Federal Court upholds ban on crucifix in seventh-grade class in CT

A grave violation of religious freedom continues in New Britain, Connecticut. In Arroyo-Castro v. Gasper the federal trial court denied a teacher’s First Amendment speech and religion claims after officials suspended her for insubordination, involuntarily placing her in an administrative position for having the temerity to display a crucifix on the wall near her desk.

In light of the board and court’s having run roughshod over Ms. Arroyo-Castro’s right to religious freedom, this column begins by reviewing the case before reflecting on what it portends for the future of religious freedom.

The case and the context

Ms. Marisol Arroyo-Castro, a “devout Catholic” grandmother of five, then with 33 years of teaching experience, “regularly received ‘proficient’ or ‘exemplary’ evaluations” since coming to work in New Britain in 2004. In December 2024, officials suspended Ms. Arroyo-Castro without pay for two days in early December 2024 before placing her on administrative leave for refusing to remove the one-foot crucifix, about waist-high on the wall near the desk in her classroom.

Officials disciplined her after a fellow “seventh-grade science teacher [and] two students complained that Ms. Castro was exposing students to religion in the classroom.” Officials claimed that the crucifix “posed the risk of appearing to observers that she favored Christian over non-Christian students or that the school endorsed Christian beliefs, in violation of the Establishment Clause.”

However, other teachers were allowed to have displays near their desks “including athletic team pennants, inspirational phrases, college decals, family and pet photos, action figures of Wonder Woman, a picture of the Mona Lisa, and a desk mat with images of Baby Yoda [and other] items [with] ‘religious origins or connotations’ including a picture of Santa Claus, a coffee mug, a Christmas tree, and a small photograph of a statue of the Virgin Mary.”

After the parties were unable to resolve their disagreement through mediation, the judge rejected Ms. Arroyo-Castro’s claim that officials violated her First Amendment free speech and free exercise of religious rights.

Denying Ms. Arroyo-Castro’s request for a preliminary injunction enabling her to hang the crucifix, the judge argued that such relief was unavailable because she “acted pursuant to her official duties when she posted items on the classroom wall that students would see during instructional time.” She decreed that because the “wall decorations are thus speech pursuant to Ms. Castro’s official duties and subject to the District’s control,” officials could ban the crucifix for displaying a religious message to a “captive audience” of students.

The judge rejected Ms. Arroyo-Castro’s reliance on the Supreme Court’s 2022 ruling in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District that educational officials could not prevent a football coach from praying silently on the field after games. The judge also paid scant attention to a reference in Ms. Arroyo-Castro’s demand letter acknowledging that the Supreme Court “dispelled the ‘false choice’ between the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause.”

The letter further noted that the Kennedy Court found that “the demand to completely suppress from view religious expression proved an unreasonable burden on deeply held convictions” is unconstitutional.

At the same time, the judge was oblivious to the 2023 Guidance Letter from the Federal Department of Education during the Biden Presidency specifying that “[i]n contexts where a school permits teachers, coaches, and other employees to engage in personal speech…it may not prohibit those employees from engaging in prayer [or other personal expression] merely because it is religious or because some observers, including students, might misperceive the school as endorsing that expression.” The judge thus upheld Ms. Arroyo’s transfer to the district’s central offices, where she can display her crucifix.

Reflection and analysis

Reflective of her activism from the bench, the trial judge in Arroyo-Castro v. Gasper ignored Supreme Court precedent on religious freedom, selectively citing cases with which she agreed, as a member of the “imperial judiciary” Justice Barrett decried in a recent case involving judicial overreach.

Stepping out of her role as an impartial arbiter, the trial judge disregarded Supreme Court precedent in discounting, even minimizing, Kennedy’s rationale that educational officials cannot infringe on the religious expression rights of staff members, including coaches, solely because they work in public schools. Moreover, as noted, the judge snubbed President Biden’s Executive Order defending religious expression in public schools.

Even more disappointing than the judge’s activist opinion was how the school board apparently overlooked the outright animosity that Ms. Arroyo-Castro’s principal, Anthony Gasper, voiced his hostility toward her crucifix. The crucifix had hung near her desk “for the past 10 years,” below the level of a computer monitor, near student artwork, and a calendar. Yet, the administrator not only allowed other teachers to display the items of their choice but was apparently unfazed by the Christmas tree and small cross underneath it that Ms. Arroyo-Castro displayed in her classroom.

As clear evidence of Gasper’s antipathy toward Ms. Arroyo-Castro’s beliefs, her complaint pointed out that “on two occasions, [he] insinuated her crucifix was an ‘idol’ not fit for worship,’” adding “that Christians are to worship no “idols’” and asking if Ms. Castro wanted to “stay ‘true’ to that as a Christian.” Such callous disrespect, ill-informed denigration of the sincerely held religious beliefs of others has no place in public schools or anyplace in American life. Even in giving the principal the benefit of the doubt that he was trying to avoid violating the First Amendment, there was no reason for him to have insulted Ms. Arroyo-Castro’s religious beliefs, disrespectfully referring to the crucifix as an idol, apparently without facing disciplinary consequences from the board.

Considering that the board purportedly “valu[ed] diversity of backgrounds, beliefs, and perspectives”, why did such respect not extend to Ms. Arroyo-Castro’s crucifix? It is unclear how the crucifix “posed the risk of appearing to observers that she favored Christian over non-Christian students or that the school endorsed Christian beliefs…” while other symbols were acceptable. It is hardly realistic to think that all who saw the crucifix agreed with it, were influenced by it, or were offended by its presence.

Disputes such as this one involving Ms. Castro-Arroyo ultimately come down to a simple question: Will only secular views be permitted in public schools while Christian expressions of faith are excluded? It is particularly disconcerting that school officials and the judge discounted Kennedy as well as the principle outlined in Chief Justice Warren Burger’s seminal statement in the Supreme Court’s 1984 plurality order in Lynch v. Donnelly.

In pluralities, the parties in a case are bound to the outcome, but such opinions are not binding precedent due to the lack of a five-justice majority. The Court reasoned that a public display including a crèche, or Christmas manger scene representing the birth of Jesus, that had been displayed for more than forty years in a shopping area in Pawtucket, Rhode Island, was constitutionally permissible as a passive representation of religion. Similarly, because Ms. Arroyo-Castro’s crucifix was a passive display, it, too, should have been left in place.

Lynch is additionally noteworthy because Chief Justice Burger’s pithy comment in the majority judgment is relevant here. Burger observed that the Constitution “affirmatively mandates accommodation, not merely tolerance, of all religions, and forbids hostility to all.”

In light of this clear directive to accommodate religious freedom, it is disappointing that the trial court upheld the actions of board officials who not only transferred Ms. Arroyo-Castro from her teaching position but also disregarded the principal’s having acted with impunity in demonstrating overt hostility to her Catholic beliefs, refusing to make good faith efforts to respect her beliefs.

Because attorneys representing Ms. Castro-Arroyo promise to appeal to the Second Circuit, this dispute is probably far from over. Stay tuned.