UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT: FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION —M/ NTP 1 er LK SOUTH CENTRAL CONFERENCE u OF SEVENTH-DAY y ADVENTISTS, doing husinass as OAKWOOD ADVENTIST ACADEMY, Civil No. DDD OFA RAN SMD Plaintiff, COMPLAINT . DEMAND FOR ALABAMA HIGH SCHOOL JURY TRIAL, ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, Defendant, NATURE OF THE ACTION 1. This dispute arises from religious discrimination by the Alabama High School Athletic Association (AHSAA) against Oakwood Adventist Academy (Oakwood Academy) in refusing to accommodate its Seventh- day Adventist religious beliefs in the scheduling of state high-school bas- ketball championship tournaments, for no reason other than the purest bureaucratic intransigence. 2. Oakwood Academy is a Seventh-day Adventist school, and its reli gious beliefs prohibit it from participating in competitive basketball games on the Sabbath—a day of rest and worship that Adventists observe every week between sundown Friday and sundown Saturday.8, The Mustangs—Oakwood Academy's varsity boys’ basketball team—similarly do not engage in competitive play on the Sabbath in ac- cordance with Adventist religious beliofs. 4, AHSAA is the state actor authorized to schedule and oversee inter- scholastic sports and activities within the State of Alabama, 5. Although AHSAA schedules no state championship tournament play on Sundays, and although it allows for the rescheduling of contests for nonreligious reasons, AHSAA has categorically refused to grant scheduling requests to accommodate other religious observances 6, Asa result, Saturday Sabbath observers like Plaintiff are forced to forfeit any basketball contest occurring on the Sabbath. Thus, they are forced out of competitive play solely on account of their religious beliefs. 7. AHSAA’s position has not merely created a hypothetical example of state actors failing to accommodate easily accommodatable religious ox- ercise—though it is certainly that. Rather, this is also a case of a state actor taking a completely avoidable conflict and using it to prohibit reli- gious believers from participating fully in state high-school athletics even when there is no true conflict at all. 8. Specifically, on February 19, 2022, the Oakwood Academy Mus- tangs were forced to forfeit the chance to advance in the state basketball championship tournament solely because AHSAA refused to grant a three-hour schedule change that would allow them to play once the Sab- bath ended.9, Oakwood Academy's scheduled opponent did not object to the schedule change; rather, they readily agreed to it. 10. So too did the schools who were scheduled to play in the timeslot into which Plaintiff and its opponent proposed to swap. As with Plaintiffs opponent, they quickly agreed to Plaintiff's commonsense, de minimis re- quest. 11. Nonetheless, AHSAA twice refused to extend an accommodation to the Mustangs, giving as its sole rationale what the Supreme Court has described as “the classic rejoinder of bureaucrats throughout history: If] make an exception for you, I'l have to make one for everybody, so no exceptions.” Gonzales v. O Centro Esptrita Beneficente Unido do Vegetal, 546 USS. 418, 435-36 (2006). 12, AHSAA's actions put the Mustangs to a stark choice: either aban. don their sincerely held religious beliefs or forfeit the chance to compete. 13. Consistent with Oakwood Academy's deeply held religious convie- tions, the Mustangs forfeited the contest, thus putting a premature end to the best season in Mustang basketball history. 14, AHSAA’s failure to accommodate and its discrimination against Plaintiff's religious exercise is unconstitutional, illeyil, aad must be en Joined,JURISDICTION AND VENUE 15, This action arises under the Constitution and laws of the United States. The Court has subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343. 16. This Court has personal jurisdiction over AHSAA because AHSAA is incorporated and maintains its principal place of business in Montgom- ery, Alabama 17. The Court has authority to issue the declaratory and injunctive re- lief sought under 28 U.S.C, §§ 2201 and 2202. 18. Venue lies in this district under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b)(1) and (2). THE PARTIES 19. The South Central Conference of Seventh-day Adventists is a con- stituent body of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, serving Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi, and counties of the state of Florida west of the Apalachicola River, The Conference comprises more than 29,000 members in 149 congregations. 20, Oakwood Academy is a ministry of the South Central Conference and is not separately incorporated, It is located in Huntsville, Alabama. Conference employees staff Oakwood Academy, and an executive com- mittee comprised of Conference members ultimately controls Oakwood Academy's operations. 21, Defendant AHSAA is responsible for regulating, coordinating, and promoting interscholastic athletic programs among member schools.FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS Oakwood Academy and its religious exercise 22. The Seventh-day Adventist Church is a Protestant Christian de- nomination with more than 21 million members and a presence in over 200 countries. 23, A central tenet of the Seventh-day Adventist faith is observance of the Sabbath from sundown Friday to sundown Saturday. The Sabbath is “God's perpetual sign of His eternal covenant between Him and His peo- ple.” What Adventists Believe about the Sabbath, Seventh-day Adventist Church, httpsi/iperma.cclCGKF-MBLE. The word “Seventh-day” in the Church's name refers to the Sabbath, 24. This practice is biblically ordained. The Fourth Commandment in- structs: “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. ... [T]he seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God, in it thou shalt not do any work..." Exodus 20:8-10 (King James). 25. The hours of the Sabbath are sacred time devoted to God in wor- ship and pursuit of Him for His purposes. Seventh-day Adventists must spend the day in rest, prayer, and collective worship. See What Adventists Believe about the Sabbath, supra. 26, For Seventh-day Adventists, the Sabbath “isn't just any day off.” It is part of “God's eternal moral law,” “a memorial of the work of creation,” and a “perpetual sign of [God's] eternal covenant between Him and His people.” Id,21. Keeping the Sabbath is a core part of Oakwood Academy's identity and religious exercise. 28, Founded in 1896 on the campus of Oakwood University, a histori- cally black University, it was charged with the task of training young people of African American descent. 29. Oakwood Academy exists to provide a spiritual, academic, social and service-oriented environment to Develop, Nurture and Affirm (DNA) students for a lifetime of sorvice to God and humanity. 30. Oakwood Academy strictly observes the Sabbath from sundown on Friday evening to sundown on Saturday evening. No school activities that fail to honor the Sabbath take place during the Sabbath. 31, Oakwood Academy and its students are immersed in their Sev- enth-day Adventist faith every day—Monday through Sabbath. All stu- dents take Bible class every year, from kindergarten through 12th grado. Each day begins with staff worship before school begins. Each class pe- riod begins with prayer. And the school offers a variety of spiritual pro- gramming for students and families throughout the year—all aimed at molding students who are both committed to excellence in all pursuits and firmly grounded in their faith, AHSAA 52, AHSAA is an athletic association that includes nearly 400 public, private, and parochial schools in Alabama, 33. AHSAA was created by its member schools in 1921,34.In 1968, a three-judge district court held that “There is no question but that the Alabama High School Athletic Association, to the extent that [it] operate{s] and control[s] athletics and athletic programs of the public schools in the State of Alabama,” is a “state actor{]” under the Fourteenth Amendment, Lee v. Macon Cnty Bd. of Educ., 283 F, Supp. 194, 198 (M.D. Ala. 1968) (Rives, Johnson, and Grooms, J.) 35. AHSAA states that its purpose is to promote athletic participation and fair competition. 36. The National Federation of State High School Associations, to which AHSAA has belonged'since 1924, further calls on the Association to encourage athletic participation from all students in all schools to de- velop better citizens and enhance education and a student's sense of be- longing. 87. AHSAA states in its Handbook a basic beliof in pure competition: “Any athletic competition to determine a so-called champion shall pro- vide opportunities for schools to demonstrate and to evaluate the best taught in their programs with the best taught in other schools from other areas of the state.” AHSAA 2021-22 Handbook (Handbook), at 17, https://porma.ceNSUU-3CUW. 38. All Alabama public schools are required to be AHSAA members. 39, Nonpublic schools that meet certain requirements may also apply for AHSAA membership,40, AHSAA’s authority includes setting the schedules for champion- ship play, as well as rules specific to each type of sports contest. 41. AHSAA prohibits scheduling sports contests on Sundays. Its by: Jaws direct that “No interscholastic contest may be scheduled on Sunday without prior approval of the Central Board of Control. This includes summer play.” Handbook at 46, 42. On information and belief, AHSAA’s prohibition on Sunday con- tests was prompted by the religious practices of many Alabamians. 48. The prohibition on Sunday contests is a religious accommodation. 44, Former AHSAA Executive Director Dan Washburn stated that no sports contests should occur on Sunday because it is a “day of worship.” See Sunday football ban is disappointing, Tuscaloosa News (June 17, 2007), https:!/perma.cc/C2FZ-TXBK, 45, On information and belief, AHSAA has never scheduled champion- ship play on Sundays. 48. On information and belief, this practice originated and continues from respect for Sunday Sabbath obsorvers. 41. Though AHSAA sets the tournament schedules, it also has in place 8 policy that allowo it to altcr that achedule under certain circumstances. 48. According to the AHSAA Handbook, “when championship play is interrupted or threatened by public health/safety concerns, acts of God or other uncontrollable and unforeseen circumstances,” “the AHSAA ad- ministrative staff, in collaboration with the Central Board and playoffevent personnel, will attempt to delay or reschedule the playoff contests without adversely affecting the next round of the playoff schedule.” Handbook at 59-60. 49. AHSAA has exercised this discretionary power on multiple occa- 50. AHSAA has repeatedly exercised its discretion to reschedule cham- pionship contests in light of weather. 51. AHSAA has also rescheduled a postseason game pending the out- come of a court decision. 52, Moreover, when the COVID-19 outbreak began, AHSAA promised to create “contingency” championship plans as needed, Memorandum from Steve Savarese on Monitoring COVID-19 (Mar. 9, 2020), https://perma.ce/TB6J-PQKB, and it temporarily waived rules that would have resulted in forfeited contests due to COVID-19, 53.In addition to these exceptions, the Handbook provides that “{nJecessary decisions concerning any circumstances that are not covered by this policy will be left to the discretion of the AHSAA administrative staff and the Central Board of Control.” Handbook at 59 (emphasis added). 54. AHSAA states that “[tJhe interpretation and application of the rules and procedures for all AHSAA championship programs are vested in the Executive Director and the Central Board of Control of the AHSAA ‘and cannot be appealed.” Handbook at 48.55. AHSAA therefore has unlimited discretion over the scheduling of contest 56. As with team schedules, AHSAA also sets rules for tournament play. 57. With regard to basketball, teams are divided into seven divisions. ‘Teams first play in area tournaments, where they play each team in their area twice, The winner and runner-up from this tournament advance to a sub-regional competition, followed by regionals, and culminating in the state championship finals, AHSAA Refuses a Commonsense Accommodation 58. Oakwood Academy applied to become, and was accepted as, a full member of AHSAA in 2017, 59. Oakwood Academy sought AHSAA membership after the local Teague for private schools folded—leaving AHSAA as the only viable al- ternative for Oakwood Academy students to participate in competitive athletics, 60. Oakwood Academy belongs to the AHSAA 1A division. 61. The 2021-22 basketball season proved to be the best in Mustang hiatory. 62. The Mustangs had a winning record in the regular season, 63. They then advanced through their area tournament, and won the sub-regional competition on February 15, 2022. 1064.On February 16, the Mustangs learned that their regional semi- finals contest was scheduled to take place at 4:30 PM on Saturday, Feb- ruary 19, 2022—just one hour shy of the ending of their Sabbath ob- servance. 65. Thankfully for the Mustangs, a fix appeared readily available: by swapping their contest with the teams scheduled to play three hours later at 7:30 PM, the Oakwood Academy Mustangs could both exercise their religious beliefs and continue to work toward the championship for which they had striven all season. 66, Swapping game times to accommodate religion is common in other states. 67. The practice is analogous to the well-known workplace practice of shift-swapping to accommodate religious observance. 68. Likewise, the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) ac- commodates Sabbath-observing schools as a matter of course, under a formal policy providing that “[ilf a participating institution has a written policy against competition on a particular day for religious reasons” and gives sufficient notice, “[tJhe championship schedule shall be adjusted to ‘accommodate that institution.” NCAA Legislative Services Database, Di- vision I Legislation, Administration of NCAA Championships, Day of Competition § 31.1.4.1, https:/perma.ce/4QN2-4VHW (emphasis added) u69.The Mustangs, through Oakwood Academy staff, proactively reached out to their scheduled opponent, as well as to the two teams scheduled to play at 7:30 PM. 70. All three schools readily agreed to Oakwood Academy's request. 71. The only obstacle to Oakwood Academy's free exercise proved to be AHSAA, 72, On February 16 and 17, Oakwood Academy's athletic director sent emails to AHSAA officials laying out the accommodation and requesting a change to the schedule. 73. On both occasions, AHSAA flatly refused. 74. On February 16, AHSAA wrote that “[o}nce the brackets have been set we cannot arbitrarily make a change to the times of the contests,” and stated that notwithstanding the Mustangs’ “belief systom,” “[w]e hope your team will plan on being at the contest at the scheduled timo.” 75. Likewise, on February 17, AHSAA again insisted that it would not accommodate Oakwood Academy's beliefs because “once a change request is granted, a ripple effect follows.” 76.At no point did AHSAA identify any tangible harm that any af- focted party would inour from accopting the Mustange! atraightforward proposed accommodation. 77. To the contrary, AHSAA chided Oakwood Academy for even explor- ing the question, saying “we find it troublesome that a member school 12.would contact other member schools about changing game times at a championship event without the consent of the AHSAA.” 78. As a result, Oakwood Academy's boys were put to a stark choice: ‘They could either freely exercise their religion or engage in competitive play; they could not do both. 79, As the Mustangs’ senior captain explained, “When God created the earth, on the seventh day he rested, he calls us to rest on that day and give that day to him. I'm not going to play on that day no matter what, because it’s bigger than basketball.” Standing for the Sabbath: Oakwood Adventist forced to forfeit game for religious observance, Yellowhammer News (Feb. 19, 2022), https://perma,cc!T4CGNYUB. 80. Thus, due solely to AHSAA's refusal to grant a commonsense, readily administrable accommodation to Oakwood Academy, the Mus- tangs were forced to forfeit, and their season was ended. 81. Yet, true to Oakwood Academy's promise to form students of integ- rity, the Mustangs still traveled to the semi-finals basketball game, cheering on their fellow athletes—after the Sabbath— from the stands despite their own forced exit. 82 In a public otatement, the President of the South Central Confer- ence made clear that the Mustangs’ decision to forfeit reflected a “com- ‘mendable” “commitment . . . to uphold the biblical principles taught by our educational institution.” 1B83. No other stage of the 1A postseason was scheduled to be played on the Sabbath. Thus, had AHSAA granted this single, simple accommoda- tion, the Mustangs would have been able to compete throughout the en- tive remainder of the tournament. 84. Oakwood Academy diverted substantial staff time addressing and attempting to counteract AHSAA’s illegal practices, over the course of multiple school days, AHSAA Doubles Down on Its Refusal to Accommodate 85. In response to AHSAA's discriminatory actions, Alabama Governor Kay Ivey sent a letter to Oakwood Academy expressing “how proud I am of [the Mustangs] for sticking to their beliofs.” 86. She went on to note that the Mustangs’ “selfless display of sports- manship in attending the playoff games at Jacksonville State University, despite their forced forfeit, to cheer on those teams who so graciously agreed to accommodate your team's Sabbath observance, is an inspiring example to competitors and athletes everywhere.’ 87. Governor Ivey likewise wrote AHSAA Executive Director Alvin Briggs a letter expressing her “profound concern” over AHSA’s denial of the Muetange’ “vory modeat” accommodation request. 88. As Governor Ivey noted, AHSAA’s denial forced the Mustangs “ei- ther to play a game against the dictates of its players’ and coaches’ faith or to forfeit the game entirely, and thereby lose the chance to continue a hard-fought and hard-earned successful season.” 489. The letter then posed a number of questions to AHSAA, including “How can we as a State ensure that something like this never occurs again?” 90, Governor Ivey's letter concluded by requesting a prompt response and invoked the hope for cooperative reforms going forward, 91. AHSAA's response to Governor Ivey was as categorical and unre- lenting as it was to Oakwood Academy. 92. AHSAA expressed no intention of accommodating Oakwood Acad: ‘emy or any other religious high school in the future, stating: “Granting ‘an exemption or making an exception for any reason, every time one is requested, would be chaotic.” 93, The response made no mention of AHSAA’s prohibition against Sunday play, 94. Asa backstop, AHSAA also argued that its actions were perfectly permissible because, when it accepted full membership in 2017, Oakwood Academy allegedly agreed “to participate in all championship play with- out petition or forfeit.” 95. Though nothing in the alleged agreement specifically mentioned the Sabbath, AHSAA ooscrted that the agreement relieved ATISAA of any obligation to accommodate conflicts between AHSAA schedules and Oakwood Academy's religious observance 96. AHSAA's response to Governor Ivey also noted that AHSAA's board “had questions” about Oakwood Academy's membership in the first 15place, and that it had sought to procure the alleged agreementin an effort to shore up its opposition to accommodating Oakwood Academy's reli- gious exercise in the future 97. The same day it sent its response to Governor Ivey, AHSAA sent a letter to Oakwood Academy's principal likewise raising the 2017 “agree- ment” and characterizing its forcing the Mustangs out of the tournament 1s a “decision to forfeit.” 98. The letter represented that Oakwood Academy would not be fur- ther punished for withdrawing from the regional tournament in accord- ance with its beliefs. 99. Under AHSAA rules, however, an otherwise-eligible school that fails to participate in a postseason game “will be” punished by fines. Handbook at 58. 100.And on February 22—immediately after Oakwood Academy's forced withdrawal—AHSAA underscored this provision in a message to Oakwood Academy's principal. The message warned that “in accordance with AHSAA bylaws, Rule III. Contests, Section 26) if you declare a var- sity sport in the championship program but fail to participate is a viola- tion and a monetary fine will be assessed to your school” and “may result in your school not being reclassified.” 101. The 2022-23 Mustangs will return ten players from their 2021— 22 team. They seek—and are entitled to—an equal opportunity to com- pete for a state championship, consistent with their religious exercise. 16CLAIMS Count I 42 U.S.C, § 1983 Violation of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution Free Exercise Clause—Individualized Exemptions 102. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs. 103.State action “burdening religious practice must be of general ap- plicability.” 508 U.S. 520, 542 (1993). hhurch of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 104.A law is not generally applicable if it allows for “individualized exemptions." Id, at 537; see also Fulton v, City of Philadelphia, 141 8, Ct. 1868, 1876-77 (2021), 105. AHSAA officials have the diseretion—and have used that disere- tion—to create excoptions to the postseason schedule for reasons other than religious observance. 106, Yet AHSAA refused to grant a de minimis accommodation allow- ing Oakwood Academy to compete consistent with its religious exercise, 107. AHSAA’s actions thus trigger strict scrutiny, requiring it to have compelling interest in forbidding religious accommodations, pursued by the least-restrictive means. Ladeumi, 608 U.S. at 581-32. 108. AHSAA’s purported interest—avoiding the “chao[s]” associated with evaluating religious exemptions—is not compelling. See also Ams. for Prosperity Found. v. Bonta, 141 &, Ct, 2373, 2889 (2021) (describing the state interest in “administrative convenience” as “weak’). Ww109. The means chosen by AHSAA are also not the least restrictive to religion. 110. All four teams affected by the Mustangs’ request were easily able to reach a resolution that would have allowed Oakwood Academy to par- ticipate fully in competitive play without compromising its religious be- lief, 111 Thus, AHSAA has at its disposal less-restrictive means of accom: ‘modating religious exercise, which it has categorically refused to explore. 112, Oakwood Academy and the Mustangs cannot compete in compet- itive activities between sundown Friday and sundown Saturday because of their sincerely held religious beliefs as Seventh-day Adventists. 113. Oakwood Academy's religious exercise has been, and will continue to be, burdened by AHSAA's decision to refuse to accommodate religious observance in scheduling championship play. 114, The only way for Oakwood Academy to compete for a state cham- pionship would be to reject its sincerely held religious beliefs. 115.AHSAA’s actions thus violate the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. 116.Abeont injunctive and doslaratory roliof againat AHSAA with ve- spect to future postseason tournaments, Plaintiff has been and will con- tinue to be irreparably harmed. 18Count IT 42 USC. § 1988 Violation of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution Free Exercise Clause—Categorical Exemptions 117. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs, 116.6tate action “burdening religious practice must be of general ap- plicability.” Lukumi, 608 U.S. at 42. 119.A law is not generally applicable if it treats “any comparable sec- ular activity more favorably than religious exercise.” Tandon v. Newsom, 141 S, Ct, 1294, 1296 (2021) (per curiam); see also Fulton, 141 8. Ct. at 1877; Lukumi, 508 U.S. at 542-46. 120, Under this criterion, AHSAA’s scheduling practices fail to be gen- erally applicable. 121. By allowing scheduling exceptions for public health, weather, and other unforeseen events, but denying an exception for religious ob- servance, AHSAA disfavors religious reasons compared to secular rea- 122, AHSAA's policies not only permit exceptions for non-religious rea- sons, but it has relied on that authority in practice, further disfavoring religion relative to comparable nonreligious conduct. 123. AHSAA’s policies are underinclusive because they fail to restrict nonreligious conduct undermining its alleged interests in the same way that Oakwood Academy's requested accommodation would have, 19124, AHSAA’s refusal to accommodate religious observance is @ refusal to accord equal treatment to players facing secular and religious obsta- cles to full tournament participation. 125. AHSAA’s actions thus trigger strict scrutiny, requiring it to have a compelling interest in forbidding religious accommodations, pursued by the least-restrictive means. Lukumi, 608 U.S. at 581-32 126.AHSAA’s purported interest—avoiding the “chao[s}” associated with evaluating religious-based exemptions, is not compelling. See, e.g. Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U.S. 677, 690-91 (1973) (holding statute un- constitutional where it drew challenged classification “for the sole pur- pose of achieving administrative convenience’) 121. The means chosen by AHSAA are also not the least restrictive to religion. 128, All four teams affected by the Mustangs’ request were easily able to reach a resolution that would have allowed the Mustangs to partici- pate fully in competitive play without compromising their religious be- liefs. 129. Thus, AHSAA has at its disposal less-restrictive means of accom- modating religious exercise, which it haa categorically refused to explore. See McCullen v. Coakley, 573 U.S. 464, 494 (2014) (finding that speech restriction did not employ the least-restrictive means because “the Com- monwealth has not shown that it seriously undertook to address the prob- Jem with less intrusive tools readily available to it. Nor has it shown that 20it considered different methods that other jurisdictions have found effec- tive.”), 130,Denying accommodations for religious reasons burdened Oakwood Academy's free exercise by barring it from postseason competi- tion unless it violated its religious beliefs, 131.AHSAA‘s application of its rules to prohibit accommodations for religious observance violates the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. 132, Absent injunctive and declaratory relief against AHSAA with re- spect to future postseason tournaments, Plaintiff has been and will con- tinue to be irreparably harmed. Count TIT 42 U.S.C. § 1988 Violation of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution Religion Clauses 133. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs. 134.“The clearest command of the Establishment Clause is that one religious denomination cannot be officially preferred over another,” Lar- son v. Valente, 456 U.S, 228, 244 (1982) 135.AHSAA does not schedule state championship play on Sunday— the day of the week most widely viewed by other Christian faiths as the Sabbath, 136.Thus, Alabama high-school athletes who are members of other Christian faiths that observe the Sabbath on Sunday are never required 21to compete on their Sabbath, and never forced to choose between compet- ing for a state championship and adhering to their sincerely held reli- gious beliefs. Saturday Sabbatarians like Plaintiff, however, are faced with that requirement. 137.Laws that prefer one religion over another trigger strict scrutiny. Larson, 456 U.S, at 245-47 (describing this as a rule against “denomina- tional preferences”). 138.AHSAA’s categorical accommodation of Sunday Sabbath ob- servance, and its categorical refusal to accommodate Saturday Sabbath observance, fails strict scrutiny, 139, AHSAA’s stated interest for categorically accommodating Sunday Sabbath observance—that Sunday is a “day of worship’—is not even a legitimate, much less a compelling, reason for categorically refusing to accommodate Saturday Sabbath observance, Watson v. Jones, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 679, 728 (1871) (“The law knows no heresy, and is committed to the support of no dogma, the establishment of no sect. of. United States v, Ballard, 322 U.S. 78, 87 (1944) ("The First Amendment does not select any one group or any one type of religion for preferred treatment. It puts ‘thom all in that position.”) 140. Even if there were a compelling interest, the means chosen by AHSAA are not the least restrictive to religion. 22141. All four teams affected by the Mustangs’ request were easily able to reach a resolution that would have allowed the Mustangs to partici- pate fully in competitive play without compromising their religious be- lief’. 142. Thus, the very facts of this case demonstrate that AHSAA has at its disposal less-restrictive means of accommodating religious exercise, which it has categorically refused to explore. See McCullen, 673 U.S. at 494 (finding that speech restriction did not employ the least-restrictive means because “the Commonwealth has not shown that it seriously un- dertook to address the problem with less intrusive tools readily available to it, Nor has it shown that it considered different methods that other jurisdictions have found effective.”) 143. AHSAA's discriminatory actions interfere with the free exercise of religion by Saturday Sabbatarians like Plaintiff and violate the Reli- gion Clauses, 144, Absent injunctive and declaratory relief against AHSAA with re- spect to future postseason tournaments, Plaintiff has been and will con- tinue to be irreparably harmed. Count 1V 42 U.S.C, § 1983 Violation of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution Free Exercise Clause—Targeting 145, Plaintiff incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs. 28146."{A] law targeting religious beliofs as such is never permissible.” Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer, 137 8. Ct. 2012, 2024 n.4 (2017) (quoting Lukumi, 508 U.S. at 588). 147. Where religious exercise is involved, state actors must proceed with “neutrality” and without “religious hostility on the part of the State.” Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colo, Civil Rights Comm'n, 138 8, Ct. 1719, 1724 (2018). 148. By refusing to accommodate Saturday Sabbatarians while accom- modating Sunday Sabbatarians, AHSAA has targeted Plaintiff's reli- ssious beliefs and practices, 149, The public explanation AHSAA provided to Governor Ivey demon- strates that hostility toward Plaintiff and its religious beliefs was a mo- tivation for its actions, 150, AHSAA stated that, even before admitting Oakwood Academy as an AHSAA member school, it “had questions” about Oakwood Academy's fitness solely because of its subscription to Adventist beliefs 151, Such “implfications] that religious beliefs and persons are loss than fully welcome” runs counter to the Free Exercise Clause, which guarantoos that state action remaino free of “a clear and impermissible hostility toward . .. sincere religious beliefs.” Masterpiece, 138 S. Ct. at 1729. 24Count VI 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Violation of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution Free Exercise Clause—Unconstitutional Conditions 152, Plaintiff incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs. 1658, The “unconstitutional conditions doctrine . .. vindicates the Con- stitution’s enumerated rights by preventing the government from coere- ing people into giving them up.” Koontz v, St. Johns River Water Mgmt. Dist., 570 U.S. 595, 604 (2013). 154, Under this doctrine, even if the plaintiff seeks only a “discrotion- ary benefit,” or “privilege,” state actors may not “condition|] receipt of [that] benefit or privilege on the relinquishment of a constitutional right.” Bourgeois v. Peters, 387 F.8d 130: 155.AHSAA has stated that its acceptance of Oakwood Academy as a , 1924-25 (11th Cir. 2004), full member in 2017 was conditioned on Oakwood’s agreeing not just to abandon its own Sabbath observance but to relinquish its students’ con- stitutional rights, 156. Plaintiffs accepted no such condition, and any such condition con- stitutes an independent constitutional violation of the sort which the Eleventh Cireuit has “roundly condemned.” Id. at 1824. PRAYER FOR RELIEF Wherefore, Plaintiff requests that the Court: a. Declare that the First Amendment to the United States Constitu- tion requires Defendant to cease discriminating against Plaintiff and to 25cease preventing Plaintiff from participating in state postseason compe- tition on account of its religious beliefs; b. Issue a permanent injunction barring Defendant from refusing to accommodate Plaintiff's religious requests for schedule alterations to postseason play; ©. Award Plaintiff compensatory damages for the harm suffered from Defendant's unconstitutional refusal to accommodate Plaintiffs Sabbath observance in the 2022 regional semi-finals; 4. Award Plaintiff nominal damages for the denial of its First Amend- ment rights in Defendant's unconstitutional refusal to accommodate Plaintiff's Sabbath observance in the 2022 regional semi-finals; e, Award Plaintiff the costs of this action and reasonable attorneys’ feos; and £ Award such other further relief as the Court deems equitable and just. JURY REQUESTIDEMAND Plaintiff requests a trial by jury on alll issues so triable. Respectfully submitted this third day of Mav. 2 Eric C, RASsRACH* VERS D.C. Bar No. 493739 ASB-7731-A60M doszex C. Davis* JUSTIN A. MILLER* D.C. Bar No. 1047629 ‘Texas Bar No. 24116768 LAURA WoLK* Bradley Arant D.C. Bar No. 1643193 Boult Cummings LLP 26‘The Becket Fund for Religious One Federal Place Liberty 1819 5th Avenue N 1200 New Hampshire Ave, N.W. Birmingham, AL 85203 Suite 700 (205) 521-8000 Washington, DC 20036 [email protected] (202) 955-0095 [email protected] [email protected] i. ‘Topp R. MCFARLAND* Associate General Counsel General Conference of Seventh- day Adventists 12501 Old Columbia Pike Silver Spring, MD 20904 McParland [email protected] *Admission pro hac vice pending aT