A faithful reader alerted me to an Eighth Circuit case with a Minnesota setting and a timely First Amendment issue. The case is set at the state prison in St. Cloud, Minnesota. Plaintiff Anthony Schmitt and a colleague taught “The Quest for Authentic Manhood” as volunteers for some ten years based on their understanding of Christian doctrine. The goal of the twice-a-week class was the prevention of recidivism.
In 2023 the authorities nixed the course on the ground that it violated their policies by “including homophobic content and blaming women for many of the prisoners’ hardships” and that it “directly conflict[ed] with the diversity, equity and inclusivity values of the department by defining manhood, or the study of masculinity, through a biblical lens of what a real man looks like.”
Schmitt sought a preliminary injunction reinstating the course on First Amendment grounds before Minnesota Federal District Judge John Tunheim. Judge Tunheim denied Schmitt’s motion — the first quote above derives from his opinion. Because rulings on injunctions are appealable, Schmitt was able to appeal Judge Tunheim’s decision to the Eighth Circuit and the Eighth Circuit reversed in a 2-1 opinion written by Judge Lavenski Smith. Judge Tunheim’s opinion denying the motion for preliminary injunction is accessible online here. Judge Smith’s opinion is accessible online here and embedded below.
The case reminds me of a column I wrote for the Weekly Standard about Charles Colson titled “Wielding the hatchet” (behind the Washington Examiner paywall). I interviewed Colson for the column while he was grocery shopping in Florida with a developmentally disabled grandson. Would someone who has access to the Examiner archives please send me a copy of the column?
The Eighth Circuit opinion also reminds me of the case I litigated with John for two University of Minnesota-Duluth history professors against the university. We lost the case when it was decided by the Eighth Circuit panel. We petitioned the court to take up the case en banc. Our petition was granted and John and I argued the case before the entire court in St. Louis. Sitting en banc, the court reversed the panel 8-2 and ruled in our clients’ favor. The court’s en banc opinion remains good law. It is accessible online as Burnham v. Ianni.
In the Schmitt case the prison setting is overlaid on the government forum issue that John and I argued in Burnham. The prison setting brings the Supreme Court’s Turner v. Safley case into play.
Schmitt is represented by the Upper Midwest Law Center. The center’s summary of the case is accessible here in its lineup of current litigation: “The voluntary program, designed to instill principles of authentic manhood as per Christian teachings, saw remarkable success. More than a thousand inmates completed the program, reporting restored families, healed resentments, and transformative experiences.” Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison’s office represents the state authorities. Ellison’s office has declined comment on the Eighth Circuit opinion.
The state authorities could petition to have the case heard en banc, as John and I did in the Burnham case. The panel opinion is not necessarily the last word even on the preliminary injunction. If the panel opinion remains in effect, the case returns to Judge Tunheim and should result in a final judgment in favor of Schmitt. I submit this to the attention of our readers for its intrinsic interest.
