Comment: Why LifeWise found it necessary to sue Everett Schools
Published 1:30 am Saturday, January 24, 2026
by Jeremy Dys / For The Herald
There is a persistent myth in American public life that the Constitution requires religious people to sit quietly in the corner while government actors declare their animus and decide which viewpoints are welcome in the public square.
That myth is not only wrong; it is corrosive. And it is precisely why LifeWise Academy had no choice but to file suit against the Everett School District in Washington (“LifeWise files suit against Everett district, alleging First Amendment violations,” The Herald, Dec. 19).
LifeWise operates under a simple and well-settled constitutional framework. With parental permission and direction, students are released during non-instructional time to attend off-campus religious instruction. This “released-time” model has been upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court for more than 70 years. It respects parental rights. And it allows families — rather than bureaucracies — to direct the moral and religious upbringing of their children.
In other words, it is constitutional by design.
Yet in Everett, that constitutional clarity has met roadblocks driven by religious animosity. When a school district singles out a religious program for exclusion — while allowing comparable non-religious activities — it crosses a constitutional line. The First Amendment does not permit government officials to act as referees of acceptable belief, nor should they feign surprise at a lawsuit after announcing their policy decisions rest on a foundation of animus against religion.
Let’s be clear about what this lawsuit is; and is not.
LifeWise acts independently, without any taxpayer funding. Its teachers, rather than those employed by the state, provide religious instruction and do so removed from any public school campus. It asks only that religious viewpoints be treated the same as secular ones and the wishes of parents to be accommodated. Nothing more. Nothing less.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed that the Free Exercise Clause protects religious observers from unequal treatment. When a government entity opens the door to community access, parental choice, or accommodation for released-time religious instruction, it cannot slam that door shut simply because the program involves religion.
That is a species of religious discrimination that has no place in public schools.
When LifeWise launched its program in Everett in January 2025, it was immediately popular with parents. But instead of treating LifeWise like any other voluntary, off-campus choice for parents, Everett officials subjected the program to a series of uniquely punitive restrictions that no other program faces.
These aren’t minor logistical decisions; they’re obstacles the district intentionally erected because the program is religious.
Rather than welcome LifeWise to its community resource fair, the district banned LifeWise because it was religious. Instead of adding brochures about LifeWise to its community information table, it excluded them because they were viewed as proselytizing. The clear message: Your social support program is welcome to participate in the community of Everett, unless it happens to be religious.
Most disappointingly, the rhetoric targeted at LifeWise quickly turned personal and hostile.
While parents and leaders supporting LifeWise sat silently at several school board meetings, members of the community used public comment time to rail against LifeWise, adding a tone of vitriol to spread misinformation.
Community sentiment ginned up by those with an axe to grind against religion might be excused, but the measured words of an elected official cannot. When, in December 2025, Everett School Board Director Charles Adkins used his time as an elected official to speak on the matter, he made things plain: “Yes, I do in fact hold animus toward LifeWise Academy.” He went on to accuse LifeWise of too many falsehoods to list here and insisted that LifeWise “cannot be allowed to have access to our kids.”
Such comments are not merely offensive; they are a confession of unconstitutional intent. Government officials may not impose special burdens on religious programs simply because they disagree with their beliefs.
When neutrality is abandoned, courts exist as the recourse.
LifeWise did not rush to litigation. Lawsuits are costly, time-consuming, and adversarial by nature. But when dialogue fails and constitutional rights are treated as optional or, worse, targeted with the animus of an elected policymaker, litigation becomes a necessity. The rule of law depends on it.
LifeWise serves parents and encourages students without asking more than it be accommodated in doing so. Purposefully hindering its operation just because it is religious violates the Constitution.
But the Constitution does not operate on a sliding scale of convenience. The First Amendment still means something. The question is whether the Everett community will have the resolve to insist that it applies to every student and parent; or only to those whose beliefs are deemed acceptable by the school board.
Jeremy Dys is senior counsel and chair of the education practice group for First Liberty Institute, a nonprofit law firm dedicated to defending religious freedom for all. Learn more at FirstLiberty.org.
