## Facts

- Christina Axson-Flynn, a Latter-day Saint student, entered the University of Utah’s selective Actor Training Program (ATP) after informing faculty she would not perform nudity, take God’s name in vain, or say certain profanities.
- In early coursework, she was sometimes permitted to omit or substitute words in assigned scenes and monologues; another student also received an exemption from at least one assignment.
- Later, faculty insisted she perform scripts verbatim and allegedly made comments minimizing her religious objections and warning that noncompliance could jeopardize her place in the program.
- Axson-Flynn resigned before completing her second semester, believing continued refusal would lead to removal from the program.
- She sued ATP faculty under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of the First Amendment’s Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses.
- The district court granted summary judgment for defendants and held they were entitled to qualified immunity.

## Issues

1. Whether requiring a university acting student to speak assigned script language as part of classroom performance violates the First Amendment by compelling speech.
2. Whether denial of a religious accommodation, amid alleged discretionary exemptions and hostility toward religious objections, violates the Free Exercise Clause.
3. Whether qualified immunity applied at summary judgment given factual disputes about motive, exemptions, and discriminatory application.

## Decision

- The Tenth Circuit reversed the grant of summary judgment on the free speech and free exercise claims and remanded for further proceedings.
- The court treated the in-class performances as school-sponsored curricular speech subject to restrictions reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns.
- It held that deference to academic judgment does not bar inquiry into whether a purported pedagogical justification was a pretext for religious discrimination.
- The record created genuine disputes of material fact about whether the script-adherence policy was applied neutrally or selectively, including whether exemptions were granted to others but denied to Axson-Flynn because of her religious objections.
- Because these disputes were material to the constitutional claims, summary judgment on qualified immunity was improper to the extent it depended on resolving contested facts.

## Legal Principles

- Curricular, school-sponsored student expression may be regulated when reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns.
- Judicial deference to university curricular decisions is substantial but does not insulate decisions from First Amendment review when there is evidence of discriminatory motive or pretext.
- Under free exercise doctrine, a discretionary system of individualized exemptions can trigger heightened scrutiny if religious requests are denied in a discriminatory manner.
- Where motive and discriminatory application are genuinely disputed, qualified immunity generally cannot be resolved on summary judgment because the constitutional analysis depends on which version of the facts a factfinder credits.

## Conclusion

The Tenth Circuit required further factfinding on whether the acting program’s script-adherence requirement served legitimate pedagogical goals or was applied as a pretext to discriminate against a student’s religiously motivated speech refusals, and it held that these factual disputes also prevented summary judgment on qualified immunity.


Axson-Flynn v. Johnson, 356 F.3d 1277 (10th Cir. 2004)