## Facts

- Christina Axson-Flynn, a University of Utah student and member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, enrolled in the university’s Actor Training Program (ATP).
- During her audition and participation in the program, she stated she would not perform nude, take the name of God or Christ in vain, or say certain profanity.
- ATP coursework required performance of scripted scenes that sometimes included profanity and religiously offensive language.
- Axson-Flynn initially omitted objectionable words in performances and still received high grades in some instances.
- Faculty later pressed her to perform scripts as written, emphasizing that the curriculum required confronting challenging material and fully inhabiting roles.
- She alleged at least one lower grade resulted from omitting certain language.
- At an end-of-semester review, faculty reiterated that meeting program requirements included performing the disputed language.
- Axson-Flynn withdrew from the program and sued faculty and related personnel under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in their individual capacities, alleging First Amendment violations.

## Issues

1. Whether requiring a student in an acting program to perform scripts containing religiously offensive language violates the Free Exercise Clause.
2. Whether requiring recital of such language in acting exercises constitutes unconstitutional compelled speech under the Free Speech Clause.
3. Whether a combined free exercise and free speech “hybrid-rights” theory triggers heightened scrutiny.
4. Whether the individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

## Decision

- The court granted defendants’ summary judgment motion on all claims.
- The court held the acting-curriculum requirements were neutral, generally applicable curricular rules that did not violate the Free Exercise Clause.
- The court held the requirement to recite script language in class performances did not amount to unconstitutional compelled speech because it was a curricular exercise and not an ideological endorsement.
- The court rejected the hybrid-rights theory because plaintiff lacked a sufficiently colorable companion constitutional claim.
- The court held that, even if a constitutional violation could be shown, defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because the law in this academic-curriculum context was not clearly established.

## Legal Principles

- Neutral, generally applicable rules that incidentally burden religious practice do not trigger strict scrutiny under the Free Exercise Clause absent a showing of targeted regulation or a system of individualized exemptions.
- Courts give substantial deference to academic judgments about curricular requirements in higher education.
- Compelled-speech doctrine is less likely to apply where speech occurs as part of a pedagogical performance requirement and does not force a student to affirm an ideological viewpoint in her own voice.
- A “hybrid-rights” claim requires at least a colorable accompanying constitutional violation beyond free exercise alone.
- Qualified immunity protects government officials from damages liability where the asserted constitutional right was not clearly established in the specific context.

## Conclusion

The court concluded that enforcing uniform acting-program performance requirements—despite incidental conflict with a student’s religious objections—did not violate the First Amendment and that faculty defendants were also shielded from liability by qualified immunity.


Axson-Flynn v. Johnson, 151 F. Supp. 2d 1326 (D. Utah 2001)