Teacher Silenced for Prayer – Now the School District Is Dodging Accountability: ACLJ Stands Firm

At the ACLJ, we’ve been fighting to protect religious liberty in our nation’s schools for decades. We have a major update in our case on behalf of Staci Barber, the teacher who prayed at the flagpole.

Staci Barber, a dedicated educator, had her constitutional rights violated when Katy Independent School District (KISD) implemented a policy that restricted religious expression. She was banned from praying where students could see her and was told that she could not even pray in the school parking lot because a student might walk by.

When we brought this case to court, the district immediately tried to have it dismissed. Thankfully, the federal district court has rejected their dismissal attempt, correctly recognizing that we had alleged sufficient facts to show Ms. Barber’s constitutional rights were violated pursuant to an official district policy.

Now, instead of facing the facts, the school district is resorting to multiple delay tactics.

The Appeal

One defendant in the case, Principal Scott Rounds, has appealed the court’s denial of his qualified immunity defense. He has filed a notice of appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. This appeal seeks to overturn the judge’s determination that Principal Rounds is not shielded from personal liability for his actions against our client, Ms. Barber. We are preparing to continue to defend our client in federal appellate court. As we wrote when the Court denied the Motion to Dismiss:

The recent ruling in Barber v. Katy Independent School District represents a crucial step forward in protecting the First Amendment rights of teachers and is one of the first significant cases implementing the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District (2022).

Qualified immunity is a legal doctrine that shields government officials from personal liability unless their actions violate “clearly established” legal rights that a reasonable person would have known about. In essence, it’s a powerful protection that makes it extremely difficult to hold government officials accountable for constitutional violations.

When the court denied Principal Rounds’ qualified immunity claim, it represented a significant victory for our client. The judge effectively determined that, based on the facts alleged in our complaint, Principal Rounds should have known his actions against Ms. Barber violated clearly established constitutional rights. The constitutional right to engage in personal religious expression is clearly established under Kennedy, meaning school officials should have known better than to prohibit Ms. Barber’s prayer. Qualified immunity can be a major obstacle to holding government officials accountable, and the rejection of that argument represents a major victory in this case. This qualified immunity issue will be the center of this appeal. This appeal represents yet another attempt to delay justice and avoid accountability in this important case.

The School District’s Attempts To Delay

While Principal Rounds’ appeal moves forward at the Fifth Circuit, we’ll continue pressing ahead with our claims against Katy Independent School District. There’s no reason for the district court to delay consideration of our motion for summary judgment against the school district while Principal Rounds pursues his appeal. The ACLJ legal team is fully prepared to fight on multiple fronts – defending our victory at the appellate court level while simultaneously advancing our case against the school district whose policies led to this constitutional violation.

But the school district is trying to use that appeal as an excuse to halt the entire case – including the claims against the district itself that are completely separate from Rounds’ appeal. It also has deployed another delay tactic by requesting an interlocutory appeal – essentially asking to appeal the judge’s decision before the case is even finished. We just filed two crucial briefs in the district court, opposing these attempts to delay. This procedural move by the school district represents exactly what we see happening across America – government entities trying to avoid accountability when they violate religious freedom. These tactics drain resources and delay justice for those whose constitutional rights have been trampled.

The School District’s Motion To Certify an Appeal

Our brief explained to the court that the school district’s request for a special appeal fails on all three required elements for such an appeal. We demonstrated that there was no “pure question of law” at issue that would justify the extraordinary measure of an interlocutory appeal. As we argued, the court simply applied well-established precedent to the specific facts alleged in Ms. Barber’s complaint.

1. No pure question of law is at issue – The district isn’t challenging the actual legal standard but merely how the judge applied that standard to the specific facts of this case. This type of fact-specific review is precisely what is NOT appropriate for interlocutory appeal.
2. No substantial ground for difference of opinion exists – Despite KISD’s claims, the court’s ruling does not conflict with existing precedent. The court carefully distinguished this case from prior decisions based on crucial factual differences – notably, that KISD officials themselves repeatedly referred to the problematic language as district policy.
3. An immediate appeal would delay, not advance, the case – We’ve already filed a motion for summary judgment that addresses the same issues. Allowing an appeal now would waste months of time, only to potentially return to the same questions later.

As we argued in our response: “Keeping the [legal] issue against Katy ISD in this Court is the most efficient use of judicial resources.” In other words, it’s time for the district to stop hiding and face the constitutional questions at hand.

The School District’s Motion To Stay the Case

In our other brief we argued that the claims against the school district are legally distinct from those against Principal Rounds. While Rounds may appeal his denial of qualified immunity, there is no legal basis to halt proceedings against the district.

KISD’s request for a stay is a classic delay tactic. As we explained to the court, “Delaying the case against the District because of a separate appeal of a different Defendant’s defense of qualified immunity would be a needless delay, as the claims against the District are in no way contingent or legally dependent upon that appeal.” The school district cannot hide behind Principal Rounds’ appeal.

Let’s be clear about what’s happening: The school district knows it faces serious legal problems regarding its unconstitutional policies restricting religious expression. Rather than address these issues head-on, it’s attempting to use procedural maneuvers to avoid accountability. This is particularly troubling because our motion for summary judgment against KISD is currently pending before the court. Discovery has closed, and the case against the district is ready for the court’s consideration. A stay would needlessly delay justice for Ms. Barber.

The Bigger Picture

This case represents more than just one teacher’s right to religious expression. It’s about ensuring that government entities, such as school districts, cannot create policies that target faith while hiding behind procedural roadblocks when challenged. The tactics employed by the school district – attempts to delay proceedings through procedural maneuvers – are unfortunately common when government entities face constitutional challenges.

The ACLJ remains committed to fighting these delay tactics and ensuring that justice is not postponed for Americans whose First Amendment rights have been violated. Ms. Barber’s case highlights the importance of holding school districts accountable when they implement policies that restrict the religious freedom of teachers and staff.

We will be awaiting the Court’s decision on these motions. Meanwhile, we continue to press forward with our motion for summary judgment that addresses the heart of this case – whether the school district violated Ms. Barber’s constitutional rights through its policy. Together, we’re fighting for the constitutional rights of teachers like Staci Barber and sending a clear message: Public schools cannot target religious expression and then hide behind procedural maneuvers when challenged.

 Your support makes these crucial legal battles possible. Stand with us as we defend religious freedom in America’s schools.