Woman sues Keararge board, saying rights violated during trans-athlete debate
Attorneys for a Nashua woman filed a lawsuit in federal court Thursday claiming her First Amendment rights were violated when she was 'silenced and threatened with police intervention' after referring to a biologically male athlete on a girls soccer team as a 'tall boy' during a Kearsarge Regional School Board meeting last summer.
Attorneys from the Institute for Free Speech, along with local counsel Roy S. McCandless, say Beth Scaer attended the Aug. 29, 2024, meeting to speak out against transgender athletes in girls high school sports, after members of the Kearsarge Regional School Board announced that it would revisit its decision to enforce House Bill 1205, a state law that limited participation in interscholastic girls sports to biological females.
Free Speech Complaint
The Kearsarge Regional School District is based in New London.
The lawsuit, filed Thursday in U.S. District Court in Concord, claims Kearsarge board members silenced Scaer 'just seconds' into her remarks, with board Chair Alison Mastin declaring Scaer's speaking time forfeited, and warning her that police would intervene if she continued speaking and threatening to have the police remove her for violating an unwritten policy against 'derogatory comments' for referring to a biologically male athlete on the girls' soccer team as a 'tall boy."
While Scaer was speaking, many attendees in the meeting room "jeered, and hissed to express their opposition to her comments," the lawsuit claims.
"Some audience members applauded Mastin for interrupting Beth and cutting her off early," the lawsuit says. "Scaer attempted to protest Mastin's silencing her, but — due to the jeers, hissing, and applause — it was difficult to hear Scaer. Mastin and the school board made no attempt to quiet the crowd so that Scaer's comments could be heard."
The lawsuit claims other speakers were given a full three minutes to express support for the transgender athlete by name, with one attendee displaying a sign with the athlete's name on it — which the board allowed.
The lawsuit claims the board's actions are unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination that violates the First Amendment. The suit also argues that the unwritten 'no derogatory comments' rule is unreasonable, vague, overbroad, and selectively enforced against disfavored viewpoints.
'School boards cannot invent speech rules on the fly to silence citizens expressing views they dislike,' Institute for Free Speech attorney Nathan Ristuccia said. 'This unwritten rule about 'derogatory' comments gives the board unchecked power to determine which speech is acceptable and which isn't — precisely what the First Amendment prohibits."
The Kearsarge meeting featured a heated debate over the state's Fairness in Women's Sports Act, a law reserving girls sports for biological females.
The district had previously voted to follow the law, but following the incident with Scaer, the Kearsarge board reversed course, voting 5-1 to allow the transgender athlete to compete on the girls soccer team.
'Everyone deserves an equal opportunity to address their elected officials without fear of censorship,' Scaer said. 'This case is about ensuring that all citizens — regardless of their viewpoint — can participate in public meetings and comment on issues that are important to the community.'
The lawsuit seeks to enjoin enforcement of the 'no derogatory comments' rule, prevent discrimination against speech based on viewpoint, and establish that Scaer's First Amendment rights were violated.
Scaer's attorneys also say the lawsuit aims to ensure that Scaer, and others, can speak freely at future board meetings without fear of censorship, retaliation, or removal simply for expressing controversial or dissenting views.
A request for comment from Kearsarge school officials was not immediately answered.
In a separate lawsuit filed last year, Beth Scaer and her husband, Stephen, claimed their free speech rights were violated after they applied to fly two different flags, a pro-life flag and a Pine Tree flag on flagpoles at City Hall Plaza in Nashua. A federal judge ruled Nashua officials didn't violate the couple's First Amendment rights when they rejected their application, denying their request for a preliminary injunction.
The Scaers are appealing that decision.
pfeely@unionleader.com
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
16 hours ago
- The Hill
Red states have launched a hostile takeover of public universities
Earlier this month, for the first time in its history, the Florida Board of Governors rejected a university's choice of a college president. Despite unanimous approval by the University of Florida's board of trustees, MAGA activists attacked Santa Ono, a former president of the University of Michigan, for his past support of diversity, equity and inclusion programs; his views on admissions, gender-affirming care and climate change; and his handling of pro-Palestinian protesters and the COVID-19 pandemic. Ono's claim that 'I am here to ensure that DEI never returns to the University of Florida' was too little, too late. Florida is at the extreme edge of an unprecedented red-state campaign to reinforce and sometimes outdo the Trump administration's efforts to remake higher education. But Florida is by no means alone. Since 2023, 135 bills have been introduced in 29 states to eliminate DEI offices, ban mandatory diversity training, forbid the use of diversity statements in hiring and promotion and bar colleges and universities from requiring classes that 'promote concepts such as systemic racism, reparations, and racial or gender diversity.' Twenty-seven of those bills have become law. Educational 'gag orders' restricting instruction about race, gender and sexual orientation have also grown increasingly extreme. Ohio limits discussion of 'controversial beliefs or policies,' including 'climate policies, electoral politics, foreign policy, diversity, equity, and inclusion programs, immigration policy, marriage, or abortion,' requires universities to 'ensure the fullest degree of 'intellectual diversity,' and bans or restricts most DEI-related policies and programs. Florida's Stop Woke Act, which sought to regulate how colleges and universities teach 'divisive concepts,' has been blocked by federal courts as a violation of the First Amendment. Nonetheless, Florida's Board of Governors and State Board of Education have eliminated hundreds of general education courses from the state's 40 public institutions to comply with legislation banning instruction based on 'identity politics' or 'theories that systemic racism, sexism, oppression and privilege are inherent in the institutions of the United States.' Last week, following criticism of existing accreditation agencies for supporting DEI, the public university systems in Texas, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Tennessee decided to establish their own accreditor. Ohio, Utah and Florida mandate civics instruction focused on a conservative vision of Western civilization. Ohio requires students to read at least five essays from 'The Federalist Papers,' Martin Luther King Jr.'s 'Letter from Birmingham Jail' and the writings of Adam Smith. Multiple states — including Florida, Arizona, Tennessee, Ohio, Texas and Iowa — have established civics institutes intended to be bastions of conservative thought. At least 11 states have passed laws imposing new levels of post-tenure review or making it easier to dismiss tenured faculty. Indiana, for example, prohibited the award of tenure to faculty 'unlikely to foster a culture of free inquiry, free expression, and intellectual diversity,' and authorized the demotion or termination of faculty who do not, in the board's judgment, help create that culture. In several states, proposals to eliminate tenure have only narrowly failed. The academic tradition of shared governance is also under attack. A bill in Arizona, vetoed by its governor, would have stripped faculty of the ability to approve academic degrees or programs. In a law enacted earlier this week that may serve as a model for other states, Texas reserved to the governing board of each public university — whose members are appointed by the governor — the right 'to overturn any decision made by the institution regarding any changes to the general education curriculum'; 'approve or deny the hiring of an individual for the position of provost or deputy, associate, or assistant provost'; 'collaborate with institutions … to set campus admission standards'; and 'overturn any hiring decision for the position of vice president or dean.' Texas also gave university boards exclusive authority to establish faculty senates or councils; prohibited them from issuing statements not directly related to their educational mandate; and limited them to advisory roles, with the presiding officer appointed by the institution's president. Faculty and staff 'may provide recommendations on academic matters,' so long as 'governing boards and institutional leadership retain clear and ultimate decision-making authority.' In another sign of the hyper-politicization of higher education, red states are increasingly using ideological litmus tests for prospective trustees and presidents. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, for example, transformed New College from, in his words, a center of 'woke indoctrination' into a conservative haven by stacking the board with right-wing partisans and naming a conservative president. These campaigns at the federal and state level to undermine academic freedom, weaken faculty authority and impose conservative values are often compared to McCarthy-era initiatives, but what's happening today is far broader and more damaging. McCarthyites focused almost exclusively on a single issue — the perceived spread of communist influence. Mandates were directed principally at faculty and staff who refused to take loyalty oaths. Professors of economics and political science were pressured to teach the virtues of democracy and the 'free enterprise system.' Even when institutions dragged their feet in complying, neither states nor the federal government imposed anything remotely like the punitive and crippling measures employed against educational institutions today. Nonetheless, the McCarthy era fostered a climate of fear and intellectual conformity in higher education that took years to dissipate. When, if ever, will public and private institutions recover from the ongoing all-out assault on the freedom of teaching and learning that made American higher education the envy of the world? It's anyone's guess. Glenn C. Altschuler is the Thomas and Dorothy Litwin Emeritus Professor of American Studies at Cornell University. David Wippman is emeritus president of Hamilton College.
Yahoo
17 hours ago
- Yahoo
Thanks, Supreme Court! It's now my right to prevent my kid from learning about Trump.
I have a deeply held religious conviction that, by divine precept, lying, bullying and paying $130,000 in hush money to an adult film star are all immoral acts. So it is with great thanks to the U.S. Supreme Court and its recent ruling allowing Maryland parents to opt their children out of any lessons that involve LGBTQ+ material that I announce the following: Attempts to teach my children anything about Donald Trump, including the unfortunate fact that he is president of the United States, place an unconstitutional burden on my First Amendment right to freely exercise my religion. In its June 27 ruling, the high court cited Wisconsin v. Yoder and noted, 'The Court recognized that parents have a right 'to direct the religious upbringing of their children' and that this right can be infringed by laws that pose 'a very real threat of undermining' the religious beliefs and practices that parents wish to instill in their children.' Well, I wish to instill in my children the belief that suggesting some Americans are 'radical left thugs that live like vermin' and describing a female vice president of the United States as 'mentally impaired' and 'a weak and foolish woman' are bad things unworthy of anyone, much less a commander in chief. So any attempt to teach my children that Trump exists and is president might suggest such behavior is acceptable, and that would infringe on my right to raise my children under the moral tenets of my faith. (My faith, in this case, has a relatively simple core belief that being a complete jerk virtually all the time is bad.) Opinion: I can't wait to get a Trump Mobile gold phone to pay respect to my MAGA king As Justice Samuel Alito wrote in his opinion regarding the use of LGBTQ+ books in schools, some 'Americans wish to present a different moral message to their children. And their ability to present that message is undermined when the exact opposite message is positively reinforced in the public school classroom at a very young age.' Exactly. I wish to present a moral message to my children that when a man is found liable for sexual abuse and has been heard saying things like 'I moved on her like a bitch' and 'she's now got the big phony tits and everything' and 'Grab 'em by the pussy,' that man is deemed loathsome by civil society and not voted into the office of the presidency. That wish is undermined by any book or teacher exposing my student to the fact that Trump is president. Alito cited several books that were at issue in Maryland schools, including one called 'Love Violet,' which 'follows a young girl named Violet who has a crush on her female classmate, Mira. Mira makes Violet's 'heart skip' and 'thunde[r] like a hundred galloping horses.' Although Violet is initially too afraid to interact with Mira, the two end up exchanging gifts on Valentine's Day. Afterwards, the two girls are seen holding hands and 'galloping over snowy drifts to see what they might find. Together.'' While my religion would define such a story as 'sweet' and 'loving,' Alito and his fellow conservatives on the Supreme Court find it 'hostile' to parents' religious beliefs. Tell us: Is America's billionaire boom good for government, democracy? | Opinion Forum As Alito wrote, 'Like many books targeted at young children, the books are unmistakably normative. They are clearly designed to present certain values and beliefs as things to be celebrated and certain contrary values and beliefs as things to be rejected.' OK. By that same logic, any class discussion or history lesson involving Trump and his status as president has the potential to teach my children that it's normal to have a president who lies incessantly, demeans transgender people and routinely demonizes migrants. Opinion alerts: Get columns from your favorite columnists + expert analysis on top issues, delivered straight to your device through the USA TODAY app. Don't have the app? Download it for free from your app store. Any in-class acknowledgement of Trump as president would, in Alito's words, be "clearly designed to present certain values and beliefs as things to be celebrated and certain contrary values and beliefs as things to be rejected.' I simply will not stand idly by while a taxpayer-funded school indoctrinates my children into believing a fundamentally dishonest and unkind person like Trump has the moral character to be president of the United States. My faith has led me to teach them otherwise, and any suggestion that Trump's behavior is acceptable would undermine that faith. Opinion: As a teacher, Supreme Court siding with parents' religious freedom concerns me Elly Brinkley, a staff attorney for U.S. Free Expression Programs at the free-speech advocacy group PEN America, said in a statement following the Supreme Court ruling in the Maryland case: 'The decision will allow any parents to object to any subject, with the potential to sow chaos in schools, and impact students, parents, educators, authors, and publishers.' Amen to that. I object to the subject of Donald Trump. Let the chaos ensue. Follow USA TODAY columnist Rex Huppke on Bluesky at @ and on Facebook at You can read diverse opinions from our USA TODAY columnists and other writers on the Opinion front page, on X, formerly Twitter, @usatodayopinion and in our Opinion newsletter. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Supreme Court just saved kids from reading about Trump | Opinion
USA Today
19 hours ago
- USA Today
Thanks, Supreme Court! It's now my right to prevent my kid from learning about Trump.
Any attempt to teach my children that Trump exists and is president might suggest such behavior is acceptable, and that would infringe on my right to raise my child under the moral tenets of my faith. I have a deeply held religious conviction that, by divine precept, lying, bullying and paying $130,000 in hush money to an adult film star are all immoral acts. So it is with great thanks to the U.S. Supreme Court and its recent ruling allowing Maryland parents to opt their children out of any lessons that involve LGBTQ+ material that I announce the following: Attempts to teach my children anything about Donald Trump, including the unfortunate fact that he is president of the United States, place an unconstitutional burden on my First Amendment right to freely exercise my religion. In its June 27 ruling, the high court cited Wisconsin v. Yoder and noted, 'The Court recognized that parents have a right 'to direct the religious upbringing of their children' and that this right can be infringed by laws that pose 'a very real threat of undermining' the religious beliefs and practices that parents wish to instill in their children.' Supreme Court shows I can fight to keep kids from learning about Trump Well, I wish to instill in my children the belief that suggesting some Americans are 'radical left thugs that live like vermin' and describing a female vice president of the United States as 'mentally impaired' and 'a weak and foolish woman' are bad things unworthy of anyone, much less a commander in chief. So any attempt to teach my children that Trump exists and is president might suggest such behavior is acceptable, and that would infringe on my right to raise my children under the moral tenets of my faith. (My faith, in this case, has a relatively simple core belief that being a complete jerk virtually all the time is bad.) Opinion: I can't wait to get a Trump Mobile gold phone to pay respect to my MAGA king Alito clearly doesn't want schools teaching kids that Trump exists As Justice Samuel Alito wrote in his opinion regarding the use of LGBTQ+ books in schools, some 'Americans wish to present a different moral message to their children. And their ability to present that message is undermined when the exact opposite message is positively reinforced in the public school classroom at a very young age.' Exactly. I wish to present a moral message to my children that when a man is found liable for sexual abuse and has been heard saying things like 'I moved on her like a bitch' and 'she's now got the big phony tits and everything' and 'Grab 'em by the pussy,' that man is deemed loathsome by civil society and not voted into the office of the presidency. That wish is undermined by any book or teacher exposing my student to the fact that Trump is president. Supreme Court is protecting children from the tyranny of love Alito cited several books that were at issue in Maryland schools, including one called 'Love Violet,' which 'follows a young girl named Violet who has a crush on her female classmate, Mira. Mira makes Violet's 'heart skip' and 'thunde[r] like a hundred galloping horses.' Although Violet is initially too afraid to interact with Mira, the two end up exchanging gifts on Valentine's Day. Afterwards, the two girls are seen holding hands and 'galloping over snowy drifts to see what they might find. Together.'' While my religion would define such a story as 'sweet' and 'loving,' Alito and his fellow conservatives on the Supreme Court find it 'hostile' to parents' religious beliefs. Tell us: Is America's billionaire boom good for government, democracy? | Opinion Forum As Alito wrote, 'Like many books targeted at young children, the books are unmistakably normative. They are clearly designed to present certain values and beliefs as things to be celebrated and certain contrary values and beliefs as things to be rejected.' OK. By that same logic, any class discussion or history lesson involving Trump and his status as president has the potential to teach my children that it's normal to have a president who lies incessantly, demeans transgender people and routinely demonizes migrants. Any in-class acknowledgement of Trump as president would, in Alito's words, be "clearly designed to present certain values and beliefs as things to be celebrated and certain contrary values and beliefs as things to be rejected.' I will now object to any book or classroom mention of Donald Trump I simply will not stand idly by while a taxpayer-funded school indoctrinates my children into believing a fundamentally dishonest and unkind person like Trump has the moral character to be president of the United States. My faith has led me to teach them otherwise, and any suggestion that Trump's behavior is acceptable would undermine that faith. Opinion: As a teacher, Supreme Court siding with parents' religious freedom concerns me Elly Brinkley, a staff attorney for U.S. Free Expression Programs at the free-speech advocacy group PEN America, said in a statement following the Supreme Court ruling in the Maryland case: 'The decision will allow any parents to object to any subject, with the potential to sow chaos in schools, and impact students, parents, educators, authors, and publishers.' Amen to that. I object to the subject of Donald Trump. Let the chaos ensue. Follow USA TODAY columnist Rex Huppke on Bluesky at @ and on Facebook at
