Education

Ruling Called Major Victory 

for Secular Public Education by FFRF

    (FFRF) -- Nov. 8, 2025 -- The Freedom From Religion Foundation is celebrating a major victory for secular public education after a federal judge in Connecticut ruled that a teacher was not entitled to display a Christian crucifix on her public classroom wall.

    In Arroyo-Castro v. Gasper, U.S. District Judge Sarah F. Russell issued a detailed opinion rejecting claims by longtime teacher Marisol Arroyo-Castro that her free speech and religious exercise rights were violated when she was instructed to remove a nearly foot-high crucifix she prominently displayed on a wall near her desk at DiLoreto Middle School in New Britain, Conn.

    The court correctly found that Arroyo-Castro was acting in her capacity as a government employee when she decorated her classroom, meaning her religious display constituted government speech — not private expression. The judge further ruled that the district acted reasonably to avoid violating the Establishment Clause by preventing a teacher from displaying a Christian symbol to a captive audience of students during instructional time.

    “This decision is a victory for every student’s right to a public education free from religious pressure or indoctrination,” says FFRF Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor. “A public school classroom is a place for learning, not for preaching. Author Ruth Hurmence Green has referred to crosses as ‘Christian torture symbols,’ and this is particularly true of crucifixes depicting a writhing human form. It is not only shocking for a public school teacher to affix such a sectarian symbol on a classroom wall, but it is also highly insensitive.”

    Gaylor also pointed out that the actions of the teacher, who is Catholic, show a clear preference for Roman Catholicism, since crucifixes are the predominant Catholic symbol although some non-Catholic Christians use the crucifix. The vast majority of Connecticut citizens are not Catholic, but even if they were, the constitutional separation between religion and government clearly interdicts such a display in a public classroom.

    The case arose after Arroyo-Castro refused repeated requests from administrators to remove the crucifix, even after being told she could keep it in a private space, such as inside a desk or car. When she defied those directives, the district placed her on paid leave. Assisted by the Christian nationalist legal group First Liberty Institute, Arroyo-Castro sued the district earlier this year.

    The court concluded that allowing the crucifix to remain “runs a substantial risk of incurring a violation of the Establishment Clause.” It clarified that the Supreme Court’s 2022 Kennedy v. Bremerton ruling — which allowed a football coach to pray privately after games on a high school football field — did not apply. As Judge Russell explained, “Unlike the students in Kennedy, who were engaged in other activities while the coach prayed, Ms. Castro’s students received the religious message when they were required to be present in the classroom receiving instruction from Ms. Castro.”

    In September, the district released a report by an independent investigator detailing concerns from students and staff about Arroyo-Castro’s religious conduct in the classroom. According to the report, Arroyo-Castro reprimanded students by saying things like, “I hope papa God helps you with your lies” and “Go find God.” The investigation concluded that her behavior made many students uncomfortable and that her repeated use of religious language in a public school setting created an environment that alienated much of her class.

    FFRF commends the Consolidated School District of New Britain for upholding its constitutional duty despite outside pressure and for providing a model of how public officials should respond to similar state/church violations.

    “This teacher wasn’t punished for being Christian,” Gaylor emphasizes. “She was disciplined for putting her personal faith above the law and her students’ rights. The court rightly reminded her — and all public employees — that no one’s faith gives them permission to violate student rights or blur the wall between church and state.”

    (Original press release date: Nov. 4, 2025)

    The Freedom From Religion Foundation is a national nonprofit organization with 42,000 members nationwide, including more than 500 members in Connecticut. FFRF’s purposes are to protect the constitutional principle of separation between church and state, and to educate the public on matters relating to nontheism.

Law and Order

Court Strikes Down Key 

Part of Trump’s Unlawful 

Voting Executive Order

     WASHINGTON, D.C. (ACLU) —11/6/2025 -- A federal court issued a decisive ruling in League of Women Voters Education Fund v. Trump, Oct. 31, permanently blocking a provision of President Trump’s March voting executive order that sought to add a requirement to show a passport or similar document proving citizenship when registering to vote with the federal voter registration form that would disproportionately impact voters of color. The decision grants summary judgment to the plaintiffs, finding that the President lacks the authority to unilaterally alter election procedures — powers that rest with Congress and the states.

     The ruling makes permanent the preliminary injunction issued in the case in April, and reaffirms a foundational principle of American democracy: no president can violate the separation of powers to change our elections and erect barriers that disenfranchise eligible voters.

    In a joint statement, plaintiffs and counsel, who are a coalition of voting and civil rights organizations, said: “The court’s ruling confirms what we have long argued: the President may not rewrite election law to impose a burdensome show-your-papers rule that would shut out countless Americans from the ballot box. This executive order was an attempted overreach of power, bypassing the Constitution’s clear allocation of authority to Congress and the states to set election rules. Our democracy is strongest when every eligible voter can register and vote free from expensive and unnecessary requirements.” 

    The League of Women Voters Education Fund, League of Women Voters of the United States, League of Women Voters of Arizona, Hispanic Federation, NAACP, OCA-Asian Pacific American Advocates, and Asian and Pacific Islander Vote are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of D.C., Asian Americans Advancing Justice – AAJC, Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law, NAACP Legal Defense Fund, and LatinoJustice PRLDEF.

    The court’s opinion: https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2025/10/MSJ-Opinion.pdf

    The court’s order: https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2025/10/217-Order-Granting-MSJ.pdf

Opinion

What Will Happen 

To All The Crops?

By Steve Rensberry

    EDWARDSVILLE -- 10-11-2025 -- I've been watching the fields take shape around Southern Illinois now that harvest has begun and I have to admit it worries me where all the corn is going to go, and the beans. 

    Is it going to rot in silos, get turned into fuel at double the cost, be the last crop some farmers ever harvest as bankruptcy and Great Depression level hardships move in? Is this it, the funeral is about over? 

    Are billions in bailouts going to be issued, robbing other areas of the country of funds that may be just as important? I'm not a farmer but many of my relatives are, or were, and many of my friends are. 

    The worse part is that none of this was necessary -- it's all tariff politics and tariff induced consequences, and neither China nor Brazil will be hurting one iota. You'd see smoke coming out my ears if I was a farmer. Is the fed gov trying to literally starve us of everything we need to live healthy lives, and to maintain healthy rural communities and places to raise our families? It's disturbing to watch it happen.

Due Process

ACLU Challenges Denial of

Due Process in Immigration Courts

Denying bond hearings violates rights, upends decades of precedent

    BOSTON – (ACLU) -- 9/24/2025 -- The American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts, together with the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project, the ACLU of New Hampshire, the ACLU of Maine, the law firm Araujo and Fisher, the law firm Foley Hoag, and the Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinic, filed a class-action lawsuit in federal court to challenge the widespread denial of bond hearings to people detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

    As the complaint demonstrates, this denial is a violation of statutory and constitutional rights, upending decades of settled law and established practice in immigration proceedings. As a result, thousands of people in Massachusetts will be denied due process.

    The complaint, filed Sept. 22, 2025, alleges that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice recently and abruptly began to misclassify people arrested by ICE inside the United States. DHS and DOJ are now systematically reclassifying these people from the statutory authority of 8 U.S.C. § 1226, which usually allows for the opportunity to request bond during removal proceedings, to the no-bond detention provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1225, which does not apply to people arrested in the interior of the United States and placed in removal proceedings.

    “All people in the United States are entitled to due process — without exception,” said Daniel McFadden, managing attorney at the ACLU of Massachusetts. “When the government arrests any person inside the United States, it must be required to prove to a judge that there is an actual reason for the person’s detention. Our client and others like him have a constitutional and statutory right to receive a bond hearing for exactly that purpose. Yet the Trump administration is now ignoring that right and jailing people arbitrarily without a hearing. The Fifth Amendment says that no person can be deprived of liberty without due process of law. This lawsuit seeks to ensure that the promise of our Constitution remains a reality.”

    In 1996, Congress passed the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, which established the current detention regime for people arrested and detained for civil immigration violations. Since then, people arrested inside the United States and placed in removal proceedings, regardless of whether they initially entered without permission, have been subject to 8 U.S.C. § 1226 and thus entitled to a bond hearing unless subject to certain criminal and national security exceptions.

    In late 2022, the Immigration Court in Tacoma, Washington began misclassifying § 1226 detainees arrested inside the United States as mandatory detainees under § 1225, solely because they initially entered the country without permission. The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington ruled that this practice was likely illegal in April 2025 and ordered a bond hearing for a wrongfully detained litigant.

    Nevertheless, three months later, DHS adopted the Tacoma Immigration Court’s unlawful practice nationwide and began to ask immigration judges to deny bond hearings. Some immigration judges rejected this argument, but on September 5, the Board of Immigration Appeals issued a precedential decision that purports to require all immigration judges to misclassify people in this manner. In the short time since, multiple federal courts have ruled that the BIA's decision is incorrect, but DHS and DOJ continue to misclassify people and unlawfully deny bond hearings.

    “Federal courts across the country, including here in Maine, have found the government’s attempt to deny bond hearings by misclassifying people under § 1225 to be unlawful,” said Max Brooks, an immigration attorney with the ACLU of Maine. "Millions of people who have been waiting for their day in court are now at risk of being jailed indefinitely over civil violations. We look forward to vindicating the rights of people in this situation with today’s class action lawsuit.”

    “ICE’s current refusal to provide bond hearings for detained clients violates due process and upends nearly 30 years of established practice,” said Annelise Araujo, founding principal and owner at Araujo & Fisher LLP. “The people impacted by this policy are neighbors, friends, and family members, living peacefully in the United States and making important contributions to our communities. Currently, the only recourse is to file individual habeas petitions for each detained client — a process that keeps people detained longer and stretches the resources of our courts. We’re proud to team with the ACLU to ask the court to protect their due process rights of our class members.”

    This case is brought on behalf of Jose Arnulfo Guerrero Orellana and a putative class of similarly situated individuals. Mr. Guerrero Orellana has been living in the United States for over a decade and is a devoted husband and father. He brings this case to vindicate his own right to a bond hearing — where an immigration judge can determine whether his detention is justified to protect the community or ensure his appearance in court — and that of thousands of other detainees in Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Maine, and New Hampshire who will be denied the opportunity to seek release on bond under the new legal ruling adopted by the executive branch. The complaint alleges that the government's new policy violates constitutional and statutory due process rights and violates the Administrative Procedure Act.