9th Circuit upholds partial denial of injunction for Oregon school district employee who displayed books…
Theis v. Intermountain Education Service District - Board of Directors
Status and record
Your position
Do you support this decision?
An advisory read. Your position on a ruling is citizen opinion; it does not form a citizen mandate and is never a legal appeal.
Civitus citizens
Take a position above to see how verified Civitus citizens are weighing in. Positions stay sealed until you have one of your own.
The Civitus brief
AI analysis
Plain English
9th Circuit upholds partial denial of injunction for Oregon school district employee who displayed books at work, finding no First Amendment free exercise or due process violations.
Why it matters
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's partial denial of a preliminary injunction sought by Roderick Theis, an employee of an Oregon education service district who challenged a workplace policy restricting how he displayed books in student-facing settings. The court found his Free Exercise claim unlikely to succeed because the district's policy was neutral and generally applicable, not targeted at religious conduct. The court also dismissed a second appeal for lack of jurisdiction and rejected the district's argument that the case was moot.
Who it affects
This ruling most directly affects public school district employees in the Ninth Circuit who face workplace conduct policies they believe conflict with their religious practices. It also reinforces the authority of public education agencies to enforce neutral, generally applicable employee conduct rules without carving out religious exemptions.
What happens next
Current
Decision issued Jul 21, 2026
Unpublished opinion
Next
Possible rehearing
Parties can ask the same court to reconsider. Then: possible supreme court petition.
View possible path
- Decision issued Jul 21, 2026Unpublished opinion
- Possible rehearingParties can ask the same court to reconsider.
- Possible Supreme Court petitionThe Supreme Court takes only a small share of petitions.
Citizens vs Court
Civitus citizens
Sealed
Take a counted position to open the tally.
Appellate court
Decision issued
Jul 21, 2026 · Unpublished opinion
Take a position above to open the comparison.
A comparison of public sentiment with the ruling. Courts are not subject to a citizen mandate, and judges are not elected representatives.
Take action
Courts decide cases; Congress can respond with legislation. Telling your representative is the civic lever here.
Public discussion
Add a tag
Citizen opinion on this ruling, not a rehearing of the case. Similar opinions on this case can open a solution poll.
3 similar opinions open a solution poll
Loading opinions
Deeper context
Long-form analysis, legal background, and source material
Read analysisAnalysis · Source
DEEPER READ
Roderick Theis, an employee of the Intermountain Education Service District in Oregon, sued the district and two administrators after being disciplined for displaying books in his workplace offices. He sought a preliminary injunction on several grounds, including freedom of speech, free exercise of religion, and due process. The district court partially denied that injunction, and Theis appealed both that denial and a later order refusing to enforce the injunction. On the question of mootness, the court rejected the district's argument that the appeals should be thrown out because Theis had been fired and no longer had access to the offices. The court explained that effective relief, such as reinstatement or removal of adverse employment records, could still be granted, so the case remained live. On the Free Exercise claim, the court ruled that Theis was unlikely to succeed. Under established Supreme Court precedent, the Free Exercise Clause does not exempt a person from complying with a neutral, generally applicable rule just because the conduct that rule restricts is religiously motivated. The court found the district's policy applied to all employees in student-facing settings regardless of religious motivation, making it neutral and generally applicable, and therefore subject only to a low level of judicial scrutiny that the policy easily satisfied. The court also rejected Theis's due process claim, finding he received adequate notice of what was prohibited and had access to a multi-level appeal process through the district's investigation procedures. A separate, concurrently filed opinion addressed his free speech claim, which is not covered in this memorandum. Judge VanDyke partially concurred, agreeing on mootness and the jurisdictional dismissal of the second appeal, but stating he would have ruled in Theis's favor on the free speech claim and therefore would not have reached the Free Exercise or due process questions at all.
CITATION AND RECORD
Record source: CourtListener
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 21 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RODERICK E. THEIS II, Nos. 25-5641, 25-8039 Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:25-cv-00865-HL v. INTERMOUNTAIN EDUCATION MEMORANDUM* SERVICE DISTRICT - BOARD OF DIRECTORS; MARK S. MULVIHILL, Superintendent, in their official capacity; AIMEE VANNICE, Assistant Superintendent and Director of Human Resources, in their official capacity Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon Andrew D. Hallman, Magistrate Judge, Presiding** Argued and Submitted April 13, 2026 Portland, Oregon Before: OWENS, VANDYKE, and SUNG, Circuit Judges. Partial Concurrence by Judge VANDYKE. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The parties consented to trying the case before a magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. 636(c). In these companion cases, Roderick E. Theis II appeals from (1) the district court’s order partially denying his motion for a preliminary injunction, and (2) the district court’s denial of his motion to enforce that injunction. As the parties are familiar with the facts, we do not recount them here. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) over the first appeal (No. 25-5641), which we affirm.1 We dismiss the second appeal (No. 25-8039) for lack of jurisdiction. 1. As a preliminary matter, we deny Defendants’ motion to dismiss these appeals on mootness grounds. Contrary to Defendants’ contention, these appeals are not moot solely because Theis’s employment has been terminated and he no longer has access to the offices in which he displayed the books. A case becomes moot only when it is no longer possible for a court to grant “any effective relief.” Health Freedom Defense Fund v. Carvalho, 148 F.4th 1020, 1026 (9th Cir. 2025) (emphasis in original) (quoting Garcia v. Lawn, 805 F.2d 1400, 1402 (9th Cir. 1986)). Even after termination, courts may grant equitable relief, including reinstatement or expungement of adverse employment actions. Id. at 1026–27; Garcia, 805 F.2d at 1402. Because Theis seeks prospective relief and the challenged policy remains in force, effective relief remains available. These appeals are therefore not moot. 1 Theis’s free speech claim is addressed in a concurrently filed opinion. This memorandum disposition resolves his remaining claims. 2 25-5641 2. We lack jurisdiction over Theis’s appeal from the district court’s denial of his motion to enforce the preliminary injunction (No. 25-8039). Under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1), appellate jurisdiction extends to interlocutory orders granting, denying, or modifying injunctions. However, an order that merely interprets or applies an existing injunction, without altering its terms, is not immediately appealable. Pub. Serv. Co. of Colo. v. Batt, 67 F.3d 234, 236–37 (9th Cir. 1995). Here, the district court’s order denying Theis’s motion to enforce did not modify the injunction or change the parties’ obligations. Instead, it concluded that the injunction did not prohibit Defendants from disciplining Theis for displaying the books in the presence of students. Because the order left the injunction “in effect by force of its own terms,” it is not appealable. Id. at 236; see also Sierra On-Line, Inc. v. Phoenix Software, Inc., 739 F.2d 1415, 1418 n.4 (9th Cir. 1984). 3. With respect to Theis’s appeal of the district court’s partial denial of his motion for a preliminary injunction (No. 25-5641), Theis is unlikely to succeed on his Free Exercise claim. While the Free Exercise Clause protects against laws that target religious practice, it does not relieve an individual from the obligation to comply with a neutral, generally applicable rule. See Emp. Div., Dep’t of Hum. Res. of Or. v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872, 879 (1990), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in Ramirez v. Collier, 595 U.S. 411, 424 (2022). A law is not neutral or generally applicable if it is specifically directed at religious conduct or if 3 25-5641 it provides a system for individualized exemptions. Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, 593 U.S. 522, 533–34 (2021). InterMountain Education Service District’s (“IMESD”) policy, applied here, is neutral and generally applicable. It regulates employee conduct in student- facing professional settings and applies without regard to whether that conduct is religiously motivated. Nothing in the record suggests that the policy targets religious expression or was adopted because of disagreement with religious views. Although Theis contends that his display of the books reflects his religious beliefs, the Free Exercise Clause does not provide a right to engage in conduct restricted by a workplace rule simply because that conduct is religiously motivated. See Smith, 494 U.S. at 878–79. Because the policy applies evenhandedly, it is subject to rational basis review, see Fulton, 593 U.S. at 533, which it readily satisfies. 4. Theis’s due process claim also fails because Theis received adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard through IMESD’s investigation and multi- level appeal process. See United States v. Williams, 553 U.S. 285, 304 (2008) (A statute “fails to comport with due process if . . . [it] fails to provide a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice of what is prohibited, or is so standardless that it authorizes or encourages seriously discriminatory enforcement.”). 4 25-5641 Appeal No. 25-5641: AFFIRMED.2 Appeal No. 25-8039: DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. 2 The Motions for Leave to File Amicus Briefs by Parents Rights in Education, Defending Education, NC Values Institute, and Advancing American Freedom, Dkt. Nos. 18, 20, 23, and 26, are GRANTED. Appellees’ Motion for Judicial Notice, Dkt. No. 34, is DENIED. Appellant’s Motion to Strike Brief or Portion of Brief, Dkt. No. 36, is DENIED. Appellees’ Motion to Dismiss, Dkt. No. 52, is DENIED. 5 25-5641 FILED JUL 21 2026 Theis v. Intermountain Education Service District - Board of Directors, et al.. Nos. MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK 25-5641, 25-8039 U.S. COURT OF APPEALS VANDYKE, Circuit Judge, concurring partially in the judgment: I join the majority in denying Defendants’ motion to dismiss these appeals on mootness grounds and agree that we lack jurisdiction over Theis’s appeal from the district court’s denial of his motion to enforce the preliminary injunction. But because—as explained in my dissent from the concurrently filed opinion—I would reverse the district court and rule in Theis’s favor on his free speech claim, I would not reach Theis’s Free Exercise or due process claims. 1
Sources
- Official opinionPrimary record
Public record. Timeline facts only; no accusation of wrongdoing. Advisory citizen opinion does not form a citizen mandate.