Lawyers for Pink Wristband Parents Say Court’s Delay Denies First Amendment Rights

With spring sports starting soon, the parents suing the Bow School District over their silent protest want a ruling before players hit the field.
On Wednesday, attorneys representing the parents filed a request for an expedited decision on their request for a preliminary injunction keeping the school district from banning future protests. And, their lawyers told the court, if a ruling is delayed so long it keeps these parents sidelined, they will consider that a denial of their request for relief and pursue an appeal.
Anthony Foote, Kyle Fellers, Nicole Foote, and Eldon Rash were forced to end a silent protest — the wearing of pink wristbands marked with “XX” on the sidelines of the high school soccer field — by angry school administrators last September. They were protesting the fact that their girls team was being forced to compete against a biological male.
After Foote and Kyle Fellers were slapped with “no trespass” orders from the school, orders enforced by the local police, the parents filed a lawsuit against the Bow school district.
The parents are being represented in court by legal nonprofit organization the Institute for Free Speech.
The lawsuit was filed in September, and United States District Court Judge Stephen McAuliffe has already conducted two days of evidentiary hearings and been fully briefed by both sides in the lawsuit, attorneys for the parent’s said.
But the court has yet to act on their request for a preliminary injunction protecting their First Amendment right to bring their wristbands to games during the upcoming spring sports season. In their view, it’s literally a case of justice delayed being justice denied.
“Spring sports season is the last chance for Plaintiffs to silently express their sociopolitical views at a Bow event this school year, and—because one of Plaintiffs’ children is a high-school senior—the last chance to ever express their views at one child’s events,” the motion states.
“Parties completed their post-hearing briefing on Dec. 17. No decision on the injunction has yet been issued. The winter sports season has now ended, and the Bow schools’ spring sports season begins March 24, with games commencing April 14.”
Two biological males who have been playing on girls sports teams are currently suing in federal court to block a New Hampshire state law protecting girls sports. When President Donald Trump issued an executive order doing the same thing, they added the president to their lawsuit.
One of those players, Plymouth High School’s Parker Tirrell, was on the team Bow was competing against during the previous silent protest.
McAuliffe previously overturned the Bow School District ban against the parents attending games and after-school activities. But he has not yet lifted the ban on wristbands or other forms of silent protest.
As the calendar progresses toward the new sports season and the final season for at least one of the girls, Feller, Foote, and the others want a decision now.
“Plaintiffs have been prevented from silently protesting at Bow School District extracurricular events during both the fall and winter sports seasons. Everyday that passes magnifies Plaintiffs’ injury. Unless they receive injunctive relief from this Court, they will not be able to express their viewpoint during the spring sports season as well, including all of one daughter’s remaining games as a high-school student,” the motion states.
“If no ruling occurs by April 14, Plaintiffs will understand this Court to have constructively denied the injunction, and pursue interlocutory appeal of that denial.”
McAuliffe has acknowledged there is nothing bigoted in the parent’s beliefs that biological males who identify as female should not play full-contact sports with biological girls.
“You’re entitled to your viewpoint, a lot of people hold it,” McAuliffe said.
In fact, polls show a solid majority of Americans support protecting girls sports from biological males. But Bow Superintendent Marcy Kelly doesn’t agree, and she told the court that expressing that view is offensive speech that should be banned.
“XX is a pretty well-known anti-trans symbol,” Kelly said on the stand.
Other controversial symbols, such as the LGBTQ “rainbow flag,” would be welcome, however.
“It’s inclusionary, it’s not targeting or harassing anyone,” Kelly said.