Case ID: f-appx_320/html/0507-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Brittany MCCOMB; Marianna McComb; Constance J. McComb, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Gretchen CREHAN; Roy Thompson; Christopher Sefcheck; Walt Rulffes, Defendants-Appellants.
    No. 07-16194.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted March 10, 2009.
    Filed March 20, 2009.
    Anand Agneshwar, Arnold & Porter LLP, New York, NY, Douglas H. Clark, Las Vegas, NV, James J. Knicely, Knicely & Associates P.C., Williamsburg, VA, for Plaintiffs-Appellees.
    C.W. Hoffman, Jr., Legal Department, Joshua H. Reisman, Ballard Spahr Andrews & Ingersoll, LLP, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendants-Appellants.
    Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, HUG and BEA, Circuit Judges.
   MEMORANDUM

We have jurisdiction over this appeal, Knox v. Southwest Airlines, 124 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir.1997), and can consider the merits of defendants’ arguments, Hydride v. Hunter, 500 F.3d 978, 986 (9th Cir.2007).

Defendants did not violate McComb’s free speech and free exercise rights by preventing her from making a proselytizing graduation speech. Cole v. Oroville Union High School District, 228 F.3d 1092, 1101 (9th Cir.2000); Lassonde v. Pleasanton Unified School District, 320 F.3d 979, 983 (9th Cir.2003). Nor did they violate McComb’s right to equal protection; they did not allow other graduation speakers to proselytize.

REVERSED and REMANDED for dismissal of the claims that are the subject of this appeal. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.