FELLOWSHIP OF CHRISTIAN ATHLET V. SAN JOSE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRI, No. 22-15827 (9th Cir. 2022)
Annotate this Case
The Fellowship of Christian Athletes (“FCA”) requires students serving in leadership roles to abide by a Statement of Faith, which includes the belief that sexual relations should be limited within the context of a marriage between a man and a woman. The San Jose Unified School District (the “School District”) revoked FCA’s status as an official student club at its high schools, claiming that FCA’s religious pledge requirement violated the School District’s non-discrimination policy.
The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of a motion for a preliminary injunction sought by a derecognized student club, the Fellowship of Christian Athletes, and directed the district court to enter an order reinstating the Fellowship as a student club within the San Jose Unified School District.
The panel first held that FCA National had direct organizational standing and Pioneer High School FCA had representational organizational standing to seek prospective injunctive relief. The School District’s denial of Associated Student Body (“ASB”) recognition hampered FCA National’s ability to further student engagement with the Christian faith and required it to expend significant time and resources to assist its student members.
Addressing the merits, the panel first held that Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction sought to maintain the status quo that existed before the School District’s novel scrutiny of FCA—a prohibitory injunction—so the district court erred in applying the heightened standard for mandatory injunctions. The panel held that Plaintiffs would likely prevail on the merits of its selective enforcement claim under the Free Exercise Clause.
Court Description: Civil Rights. The panel reversed the district court’s denial of a motion for a preliminary injunction sought by a derecognized student club, the Fellowship of Christian Athletes, and directed the district court to enter an order reinstating the Fellowship as a student club within the San Jose Unified School District. The Fellowship of Christian Athletes (“FCA”) requires students serving in leadership roles to abide by a Statement of Faith, which includes the belief that sexual relations should be limited within the context of a marriage between a man and a woman. The San Jose Unified School District (the “School District”) revoked FCA’s status as an official student club at its high schools, claiming that FCA’s religious pledge requirement violated the School District’s non-discrimination policy. FELLOWSHIP OF CHRISTIAN ATHLETES V. SJUSD BOE 3 The panel first held that FCA National had direct organizational standing and Pioneer High School FCA had representational organizational standing to seek prospective injunctive relief. The School District’s denial of Associated Student Body (“ASB”) recognition hampered FCA National’s ability to further student-engagement with the Christian faith and required it to expend significant time and resources to assist its student members. Pioneer High School FCA had standing to pursue injunctive relief on behalf of its student members given that defendants admitted that submitting an ASB application would be futile under the current policy and plaintiffs submitted declarations showing that Pioneer High School students intended to apply for recognition in the coming year. Addressing the merits, the panel first held that plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction sought to maintain the status quo that existed before the School District’s novel scrutiny of FCA—a prohibitory injunction—so the district court erred in applying the heightened standard for mandatory injunctions. The panel held that plaintiffs would likely prevail on the merits of its selective enforcement claim under the Free Exercise Clause. The panel stated that this case pitted two competing values that we cherish as a nation: the principle of non-discrimination on the one hand, and the First Amendment’s protection of free exercise of religion and free speech on the other hand. While this clash of values may pose a difficult policy choice, the legal outcome was much more straightforward based on the record. Under the First Amendment, our government must be scrupulously neutral when it comes to religion: It cannot treat religious groups worse than comparable secular ones. But the School District did just that. The School District engaged in selective 4 FELLOWSHIP OF CHRISTIAN ATHLETES V. SJUSD BOE enforcement of its own non-discrimination policy, penalizing FCA while looking the other way with other secular student groups that maintained facially discriminatory membership criteria. For example, the School District blessed student clubs whose constitutions limited membership based on gender identity or ethnicity, despite the school’s policies barring such restricted membership. Plaintiffs presented clear evidence that the School District selectively applied its policy against FCA because FCA requires its student leaders to abide by its statements of belief. That means that the School District’s policies were not generally applicable or neutral, triggering strict scrutiny, a standard the School District could not meet. Concurring, Judge Lee wrote separately to highlight the depth of animus against the students’ religious beliefs that pervaded the Pioneer High School campus and to explain why it was yet another reason why the School District violated the Free Exercise Clause. Dissenting, Judge Christen stated that in light of the posture of this case, controlling precedent required dismissal of plaintiffs’ appeal for lack of Article III standing. In their haste to reach the merits of this dispute, plaintiffs urged the court to resolve fact-laden questions relevant only to their claims for past injuries, not to the prospective ones at the center of their motion for a preliminary injunction. Rather than requiring declarations of the sort called for by Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992), Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727, 735 (1972) and Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 555 U.S. 488, 492–93 (2009), the court accepted counsel’s unsupported assurances that a student intends to apply for ASB status for the 2022–23 school year. It also selectively reviewed the record. Both the Supreme Court and this circuit have dismissed multiple claims for lack of FELLOWSHIP OF CHRISTIAN ATHLETES V. SJUSD BOE 5 standing where would-be litigants presented far more concrete and specific plans than the conclusory and unsupported declarations offered by plaintiffs. If courts are to apply the law evenly and fairly, the panel should have dismissed this appeal.
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on January 18, 2023.
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on April 3, 2023.
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on September 13, 2023.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.