Posts
A Washington school district has agreed to pay $275,000 in attorney’s fees, issue a public apology, and provide religious liberty training to its school board after requiring elementary students participating in an off-campus Bible program to conceal their religious materials.
Apparently, the Constitution’s protection of religious freedom became a little too inconvenient for the people running the local schools.
Everett Public Schools reached the settlement with LifeWise Academy following a federal lawsuit challenging restrictions imposed on the nonprofit’s voluntary Bible instruction program. The agreement requires the district to keep its public apology on its website for six months, giving taxpayers plenty of time to appreciate what their money has accomplished.
According to First Liberty Institute, which represented LifeWise alongside Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP, the district imposed weekly parental reauthorization requirements, excluded LifeWise from community events and flyer displays, and required students to keep Bibles and other materials from the program sealed inside their backpacks.
LifeWise provides privately funded religious instruction off school property during the school day with parental permission. The program apparently presented a serious administrative challenge for school officials: allowing parents to make religious choices for their own children without the district getting in the way.
The dispute became even more revealing when school board member Charles Adkins publicly announced his feelings about the organization.
“I want to make it very, extremely, abundantly clear, that yes, I do in fact hold animus toward LifeWise Academy.”
Subtlety may not have been his strong suit, but at least nobody had to guess where he stood.
The case had already produced an April 24 preliminary injunction from US District Judge Lauren King, who granted the plaintiffs’ request in part. Her ruling addressed restrictions extending beyond the requirement that children conceal their Bibles.
The district had demanded that LifeWise remove a photograph of a boy praying from a proposed flyer, claiming it could be viewed as proselytizing. King found that excluding the photograph constituted viewpoint discrimination. Apparently, a photograph of a child praying was too controversial for a school district that was perfectly capable of handling other community announcements.
The court also examined the district’s response to a community member who compared LifeWise to the Nazi Party during an August 2025 school board meeting. Board President Traci Mitchell thanked the commenter and later emailed that the individual’s comments and call for action had been heard. King considered those responses evidence supporting the claim that the district harbored hostility toward LifeWise.
The district argued that Adkins did not speak on its behalf. King nevertheless found his expressed hostility relevant because the school board had a role in approving the guidelines.
That distinction apparently failed to make the problem disappear. When a board helps establish the rules and one of its members openly announces hostility toward the organization affected by those rules, a judge might reasonably want to examine the relationship between the two.
The district’s permission requirements also had consequences for students. The court cited evidence presented by the plaintiffs documenting more than 15 instances, across nearly a dozen occasions, in which children were prevented from attending LifeWise because of the new rules.
School officials defended their restrictions by arguing that materials students brought back from the program caused classroom disruptions. King questioned that justification, describing the reports in the record as few, vague, and secondhand. The court also noted the absence of an explanation as to whether officials had first attempted to address the alleged disruptions by admonishing the students involved.
In other words, the district imposed burdens on a religious program and its participants without presenting particularly convincing evidence that the restrictions were necessary.
The preliminary injunction required the district to provide LifeWise with equal access to community fairs and printed-flyer displays. It also required a semester-long parental permission option identifying authorized dates and adults, along with permission for the children of plaintiff Sarah Sweeny to read LifeWise materials when other nonacademic reading was allowed.
The district has now agreed to settle the lawsuit and issue a public apology acknowledging the consequences of its policies.
In its statement, Everett Public Schools admitted that its implementation of the policies created difficulties for participating families, particularly regarding student release procedures and the handling of religious materials. The district also acknowledged that comments made at school board meetings, including remarks from board members, had been offensive and hurtful.
“We recognize that these statements negatively affected the exercise of your faith,” the district stated.
The apology was signed by Superintendent Ian Saltzman and all five school board members. The district said the settlement would avoid prolonged litigation and further expenditures of public resources while ensuring compliance with its constitutional obligations to students and families.
The payment will come from the district’s general fund, according to The Everett Herald. The school board approved the settlement on October 13 without admitting wrongdoing.
So taxpayers will cover $275,000 in legal fees, the district will publish an apology, and its school board will receive religious liberty training. All because officials managed to turn children attending voluntary Bible instruction into a policy problem serious enough to attract federal litigation.
The First Amendment does not require public schools to endorse Christianity. It does, however, prevent government officials from treating religious expression as an unwelcome nuisance simply because they dislike its message.
That distinction should not require a federal judge, a costly lawsuit, and a six-month public apology to explain it to the people entrusted with educating children.
Hey patriots! Please take time to give a click on the ads on this page--it's one way to support my work and you don't need to purchase anything just to look. Of course, you can Buy Me A Coffee at any amount if you want to support me directly, but no pressure. And finally, consider subscribing if you enjoy the blog--it's free, and totally worth the cost.
Tweet
Everett Public Schools reached the settlement with LifeWise Academy following a federal lawsuit challenging restrictions imposed on the nonprofit’s voluntary Bible instruction program. The agreement requires the district to keep its public apology on its website for six months, giving taxpayers plenty of time to appreciate what their money has accomplished.
According to First Liberty Institute, which represented LifeWise alongside Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP, the district imposed weekly parental reauthorization requirements, excluded LifeWise from community events and flyer displays, and required students to keep Bibles and other materials from the program sealed inside their backpacks.
LifeWise provides privately funded religious instruction off school property during the school day with parental permission. The program apparently presented a serious administrative challenge for school officials: allowing parents to make religious choices for their own children without the district getting in the way.
The dispute became even more revealing when school board member Charles Adkins publicly announced his feelings about the organization.
“I want to make it very, extremely, abundantly clear, that yes, I do in fact hold animus toward LifeWise Academy.”
Subtlety may not have been his strong suit, but at least nobody had to guess where he stood.
The case had already produced an April 24 preliminary injunction from US District Judge Lauren King, who granted the plaintiffs’ request in part. Her ruling addressed restrictions extending beyond the requirement that children conceal their Bibles.
The district had demanded that LifeWise remove a photograph of a boy praying from a proposed flyer, claiming it could be viewed as proselytizing. King found that excluding the photograph constituted viewpoint discrimination. Apparently, a photograph of a child praying was too controversial for a school district that was perfectly capable of handling other community announcements.
The court also examined the district’s response to a community member who compared LifeWise to the Nazi Party during an August 2025 school board meeting. Board President Traci Mitchell thanked the commenter and later emailed that the individual’s comments and call for action had been heard. King considered those responses evidence supporting the claim that the district harbored hostility toward LifeWise.
The district argued that Adkins did not speak on its behalf. King nevertheless found his expressed hostility relevant because the school board had a role in approving the guidelines.
That distinction apparently failed to make the problem disappear. When a board helps establish the rules and one of its members openly announces hostility toward the organization affected by those rules, a judge might reasonably want to examine the relationship between the two.
The district’s permission requirements also had consequences for students. The court cited evidence presented by the plaintiffs documenting more than 15 instances, across nearly a dozen occasions, in which children were prevented from attending LifeWise because of the new rules.
School officials defended their restrictions by arguing that materials students brought back from the program caused classroom disruptions. King questioned that justification, describing the reports in the record as few, vague, and secondhand. The court also noted the absence of an explanation as to whether officials had first attempted to address the alleged disruptions by admonishing the students involved.
In other words, the district imposed burdens on a religious program and its participants without presenting particularly convincing evidence that the restrictions were necessary.
The preliminary injunction required the district to provide LifeWise with equal access to community fairs and printed-flyer displays. It also required a semester-long parental permission option identifying authorized dates and adults, along with permission for the children of plaintiff Sarah Sweeny to read LifeWise materials when other nonacademic reading was allowed.
The district has now agreed to settle the lawsuit and issue a public apology acknowledging the consequences of its policies.
In its statement, Everett Public Schools admitted that its implementation of the policies created difficulties for participating families, particularly regarding student release procedures and the handling of religious materials. The district also acknowledged that comments made at school board meetings, including remarks from board members, had been offensive and hurtful.
“We recognize that these statements negatively affected the exercise of your faith,” the district stated.
The apology was signed by Superintendent Ian Saltzman and all five school board members. The district said the settlement would avoid prolonged litigation and further expenditures of public resources while ensuring compliance with its constitutional obligations to students and families.
The payment will come from the district’s general fund, according to The Everett Herald. The school board approved the settlement on October 13 without admitting wrongdoing.
So taxpayers will cover $275,000 in legal fees, the district will publish an apology, and its school board will receive religious liberty training. All because officials managed to turn children attending voluntary Bible instruction into a policy problem serious enough to attract federal litigation.
The First Amendment does not require public schools to endorse Christianity. It does, however, prevent government officials from treating religious expression as an unwelcome nuisance simply because they dislike its message.
That distinction should not require a federal judge, a costly lawsuit, and a six-month public apology to explain it to the people entrusted with educating children.
Hey patriots! Please take time to give a click on the ads on this page--it's one way to support my work and you don't need to purchase anything just to look. Of course, you can Buy Me A Coffee at any amount if you want to support me directly, but no pressure. And finally, consider subscribing if you enjoy the blog--it's free, and totally worth the cost.
No comments:
Post a Comment