In a welcome but surprising turn of events, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals recently handed down a decision reversing a federal judge’s order that attorneys must attend a “religious liberty training” conducted by the Christian nationalist organization Alliance Defending Freedom. To understand why this decision matters, let’s rewind a bit.
In the case of Carter v. Local 556, Transport Workers Union of America, Southwest Airlines flight attendant Charlene Carter sued Southwest, claiming she was fired for expressing her religious opposition to abortion rights. (Carter repeatedly sent graphic and inflammatory anti-abortion messages to co-workers, including images of allegedly aborted fetuses.) The jury sided with Carter at trial. Post-trial, District Court Judge Brantley Starr, a President Trump appointee, ordered Southwest to circulate a memo to employees stating that Southwest “may not discriminate against Southwest flight attendants for their religious practices and beliefs.” Starr then held three of Southwest’s in-house lawyers in civil (as opposed to criminal) contempt for sending out a memo that said Southwest “does not” discriminate in such cases. As part of the contempt sanctions, he ordered Southwest’s lawyers to attend ADF’s “religious liberty training.” The order was appealed to the 5th Circuit.
Federal judges wield a wide range of powers — for better or worse. Those powers include a district court judge’s ability to hold lawyers or parties in civil or criminal contempt and craft appropriate sanctions, “appropriate” being the key word here. Starr’s order that Southwest’s attorneys attend training conducted by a Christian nationalist organization was beyond the pale, which is why the Freedom From Religion Foundation filed an amicus brief in this case all the way back in fall 2023.
FFRF’s amicus brief urged the appeals court to overturn the inappropriate and highly unusual order. We argued that the religious liberty training order was unconstitutional and problematic for several reasons: For one, it was an abuse of the district court’s discretion to craft orders for civil contempt. Second, and even more concerning, if courts are allowed to order lawyers to attend training conducted by Alliance Defending Freedom, an extremist ideological advocacy group, then courts must be allowed to order lawyers to attend training by other advocacy organizations. There’s no principled way to draw the line between forcing lawyers to get trained by the ADF and compelling them to go to training by the ACLU or Lambda Legal or even FFRF. Allowing judges to coerce lawyers to be trained by organizations that align with that judge’s personal views would set a dangerous precedent, to say the least.
Last June, the 5th Circuit paused the district court’s order so that Southwest’s attorneys wouldn’t be forced to attend the training before it could issue a final decision. The three-judge panel said there was “a strong likelihood” that the order exceeded the court’s authority and that the religious liberty training would likely violate the First Amendment rights of Southwest’s lawyers.
Now we have a final decision nearly a year later vacating the district court’s contempt sanctions, meaning Southwest’s lawyers will not be forced to attend the Alliance Defending Freedom’s “religious liberty training.” The 5th Circuit concluded the order was inappropriate and exceeded Starr’s authority because the training “would do little to compel compliance” with the court’s original order and the training wouldn’t compensate Carter in any way.
In plain terms, Starr wanted to force Southwest’s lawyers to attend the Alliance Defending Freedom training as punishment and presumably because he agrees with ADF’s views. The 5th Circuit correctly decided that it was wrong. Judges on either end of the ideological spectrum cannot be allowed to use findings of contempt to force lawyers to receive training from advocacy organizations that a judge happens to favor.
In a legal landscape full of division, it’s a relief to see the 5th Circuit, the most conservative appeals court, make the right choice. It’s also rewarding to know that the amicus briefs FFRF’s legal team puts countless hours into crafting can help lead to positive results. Despite these uncertain times, our legal team is committed to using every avenue available to help protect, and someday rebuild, the wall between state and church.
Disclaimer: The views in this column are of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Freedom From Religion Foundation.
Photo by Gary Lopater on Unsplash
One Response
Even if they were compelled to comply with this ridiculous order, they would be free to dissent and question and dispute every faulty and ludicrous claim made by the class instructor. Might make for some interesting education for all involved. How stupid would the judge and this decision look THEN? This judge should have overturned the jury’s decision in the first place because the plaintiff was not just “expressing her religious opposition to abortion rights”. She was harassing and browbeating her coworkers with radical political propaganda, creating a hostile work environment.