Ongoing Lawsuits

FFRF sues over Pennsylvania ‘Year of Bible’

FFRF filed suit challenging a declaration by the Pennsylvania House that 2012 is "The Year of the Bible." FFRF brought suit on behalf of its 599 Pennsylvania members, including 41 named state members, and its chapter, Nittany Freethought. The federal lawsuit was filed March 26, 2012, in U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. Defendants are State Rep. Rick Saccone, author of the resolution, Clancy Myer, House Parliamentarian and Anthony Frank Barbush, House Chief Clerk. “FFRF's membership includes individuals residing in Pennsylvania who have had direct and unwanted exposure to the Year of the Bible Resolution and the hostile environment created thereby as a result of the official declaration of a state religion by the Pennsylvania Legislature,” notes the legal complaint. Members include “individuals [who] oppose governmental speech endorsing religion because they are made to feel as if they are political outsiders.” The bible “contains violent, sexist and racist models of behavior that FFRF members find personally repugnant, and which potentially could encourage persons who rely on them to act in a manner harmful to them and others.” HR 535 sends a message of Christian endorsement and disparagement to nonbelievers. “HR 535 improperly proclaims the bible to be ‘the word of God,’ . . . the Pennsylvania House of Representatives has no such authority or right to determine what is ‘the word of God,’ or if there is a ‘word of God,’ or if there is a ‘God’,” maintains FFRF. Our nation is not founded on religious belief or a bible, but upon “a secular and godless Constitution, which grants sovereignty not to a deity or a ‘holy book,’ but to ‘We the People.’ ”

FFRF asks the court to find that HR 535 violates the Establishment Clause, to order defendants to discontinue further publication and distribution of HR 535, to declare that public officials in Pennsylvania are indeed subject to the Establishment Clause, to declare that the theocratic principles of the bible do not constitute the ”official, preferred or endorsed religion” of the state, and to declare that the government is not “Judeo-Christian.”

Legal complaint 
Read News Release

Back to top ↑

FFRF challenges Catholic shrine on Big Mountain

FFRF filed suit in U.S. District Court in Montana, challenging the Forest Service's decision to renew a special permit for a "shrine to our Lord Jesus Christ" on federal property in the Rockies. The Knights of Columbus, a conservative Roman Catholic men's club, has placed a devotional shrine on Big Mountain near Whitefish Mountain's Resort Chair Two in Flathead National Forest, in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution.

Legal complaint
Read News Release

Back to top ↑

FFRF challenges Arizona Day of Prayer in state court (Jan. 4, 2012)

FFRF, its Valley of the Sun Chapter and several members as well as plaintiffs who are Buddhist, Christian and Muslim, filed a lawsuit on Jan. 4, 2012, in state court, challenging the constitutionality of Arizona Gov. Janice K. Brewer's annual Arizona Day of Prayer. The lawsuit was filed in Superior court of Arizona, County of Maricopa.

Legal complaint (pdf)
Summons (pdf)

Back to top ↑

FFRF sues Warren mayor over crèche display (Dec. 22, 2011)

On behalf of a local member, the Freedom From Religion Foundation filed a federal lawsuit on Dec. 22, 2011, in the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, charging Mayor James R. Fouts, of Warren, Mich., with government censorship of its nonreligious views and unlawful endorsement of religion. FFRF sought a preliminary injunction to enjoin the mayor from continuing to establish religion “by allowing public displays of only religious symbols” and to order him to allow placement of FFRF’s Winter Solstice display. The lawsuit, FFRF v. City of Warren, was filed by the firm of Butzel Long in Bloomfield Hills, Mich., which is representing both FFRF and its member plaintiff pro bono. FFRF alleges censorship, establishment of Christianity and denial of equal protection under the law by the city of Warren.

The mayor responded to a demand letter sent by attorney Danielle Hessell with a letter that called FFRF’s sign “highly offensive.”

Fouts, amusingly, compared FFRF’s request to place its sign saying "There are no gods" to putting up a “sandwich board saying that there is no Santa Claus.” Fouts stated: “I cannot and will not sanction the desecration of religion it the Warren City hall atrium.”

The legal complaint summarizes the chronology of the mayor’s endorsement of religion and censorship of the views of FFRF and its member Douglas Marshall of Warren, a named plaintiff. FFRF complained about the nativity display in the city hall atrium more than a year ago, eventually receiving a response on Dec. 8, 2010, in which Fouts wrote that “all religions are welcome to celebrate their religious seasons with a display in city hall.” Marshall tried in vain repeatedly to obtain permission to place the FFRF sign in the city hall atrium.The complaint called Fouts’ denial of a permit to Marshall “an unconstitutional, content-based restriction on plaintiffs’ expression in a traditional public forum.” As the Supreme Court has held, “a principle at the heart of the Establishment Clause [is] that government should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to irreligion.” The mayor’s preference for the nativity display, and discriminatory practice against the plaintiffs also denies them equal protection under the law.

“As a result, Defendants send a clear message to Plaintiffs that they are outsiders and not full members of the political community, and an accompanying message that those who favor the Christian religion are insiders and favored members of the political community," charges the Complaint.

FFRF asks the court to enjoin the mayor from barring the FFRF sign, to find that the city has violated the rights of FFRF and its member, and to award nominal damages and reasonable attorney’s fees.

Legal Complaint

Injunction

Back to top ↑

FFRF sues Tennessee town over crosses (Dec. 9, 2011)

The Freedom From Religion Foundation filed a federal lawsuit against the Town of Whiteville, Tenn., and its mayor, James Bellar, to force him to remove crosses on the Whiteville water tower, in front of Whiteville City Hall and on the city-owned sidewalk. FFRF began complaining about a prominent lighted cross atop its water tower a year agoon behalf of an area resident offended by the town's message of endorsement of Christianity. After writing three unanswered letters of complaint, FFRF, with Tennessee attorney Alvin Harris, sent a letter of demand on Sept. 29, 2011, warning Bellar if he didn't move the cross, FFRF would sue by the end of the month. Bellar announced on Oct. 3 that he would move the cross, although he referred to FFRF and its members as "terrorists" in local media reports. On Oct. 17, Bellar told reporter Daniel Wilkerson, WBBJ-TV in Jackson, Tenn., that "Somebody has to stand up to these atheist sons of bitches, and you can quote me on that." In late October, Bellar used nearly $4,000 in taxpayer money to hire a crane service to inexplicably break one arm of the cross. Then Bellar began lighting what remained of the cross. On or about Nov. 28, 2011, the town installed two large crosses in front of Whiteville City hall. On or around Nov. 30, defendants decorated the crosses with Christmas wreathes. FFRF is suing on behalf of a member who regularly comes into unwelcome contact with the town displays of crosses. 

FFRF v. Town of Whiteville Legal Complaint 

Defendant's Answer

Back to top ↑

FFRF, ACLU sue Virginia school over Ten Commandments (Sept. 15, 2011)

The Freedom From Religion Foundation and the American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia filed a federal lawsuit Sept. 13 against the School Board of Giles County, Va., for unconstitutionally endorsing religion by displaying the Ten Commandments. The suit was filed in U.S. District Court in Roanoke on behalf of a student at Narrows High School, Narrows, Va., and the student's parent. The plaintiffs also filed a motion for them to remain anonymous due to the potential for retaliation and for a protective order barring defense counsel and court personnel from disclosing their identities. FFRF first objected to the display in December 2010 when the Commandments were posted in all six county schools. The district responded by taking the displays down, then put them back up after a church congregation and others pressured the board. On advice of legal counsel, they were again later removed. In June, after FFRF and ACLU of Virginia sent a joint letter of objection to another plan to repost the bible edicts, the board voted 3-2 to post them again, with other documents, in the misguided belief that the documents would put the display on stronger legal footing. The display at Narrows High School is in a main hallway where the student plaintiff by necessity encounters it daily. The display "promotes a particular faith to which Doe 1 does not subscribe," the suit charges. "Doe 1 understands the current display to be merely a continuation of the board’s longstanding policy, practice, and custom of promoting the Ten Commandments in the school." Given the public outcry when the Commandments were removed and the clamor for their reinstallation, "any alleged secular purpose for the current displays are, and will be perceived as, a sham," the plaintiffs contend. Hundreds of students wearing Ten Commandments t-shirts walked out of a high school this spring. Other believers crowded school board meetings.

The plaintiffs seek a declaration that the policy and postings are unconstitutional, a permanent injunction prohibiting Giles County Public Schools from displaying the Commandments, nominal damages and attorneys' fees and costs. The Supreme Court ruled in Stone v. Graham that public schools may not post the Ten Commandments. "One has only to read the first commandment, 'Thou shalt have no other god before me,' than to realize why a public school may not post such a command. It is none of the business of a school board whether a student embraces one god, ten gods or no god at all! The First Commandment is the antithesis of the First Amendment," said FFRF Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor.

Plaintiffs' attorneys are FFRF Staff Attorney Patrick Elliott and Rebecca Glenberg, Thomas Okuda Fitzpatrick of the ACLU of Virginia and Frank Feibelman, ACLU of Virginia cooperating attorney.

Legal Complaint (September 13, 2011)
Brief in Support of Protective Order
Brief in Opposition to Protective Order
Reply Brief Supporting Protective Order

Motion to Dismiss
Response to Motion to Dismiss

Protective Order
Defendant's Answer

Back to top ↑

FFRF v. Geithner Parish Exemption (US District Court Western District of Wisconsin) (Sept. 13, 2011)

The Freedom From Religion Foundation, with plaintiffs Annie Laurie Gaylor, Anne Nicol Gaylor and Dan Barker, filed a nationally significant federal lawsuit in Madison, Wis., on Sept. 13, 2011, challenging tax benefits for “ministers of the gospel,” commonly known as “the parsonage exemption." FFRF seeks a declaration that the federal statute creating the parish exemption, as administered by the IRS and the Treasury Department, violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment by providing preferential tax benefits to ministers of the gospel. FFRF requests the court to enjoin the allowance or grant of tax benefits exclusively for ministers of the gospel under the litigated act. The individually named plaintiffs, either currently directors or retired directors of FFRF, currently receive a housing allowance designated by FFRF's governing body, yet do not qualify for the housing allowance as they are promoting non-belief, rather than religion. In fact, Dan Barker is an ordained minister who previously was able to utilize the housing allowance and exclude such payments from his taxable income.

Ministers, who are paid in tax-free dollars, also may deduct their mortgage interest and property tax payments. Under federal law, allowances paid to “ministers of the gospel” are not treated as taxable income. “Ministers of the gospel” may uniquely claim these benefits, so the statutes convey a governmental message of endorsement, unconstitutionally favoring religious employees and institutions over all others. The exemptions permit clergy to deduct from their taxable income housing allowances furnished as part of compensation. The unique benefits to clergy date to 1954, when Congress amended the tax code to permit all clergy to exempt their housing costs from their incomes taxes. U.S. Rep. Peter Mack, author of the amendment, declared:

"Certainly, in these times when we are being threatened by a godless and antireligious world movement we should correct this discrimination against certain ministers of the gospel who are carrying on such a courageous fight against this foe. Certainly this is not too much to do for these people who are caring for our spiritual welfare."

“The income taxation of ministers of the gospel under the general rules that apply to other individuals would not interfere with the religious mission of churches or other organizations or the ministers themselves,” the legal complaint maintains. The statutes are not an accommodation of religion, therefore, but a subsidy.

Defendants are Timothy Geithner, U.S. Treasury secretary; Douglas Shulman, Internal Revenue Service commissioner; who are all providing tax benefits only to “ministers of the gospel,” rather than to a broad class of taxpayers. FFRF withdrew its previous case, filed in October 2009 in federal court in Sacramento with 21 federal taxpaying FFRF-dues paying plaintiffs, following the Supreme Court's 2011 decision on taxpayer standing in the Winn Arizona tax credit case. FFRF has refiled with plaintiffs who have been directly injured by the preferential law.

 Legal Complaint (Sept. 13, 2011)

Motion to dismiss

Amended Complaint

Back to top ↑

Watchdog, Parents File Suit Against South Carolina Release-Time Credits

The Foundation and two parent complainants in Spartanburg, S.C., filed suit in U.S. District Court, Spartanburg Division, Greenville, S.C., on June 17, 2009, challenging the awarding of academic credits for evangelical release-time instruction. "A public school could not constitutionally teach this course, but in South Carolina, a student can now get a public school academic credit for taking this class," explained George Daly, a well-known North Carolina civil rights attorney who is representing the plaintiffs.

Read press release
Moss v Spartanburg Co. School District 7:09-cv-01586-RBH Complaint (pdf)
Exhibit A (pdf)
Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiffs' Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss
Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss Equal Protection Claim
Plaintiff's Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dissmiss Second Amended Complaint
Opinion and Order for Motion to Dismiss
Third Amended Complaint
Defendant's Answer to Plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint
Response of Plaintiffs to Defendants Motion for Summary Judgement
Memorandum in Response to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment
Plaintiff's Reply to Defendant's Response to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment
Reply Memorandum in Support of Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment
Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment
Memorandum in Support of Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment
Summary Judgment Opinion and Order

Before the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals

Plaintiffs' Opening Brief
Defendant's Response Brief
Plaintiffs' Reply Brief

Back to top ↑

FFRF Sues Colorado Governor Over Prayer Proclamations

The Foundation, with the help of Denver-area members and plaintiffs, filed suit on Nov. 12, 2008, against Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter Jr., for showing governmental preference for religion in issuing National Day of Prayer proclamations in tandem with the National Day of Prayer (NDP) Task Force.

The Foundation filed the lawsuit in state court in Denver, both on behalf of four named plaintiffs and its more than 400 Colorado members. The lawsuit seeks to declare Day of Prayer proclamations and dedications by Gov. Ritter in violation of the Religious Freedom clause of the Colorado Constitution, and seeks an order enjoining him from issuing further such proclamations. The Complaint notes that not only has Ritter issued official National Day of Prayer proclamations, but he appears to have aligned himself and the State of Colorado with a national observance called Reign Down USA, an evangelical movement that promotes prayer, ostensibly for restoration of the nation.

Case No. 08-CV-9799

Press Release

FFRF Complaint (11/12/10)
Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment
Exhibit A
Exhibit B
Exhibit C
Exhibit D
Exhibit E
Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment

Memorandum of Law
Defendants' Motion
Plaintiffs' Cross-Motion
Plaintiffs' Brief in Opposition
Plaintiffs' Responses
Plaintiffs' Proposed Findings
Affidavit of Richard L. Bolton

Order Summary Judgement (10/28/10)

FFRF Amended Notice of Appeal; Proposed Order (12/14/10)
Order re FFRF Amended Notice of Appeal (12/14/10)

FFRF Opening Appellate Brief
Colorado Answer Brief
FFRF Reply Brief

Back to top ↑