Talk:First Liberty Institute

Question about removed information

Hello, I noticed that a case (the one about cheerleaders) was recently removed from this article with a note that First Liberty Institute only had a footnote about it in the source articles. Here are the sources I have on the topic. Could someone let me know if these are enough to add information about the case to this article? If not, what sort of information would a source need to include about a lawyer or organization that would qualify as significant for Wikipedia?2601:280:4980:A60:D4E5:7C3B:CFE9:EDDD (talk) 22:40, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/04/kountze-cheerleaders-free-speech-religion-banners-football/476892/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/bobcook/2016/02/08/christians-fight-back-in-school-sports-prayer-battles/#1f68b510150d https://www.dallasnews.com/news/news/2016/01/29/court-southeast-texas-cheerleaders-bible-signs-not-threatened

I could read the first and third of those and did not find any mention of First Liberty Institute. Unless the press coverage mentions the lawyer or organization by name, it is not support for introducing that case here in this article. The case looks like it's notable, but the role that the organization played has not reached the required level of coverage.

If you are connected with First Liberty Institute, you should read Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy and be sure you are in compliance with it. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:18, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Not to drop the ball too badly, I see that the Institute is referred to by its name at the time of the lawsuit. So it's not "no mention". We now have to determine whether the mention is sufficient to support adding the case to the article. It's something that could be debated. The Institute is mentioned as having a role and as the organizational affiliation of one of the people quoted. I would say you could go with this source (I was re-reading the Atlantic article). If other editors continue to disagree, you should continue to discuss this here on the talk page rather than edit war on the article itself. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:31, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Seems sufficient. Doug Weller talk 11:14, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your quick response and assistance with adding this case to the First Liberty wiki. I am a new editor, and want to be sure that I am following all of wiki’s regulations. I have a few more cases that I would like to add to this wiki. Since my first edits were deleted I would like to have another editor's feedback on the the additional edits before I add them to the article. Can I post the cases (and citations here) first, for your review?

Thank you in advance for all of your help.2601:280:4980:A60:FC20:3D6C:E12B:5F40 (talk) 17:54, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that's a perfectly acceptable procedure. When editing anonymously, the question sometimes arises of whether you are closely connected with the topic you are editing, but there's no good place to declare who you are and whether you have a conflict of interest. Bringing the suggested edits to the talk page gets around this problem: reliable sources are reliable sources, no matter who brings them to our attention. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:20, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you so much for all of your help!! I really appreciate your expertise! I will work on gathering all of the necessary sources, and will post them here this week. Thanks again! 50.253.124.59 (talk) 19:48, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Additional edits

Can you please take a look at these additional entries, and let me know if they are okay to add to this wiki?

I would advise against adding every case for which we can find some source mentioning the Institute. Usually First Liberty Institute is only mentioned in passing, and there is very little information about the Institute in any of those sources I checked. At least parts of the proposed additions misrepresent the given source, too. Huon (talk) 20:18, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your quick response!! I do have some additional sources. If I can provide more sources, do you think that any of these cases would be eligible to add to the wiki? Thanks again for all of your help! 2601:280:4980:A60:FC20:3D6C:E12B:5F40 (talk) 15:12, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

2012 Texas Cheerleader Bible verse banners In 2012, they represented the cheerleaders of a Texas high school who sued the school district after school officials banned them from displaying banners with Bible verses written on them. A county district judge ruled in their favor. http://articles.latimes.com/2012/oct/18/nation/la-na-nn-texas-cheerleaders-bible-banners

Navy Chaplain restored to service In 2015, the organization assisted in the case of Navy chaplain Wesley J. Modder, who was relieved of his duties from the Navy after complaints regarding his behavior towards unwed pregnant and homosexual personnel. On September 3, 2015, the commander of Navy Personnel Command restored Modder to service. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/nov/4/wes-modder-navy-chaplain-resumes-ministry-after-fi/ The Washington Times. Nov. 4, 2015 Church congregations vs. eminent domain Also in 2015, the organization represented two congregations in Houston’s Fifth Ward in a suit against the city’s housing agency, which wanted to purchase or seize through eminent domain several vacant lots owned by the churches in order to build low-incoming housing and a library. The housing authority withdrew its eminent domain statement three months into the lawsuit.

Denyse O'Leary, By Design or By Chance? The Growing Controversy on the Origins of Life in the Universe, Augsburg Books, 2004, p. 136 [6] Mike S. Adams, Welcome to the Ivory Tower of Babel: Confessions of a Conservative College Professor, Harbor House, 2004 [7]

Invocation before court In 2016, the organization represented a Texas Justice of the Peace at a judicial commission hearing after a federal lawsuit was filed against him for holding an invocation before court. The Texas Judicial Conduct Commission ruled in favor of the judge, and Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton issued a legal opinion in support of courtroom invocations.

 http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/article/AG-opinion-OKs-courtroom-prayer-chaplaincy-9146673.php
 Banks, Gabrielle. “Courtroom prayer draws federal lawsuit against Montgomery Co. JP.” The Houston Chronicle. Mar. 23, 2017. http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/Courtroom-prayers-draw-federal-lawsuit-against-11023994.php

Mt. Soledad Cross case First Liberty was unsuccessful in defending the Mt. Soledad Cross near San Diego, California when the Supreme Court refused to hear the case in 2012, allowing a prior U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Court ruling to stand.[20] In 2015, the U.S. government sold the land under the cross to Mt. Soledad Memorial Association, allowing the cross to stand. First Liberty Institute filed an Amicus curiae in the case of the Mojave Desert Memorial Cross in California which was settled to the satisfaction of First Liberty Institute in April 2012.[21]

Oregon bakers vs. same-sex couple The organization is representing Oregon bakers who were ordered by the state to pay damage fees to a same-sex couple after refusing to make a cake for their wedding. Harkness, Kelsey. “Oregon Bakers Get New Legal Representation From Former H.W. Bush White House Counsel.” The Daily Signal. Feb. 23, 2016. http://dailysignal.com/2016/02/23/oregon-bakers-get-new-legal-representation-from-former-h-w-bush-white-house-counsel/

 Hennessy-Fiske, Molly. “Texas cheerleaders win on Bible banners—for now.” LA Times. Oct. 18, 2012. http://articles.latimes.com/2012/oct/18/nation/la-na-nn-texas-cheerleaders-bible-banners-
 Wetzstein, Cheryl. “Navy chaplain resumes ministry after fight over beliefs.” http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/nov/4/wes-modder-navy-chaplain-resumes-ministry-after-fi/ The Washington Times. Nov. 4, 2015
 Nazerian, Tina. “Fifth Ward churches file suit with housing agency over property.” http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/Fifth-Ward-churches-file-suit-with-housing-agency-6425269.php Houston Chronicle. Aug. 4, 2015
 Flynn, Meagan. “HHA Withdraws Eminent Domain Threat Against Fifth Ward Church.” http://www.houstonpress.com/news/hha-withdraws-eminent-domain-threat-against-fifth-ward-church-7897440 Houston Press. Nov. 3, 2015
 http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/article/AG-opinion-OKs-courtroom-prayer-chaplaincy-9146673.php
 Banks, Gabrielle. “Courtroom prayer draws federal lawsuit against Montgomery Co. JP.” The Houston Chronicle. Mar. 23, 2017. http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/Courtroom-prayers-draw-federal-lawsuit-against-11023994.php
 
 Harkness, Kelsey. “Oregon Bakers Get New Legal Representation From Former H.W. Bush White House Counsel.” The Daily Signal. Feb. 23, 2016. http://dailysignal.com/2016/02/23/oregon-bakers-get-new-legal-representation-from-former-h-w-bush-white-house-counsel/ 2601:280:4980:A60:FC20:3D6C:E12B:5F40 (talk) 16:18, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

References

Additional edits

I asked this question previously, but I think that it got missed... I do have some additional sources for the entries I would like to add. If I can provide more sources, do you think that any of these cases would be eligible to add to the wiki? Thanks again for all of your help!2601:280:4980:A60:FC20:3D6C:E12B:5F40 (talk) 17:03, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

That would depend on what those additional sources say about First Liberty Institute. Do they cover the organization itself in some detail, or do they just mention it in passing while discussing the case? What could we write about the organization, based on those sources? Huon (talk) 17:59, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The Mt. Soledad article cited above only mentions Liberty Institute as an identification for one of the people who commented on the case. So this article, all by itself, is insufficient to support bringing that case into the First Liberty Institute page. Cases in which the First Liberty Institute is "interested" or even filed an amicus brief would not generally be suitable for adding, in the absence of in-depth media coverage about First Liberty Institute's involvement (in contradistinction with in-depth coverage of the case and its issues). — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:04, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Proposed Changes to Address Primary Source Issues

Dear contributors,

I wanted to propose a couple of changes to the page. In full disclosure, I want to let you know that I am an employee of First Liberty Institute, but I intend to abide by Wikipedia’s standards of neutrality.

I'd like to note that I am not the individual who was making requests or edits before; that person had been hired by First Liberty Institute previously but we realized this was not the correct way to approach things. From now on, I'll be the only person here making requests for the firm and will endeavor to abide by all applicable rules.

Proposed Change #1

One issue with the article is that it relies too much on primary sourcing.

I want to offer some clarification about the organization’s history and provide a secondary source confirming the information. This would replace reference #9 (which is a primary source), with two secondary sources.

I propose that it be changed to read like this:

Kelly Shackelford originally founded the organization in 1997 under the name Liberty Legal Institute (LLI). At that time, LLI was the legal arm of the Free Market Foundation. The organization changed its name to Liberty Institute in 2009 and was then finally renamed First Liberty Institute in 2016.

Proposed Change #2

On this change, Reference #11 is a primary source. I offered a couple more sources confirming the details on the case of Dr. Eric Walsh.

I propose that it be changed to read:

First Liberty Institute represented Dr. Eric Walsh in a lawsuit against the Georgia Department of Health (DPH). DPH hired Dr. Walsh in 2014 as a district health director. Dr. Walsh was also a lay minister at a Seventh-Day Adventist church, where he frequently gave sermons and religious speeches. One week after his hiring, DPH officials reviewed Dr. Walsh's sermons and subsequently fired Dr. Walsh from his position. In April of 2016, First Liberty filed a lawsuit, claiming that Dr. Walsh had been terminated from his job due to his religious beliefs. In February of 2017, the state of Georgia agreed to settle the suit for $225,000.

--

I believe that these changes reflect the information more accurately, based on the available sourcing. Happy to collaborate and edit as needed. Thank you!!

TheLibertyWriter (talk) 17:26, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi. I think your proposals sound good and you are following Wikipedia's policies which is good. I like the fact you have also disclosed your connection - though that does not debar you from editing, I like your honestly and the fact you are trying to do thinks the right way. Kindest regards Lin4671again (talk) 18:52, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello Lin4671again. Thanks for your prompt reply. Would you like to make those edits to the article? I want to be as neutral as possible and refrain from editing directly. Let me know if you'd be willing to do that. Thanks! TheLibertyWriter (talk) 19:38, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't think that The Stream meets our requirements at WP:RS. That's beside the point that the author of the article works for First Liberty. Doug Weller talk 19:48, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

To Doug Weller's point, here's another source confirming details on Dr. Walsh's case: https://world.wng.org/2017/02/georgia_settles_with_doctor_in_religious_freedom_case. This could replace the source from The Stream. TheLibertyWriter (talk) 20:15, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the input and for the changes made to the article. TheLibertyWriter (talk) 18:36, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

References

Fixing content that reads like an advertisement

Dear editors,

I hope you're all doing well. Again, I'm disclosing my connection to First Liberty as an employee, but will abide by Wiki standards.

One of the issues with the article is that it contains content that is written like an advertisement. I would like to address that issue and offer some changes. Which section(s) or text in the article do you all think read like an ad? Just want to make sure I target the right parts.

Thanks in advance for your input!

TheLibertyWriter (talk) 18:22, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Changing first line of article and removing primary source

Dear editors,

I wanted to propose a change to the first line of the article. It currently reads:

First Liberty Institute is a Texas based religious firm which litigates religious liberty issues.

I found a few sources that altogether describe what the organization does. Based on that, I think this would be a clearer statement:

First Liberty Institute is a nonprofit legal organization based in Plano, Texas, near the Dallas-Fort Worth metro area. The organization is focused on religious freedom and the First Amendment, representing and providing legal assistance to individuals and groups of various faiths on those issues. Because First Liberty handles court litigation and other similar legal matters, it is often referred to as a law firm.

I tried to be as neutral as possible on this. If you notice, I've pulled a variety of sources that span a broad spectrum of what is out there in the media regarding First Liberty. This change also takes out the need for Citation #1, which is a primary source. It would be great if one of you would be willing to make this change.

Happy to collaborate further and as needed. Thanks!!

TheLibertyWriter (talk) 21:22, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your contribution.Lin4671again (talk) 13:19, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

References

NPOV - removal of any indication that FLI is on the right & its LGBT stance

Is there any disagreement that it's on the right? Rolling Stone calls it Christian Right[1], People for the American Way call in religious right[2]. The SPLC calls it right wing.[3] The Texas Observer notes its anti-LGBQT stand[4]. There's no mention in the text of Jeff Mateer who played an important role, right?[5] But the article mentions Ho, who was only a volunteer, why in the world is that worthy of mention, let alone in the lead, while Mateer[6] and Matthew J. Kacsmaryk (less controversial than Mateer but still with the same prejudices[7][8]) aren't? How it's described needs to be in the article. Doug Weller talk 13:56, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Doug. I added the details about Ho in the text as he was appointed to a Circuit Court which is just below the Supreme Court and hence significant. The fact that it was added to the 'lead' was merely because it was more appropriate there than adding into the 'prominent cases' subsection or starting a new subsection. I added links to Jeff Mateer and Matthew Kacsmaryk in the 'see also' section as they were just nominated to District Courts as opposed to a Circuit Court like Ho. I have no problem with it being added that it has been described on the 'right' / 'Christian right' etc if that is sourced from neutral, reliable sources (unlike SPLC or PFAW). As for their views on LGBT issues, that should also be added. Absolutely. Lin4671again (talk) 14:38, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Doug Weller talk. I've made changes to the article in light of your comments. Are you happy for the NPOV tag to now be removed or, if not, what else needs to be changed? Lin4671again (talk) 15:18, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

For myself, I think your additions are inadequate, Lin4671again. You're picking out only People For the American Way, as if that's the only source for calling FLI 'something-right', and you're creating a separate criticism ghetto section, which should preferably be avoided, compare WP:NOCRIT. IMO, there needs to be something in the lead section before the POV tag is removed. I'll see if I can craft something. (Your Criticism sentence is grammatically incoherent, btw, Lin4671again.) Bishonen | talk 15:52, 7 February 2018 (UTC).

The SPLC is a reliable source for its opinion, which should be attributed. We use it in probably hundreds of articles. I have no idea what you mean by "neutral" - someone who doesn't care if an organisation hates gays or loves them? With an organisation that is clearly political such as this one, no one is likely to be neutral. We use non-neutral sources all the time. Doug Weller talk 17:14, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

'Neutral' means a source that is not commenting about a group it opposes. Regards Lin4671again (talk) 19:35, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

You think 'neutral' means that? I can't believe you mean to say a source that is commenting about a group it supports is neutral, but it sounds a bit like it. Please clarify. Bishonen | talk 19:50, 7 February 2018 (UTC).

Funding

There's nothing in the article about its funding. It relies on donations and fees, clearly, and received about $8 million from Contributions, Gifts & Grants in I think 2015.[9] Here's an earlier IRS report[10] which I'm not suggesting we use, just to back up the other link.There's also this Trump administration payment[11] but that's less than $300,000. Doug Weller talk 17:24, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

I believe it provides pro bono services so I doubt that fees would amount to much, if anything. Lin4671again (talk) 19:37, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

It also charges. The example I gave was a case where it kept the money while others didn't. But I suspect it has large donations, but haven't been able to find a source. Doug Weller talk 20:04, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Free Market Foundation

I've removed the bit about the Free Market Foundation in the lead section because it's quite confusing. Wikipedia's article Free Market Foundation is about a different organization, a classical liberal think tank in Johannesburg, South Africa, founded in 1975. What I can find on Google looks like the American, right-wing, Free Market Foundation, founded in 1972, was merged with the Liberty Legal Institute around 2009.[12] If the American Free Market Foundation needs to appear in the lead (I don't quite see why, though), it has to be described more, and distinguished from the South African Free Market Foundation that we have an article about. Bishonen | talk 15:52, 8 February 2018 (UTC).

Neutral descriptions of First Liberty Institute

Dear editors,

I noticed that a lot of changes and discussion resulted from my suggested changes to the opening line. I want to clarify that it was not my intent to omit any critical details from the introduction, as I specifically only suggested the first line to be edited. It was not my goal to delve into the more controversial depictions of the organization.

Nevertheless, since that discussion seems to have been opened, I have some thoughts to contribute to make sure the article offers an equitable description of First Liberty Institute.

Below, I have listed a variety of sources where First Liberty is mentioned. These sources are from a broad spectrum and differing points of view, including The Atlantic, The Hill, The Free Beacon, Fox News, CNN, and Newsweek, as well as a few others. I did not “cherry-pick” the sources that would be most favorable to us.

In fact, the last two sources from CNN and Newsweek offer a very critical and controversial analysis on one of First Liberty’s former attorneys. But even those sources give a neutral description of what First Liberty does.

Here is my core argument:

Based on other organization articles on Wikipedia and my understanding of relevant guidelines, the initial description of an organization should be purely objective and informational, based on what most sources say. See the article on Alliance Defending Freedom, for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alliance_Defending_Freedom.

A grand majority of credible news outlets (see evidence below) describe First Liberty something like this: a conservative, nonprofit legal organization that advocates for the First Amendment and litigates religious liberty cases.

I am not trying to omit criticisms of the organization, as that is clearly part of the public discussion. If editors want to put information and sources about what certain groups (both supporting and oppositional) say about First Liberty, that seems fine. I think, however, that it needs to be clearly labeled as such. I think there is a difference between reporting the overview of what an organization does (objective / descriptive) and the opinions of other organizations (subjective).

My recommendation for edits.

My suggestion would be that both types of information should be included, but I think merging it all into the introductory portion creates a muddy representation. A distinction should be drawn.

The proposed edit would be to separate the descriptive material in one paragraph, and “criticisms” or “opinions” of First Liberty into another paragraph. For instance:

First Liberty Institute is a nonprofit legal organization based in Plano, Texas, near the Dallas-Fort Worth metro area.[1][2] It is a conservative, nonprofit legal organization that advocates for the First Amendment and litigates religious liberty cases. [cite example sources]

Supporters describe the organization as focused on religious freedom and the First Amendment[3][4] and on providing assistance to individuals and organizations "in legal battles over religious freedom and first-amendment issues".[5] Opponents generally describe it as a Christian-right or religious-right advocacy organization with a strong anti-LGBT agenda.[6][7][8]

I think separating the information will help the internet surfer / Wikipedia reader who wants to know more about the organization.

Thanks for your attention and input! Happy to collaborate as needed.

Example sources

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/12/the-religious-liberty-showdowns-coming-in-2017/511400/ “a Texas firm that litigates religious-liberty issues” https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/05/religious-freedom-executive-order/525354/ “a Texas law firm that focuses on First Amendment issues” https://www.buzzfeed.com/zoetillman/the-trump-administration-agreed-to-pay-more-than-3-million?utm_term=.wgy16LpwD#.hto8R7rWG “a conservative legal advocacy group” http://freebeacon.com/issues/religious-liberty-crosshairs/ “a nonprofit group that provides pro-bono legal aid to victims of religious discrimination” http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/369425-grassley-under-fire-for-planning-vote-on-17-judicial-nominees “a legal group dedicated to fighting for religious liberty” http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/09/26/attacks-on-religious-freedom-in-us-more-than-double-since-2011-report-finds.html “a conservative organization that advocates for the First Amendment and provides legal services” http://www.newyorkupstate.com/news/2017/11/cny_firefighter_files_amended_civil_complaint_gets_new_lawyers_in_religious_disc.html “a Texas-based legal firm specializing in religious rights." https://www.cnn.com/2017/10/18/politics/kfile-mateer-nazi-comparisons/index.html “a nonprofit religious liberty advocacy group” http://www.newsweek.com/trump-nominee-jeff-mateer-texas-first-liberty-satan-nazis-692130 “a nonprofit legal organization that focuses on cases involving religious issues.”

TheLibertyWriter (talk) 17:20, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

As there's been no reply and the article has been quiet, I wanted to nudge editors directly for their thoughts. User:Lin4671again, User:Bishonen, and User:Doug Weller, what do you think about my notes and suggestion? TheLibertyWriter (talk) 20:07, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Dear editors, it's been a couple of weeks since I posted this comment. Again, I just want to see if you all could provide some input on the suggestion I made. Thanks again for colalborating on this article! User:Lin4671again, User:Bishonen, User:Doug Weller. TheLibertyWriter (talk) 17:26, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry. I don't really understand the problem. I can point to many organisations with similar leads. And what you want to do is repeat " advocates for the First Amendment and litigates religious liberty cases. twice but with slightly different wording. You also are asking that the article state that as fact. The problem there is that the wording ignores the fact that it's described as having an agenda that is not simply litigating religious liberty. Doug Weller talk 09:33, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Doug, thanks for your input. This is my point: A great majority of sources make a brief description of First Liberty in a very neutral way. Thus, I think the article should reflect that language in the leading line, i.e. "It is a conservative, nonprofit legal organization that advocates for the First Amendment and litigates religious liberty cases." I'm not assuming this is a statement of fact - as you claim - and I do not suggest that we omit criticism from opponents. But this statement is concurrent and consistent with the way that sources describe the organization, when taken into consideration as a whole. And I've supplied those sources.

I see your point about the information being repetitive. What if it were worded and structured like this:

First Liberty Institute is a nonprofit legal organization based in Plano, Texas, near the Dallas-Fort Worth metro area.[1][2] It is a conservative organization that advocates for the First Amendment and litigates religious liberty cases. [cite example sources]

Supporters describe the organization as focused on providing assistance to individuals and organizations "in legal battles over religious freedom and first-amendment issues".[5] Opponents generally describe it as a Christian-right or religious-right advocacy organization with a strong anti-LGBT agenda.[6][7][8] TheLibertyWriter (talk) 19:44, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Adding New Entry to Prominent Cases

Dear editors,

It's been a few weeks since there's been any activity on the article. I wanted to propose a brief insertion. I have summarized one of First Liberty's renown cases, that of high school football coach Joseph Kennedy. This case has received considerable media attention and I've found some sourcing that describes the case neutrally and concisely.

Would one of you be willing to add this to the "Prominent Cases" section? See text below. Thank you!!

User:Lin4671again, User:Bishonen, User:Doug Weller, User:Drmies

-- -- --

First Liberty Institute represents high school football coach Joseph A. Kennedy in a lawsuit against the Bremerton School District (BSD) in Washington State. For several years, Kennedy kneeled for a brief prayer on the field after games. In 2015, BSD officials suspended and later dismissed Kennedy from his coaching position, claiming that his public prayer violated school policy.

In 2017, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that Kennedy "spoke as a public employee, not as a private citizen, and his speech therefore was constitutionally unprotected." First Liberty filed an appeal for a rehearing by the full panel of the Ninth Circuit. Early in 2018, the Ninth Circuit rejected that request. First Liberty attorneys intend on appealing the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.

TheLibertyWriter (talk) 15:24, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I can do that, with minor alterations. I'll remove the "brief" as POV: brief compared to what, and according to whom? Not the sources. "Claiming" -> "stating", per WP:CLAIM. And I won't have any truck with the intentions in the last sentence, per WP:UNDUE. And, just stylistically, I don't see much need to introduce the abbreviation BSD for a body that's only mentioned twice, and I'm not happy with the very short paragraphs. So, like this, I thought:

First Liberty Institute represents high school football coach Joseph A. Kennedy in a lawsuit against the Bremerton School District in Washington State.[1] For several years, Kennedy kneeled for prayer on the field after games. In 2015, school district officials suspended and later dismissed Kennedy from his coaching position, stating that his public prayer violated school policy.[2][3] In 2017, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that Kennedy "spoke as a public employee, not as a private citizen, and his speech therefore was constitutionally unprotected."[4] First Liberty filed an appeal for a rehearing by the full panel of the Ninth Circuit, which was rejected early in 2018.[5]

Would that be OK for you, TheLibertyWriter? Of course I'd put in your footnotes properly, I just don't want to create doubled versions of them here on talk. Bishonen | talk 15:58, 14 March 2018 (UTC).