In the case of Arroyo-Castro v. Gasper, the American Hindu Jewish Congress (AHJC), on March 25, 2026, submitted to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, its Amicus Brief in support of the Plaintiff, Ms. Arroyo-Castro.
CASE BACKGROUND:
- Plaintiff: The AHJC Amicus Brief is in support of plaintiff, Marisol Arroyo-Castro, a veteran public-school teacher from New Britain, Connecticut who was reassigned after refusing to remove a personal crucifix from her classroom.
- The Conflict: The dispute began in late 2024 when school administrators ordered Arroyo-Castro to remove a small crucifix she had displayed in her personal workspace next to her desk for approximately 10 years.
- Disciplinary Action: After she refused to remove the religious item, citing her First Amendment rights, the school district suspended her without pay and eventually reassigned her to an administrative role with no student contact.
- Legal Argument: Arroyo-Castro argues the display was private religious expression protected by the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses. The school district contends the display violates the Establishment Clause by appearing to promote religion in a government setting.
PROCEDURAL STATUS:
- District Court Ruling: In early 2025, a federal judge in the District of Connecticut denied the Plaintiff’s request for a preliminary injunction that would have allowed her to return to the classroom with the crucifix, finding she was unlikely to succeed on the merits of her suit.
- Appeal: Arroyo-Castro appealed this decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The case is being watched as a potential to further clarify the application of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Kennedy v. Bremerton, which addressed the religious expression of public-school employees.
ROLE OF AHJC’S AMICUS CURIAE IN THE ARROYO-CASTRO V. GASPER CASE
AHJC’s amicus brief supports the teacher’s right to display religious artifacts in her workspace. AHJC challenges specific school district policies that it claims are being applied in a discriminatory and unconstitutional manner. AHJC argues that the Consolidated School District of New Britain maintains a policy that is not neutral; the school district selectively enforces its policies on display of personal items.
The district permits teachers to display various secular personal items (such as sports pennants, family photos, and pop culture figurines) but specifically singled out Arroyo-Castro’s crucifix for removal. AHJC contends this “selective, religion-targeting enforcement” strips the policy of its neutrality, thereby triggering strict scrutiny under the First Amendment.
AHJC challenges the district’s internal policy—upheld by the lower court—that everything on a classroom wall constitutes “government speech.” The Consolidated School District argues that because teachers are responsible for the “classroom environment,” any artifacts in view of students fall within their official job duties and are subject to total district control. AHJC argues this interpretation is overly broad and essentially forces teachers to “shed their constitutional rights… at the schoolhouse gate”. They assert that personal items in a workspace are private expression, not government-sanctioned speech.
AHJC specifically opposes the district’s use of the Establishment Clause as a justification for its ban. Superintendent Tony Gasper and district officials have stated that classrooms must remain “neutral spaces” to avoid the appearance of school endorsement of any specific religion. AHJC argues that following the Supreme Court’s ruling in Kennedy v. Bremerton, the district can no longer cite “misplaced Establishment Clause concerns” to suppress private religious exercise that is neither coercive nor official.
A central pillar of the AHJC’s brief is the claim that these restrictive policies create a “tool for petty tyrants” to target minority and underrepresented faith traditions. They argue that allowing school officials to purge workspaces of religious items disproportionately harms those whose religious practices or symbols may be unfamiliar or less popular. The AHJC argues that “minority faith communities” like Hindus and Jews are disproportionately affected when government entities over-enforce the Establishment Clause to censor private religious expression.
LEGAL ARGUMENTS:
- The AHJC argues that the district court’s ruling misapplied the Supreme Court’s decision in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, which protects private religious expression by public employees.
- AHJC contends that “phantom” Establishment Clause concerns (the fear that a personal symbol might be mistaken for government endorsement) do not justify the actual suppression of an individual’s First Amendment rights.
- The 45-page document emphasizes that religious minorities often rely on individual displays of faith and that a ruling against Arroyo-Castro could disproportionately impact the rights of Hindu and Jewish public employees to wear or display religious items at work.
- The primary legal precedents cited by the AHJC Amicus Brief include:
1. Kennedy v. Bremerton School District (2022): The AHJC positions Kennedy as the definitive standard, arguing that the Supreme Court’s ruling “abandoned” the older “Lemon test” in favor of an analysis rooted in history and tradition.
o Application: AHJC argues that because Marisol Arroyo-Castro’s crucifix display was personal and quiet—much like Coach Kennedy’s post-game prayer—it does not constitute government endorsement of religion.
o Establishment vs. Free Exercise: AHJC uses Kennedy to show that the school district cannot use the Establishment Clause as a “compelling interest” to suppress individual religious expression.
2. Pickering v. Board of Education (1968): The AHJC references the Pickering balancing test to determine if a public employee is speaking as a private citizen on a matter of public concern.
o Application: AHJC contends that a teacher’s personal desk display is “private-capacity speech” rather than “government speech” delivered pursuant to official duties (the standard set in Garcetti v. Ceballos).
o Establishment vs. Free Exercise: AHJC points out that a Christian teacher’s right to a crucifix, but as a broader civil rights issue—warning that if a crucifix is “government speech,” then a Hindu teacher’s desk Murti or a Jewish teacher’s Mezuzah could be banned next under the same logic. For Hindus and Jews, religious identity is often expressed through tangible objects (like a Rakhi or Hamsa) just as a Christian wear a cross locket as a jewelry.
