President Trump issues executive order supporting free speech at universities

by: Alliance Defending Freedom

Washington, D.C. - March 21, 2019 - (The Ponder News) -- The following quote may be attributed to Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Counsel Tyson Langhofer, director of the ADF Center for Academic Freedom, regarding President Donald Trump’s executive order Thursday that requires public universities to respect the constitutionally protected free speech rights of students in order to continue receiving federal research funds:

“The administration is right to recognize the threats to freedom of speech on public university campuses and the need to do something about preserving the marketplace of ideas. In the course of winning more than 400 legal victories since 2006, the ADF Center for Academic Freedom has continued to encounter massive free speech and other First Amendment violations, unconstitutional policies, and many repeat offenders. We appreciate the administration’s understanding of this problem as well as actions it has taken to help, including the briefs that the Department of Justice has filed in support of ADF clients who have stood up for their freedoms in the face of having those freedoms jeopardized. Today’s university students will be tomorrow’s voters and civic leaders. That’s why it’s so important that public colleges and universities exemplify the First Amendment values they are supposed to be teaching to students.”

Three ADF Center for Academic Freedom clients—Ellie Wittman, Bernadette Tasy, and Isaac Edikauskas—are scheduled to be present on stage with President Trump for the announcement of the executive order.

Court orders end to abortion-pill mandate for six Christian organizations

Alliance Defending Freedom


Denver, CO - December 12, 2018 - (The Ponder News) -- A federal district court issued an order Tuesday that permanently prevents the federal government from enforcing the Affordable Care Act’s abortion-pill mandate against six Christian organizations represented by Alliance Defending Freedom. The order also declares that the mandate violates the organizations’ rights protected by the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

The previous administration’s mandate forces most employers, regardless of their religious or moral convictions, to provide abortion-inducing drugs, sterilization, and contraception through their health plans under threat of heavy penalties. The current administration’s Department of Justice abandoned its defense of the flawed mandate.

“Religious organizations have the freedom to peacefully operate according to their beliefs without the threat of punishment by the government. Tuesday’s order fully affirms that freedom and provides permanent protection from the mandate,” said ADF Senior Counsel Gregory S. Baylor.

“These faith-based organizations no longer have to fear being forced to pay fines for simply abiding by the Christian beliefs that they teach and espouse, and they are no longer required to fill out forms authorizing coverage for abortion-inducing drugs, contraception, and sterilization,” Baylor explained. “The government has many other ways to ensure access to these items without forcing people of faith to violate their deepest convictions.”

The six organizations—Association of Christian Schools International, Samaritan Ministries International, Taylor University, Indiana Wesleyan University, Asbury Theological Seminary, and ADF—specifically object to providing coverage for abortifacients.

“First, plaintiffs have demonstrated that requiring them to comply with [the mandate], to the extent such compliance conflicts with plaintiffs’ sincerely held religious beliefs, violates plaintiffs’ rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act…. Second, plaintiffs will suffer irreparable harm unless defendants are enjoined from interfering with plaintiffs’ practice of their religious beliefs.…,” the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado wrote in its order in Association of Christian Schools International v. Azar, adding that “the public interest in the vindication of religious freedom favors the entry of a permanent injunction.”

Other federal district courts have issued similar orders in recent months for Christian organizations in Oklahoma, Indiana, California, Iowa, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Florida. ADF attorneys and allied attorneys continue to litigate numerous other lawsuits against the mandate.

Pitt unconstitutionally assesses student club $5,500+ for Ben Shapiro event

Source: Alliance Defending Freedom

Pittsburgh, PA - December 7, 2018 - (The Ponder News) -- Alliance Defending Freedom sent a letter Monday to the University of Pittsburgh on behalf of Young America’s Foundation and a student group assessed unconstitutional fees for a Nov. 14 YAF-sponsored event featuring New York Times bestselling author and conservative commentator Ben Shapiro.

Just two days before the event, the university informed sponsoring student organization College Republicans that the event would be cancelled if they didn’t agree to pay more than $5,500 in security costs based on the possibility of “controversy” and “protests” in opposition to Shapiro. The letter asks the university to rescind the fee assessment and modify its policy.

“The U.S. Supreme Court has made it clear: Public universities can’t enact policies that stifle free speech simply because administrators fear protestors might show up or students might be offended,” said ADF Senior Counsel Jonathan Larcomb. “The reason for that is simple: Speech isn’t free if the speaker can be forced to pay money simply because somebody may object. The Supreme Court has specifically stated that security fees, such as the ones Pitt has assessed, aren’t constitutionally permissible.”

Students followed the university’s policies and procedures for scheduling the Shapiro event, notifying the university of their plans several months in advance. In addition, YAF previously signed a contract with the university on Oct. 18 on Shapiro’s behalf, stating unequivocally that the university would provide Pitt Police Security and “all house personnel necessary” for the event. Nonetheless, two days before the event, the university breached its contract with YAF and assessed an additional fee based on the anticipated content and views of Shapiro’s speech and the prediction that students would find offense and conduct protests.

As the ADF letter explains, “The Supreme Court made clear, ‘[s]peech cannot be financially burdened, any more than it can be punished or banned, simply because it might offend a hostile mob.’ Imposing security fees based on the beliefs offered by YAF, College Republicans and their speaker—Ben Shapiro—is viewpoint discrimination.”

The letter continues: “Further, university guidelines allow for the assessment of fees based on the potential negative reactions of listeners. Per university guidelines, school administrators must consider ‘prior security concerns at speaker’s past presentations’ and ‘other events taking place on campus.’ Both of these factors are content-based because both require university officials to factor safety concerns created by protestors at the University of Pittsburgh and at other universities. ‘Listeners’ reaction to speech is not a content-neutral basis for regulation.’ As a result, Pitt’s own policy codifies an unconstitutional heckler’s veto that stifles minority viewpoints.”

“Today’s college students will be tomorrow’s legislators, judges, educators, and voters. That’s why it’s so important that public colleges and universities demonstrate the First Amendment values they are supposed to be teaching to students,” said ADF Senior Counsel Tyson Langhofer, director of the ADF Center for Academic Freedom. “Pitt should be modeling this for its students, and a good first step would be to end its unconstitutional policy that threatens to silence minority viewpoints.”

Pro-life centers to Supreme Court: Don’t allow govt to force us to advertise for abortion

Source: Alliance Defending Freedom



Washington, D.C. - January 8, 2017 - (The Ponder News) -- Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys filed their opening brief Monday with the U.S. Supreme Court in a lawsuit challenging a California law that forces pro-life pregnancy care centers to provide free advertising for the abortion industry. ADF represents a pro-life pregnancy care center network, National Institute of Family and Life Advocates, and two independent centers in the case, which in November the high court agreed to take up.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit upheld a federal district judge’s decision to allow the law to remain in effect while the lawsuit, National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra, proceeds. The brief asks the Supreme Court to reverse the ruling, halt the law, and affirm that forcing the centers to provide the free advertising contrary to their core mission is a violation of their constitutionally protected freedoms.

“No one should be forced to provide free advertising for the abortion industry. This is particularly true when the ones who are being forced to provide it are pro-life pregnancy care centers,” said ADF President, CEO, and General Counsel Michael Farris, who will argue the case before the high court. “Compelled speech strikes at the very heart of constitutionally protected liberties, which are most at risk when speakers are targeted by government officials who disagree with their thoughts and ideas. Targeting people who disagree with the government is exactly what the California law does.”

California’s Reproductive FACT Act, AB 775, requires licensed medical centers that offer free, pro-life help to pregnant women to post a disclosure saying that California provides free or low-cost abortion and contraception services. The disclosure must also include a phone number for a county office that refers women to Planned Parenthood and others in the abortion industry. The law also forces unlicensed pregnancy centers to add large disclosures in multiple languages about their non-medical status in all advertisements, which obscure and crowd out their pro-life speech. Other courts have invalidated or mostly invalidated similar laws in Austin, Texas; Montgomery County, Maryland; Baltimore; and New York City.

According to the opening brief filed with the Supreme Court, “This Court has long held that compelled speech is highly disfavored because it imperils freedom by giving government control of the voices of private actors—and that laws targeting particular speakers because of their views are especially dangerous. The government ‘may not substitute its judgment as to how best to speak for that of speakers and listeners; free and robust debate cannot thrive if directed by the government….’ This Court should continue its steadfast defense of this fundamental freedom against governmental attempts to compel speech, and reverse the judgment of the Ninth Circuit.”

“These non-profit pregnancy centers exist to encourage expectant mothers to give their children the opportunity for life,” said ADF Senior Counsel and Senior Vice President of the U.S. Legal Division Kristen Waggoner. “The last thing the centers should be forced to do is point these women to the abortion industry.”

“National Institute of Family and Life Advocates member centers exist to empower a mother’s choice of life. They do this by providing assistance and resources free of charge—often in the form of pre-natal vitamins, baby clothes, and ultrasounds,” added NIFLA President and Founder Thomas Glessner, J.D. “All of their speech is designed to further this goal. California’s law purposely hampers this right from the beginning of a pregnancy center’s interaction with expectant mothers.”

“The legislative record demonstrates that the State chose to mandate these compelled messages precisely because of the pregnancy centers’ pro-life views,” the opening brief explains. “The legislative committee report described the centers’ messages as ‘unfortunate’ because they ‘aim to discourage and prevent women from seeking abortions….’ The Legislature created exceptions within the Act, seeking to ensure it applies only to centers that express this disfavored view. Such government targeting of viewpoints runs afoul of this Court’s cases ‘establish[ing] that the State cannot advance some points of view by burdening the expression of others.’”

ADF-allied attorney John Eastman of the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence at Chapman University’s Fowler School of Law, Anne O’Connor of NIFLA, and Dean R. Broyles of The National Center for Law and Policy are co-counsel in the lawsuit on behalf of NIFLA and the two pregnancy centers.


Alliance Defending Freedom is an alliance-building, non-profit legal organization that advocates for the right of people to freely live out their faith.


See more headlines at The Ponder News Web Site

Student group files suit against Arkansas State for limiting speech to 1% of campus

By Alliance Defending Freedom



Washington, D.C. - December 15, 2017 - (The Ponder News) -- Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys filed a federal lawsuit Wednesday against Arkansas State University on behalf of the organizers of a student organization, Turning Point USA, to challenge the constitutionality of the ASU five-campus system’s restrictive speech policy. Among other things, the policy limits speech to roughly one percent of the Jonesboro campus.

“Public universities are supposed to be the marketplace of ideas, but those marketplaces can’t function properly when university officials stifle the ability of students to engage in free speech,” said ADF Senior Counsel Tyson Langhofer. “Arkansas State’s speech policies contain provisions that the courts have repeatedly struck down as unconstitutional at other schools. The university can demonstrate its dedication to the free exchange of ideas by modifying its policies to comport with the First Amendment.”

When ASU student Ashlyn Hoggard and another individual with Turning Point USA—a non-partisan organization that educates students about the importance of fiscal responsibility, free markets, and limited government—recently attempted to set up a table outside the student union to generate interest in forming a chapter on campus, an administrator immediately stopped them, citing the university’s speech policy.

That policy unconstitutionally restricts speech activities to small zones on campus that total about one percent of the campus, requires advance permission for students to use the speech zones, and gives university officials free reign to restrict the content and viewpoint of student speech.

“Instead of fostering a marketplace of ideas, Arkansas State is unconstitutionally limiting exposure to ideas,” said ADF Senior Counsel Casey Mattox, director of the ADF Center for Academic Freedom. “Today’s college students will be tomorrow’s judges, legislators, and voters, and with its current policies, Arkansas State is communicating to that generation that the First Amendment doesn’t matter.”

Ethan Nobles, one of more than 3,200 attorneys allied with ADF, is serving as local counsel in the lawsuit, Turning Point USA at Arkansas State University v. The Trustees of Arkansas State University, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas.


See more headlines at The Ponder News Web Site

Georgetown derecognition of pro-family student club would be hypocrisy

Source: Alliance Defending Freedom



Washington, D.C. - October 28, 2017 (The Ponder News) -- The following quote may be attributed to Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Counsel Tyson Langhofer regarding calls for Georgetown University, “the oldest Catholic and Jesuit institute of higher learning in the United States,” to derecognize student organization Love Saxa, represented by the ADF Center for Academic Freedom, because the student group holds to Catholic and Jesuit views of marriage:

“To call for the derecognition of a student organization at a Catholic university because it holds to Catholic views on marriage is preposterous. Love Saxa’s opponents haven’t called for the dissolution of the LGBTQ Resource Center, for example, even though it holds to views that conflict with Georgetown’s prohibition on groups whose purpose or activities are ‘inconsistent with acceptable conduct at an American university committed to the Roman Catholic moral tradition,’ yet they have targeted Love Saxa for views wholly consistent with the Catholic faith. It’s not enough that many of those who don’t hold to conservative religious or political views are seeking to silence those with whom they disagree on public university campuses and elsewhere in the public square. Now they are even seeking to silence them at private, religious universities, which are unquestionably free to recognize student clubs that adhere to the universities’ own founding values. Georgetown should act consistently with its own Catholic identity and reject any request for Love Saxa to be derecognized.”

Pronunciation guide: Langhofer (LANG’-hoff-ur)

Alliance Defending Freedom is an alliance-building, non-profit legal organization that advocates for the right of people to freely live out their faith.

Pro-life centers ask court to halt law that forces them to promote abortion

Source: Alliance Defending Freedom

The National Institute of Family and Life Advocates, together with Calvary Chapel Pearl Harbor’s “A Place for Women” pregnancy care center, filed suit on July 12 to challenge the new law, Senate Bill 501, which went into effect the previous day.

“No one should be forced to provide free advertising for the abortion industry, least of all pro-life centers that exist to help women choose life for their babies,” said Connelly. “Freedom of speech also means the freedom to not express views that violate your conscience. Yet, under this law, the state is forcing pro-life centers and doctors to, in effect, provide free advertising for the abortion industry. Because of the First Amendment’s protections, courts have repeatedly rejected these types of laws as unconstitutional, and accordingly we are asking the court in this case to halt enforcement of this law while our case moves forward.”

SB 501 requires pro-life pregnancy care centers to direct women to a state agency that provides abortion referrals and funding. Specifically, the law requires the centers to post large signs or provide notices which advertise that the “state of Hawaii provides free or low-cost access to comprehensive planning services,” including abortion-inducing drugs. The law also forces the centers to include both a website address and phone number for accessing these services. ADF attorneys point out that the centers are subject to the law regardless of whether they offer free ultrasounds and other prenatal care to women, making the law even more egregious for the centers that don’t provide medical services.

Other courts have invalidated or mostly invalidated similar laws in Austin, Texas; Montgomery County, Maryland; Baltimore; and New York City. Additionally, ADF attorneys are representing NIFLA in a case out of California that the U.S. Supreme Court is currently considering for review.

The lawsuit, Calvary Chapel Pearl Harbor v. Chin, asks the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii to halt the enforcement of SB 501 and declare it unconstitutional under the U.S. and Hawaii constitutions. It also asks the court to require Hawaii to return federal funds it received which were conditioned on the state’s commitment not to force pro-life pregnancy centers to make abortion referrals. On Sept. 11, Calvary Chapel Pearl Harbor additionally filed a complaint with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services with regard to the funding violation.

James Hochberg of Honolulu is among the nearly 3,200 attorneys allied with ADF and serves as local counsel for NIFLA and Calvary Chapel Pearl Harbor.

Colorado designer may appeal ruling that won’t let her challenge law forcing her to promote same-sex weddings

Source: Alliance Defending Freedom



Denver, CO - September 6, 2017 (The Ponder News) -- A Colorado graphic designer who specializes in designing and creating custom websites is likely to appeal a federal judge’s ruling issued Friday. The ruling doesn’t allow her to challenge a law that forces her to use her artistic talents to promote same-sex ceremonies if she creates custom websites and graphics celebrating weddings between one man and one woman. Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys represent Lorie Smith and her studio, 303 Creative.

The judge ruled that Smith and her studio can’t sue to challenge a portion of Colorado’s Anti-Discrimination Act because a request that a couple with the first names “Stewart” and “Mike” sent Smith isn’t sufficient to prove that a same-sex couple has asked her to help them celebrate their wedding. The Colorado Civil Rights Commission has construed the law to force artists like Smith to create objectionable art even though Smith happily serves everyone and decides what art to create based on the art’s message—not her client’s personal characteristics.

The law also prohibits artists from expressing any religious views about marriage that could indicate someone is “unwelcome, objectionable, unacceptable, or undesirable” because of their sexual orientation. The judge is allowing Smith to sue against that portion of the law but is holding the case until the U.S. Supreme Court rules in another ADF case, Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, involving Colorado cake artist Jack Phillips.

“Artists shouldn’t be threatened with punishment for deciding, as artists always have, which messages they are going to promote or not promote,” said ADF Senior Counsel Jonathan Scruggs. “Because the court’s ruling allows the state to violate the freedom of artists like Lorie to make these kinds of personal decisions, she is considering appeal.”

“Every American, including artists, should be free to peacefully live and work according to their faith without fear of unjust punishment by the government,” added ADF Legal Counsel Kate Anderson. “Just because an artist creates expression that communicates one viewpoint doesn’t mean Colorado can require her to express all viewpoints. Lorie should be allowed to proceed with her legal challenge in full because it’s unlawful to force an artist to create art against her will just because the government disagrees with her beliefs.”

The lawsuit, 303 Creative v. Elenis, which ADF attorneys filed last year in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, explains how the state law runs afoul of various provisions of the U.S. Constitution, including the First Amendment’s Free Speech and Free Press clauses. Specifically, the suit challenges Colorado Revised Statute § 24-34-601(2)(a). The law is the same one the commission used against Phillips and Masterpiece Cakeshop.

MRD Law partner Michael L. Francisco, one of nearly 3,200 attorneys allied with ADF, is serving as local counsel in the case for Smith and 303 Creative.