## Facts

- Jennifer Keeton enrolled in a public university master’s program in school counseling.
- Faculty concluded she lacked “multicultural competence,” particularly regarding counseling gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, and queer/questioning clients.
- Keeton expressed religiously based beliefs that homosexuality is immoral and stated she intended to tell LGBTQ clients they were engaging in immoral conduct and to pursue “conversion” approaches.
- The program required compliance with the American Counseling Association (ACA) Code of Ethics, including nondiscrimination and a duty not to impose personal values on clients.
- The university placed Keeton on “remediation status” under a policy addressing unsatisfactory professional criteria unrelated to academic grades.
- The remediation plan required training and reading on counseling LGBTQ clients, increased contact with LGBTQ populations, reflective writing, and proof of competency in accordance with ACA ethics before clinical practicum.
- Keeton refused to complete the plan and sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of free speech and free exercise, and sought a preliminary injunction to prevent dismissal.

## Issues

1. Whether conditioning progression in a public university counseling program on completing an ethics-based remediation plan likely violated the First Amendment by compelling speech or penalizing protected viewpoints.
2. Whether the remediation plan likely violated the Free Exercise Clause by burdening religious beliefs or practice.
3. Whether Keeton showed a substantial likelihood of success on the merits sufficient to warrant a preliminary injunction.

## Decision

- The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction.
- Keeton failed to show a substantial likelihood of success on her free speech claims because the remediation addressed professional fitness and compliance with generally applicable counseling ethics, not forced ideological agreement.
- Keeton failed to show a substantial likelihood of success on her free exercise claim because the requirements were religion-neutral, generally applicable, and aimed at professional competence.
- Because likelihood of success is a threshold requirement for preliminary relief, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the injunction.

## Legal Principles

- A preliminary injunction requires proof of (1) substantial likelihood of success on the merits, (2) irreparable injury, (3) a balance of equities favoring the movant, and (4) consistency with the public interest.
- Public universities may impose and enforce curricular and professional standards in professional training programs when reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns.
- In clinical training contexts, a program may require students to comply with profession-wide ethics rules (including nondiscrimination and non-imposition-of-values obligations) as a condition of participation and progression.
- A neutral, generally applicable rule that incidentally burdens religious exercise ordinarily does not violate the Free Exercise Clause.

## Conclusion

The court held that a public university counseling program could require a student who expressed an intent to counsel LGBTQ clients contrary to established professional ethics to complete an ethics-based remediation plan before entering practicum, and that the student had not shown a likelihood of success on free speech or free exercise claims sufficient to justify preliminary injunctive relief.


Keeton v. Anderson-Wiley, 664 F.3d 865 (11th Cir. 2011)