Key Cases in the History of The Rutherford Institute
Since 1982, The Rutherford Institute has defended the constitutional rights of thousands of people. Many of these cases involved the defense of parents' and students' rights, free speech rights, and privacy rights. Most cases were settled out of court, some were fought in courtrooms across the country, and several were appealed all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. No matter what legal question was involved or how much attention the case received, each case has been equally important. As John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute, has said, "All freedoms hang together. To defend one constitutional freedom is to defend them all, and to defend one person’s constitutional rights is to defend those rights for everyone."
The following is a sampling of key cases in The Rutherford Institute's 20-year history. Though different in the specific rights they defend and the legal precedents they set, each involves protecting the fundamental right guaranteed to all Americans, the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
In Defense of Religious Freedom & Women’s Rights Around the World
McSally v. Secretary of Defense
In December 2001, The Rutherford Institute filed a lawsuit in federal court on behalf of Lt. Col. Martha McSally, the U.S. Air Force’s highest-ranking female fighter pilot. The lawsuit challenged a U.S. military policy that forced McSally and other servicewomen stationed in Saudi Arabia to wear the traditional Muslim abaya, a black head-to-toe robe worn in certain Muslim cultures and perceived as a sign of subordination to men. The Rutherford Institute believed the policy was unconstitutional, discriminatory, and an affront to McSally’s Christian faith.
 |
In addition to having to wear the abaya when off base, the policy also required servicewomen to ride in the back of military vehicles and forbid them from going off base unaccompanied by males. Neither the U.S. State Department nor the government of Saudi Arabia requires American service members to wear traditional Muslim attire for any reason. In fact, the Saudis do not require non-Muslim women to wear the abaya at all. And male service personnel in Saudi Arabia are actually prohibited from wearing traditional Muslim clothing while off base.
As a woman in the military, McSally has accomplished a lot. She was one of the first seven women trained by the Air Force as a fighter pilot. During a 1995-1996 tour of duty in Kuwait, she became the first woman in the Department of Defense’s history to fly a combat sortie in a fighter aircraft. She was promoted to the rank of Major and then Lieutenant Colonel, four years ahead of her peers. This rare endorsement is given to only the most capable, competent, professional officers and only to those who are identified as future leaders in the Air Force.
Yet even these notable distinctions were not enough to afford her the basic respect and treatment given to her male colleagues in Saudi Arabia. In fact, because she is a woman, McSally has been required by U.S. military policy to wear the traditional Muslim abaya when she is off base. This is in spite of her religious objections and her repeated requests that she be allowed to wear appropriate American clothing, as her male counterparts do.
For McSally, a decorated officer who has flown 100 combat hours over Iraq and served as flight commander and trainer for combat pilots deployed to Kosovo and South Korea, the policy contradicted the very principles she and so many other brave Americans have been fighting for. This is the right to express one’s religious beliefs freely; the right to not be forced to adopt someone else’s religious beliefs; the right to be treated equally; the right to not be subjected to gender discrimination.
Ironically, as America applauded the U.S. military’s role in liberating the women of Afghanistan from an oppressive and inhumane regime, and as First Lady Laura Bush declared that "the fight against terrorism is also a fight for the rights and dignity of women," McSally, a decorated U.S. Air Force commander and a devout Christian, was seeking to liberate American servicewomen in Saudi Arabia from a similarly restrictive U. S. military policy. With the attention of the world upon us, The Rutherford Institute felt that the disparaging treatment of Lt. Col. McSally was not the example we want to set for how to respect women and those members of our Armed Forces who are placing their lives on the line to protect our freedoms.
Shortly following a CBS "60 Minutes" interview with McSally in January 2002, the U.S. Military revised the unconstitutional military dress policy from "mandatory" to "strongly encouraged." However, Institute attorneys continued to press forward with the lawsuit since the Department of Defense has not elaborated on their definition of "strongly encouraged" regarding the abaya policy nor made public whether any changes will be made in response to McSally’s other charges, such as the fact that the policy requiring servicewomen to ride in the back of military vehicles also violates constitutional guarantees.
"I think the mountain has moved, but I don’t know how far," stated John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute. "We hope, however, that this will now mean that service people will not be forced to wear religious garb of other nations to which they may object."
On June 24, 2002, the U.S. Senate voted 93-0 in favor of an amendment to prohibit the Department of Defense from requiring or even formally urging servicewomen stationed in Saudi Arabia to wear the Muslim abaya.
"The Senate vote is a great victory for freedom and the democratic process," said John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute. "And because of Martha McSally’s courageous stand, it is also a victory for the rights of women in the armed services."
In Defense of Religious Freedom
Good News Club v. Milford School District
When Reverend Stephen Fournier, who sponsored a Good News Club in the upstate New York village of Milford, sought to move his Christian youth group's meeting place to the one public school in town, he never dreamed he would have to defend his work and his faith before the nation’s highest court. In fact, his decision was based on a basic problem familiar to all working parents–car pooling strategy. Being able to use school facilities after school, as did the 4-H Club and the Boy Scouts, made for one less leg on the daily race to ferry children from place to place. But when Reverend Fournier applied to use a room in the school, the school officials refused. The Club was too much like Sunday School, they said. There were Bible stories, praise, and prayer involved. It was vacation Bible school, after school – and children might think it was part of school. Children might get the idea that the school was supporting God.
 |
The Fourniers then contacted The Rutherford Institute for help. Thus began the long journey to the steps of the U.S. Supreme Court. Institute attorneys first sued in federal court, arguing that the school district was engaging in "viewpoint discrimination." They won a preliminary injunction that allowed the Club to hold weekly after-school meetings in school facilities for a year while awaiting trial, but the trial never happened. Instead, the federal trial judge abruptly threw out the injunction and ruled in favor of the school district. As a result, the Club was kicked out of the building. The Club's subject matter was ruled "decidedly religious in nature, and not merely a discussion of secular matters from a religious perspective."
On appeal, two judges of a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit agreed with the trial judge. The panel ruled that because the subject matter of the Club was "quintessentially religious" and fell "outside the bounds of pure moral and character development," the Club could not be allowed to hold meetings in the government building. In short, the club was just a little too religious for the Second Circuit's liking. The dissenting judge, to no avail, reminded his brethren that the Supreme Court's earlier ruling in Lamb's Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free School District remained binding precedent, and thus demanded the appellate court rule for the Club.
Fortunately, the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision reminded the lower federal court that it was not above the law. In a majority opinion that sent a clear message to the Second Circuit Court, Clarence Thomas chastised the panel for not applying the Court's 1993 Lamb's Chapel precedent. "We find it remarkable that the Court of Appeals majority did not cite Lamb's Chapel, despite its obvious relevance to the case," wrote Justice Thomas. "[T]his oversight is particularly incredible because the majority's attention was directed to it at every turn." Thomas saw no difference between the invocation of Christianity by the Club and "the invocation of teamwork, loyalty, or patriotism" by other after-school groups. As Rutherford Institute president John W. Whitehead has stated, "This may be the most important point in the case. For years, groups opposed to religious freedom in public schools have championed the idea that children will always perceive religious activity in schools to be an endorsement by the school–regardless of where, when or how it occurs. The Good News decision highlights the reality of the situation–children can be harmed even more when they perceive the state being hostile to religion."
"It has been a long journey beginning in October of 1996 when Good News Club members were told that the school bus would no longer be able to drop them off at club meetings after school," said Reverend Fournier on the eve of the High Court’s decision. "We look forward to that journey ending when the U.S. Supreme Court gives its ruling, and we are hopeful that we will prevail in this case. We believe we are being discriminated against, not because we teach morals and values, but because we teach morals and values from a Christian perspective. We wish to thank Mr. Whitehead and the folks at The Rutherford Institute for all their support in this case. Without The Rutherford Institute we would not be standing on these steps today. Most importantly we want to thank our Lord Jesus Christ. Without His grace and strength the stresses of this case would have been, at times, too much to bear."
In Defense of Parents Rights
Hines v. Dakota County Social Services
On July 10, 1998, Wyatt was born to Wally and Debby Hines. The family had settled in a suburb of St. Paul, Minnesota, and joined the Bible Baptist Church, where Wally played the trumpet in the praise band. Their lives appeared to be truly blessed until Debby took Wyatt to a pediatrician because he had been crying a lot, especially when his leg was touched. X-rays revealed a fracture in Wyatt’s leg. Additional x-rays revealed six rib fractures, with some being so old they took place in utero, according to experts. One of the doctors who examined Wyatt explained that he exhibited symptoms of a rare disease known as osteogenesis imperfecta (O.I.), also known as Brittle Bone Disease.
 |
However, because of Wyatt’s injuries, charges of child abuse were filed against the Hineses by the Dakota County Social Services (DCSS). Wyatt was taken from his parents and placed in foster care. The DCSS would not allow Debby to furnish the foster parents with information about Brittle Bone Disease, and Wyatt suffered another fracture while in foster care. Finally, after three months and expert testimony, a judge returned Wyatt to his parents, found that the baby did have O.I. and ruled that he should be treated accordingly.
The Hineses thought this nightmare was finally over, but in April 1999 Wyatt re-broke his leg. He was treated for O.I., a cast was put on his leg and he was sent home. Debby reported the doctor’s visit as she had been instructed to do by the judge. DCSS then went to the office of Wyatt’s doctor with a local police detective, spoke to a non-treating physician, and decided again it was child abuse. The doctor then called the Hineses and told them that the police detective and the DCSS were on their way to take custody of their baby again.
On April 27, 1999, after receiving that phone call, the Hineses threw some diapers and a few other necessities in the back of their station wagon, strapped Wyatt in the car seat, and fled their home in Minesota. Rather than hand over their son to the DCSS for the second time, the Hineses became fugitives, on the run from a child welfare system they felt was out of control.
On September 13, 1999, after contacting the Hineses and reviewing the evidence with regard to Brittle Bone Disease, The Rutherford Institute agreed to help the Hineses return to Minnesota and receive appropriate medical care for their son's serious and on-going condition.
"The Rutherford Institute is very interested in cases likes the Hineses' where the state has gone too far in pursuit of alleged abuse of a child and cannot seem to acknowledge that it may have made a mistake," stated John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute. "Children do need to be protected; but where no abuse can be proved, the rights of parents and families must also be protected."
With The Rutherford Institute’s assistance, Wally and Debby’s battle to keep their family together gained national attention when ABC News 20/20 aired a special report on their case. And after intense negotiations between DCSS officials and Rutherford Institute attorneys, the Hineses were allowed to return home to Minnesota in January of 2000, nearly a year after fleeing with their child. Despite the fact that leading medical experts had attributed Wyatt's recurring instances of broken bones to Brittle Bone Disease and he had not suffered any further fractures while in their care, the Hineses were still forced to live under the supervision of a foster family for several months. On April 1, 2000, they were released to live on their own. However, DCSS continued to insist that social workers monitor the family and conduct intermittent visits to their home because, they claimed, the possibility of abuse could still not be ruled out. Finally, on May 24, 2000, a judge dismissed all abuse charges against the Hineses. "We are thankful the court at last recognized the baseless nature of these charges and have given the Hineses back their baby and their lives," said Institute President John W. Whitehead. "While the nightmare has finally ended for the Hineses, we must remember that there are many more families like them who continue to suffer unjustified persecution by overzealous social services agencies."
In Defense of Women’s Rights in the Workplace
Jones v. Clinton
In 1997, The Rutherford Institute agreed to assist Paula Jones in her sexual harassment and sex discrimination suit against President Bill Clinton. What followed was a precedent setting case that received widespread coverage in the national media. Never before had a president’s sexual misconduct come under such close scrutiny, and Clinton’s videotaped deposition would be the first time that a sitting president would be questioned as a defendant in a court case. And, of course, Clinton’s false testimony about Monica Lewinsky during that deposition would result in only the second presidential impeachment trial in American history.
 |
In 1991, while Jones was working at a hotel in Little Rock, Arkansas, she met then governor Bill Clinton during a conference being held at the hotel. Clinton later invited Jones to meet privately with him in his hotel room, where he proceeded to expose himself and make crude sexual advances. When Jones rebuffed those advances and turned to leave, Clinton stopped her at the door and said, "You’re a smart girl. Let’s keep this between ourselves."
When John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute, decided to help Jones, critics on both the right and the left attacked him. Critics on the right accused The Rutherford Institute of becoming too "political", while critics on the left accused The Institute of being part of a "vast right-wing conspiracy" to destroy the president. Whitehead saw it differently and said so early on. "Our involvement in Paula Jones’s case stems from the fundamental principle that no person–not even the President of the United States–is above the law," said Whitehead. "This case is not about politics. It is about protecting the guiding philosophy of this country that all people are equal before the law."
In the end, Bill Clinton agreed to pay Jones $850,000 to settle the sexual harassment and discrimination lawsuit against him, bringing to a conclusion four long years of seeking justice. The suit raised many important issues that the American people and their leaders will have to deal with for years to come, such as the importance of protecting women from workplace harassment and the role of the rule of law in our highest offices.
