UI law students sue school

Three law students at the University of Idaho filed a lawsuit against school administrators this week claiming they were punished for expressing their Christian beliefs.

The case — named Perlot v. Green after one of the plaintiffs, Peter Perlot, and UI President Scott Green — was submitted Monday in the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho. Perlot and the two other students, Mark Miller and Ryan Alexander, are members of the Christian Legal Society chapter at the university.

In addition to Green, the lawsuit names as defendants UI Dean of Students Blaine Eckles, and Office of Civil Rights and Investigations Director Erin Agidius and Deputy Director Lindsay Ewan.

The students are represented by attorneys at the Alliance Defending Freedom, a nonprofit based in Arizona committed to “protecting religious freedom, free speech and the sanctity of life.” According to a news release Tuesday, the case is about free speech.

“Students of all religious and ideological stripes must be free to discuss and debate the important issues of our day, especially law students who are preparing for a career that requires civil dialogue among differing viewpoints,” said Michael Ross, legal counsel at the nonprofit. “Yet the University of Idaho is shutting down Peter, Mark and Ryan because of their religious beliefs. This is illegal behavior from any government official, and we urge the university officials to right their discriminatory actions immediately.”

The legal complaint says the three students attended a “moment of community” held by the UI College of Law on the Moscow campus in response to an anti-LGBTQ+ slur written on a whiteboard at the university’s Boise campus. According to court documents, the Christian Legal Society gathered at the event to condemn the slur and support their fellow students.

While they were there, another student approached them to ask why the group requires its officers to affirm that marriage is between one man and one woman. Perlot is president of the chapter and Alexander is a representative.

The group explained their view of marriage and sexuality, based on the Bible, and Perlot left a note for the student saying he’d be happy to discuss the issue further.

Not long after the exchange, the unnamed student and several others denounced the chapter’s actions at a panel with the American Bar Association. A member of the Christian Legal Society at UI who attended the meeting countered the statements and argued the biggest discrimination on campus was against the group for its religious beliefs.

Three days later, Perlot, Miller and Alexander received no-contact orders from the university’s Office of Civil Rights and Investigations.

The orders prohibit any communication between the plaintiffs and the student who approached them at the “moment of community” event. According to the legal complaint, the three plaintiffs were not given an opportunity to review the allegations or defend themselves.

“Instead of allowing the students to disagree civilly and respectfully with one another and to discuss these important issues, the university chose instead to censor plaintiffs,” the lawsuit states. “These actions violate the students’ clearly established rights under the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause.”

UI issued the no-contact orders under its Title IX Sexual Harassment Policy and its Code of Conduct and Disciplinary Policies. The students are claiming the policies were applied based on protected speech, rather than any conduct.

They also say the policies were implemented because the university found their speech controversial and their views unfavorable.

Jodi Walker, senior director of communications at the university, declined to comment on the specific case but said, in general, a no-contact order is a supportive measure available to students under Title IX.

“When a complaint is made that qualifies under Title IX, the university must make the student aware of the supportive measures available,” Walker stated in an email to the Daily News. “Upon the student’s request, these supportive measures must be enacted.”

Schools are obligated to offer supportive measures to a complainant, regardless of whether a formal complaint of harassment is filed, according to page 18 of an FAQ from the Department of Education about Title IX. Schools also have the discretion and flexibility to determine which measures are appropriate based on the “facts and circumstances” of each situation.

Examples include offering counseling, campus escort services and mutual restrictions on contact between the parties involved.

The students in the lawsuit are seeking declaratory, injunctive and monetary relief as well as attorney’s fees and costs. They’re suing for violations of the First and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and for violations of Idaho’s Free Exercise of Religion Protected Act.

Palermo can be reached at apalermo@dnews.com or on Twitter @apalermotweets.