Philip Sechler, senior legal counsel and director at Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), spoke on the “Washington Watch” program about this case. ADF represented the plaintiffs.
“We're delighted with the court's ruling. The school had no business canceling the Sweet Onion Christian Learning Center and the release-time program simply because of the Facebook posts that the executive director had made,” Sechler says.
AFN reported previously on the case after the court ruled in favor of Rev. Gady Youmans, the founder and executive director of Sweet Onion. His criticism on social media about a school board-proposed tax cut prompted the termination of an over 10-year partnership between the learning center and Vidalia City Schools.
Sechler emphasized that is not consistent with the Constitution, and ADF promptly filed a lawsuit. According to Sechler, there was abundant evidence behind the school’s motivation to terminate the program, with nothing supporting the schools claims in litigation that there were other reasons to their decision.
“The district judge found that those claims — that there were other reasons that motivated the decision — were pretextual and that the speech of our client was a substantial factor in a district's decision to cancel the program,” Sechler says.
They were delighted, he said, the court found it likely they would succeed based on the merits of the case.
“Even before the case is finished, the school had to let the Sweet Onion Christian Learning Center back so that they could continue the release time program, which is great for the kids,” Sechler states.
As he puts it, when the school district couldn’t impose its will on Youmans, they retaliated against Sweet Onion for his expression of views on a public matter. Sechler is confident that such speech restriction from the district won’t happen again.
Furthermore, he hopes this case will be an example for others to stand up, to push back and to express their views even when it feels like they are being retaliated against by any government entity. They have a right, he said, to speak their minds without worry, especially when it comes to matters of great public concern, because of First Amendment protections.
“Especially on social media, now. It's a great platform for people to be able to discuss and exchange views on important matters, and we're hopeful that this case will really encourage people to continue to do that and not shrink back just because the government seeks to squelch their views,” Sechler says.
