Schmitt v. Rebertus

Background

Anthony Schmitt volunteered from 2012 through 2023 to teach “The Quest for Authentic Manhood” at the Minnesota Correctional Facility in St. Cloud. The voluntary program taught Schmitt’s view of masculinity from a Christian perspective and used 24 videos created by Dr. Robert Lewis. More than 1,000 incarcerated people had enrolled over the years.

A state recidivism expert reviewed the program in 2018 and instructed Schmitt to skip a portion stating that homosexual acts are sinful and can be avoided through repentance. Schmitt began skipping that portion.

Rebertus later told Schmitt that he could no longer teach the program. She said the curriculum conflicted with the Department of Corrections’ diversity, equity, and inclusion values because it defined manhood through a biblical view. She also identified teachings that treated relationships as heterosexual and blamed women and mothers for many hardships in men’s lives. Rebertus believed those messages could create an unsafe or uncomfortable environment for people affected by abuse and could interfere with efforts to rehabilitate men convicted of domestic violence.

Schmitt alleged that ending the program violated his First Amendment rights to free speech and to practice his religion. He moved for a preliminary injunction, which is a temporary court order issued before the final resolution of a case.

Legal standard

The court applied the four factors used for preliminary-injunction requests in the Eighth Circuit: the likelihood that the movant will succeed on the merits, the threat of irreparable harm without an injunction, the balance of harms, and the public interest. Schmitt had the burden of proving these factors.

First Amendment standard in the prison setting

The court held that Turner v. Safley, rather than strict scrutiny, supplied the governing standard. Under Turner, a prison decision that burdens constitutional rights is valid if it is reasonably related to legitimate prison interests. The court explained that this standard applies even though Schmitt was an outsider rather than an incarcerated person, because the requested relief would operate inside a prison.

Application of the Turner factors

The court found a rational connection between ending the program and the prison’s legitimate interest in rehabilitation and reducing recidivism. It credited Rebertus’s concern that the program’s gender stereotypes and treatment of women could undermine accountability and rehabilitation, particularly for incarcerated people whose crimes or backgrounds involved gender-based violence.

Although Rebertus also argued that the program threatened prison safety and security, the court did not rely on that justification because her termination letter had raised only rehabilitation concerns. The court found that the rehabilitation rationale was sufficient by itself. It also concluded that Rebertus had not ended the program because it was religious; instead, she had objected to teachings that she viewed as discriminatory, exclusive, and based on gender stereotypes.

The court found that Schmitt had alternative ways to exercise his asserted rights. He could volunteer again if he adopted a curriculum meeting the prison’s programming requirements, and he could teach the Quest material through individual visits and written correspondence. The court said those alternatives did not have to provide the same group-teaching arrangement Schmitt wanted.

The court also found that restoring the program could burden incarcerated people, staff, and the facility by exposing people affected by gender-based violence to teachings the prison considered harmful. Finally, the court found that Schmitt had not proposed an alternative that would achieve the prison’s goals at little cost. The court concluded that all four Turner factors weighed against him and that he had not shown a likelihood of success on his claims.

Other preliminary-injunction factors

The court found that Schmitt had not shown irreparable harm because, on the record before it, he had not established a First Amendment violation. It further found that the balance of harms and the public interest favored allowing prison officials to exercise discretion over rehabilitation programming and prison operations.

Disposition

Judge John R. Tunheim denied Schmitt’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. The order stated: “Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction [Docket No. 13] is DENIED.” The court also ordered judgment entered accordingly.