Opinion ID: 3031949
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Plaintiffs’ Facial Challenge

Text: The plaintiffs have not alleged facts showing any risk that UC’s policy will lead to the suppression of speech. Finley, 524 U.S. at 580 (To prevail on a facial challenge, a plaintiff “must demonstrate a substantial risk that application of the provision will lead to the suppression of speech”). Nor can they. It is undisputed that UC’s policy does not prohibit or otherwise prevent high schools, including Calvary, from teaching whatever and however they choose or students from taking any course they wish. High schools can, and do, continue to teach courses even -4- when they are denied UC approval. UC does not punish a school for teaching, or a student for taking, an unapproved course. Cf. R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377, 391, 393 (1992) (invalidating an ordinance that set forth a clear penalty, proscribed views on particular disfavored subjects and suppressed distinctive ideas conveyed by a distinctive message). The plaintiffs devote much of their appeal to arguing that UC’s policy on religion and ethics courses constitutes viewpoint discrimination. This policy provides that in order to receive UC approval, religion and ethics courses should “treat the study of religion or ethics from the standpoint of scholarly inquiry, rather than in a manner limited to one denomination or viewpoint.” Aside from pointing out that UC’s policy includes the word “viewpoint,” the plaintiffs fail to allege facts showing that this policy is discriminatory in any way. It is not. As UC’s expert explained, UC’s policy is necessary because the “academic study of religion is multidisciplinary in nature” and “[p]rivileging one tradition or point of view is considered unacceptable and counter-productive in the scholarly study of religion at UC and similar colleges and universities.” Going beyond UC’s written policies, the plaintiffs contend that UC has a well established practice of rejecting courses with standard content solely because they add a religious viewpoint. See, e.g., Santa Monica Food Not Bombs v. City of -5- Santa Monica, 450 F.3d 1022, 1035 (9th Cir. 2006) (in a facial challenge, the court commonly considers the government’s “authoritative interpretation of its guidelines” if it is a “well-established practice”). The evidence, however, is to the contrary. It is undisputed that UC has approved courses with religious content and viewpoints as well as courses that used religious textbooks as the primary and secondary course texts.