rescinded."
Trump's administration has also relied on "other related executive orders, letters, and memoranda," and "public statements by the president and his administration publicizing the objectives of the law firm intimidation policy," the complaint details. "The president's attacks on law firms through the faw firm orders are thus not isolated events, but one component of a broader, deliberate policy designed to intimidate and coerce law firms and lawyers to refrain from challenging the president or his administration in court, or from even speaking publicly in support of policies or causes that the president does not like."
The filing stresses that "without skilled lawyers to bring and argue cases—and to do so by advancing the interests of their clients without fear of reprisal from the government—the judiciary cannot function as a meaningful check on executive overreach."
Some firms are already fighting back against Trump's attacks, which the ABA called "unprecedented and uniquely dangerous to the rule of law." As Bloombergdetailed Monday:
Three firms hit with executive orders—Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, and WilmerHale—later obtained permanent injunctions against the executive orders, with judges striking them down as unconstitutional. Susman has obtained a temporary injunction and is awaiting a ruling on a request for a final decision.
Nine other firms have pledged a total of nearly $1 billion in free legal services as part of deals to avoid similar orders. They committed to working on causes championed by Trump, including combating antisemitism, assisting veterans, and ensuring fairness" in the justice system.
After powerhouse firm Paul Weiss struck a deal with Trump, eight others—A&O Shearman, Cadwalader, Kirkland & Ellis, Latham & Watkins, Milbank, Simpson Thacher, Skadden Arps, and Wilkie Farr—followed suit. The firms have faced intense criticism for the agreements.
Meanwhile, as the ABA filing points out, "public reporting demonstrates that the chill on the legal profession—and particularly on 'Big Law' firms—has not been relieved by these favorable rulings. 504 law firms filed an amicus brief in support of Perkins' motion for summary judgment. As was widely reported, though, none of the top 25 U.S. law firms by revenue signed the brief, and fewer than 10 of the top 100 firms (the AmLaw 100) signed."
"By the time Susman filed its motion for summary judgment, four different judges had enjoined executive orders targeting law firms as likely unconstitutional," the complaint adds. "Yet still, fewer than 10 of the AmLaw 100 firms signed the brief in support of Susman, and none of the top 25 firms did."
The complaint also highlights other impacts, including that "many attorneys are no longer willing to take on representations that would require suing the federal government," and "others have dropped ongoing representations; ended their participation in
contemplated cases; or declined representations—even of clients with whom they had longstanding prior attorney-client relationships—not because the merits of the case were weak or the attorney had some substantive objection to taking the case, but because the representation was deemed too likely to result in severe retaliation from the president."
"Public interest attorneys who rely on their partnership with and representation by law firms—particularly in time- and resource-intensive pro bono cases—have not brought cases that they otherwise would have because their choice of counsel has been compromised," the filing says. "Still others have abstained from expression related to their prior representations that they would otherwise have engaged in, or even removed existing writings related to past representations from the public sphere."
"And those attorneys who do intend to proceed with work disfavored by the president now do so under the objective threat of potentially devastating retaliation pursuant to the policy, with all the severe harm, expense, and distraction that accompany such threat," the document warns. "All such harms are already happening; are ongoing; and will continue in the absence of relief from the court."
While the White House hasn't yet commented on ABA v. Executive Office of the President et al., William R. Bay, president of the association, said in a Monday statement that "this is the time to stand up, speak out and seek relief from our courts... There has never been a more urgent time for the ABA to defend its members, our profession, and the rule of law itself."
This is not the legal group's only case against the administration. Bloomberg noted that "the ABA earlier this year laid off one-third of its workforce after the Trump administration cut $69 million of its grant funding. The organization is waging another suit against the Justice Department as it tries to cut another $3.2 million in federal grants."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Unprecedented Mass Deployment' of Warplanes Across Atlantic Fuels Fears of US War on Iran
"You don't spin up this kind of skyward muscle just to flex," said one observer.
Jun 16, 2025
Flight-tracking websites showed dozens of Air Force aerial refueling planes departing from military bases in the United States and heading to Europe on Sunday, fueling speculation of direct U.S. involvement in the widening Israeli-Iranian war.
Military-focused news sites reported that around 30 U.S. Air Force KC-135R and KC-46A tankers were identified by flight-tracking software in what The Times of Israelcalled an "unprecedented mass deployment" to Europe.
According toThe Aviationist:
Most of these aircraft landed this morning at Ramstein Air Base in Germany and at Morón Air Base and [Naval Air Station] Rota in Spain, while two landed at Aviano Air Base in Italy and at least one landed at Prestwick International Airport in the U.K. At the time of writing, some tankers are in flight over the Balkans, headed south, possibly towards Souda Bay in Greece or Incirlik in Turkey.
"While tanker movements in this direction are far from abnormal, such a large, near-simultaneous migration of the jets was very peculiar, especially at a time of extreme crisis in the Middle East," The War Zone's Tyler Rogoway wrote Monday. "The exact reason for the mass deployment is unclear, although many of the potential answers would indicate a change, or preparations for a potential change, in the current conflict between Israel and Iran."
Speaking on condition of anonymity, two U.S. officials toldReuters Monday that the tankers are being deployed to provide the administration of President Donald Trump with flexibility to act in the Middle East. Military experts said the deployment could portend expanded U.S. support for Israel's war on Iran or even American strikes against the country.
The Trump administration—which recently concluded that Iran is not seeking nuclear weapons—insists that Israel is acting "unilaterally" against its enemy in an effort to prevent it from developing nukes.
However, Trump said Sunday that "it's possible" that U.S. forces could enter the fight. Iran has accused the United States of complicity in Israel's bombing—which Iran says has killed more than 200 people, 90% of whom are civilians—and warned Washington of potential dire consequences if it boosts involvement in the war.
Asked about possible U.S. intervention in the war, Trump told reporters during the Group of Seven (G7) summit in Alberta, Canada on Monday, "I don't want to talk about that."
"We're not involved in it. It's possible we could get involved. But we are not at this moment involved," the president added.
As Reuters noted:
The United States already has a sizable force in the Middle East, with nearly 40,000 troops in the region, including air defense systems, fighter aircraft, and warships that can help bring down missiles.
Last month, the Pentagon replaced B-2 bombers with another type of bomber at a base in the Indo-Pacific that is seen as being an ideal location to operate in the Middle East. The B-52 bombers can carry large bunker-busting munitions, which experts say can be used against Iran's nuclear facilities.
Iran has responded to Israel's bombardment with waves of apparently indiscriminate missile attacks against Israeli cites, killing at least 24 Israeli civilians including women and children and Palestinian citizens of Israel and wounding hundreds of others.
Iranian state media—which was bombed by Israeli forces Monday with reported fatalities—claimed late in the day that Tehran is "preparing for largest and most intense missile attack in history on Israeli soil," even as Iran's government reportedly signaled its willingness to negotiate an end to hostilities if the U.S. guarantees it will not attack.
However, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu subsequently toldABC News that Israel would continue bombing Iran, dismissing Tehran's reported overture as a ruse meant to "lie, cheat, and string the U.S. along."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'War Crime': Iran Demands UN Action After Israeli Bombing of Media Building on Live TV
A regional director of the Committee to Protect Journalists said that "Israel's killing, with impunity, of almost 200 journalists in Gaza has emboldened it to target media elsewhere in the region."
Jun 16, 2025
The Israeli military deliberately bombed the studio of an Iranian state television network during a live broadcast on Monday, an attack that Iran swiftly condemned as a "war crime."
Video footage posted to social media shows the moment the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB) complex was hit by Israeli forces, forcing the anchor to flee for safety as smoke and debris filled the broadcast room.
Watch:
This is the moment Iranian state TV was forced to stop its broadcast after it said it was attacked by an Israeli missile attack in Tehran. pic.twitter.com/7RoUtbCuYL
— Al Jazeera English (@AJEnglish) June 16, 2025
Shortly before the attack, Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz declared that the "Iranian propaganda and incitement mouthpiece is on its way to disappearing."
Katz made clear in a subsequent social media post that the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) intentionally targeted the media building.
"The Iranian regime's propaganda and incitement broadcasting authority was attacked by the IDF after a widespread evacuation of residents in the area," Katz wrote.
"Calling someone a mouthpiece doesn't give you permission to kill them."
The number of casualties from the attack was not immediately clear. Foad Izadi, professor of international relations at the University of Tehran, toldAl Jazeera that the number could be high.
"It's a huge building," said Izadi. "Iran's news channel is located on the first floor. It has four floors, and on every floor you have at least 200-300 people working."
“They were getting ready for the evening program. This is going to result in a lot of civilians—generally young people, young journalists—getting killed," he added. "Calling someone a mouthpiece doesn't give you permission to kill them."
Iran’s state broadcaster, the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB), is up in flames in Tehran.
The building was struck while airing footage of the war. Hours earlier, Israel’s defense minister declared that Iranian TV channels were “on their way to disappearing.” https://t.co/bfhwWWUr7e pic.twitter.com/dY6HPx7Qvq
— Drop Site (@DropSiteNews) June 16, 2025
Targeting journalists and media infrastructure is prohibited under international law—and the use of media facilities for propaganda purposes does not render them legitimate military targets.
The IDF claimed, without providing any evidence, that the targeted building "was being used for military purposes by the Iranian Armed Forces."
Esmaeil Baqaei, a spokesman for the Iranian Foreign Ministry, called the Israeli attack "a wicked act" and a "war crime." He went on to urge the United Nations Security Council to "act now to stop the genocidal aggressor from committing further atrocities against our people."
"The world is watching," he wrote.
Sara Qudah, Middle East and North Africa regional director for the Committee to Protect Journalists, said Monday that the press freedom group is "appalled by Israel's bombing of Iran's state TV channel while live on air."
"Israel's killing, with impunity, of almost 200 journalists in Gaza has emboldened it to target media elsewhere in the region," said Qudah. "This bloodshed must end now."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular