News Alert

In a huge victory for free speech and unborn babies, United States District Judge Nancy Torresen, yesterday, issued a preliminary injunction barring the Maine Attorney General and City of Portland police officers from enforcing the Noise Provision of the Maine Civil Rights Act (“Act”).  Under the Act, after being warned by a police officer, it is illegal to make noise that can be heard inside an abortion clinic with the intent to interfere with a medical procedure.

In a 35–page opinion and order, Judge Torresen, an Obama appointee, held that the Noise Provision of the Act is content-based because it restricts speech based on its purpose, and therefore, is facially unconstitutional. Read Judge Torresen’s entire opinion here.

The Thomas More Law Center (“TMLC”), a national, nonprofit public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, filed a lawsuit in December 2015, on behalf of Pastor Andrew March after a Portland police officer officially warned Pastor March under the Act, and ordered him to quiet his pro-life speech on the public sidewalk outside the Portland Planned Parenthood facility or face prosecution. Despite this threat of prosecution, Pastor Andrew March courageously continued to plead for the lives of the unborn at the doors of the Planned Parenthood facility.

Kate Oliveri, the Thomas More Law Center Trial Counsel handling the case, commented, “This is a victory regardless of whether you acknowledge that unborn children possess lives worth defending. Free speech rights are central to maintaining a free society and the court took a huge step toward protecting those rights for all citizens of Maine.”

The Planned Parenthood facility, located on a loud and busy thoroughfare in downtown Portland, has been the focus of pro-life counselors and prayer groups for the last several years. However, in October 2015, the Maine Attorney General resurrected the 15-year-old Noise Provision of the Act to sue Pastor Brian Ingalls in a state court for his opposition to abortion on those sidewalks. This occurred only two weeks after the City of Portland admitted that their a previous attempt to drown out free speech on the public sidewalk—a 39 foot buffer zone—was unconstitutional. The state case against Brian Ingalls is still pending.  After the State sued Pastor Ingalls, Pastor March stepped in and began his preaching to save the lives of unborn babies.

Because a judge must determine that a plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction has a likelihood of success on the merits, by granting TMLC’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Judge Torresen has indicated that Pastor March will ultimately prevail in his claim that the Act is an unconstitutional suppression of free speech when the case goes to summary judgment. In the mean time, the order assures that Pastor March and other individuals can continue to preach pro-life messages and pray without being silenced by the Noise Provision.

Judge Torresen focused on the “intent to interfere with a medical procedure” portion of the statute. This portion restricts speech based on the purpose for which the speech is made and differentiates speech based on the message expressed. In order for a content-based restriction on speech to be constitutional, it must be the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling governmental interest. Judge Torresen concluded that the State had other content-neutral means of keeping peace at abortion clinics.

The Thomas More Law Center (TMLC), a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, took a significant step last Friday (February 22) toward remedying the ongoing constitutional violations relating to John Kevin Wood’s right to object to the promotion of Islam in his daughter’s school.  The assignments at La Plata High School in La Plata, Maryland, are so extreme that they force his daughter to violate her Christian faith for a grade.

When Mr. Wood objected to these assignments, requesting that his daughter receive an alternative assignment, the principal banned him from school grounds by issuing a no-trespass order against him.  TMLC filed a motion for a preliminary injunction in the federal District Court for the District of Maryland, requesting District Court Judge George J. Hazel to enjoin the no-trespass order.

The crux of the motion for a preliminary injunction is that the school district deprived Mr. Wood of meaningful involvement in the direction of his daughter’s education as the no-trespass order prevented him from speaking at parent meetings and various other events, thereby violating his First Amendment rights.  The school district further deprived Mr. Wood of his constitutional rights by giving a principal unfettered discretion to ban him—the father of a student—from school grounds without any hearing or opportunity to defend himself because he brought to light the school’s unconstitutional practices.  As a result of the order, John Kevin Wood has not entered onto school property for over a year.  However, Spring 2016 is his daughter’s last semester in school, and he wants to attend the school events celebrating her graduation.

Kate Oliveri, TMLC attorney handling the case, commented: “Mr. Wood spent eight years as a Marine fighting to protect the Constitution and the freedoms it guarantees to all citizens. Now, the school district is forcing him to fight once again for those freedoms as a father.”

• “There is no God but Allah, and Muhammad is the messenger of Allah.”
• “Most Muslims’ faith is stronger than the average Christian.”
• “Islam, at heart, is a peaceful”
• “To Muslims, Allah is the same God that is worshiped in Christianity and Judaism.”

During Mr. Wood’s eight year service in the Marine Corps, he was deployed in Operation Desert Shield/Desert Storm.  A few years after his Honorable Discharge, Mr. Wood responded as a firefighter to the 9-11 Islamic terrorist attack on the Pentagon.  Mr. Wood witnessed firsthand the destruction created in the name of Allah and, therefore, objects to the school district forcing his daughter to profess her allegiance to Allah.    

In a phone call on the morning of  October 24, 2014, John Kevin Wood advised the vice principal that the Constitution forbids the school from instructing his daughter in Islam or forcing her to disparage and denigrate her Christian faith; he reiterated his previous day’s request that she be given an alternative assignment, which was again refused.  He then threatened to contact the media and lawyers if the school insisted on violating the constitution.  However, the school was adamant and, as a result, his daughter suffered failing grades for not completing the pro-Islam assignments.  Later that day, John Kevin Wood was notified by a police officer of the no-trespass order. See the no-trespass order here.

On January 27, 2016, TMLC filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of Mr. Wood and his wife against Charles County Public Schools, the Board of Education, and the Principal and Vice-Principal of La Plata High School over the school’s promotion of Islam and refusal to allow their daughter to receive an alternative assignment.  This case is in its early stages.

No date has been set for oral arguments on the preliminary injunction motion.

January 28, 2016

**Updated 10/15/2019** – Click here to read the most recent news on this case**

The Thomas More Law Center (TMLC), a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, yesterday afternoon, filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of former Marine, John Kevin Wood, and his wife, Melissa, who refuse to allow their teenage daughter to be subjected to Islamic indoctrination and propaganda in her high school World History class.  The lawsuit was filed against the Charles County Public Schools, the Board of Education, and the Principal and Vice-Principal of La Plata High School located in La Plata, Maryland.

The Woods’ daughter was forced to profess and to write out the Shahada in worksheets and quizzes.  The Shahada is the Islamic Creed, “There is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is the messenger of Allah.”  For non-Muslims, reciting the statement is sufficient to convert one to Islam.  Moreover, the second part of the statement, “Muhammad is the messenger of Allah,” signifies the person has accepted Muhammad as their spiritual leader.  The teenager was also required to memorize and recite the Five Pillars of Islam. 

Charles County Public Schools disparaged Christianity by teaching its 11^th grade students, including the Woods’ daughter, that: “Most Muslims’ faith is stronger than the average Christian.”

The Charles County Public Schools also taught the following:

• “Islam, at heart, is a peaceful”
• “To Muslims, Allah is the same God that is worshiped in Christianity and Judaism.”
• The Koran states, “Men are the managers of the affairs of women” and “Righteous women are therefore obedient.”

Read the two exhibits containing Student worksheets here.

The sugarcoated version of Islam taught at La Plata High School did not mention that the Koran explicitly instructs Muslims “to kill the unbelievers wherever you find them.”  (Sura 9-5)

When John Kevin Wood discovered the Islamic propaganda and indoctrination of his daughter, he was rightfully outraged.  He immediately contacted the school to voice his objections and to obtain an alternative assignment for his daughter.

The Woods, as Christians, believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God and our Savior, that Jesus Christ died on the cross for our sins, and that following the teachings of Jesus Christ is the only path to eternal salvation.  The Woods believe that it is a sin to profess commitment in word or writing to any god other than the Christian God.  Thus, they object to their daughter being forced to deny the Christian God and to her high school promoting Islam over other religions.   

The school ultimately refused to allow the Woods’ daughter to opt-out of the assignments, forcing her to either violate her faith by pledging to Allah or receive zeros for the assignments.  Together, John Kevin Wood, Melissa Wood, and their daughter chose to remain faithful to God and refused to complete the assignments, even though failing grades would harm her future admission to college and her opportunities to obtain college scholarships.

Adding insult to injury, in an effort to silence all pro-Christian speech in her school, La Plata’s principal, without a hearing or any opportunity to refute the false allegations against him, issued a “No Trespass” notice against John Kevin Wood denying him any access to school grounds. 

Wood served 8 years in the Marine Corps.  He was deployed in Operation Desert Shield/Desert Storm and lost friends to Islamic extremists.  A few years later, Wood responded as a firefighter to the 9-11 Islamic terrorist attack on the Pentagon.  Wood witnessed firsthand the destruction created in the name of Allah and knows that Islam is not “a religion of peace.”  The school prevented John Kevin Wood from defending his daughter’s Christian beliefs against Islamic indoctrination, even though as a Marine, he stood in harm’s way to defend our nation, and the Charles County Public Schools.

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, commented: “Defendants forced Wood’s daughter to disparage her Christian faith by reciting the Shahada, and acknowledging Mohammed as her spiritual leader. Her World History class spent one day on Christianity and two weeks immersed in Islam. Such discriminatory treatment of Christianity is an unconstitutional promotion of one religion over another.”

Thompson added, “The course also taught false statements such as “Allah is the same God worshipped by Christians, and Islam as a “religion of peace. Parents must be ever vigilant to the Islamic indoctrination of their children under the guise of teaching history and multiculturalism.  This is happening in public schools across the country.  And they must take action to stop it.”   

The Woods’ lawsuit seeks a court declaration that Defendants violated their constitutional and statutory rights, a temporary and permanent injunction barring Defendants from endorsing Islam or favoring Islam over Christianity and other religions, and from enforcing the no trespassing order issued against John Kevin Wood.

Read entire Federal Complaint here.

 

 

The Thomas More Law Center (TMLC), a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, yesterday, filed a friend of the court brief in the case of Zubik v. Burwell, in support of seven non-profit organizations including the Little Sisters of the Poor who claim they cannot comply with the Department of Health and Human Services’ mandate (“HHS Mandate”) because even the so called “accommodations” make them actively complicit in the sin of abortion.  TMLC’s brief asserts that the Court is not the arbiter of sacred Scripture and, therefore, cannot determine whether or not an act constitutes a sin; it can only determine whether the government’s penalties for refusal to complete the sinful act are a substantial burden on religious liberty.

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of TMLC, portrays this case as a potential turning point in American legal history, stating, “The HHS Mandate is a monumental attack on religious liberty.  If this appeal is lost, the government becomes the head of every religious denomination in the country by its assumed authority to determine what is in fact a sin.”

The HHS Mandate requires religious non-profit organizations to participate in a government scheme to provide free contraceptives, including abortion causing drugs and devices (abortifacients), to their employees or face monumental fines that would result in closing the doors of most non-profit organizations that object to the HHS Mandate. 

However, the HHS Mandate allows non-profit organizations like the Little Sisters to receive a so-called accommodation from directly providing free contraceptives and abortifacients to their employees.  The accommodation  requires the non-profit organizations to either (1) fill out a form as notice of their objection to contraceptives and abortifacients and provide that form to their insurers, which includes language instructing the insurers to provide free contraceptives and abortifacients to the women in the non-profits’ health plans, or (2) write and send a detailed letter to HHS with all of the information necessary to notify the non-profits’ insurers of their newfound obligation to provide free contraceptives and abortifacients to the women in the non-profits’ health plans.

These notification requirements trigger the non-profits’ insurers to provide free contraceptives and abortifacients to the women in the non-profits’ health plans. This notification requirement makes the non profits complicit in the provision of a service that they find sinful, thereby causing them to sin themselves.    

TMLC’s brief argues, supported by a long line of Supreme Court precedent, that neither the government nor the Supreme Court can determine whether an act does or does not violate a person’s religious beliefs.  Rather, the Supreme Court must accept the non-profits’ assertions that the notification requirement is indeed against their religion.  To accept otherwise is to supplant the Church and the Bible with the government, allowing the Supreme Court and the government to interpret tenants of faith.  This slippery slope would subject all religious exercise to the whim of the government’s approval.

 Excerpts from TMLC’s Amicus brief:

• “This Court has already determined that the fines for noncompliance with the HHS Mandate impose a substantial burden on employers. Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2751, 2776 (2014). The ultimate question, therefore, is whether compliance is actually against the Petitioners’ religion. This is something that is for Petitioners to determine, not the Court.”

 

• “The Court is not the arbiter of sacred scripture and cannot determine whether the notification form and letter are attenuated enough from the provision of contraceptives that they do not substantially burden Petitioners’ religion. Delving into this inquiry requires the Court to interpret Petitioners’ religious beliefs on the morality of the different levels of complicity with sin. Thomas v. Review Bd. of Indian Employment Security Div., 450 U.S. 707, 718 (1981).  Therefore, the Court can only determine whether Petitioners are being compelled to do something that violates their faith—here, filling out the notification form or writing a notification letter to HHS, both of which trigger the dissemination of contraceptives and abortifacients to their employees in connection with their employee health plans.”

 

• “While women have a right to obtain contraceptives, see Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 485-486 (1965), this does not mean they have a right to free contraceptives and abortifacients. Moreover, this right certainly does not mean that a person has the right to obtain contraceptives and abortifacients—either directly or indirectly—from their employer at the expense of pillaging the employer’s religious liberty.”

Click here to read TMLC’s entire 19-page brief  

TMLC, representing thirty-six plaintiffs including six religious non-profit organizations, has filed twelve lawsuits challenging the illegal aims of the HHS Mandate. 

The Thomas More Law Center (“TMLC”), a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, MI, today, filed a federal lawsuit against the Maine Attorney General, the City of Portland, Maine and several Portland police officers to stop enforcement of a portion of the Maine Civil Rights Act (“Act”). Under the Act, it is illegal to make any noise that can be heard inside an abortion clinic after being warned by a police officer. A Portland police officer officially warned Pastor Andrew March that employees could hear his anti-abortion message inside their facility and in so doing paved the way for a State lawsuit against him under the Act.

As a result, TMLC filed a lawsuit on behalf of Pastor Andrew March to stop enforcement of the Act as a violation of the First Amendment right to free speech. Pastor March is the father of three children and the founding preacher of a church in Maine. He feels called by God to oppose the culture of death and to work to end the murder of his fellow citizens behind the walls of Planned Parenthood. When the Attorney General filed a lawsuit against his friend and fellow preacher Brian Ingalls under the Act, he took up his mantel and began to preach outside the Planned Parenthood abortion clinic. Andrew March not only wants to save lives, but also wants to give women a last chance to avoid the enduring physical and psychological harms caused by abortion.

The Portland Planned Parenthood is located on a busy public thoroughfare, which, in addition to usual street sounds such as sirens, honking, and other traffic noises, hosts city parades and protests by hundreds  of yelling and chanting people. Yet, among this cacophony of sounds, Planned Parenthood claims the lone, unamplified voice of Andrew March interferes with its abortion services.

Planned Parenthood, assisted by the Maine Attorney General and the City of Portland, is using Maine’s Civil Rights Act to silence all Pro-Life speech in front of its facility by claiming to hear it within the building. TMLC’s lawsuit contends that the Act is an unconstitutional restriction on free speech and is being used to target and silence the Pro-Life viewpoint. In fact, amid the far louder traffic and city-approved parades, police officers enforcing the statute admit that it is the Pro-Life content of Andrew March’s speech that allegedly interferes with abortion counseling and procedures within the building. See Video.  See additional Video.

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel for the Thomas More Law Center, commented on the lawsuit: “Our lawsuit is based on the bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment that government, in this case the State of Maine and the City of Portland, cannot ban Pro-Life speech just because they disagree with its content or find it offensive.”

Click here to read the full complaint

TMLC recently defeated a previous attempt by the same Planned Parenthood facility to silence Pro-Life speech. On Oct. 8, the U.S. District Court in Maine entered a consent judgment in which the City of Portland agreed that their 39-foot “buffer zone” silencing Pro-Life speech within the vicinity of Planned Parenthood was unconstitutional. In light of the City’s defeat, Planned Parenthood and the City of Portland seem to be going through a list of Maine’s laws to intimidate and silence Pro-Life speech. After charging Brian Ingalls and warning Andrew March under the Act, police officers are now threatening Andrew March with criminal charges for disorderly conduct—all this despite the fact that both preach peacefully and respectfully from the Bible.

The Thomas More Law Center (TMLC), a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, MI, last Friday, filed a motion to dismiss the Maine Attorney General’s lawsuit against Brian Ingalls. Ingalls is the 26-year old Christian who is being sued by Maine’s top attorney for allegedly praying and preaching the Bible too loudly outside of a Planned Parenthood abortion clinic. Maine Attorney Stephen Whiting is assisting in the lawsuit as local co-counsel.

Maine Attorney General Janet Mills is a zealous supporter of Planned Parenthood. Mills, along with her brother and sister, were honored by Planned Parenthood of Northern New England at their 50^th Anniversary Gala for their continued dedication to the abortion business.

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, commented, “The politically motivated and ridiculous lawsuit filed by Attorney General Mills is a clear violation of the First Amendment of our Constitution.  She should know better.”

Backing-up Thompson’s claim is an amazing video recorded conversation with police in front of Planned Parenthood.  In the video, a different prolife preacher asks a responding officer what is and what is not too loud and how a violation is determined. The officer responds that there are no criteria. When asked if Planned Parenthood could just lie when claiming a preacher is too loud and can be heard inside of the building, the officer acknowledges, that they could.  Click here to view the video.

The complaint filed by Attorney General Janet Mills alleges that by continuing to preach after police notified him that Planned Parenthood officials had complained he was too loud, Ingalls violated the Maine Civil Rights Act.  TMLC is requesting that the Court dismiss the Attorney General’s frivolous lawsuit without requiring the young father to expend any further time or resources to defend the suit. The Maine Attorney General’s lawsuit against Brian Ingalls is an attempt to warp the Maine Civil Rights Act into a state-sponsored weapon to silence pro-life speech that hurts Planned Parenthood’s bottom line.

Less than a month before the lawsuit against Ingalls was filed, the City of Portland’s buffer zone, enacted to protect the same Planned Parenthood abortion clinic, was declared unconstitutional in a judgment obtained by the Thomas More Law Center. Mill’s current Civil Rights lawsuit can only be construed as an irresponsible attempt to circumvent that judgment and impose a de facto 50 foot buffer zone.  A violation of the Maine Civil Rights Act carries a $5,000.00 fine. Curiously, Mill’s complaint requests that Ingalls not be allowed within 50 feet of any Planned Parenthood in Maine, not just the one in Portland where he preaches his pro-life message.

TMLC trial counsel Erin Kuenzig commented, “The Maine Attorney General’s lawsuit against Brian Ingalls is a blatant attempt to silence lawful, peaceful, pro-life speech simply because that speech promotes life instead of abortion, and thereby threatens Planned Parenthood’s business.  The First Amendment does not permit the state to silence speech merely because government officials disagree with the message being conveyed, but that is exactly what has happened here.”