What did judge rule in San Pasqual lawsuit?
WE ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS
IMPERIAL VALLEY PRESS
It was with interest that I read the article about San Pasqual Valley Unified School District being sued in federal court by a student who feels the district is trampling on his First Amendment rights with its policy banning protest during the national anthem. Anyways, was just hoping for an update, since the article mentioned that a court hearing was taking place on the same day the article was published. — Curious, El Centro
A In case readers may have missed it, the article the Probe writer refers to was about the San Pasqual Valley Unified School District (SPVUSD) facing a federal lawsuit in response to rules it temporarily established prohibiting political protest during the national anthem at its home and away athletic events.
The federal lawsuit was filed Dec. 8 on behalf of a San Pasqual Valley High School student-athlete whose protest during an Oct. 6 football game in Spring Valley, Ariz., sparked backlash and threats from some members of the community, prompting the SPVUSD to issue its temporary “initial rules” restricting protests at athletic events for the sake of its students’ and staff’s safety.
The article in question was published Tuesday, which also coincided with oral arguments being heard by a U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California judge in advance of their ruling on whether to grant or deny the plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction.
As it turns out, the district judge issued a ruling Thursday granting the preliminary injunction that had further sought to keep the district from enforcing the so-called “rules of conduct” the SPVUSD superintendent had outlined in an Oct. 11 letter sent to coaching staff.
On Dec. 12, that same district judge, Cynthia Bashant, had issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) against the district, preventing it from enforcing its rules of conduct.
Although the district had argued Tuesday, as well as in its declarations filed with the court Monday, that its decision to dispense with the national anthem rendered plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction a moot point, Bashant disagreed.
Bashant, in her ruling, stated that the district had failed to demonstrate or advise the campus community that it indeed had abandoned its initial rules of conduct.
In such cases like the present one, defendants have a heavy burden to demonstrate that the matter is indeed moot, said Franchesca Verdin, director of the California Rural Legal Assistance’s Rural Education Equity Program, and one of the plaintiff’s attorneys.
Although the SPVUSD board of trustees had stopped short of adopting a formal policy prohibiting political protest during athletic events, it left its proposed resolution tabled, leaving the potential for it to come into consideration at a future date, despite its questionable constitutionality, Verdin said.
“It’s not the same as saying its unlawful and they’re going to stop and not do it in the future,” Verdin said, referring to the district’s actions.
SPVUSD Superintendent Rauna Fox on Wednesday published a letter to the campus community explaining the series of events that have taken place to date surrounding the controversy.
Fox’s letter also advises the community that the district has since dispensed with the playing of the national anthem and will not be enforcing its temporary rules of conduct. That letter is currently found on the district’s website, and will be followed by a mailed letter to parents following the holiday break, Fox stated.
It’s not clear what to expect next, following Thursday’s ruling by Bashant. But, we plan to follow the case for further developments and report back with any significant news.