Activist takes legal action against Broward Schools, claiming religious discrimination under the First Amendment

Broward County, Florida – The Broward County School Board is now confronting legal challenges as Timothy “Chaz” Stevens has initiated a motion in federal court, seeking permission to showcase his “Satan Loves the First Amendment” banner at multiple local schools.

Stevens, a Reverend, asserts that the board infringed upon his constitutional rights by permitting Christian banners while denying his request for a display.

The lawsuit, now in the hands of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, contends that the school board’s actions constitute unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination.

Stevens, a dedicated advocate for the First Amendment, achieved a significant victory by putting an end to religious invocations at city commission meetings in Coral Springs, Dania Beach, North Lauderdale, Deerfield Beach, and Delray Beach. He has launched a crowdsourcing campaign to assist in covering expenses.

“My work, banning the Bible across Florida, led to DeSantis curbing the law while “blaming” me—cost me two years and about $40,000 of personal funds,” he told Talk Media.

Stevens, acting on his own behalf in the case, claims that the district allowed banners from religious groups such as Calvary Chapel, Potter’s House, and The Pentecostals of Cooper City to be prominently showcased at various schools, including Coral Springs High, Cooper City High, and Marjory Stoneman Douglas High.

He alleges that his request to display a similar banner was denied without valid justification, highlighting what he describes as an unfair and inconsistent application of school district policies.

Stevens contends that rejecting his banner infringes his First Amendment rights and violates the Florida Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

Stevens argues that the Church of Satanology views public displays, like banners, as an essential religious practice, comparable to the display of crosses or menorahs. Denying Plaintiff access to this form of expression prohibits him from fulfilling a central tenet of his faith.’

Stevens contends that by allowing banners from specific groups, the school district established a public forum, which legally requires them to address all viewpoints with impartiality.

Stevens’ lawsuit references the 2022 Supreme Court case Shurtleff v. City of Boston, which established that once public forums are opened for speech, religious viewpoints cannot be excluded. Stevens contends that the district’s decision to permit certain religious organizations to advertise in Broward schools, while denying his requests, constitutes unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination.

Stevens bolsters his argument by highlighting examples of banners from Christian organizations that were showcased, in stark contrast to the outright rejection of his own request.

He contends that the district’s selective application of its policies favors specific religious viewpoints while marginalizing others, thereby infringing upon constitutional principles of free speech and equal treatment.

Stevens is seeking a Temporary Restraining Order that would require the court to enforce the removal of all religious banners from public school properties within a strict five-day timeframe. Furthermore, he advocates for the establishment of a viewpoint-neutral policy concerning public forums, along with access to records that outline the approvals and removals of banners.

To succeed, Stevens must convince the court that his claims are likely to prevail on their merits, that he will suffer irreparable harm without immediate relief, and that granting the order serves the public interest by protecting constitutional rights and ensuring fairness in public spaces.
In his motion, Stevens stated, “These actions marginalize the Plaintiff’s religious beliefs, suppress minority viewpoints, and convey to the community that certain religious perspectives are preferred over others.” Religious banners create a divisive atmosphere for students and families, marginalizing individuals from minority or non-religious backgrounds.

In conversations about his media outreach, Stevens frequently encounters a dismissive comment: “Anyone can file a lawsuit.” He responds, “Absolutely—but only those who have experienced it understand it’s not an easy task.” It’s a challenge of determination, proof, and legal expertise.
Taking on a federal lawsuit as a pro se litigant can be incredibly daunting. Stevens acknowledges, “It’s truly intimidating—navigating intricate procedural rules, crafting compelling pleadings, and meeting tight deadlines, all while delivering arguments that can endure judicial examination.” The Court typically has a negative view of pro se litigants, and this is evident.

He contemplates the challenges, remembering Senior Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr.’s caution: “While the Court recognizes that the Plaintiff is representing himself and grants him some leeway due to that circumstance, he is still required to adhere to the Court’s rules.” Navigating federal statutes, case law, and local court rules without legal training can feel, as Stevens puts it, like “learning a new language under pressure.”