• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
KingSpry Logo

King, Spry, Herman, Freund & Faul, LLC.

Attorneys & Counselors

  • 610-332-0390
  • Pay My Bill (Retainer Only)
  • Pay My Bill (All Other Invoices)
  • About
    • About Us
    • Commitment to the Community
    • Firm History
    • Career Opportunities At KingSpry
    • Directions
  • Practices
    • Adoption / ART Law
    • Affordable Housing Law
    • Bankruptcy Law
    • Business Law
    • Education Law
    • Employment Law
    • Estate Planning / Administration
    • Family Law
    • Investigations and Compliance Services
    • Litigation
    • Local Taxation and Assessment
    • Municipal Law
    • Public Finance
    • Real Estate Law
    • Special Education Law
  • Team
  • Greyfriars
  • News
    • News
    • Articles
  • Podcasts
    • Landmarks Podcasts
    • Legal Lunch Room Podcasts
  • Review
  • Contact

In The Court of First Amendment Law, Satan Club: 1, School District: 0

Posted on May 4th, 2023
by John E. Freund, III

A U.S. District Court has granted preliminary injunction permitting the Satan Club to use a school district’s facilities. What are the central issues and how should school districts handle these questions in light of the recent trend for courts to find in favor of free speech? 

On May 1, 2023, U.S. District Court Judge John M. Gallagher ordered Saucon Valley School District to permit the after-school use of district facilities to The Satanic Temple, Inc., also known as “The Satan Club”, that had once been approved and later denied by the District.  

In a 32 page, carefully written Opinion, Judge Gallagher dismissed the District’s claims of disruption and policy violation before reaching the quintessential finding in a First Amendment case: “the District’s decision to rescind approval of TST’s application was based on the content of and of TST’s religious viewpoint and the reactions to it.”  

It is a well-established principle that school districts, while not required to open their facilities to outside groups, once they do they create what is known in constitutional law as a “designated” or “limited forum.”  Once outside groups are permitted to use district facilities, districts cannot deny the use of the same facilities based on viewpoint.

Despite its name, The Satanic Temple, Inc. (TST), does not claim to worship Satan but rather regards Satan as a “metaphorical construct of rejecting tyranny, changing the human mind and seeking justice and equality.”

On February 16, 2023, the District originally approved TST’s application to use school facilities after school hours; thereafter, the District received a flood of emails and calls critical of the District’s decision, including a call threatening violence which shut down the District for a day.

On or around February 23, 2023, the District became aware of two postings on social media advertising the Satan Club.  The District contended that neither of the posts clearly stated that the club was not being sponsored by the District as required by District policy 707.  Based upon these alleged policy violations, the District rescinded its approval of TST’s facilities use application.  Litigation spearheaded by the ACLU followed. 

Significant in its legal analysis was the principle of constitutional law analysis that once TST was able to state a “colorable” claim that the District’s action restricts some form of speech, the burden shifts to the District to justify the restriction.  

The Court quickly concluded that the District had established a designated public forum by permitting various civic and religious organizations to use its facilities.  The Court also questioned whether the evidence showed a clear violation of policy 707 and cited examples of when the disclaimer called for in policy 707 was not enforced.  

Finally, the court pointed to several emails written by the Superintendent that suggested that the reason for the decision to remove TST from the facilities was due to the controversy surrounding its viewpoint.  

In short, the Court had little difficulty in concluding that the District’s motivation for rescinding the approval for TST was viewpoint discrimination.

Bottom Line for Schools

When faced with the prospect of allowing controversial groups to use district facilities, Boards would be well-advised to keep in mind the very first sentence of Judge Gallagher’s opinion: 

“When confronted with a challenge to free speech, the government’s first instinct must be to forward expression rather than quash it.”  

In recent years, courts, whether considered to be liberal or conservative, have ruled in favor of protecting first amendment rights, whether it is the Satan Club, the crude gestures of a cheerleader on social media or the vulgar vituperations of an angry public at board meetings.  

Of course, there are exceptions.  True threats, harassment and obscenity need not be tolerated.  As characterized by the U.S. Supreme Court in Mahanoy City v. B.L. (6/23/21), schools have a “heavy” burden to show how their interest in restricting speech outweighs the rights of individual expression.  

Clearly, technical violations of district policies, especially those not routinely enforced, are not likely to outweigh the importance of First Amendment protections.

Arriving at the correct constitutional balance sometimes requires putting aside the counter-intuitive and the repugnant.  Consultation with a knowledgeable school lawyer is vital to avoid liability and the costly attorney’s fees that accompany an adverse order.

School leaders with questions about First Amendment rights or policies for public use of campus facilities should contact their legal counsel or one of the Education attorneys at KingSpry.

Primary Sidebar

Contact Us

Contacting any of the attorneys at KingSpry by e-mail or other means does not create an attorney-client relationship. Therefore, you should not send confidential information through this form or by e-mail. Unless and until you speak with one of our attorneys and an attorney-client relationship is formally established by that attorney's agreement to represent you, you should not send us confidential information. If you are not currently a client of King, Spry, Herman, Freund & Faul, LLC, your e-mail is not considered confidential.

From Our Articles

A green stylized logo with the letters "K" and "S" combined within a green square. The "K," formed by abstract shapes, is to the left while the conventional "S" on the right balances it perfectly. Ideal for your homepage branding.

New Law to Streamline Child Custody Factors in Pennsylvania

July 3, 2025

On June 30, 2025, Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro signed House Bill No. 378 into law, making it Act No. 11

A green stylized logo with the letters "K" and "S" combined within a green square. The "K," formed by abstract shapes, is to the left while the conventional "S" on the right balances it perfectly. Ideal for your homepage branding.

U.S. District Court Expands Injunctive Relief for Transgender Americans Affected by Passport Executive Order

July 2, 2025

On June 17, 2025, a federal judge certified two classes in a case challenging President Trump’s executive

Footer

King Spry White Logo

Quick Link

About KingSpry Commitment to the Community Firm History Career Opportunities at KingSpry Directions

Practice Areas

Adoption / ART Law Affordable Housing Law Bankruptcy Law Business Law Education Law Employment Law Estate Planning / Administration Family Law
Investigations and Compliance Services Litigation Local Taxation and Assessment Municipal Law Public Finance Real Estate Law Special Education Law

Contact

phone

610-332-0390

email

contact@kingspry.com

location

1 West Broad Street. Suite 700 Bethlehem, PA 18018

Facebook Youtube LinkedIn

Pay My Bill (Retainer Only) Pay My Bill (All Other Invoices)

Copyright © 2025. King Spry. All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy