On behalf of two law students at the Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University, Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys filed a federal lawsuit Friday alleging the school violated the students’ First and Fourteenth Amendment rights by issuing no-contact orders after they shared concerns about adding feminine hygiene products to male restrooms in a private law student group chat.
Selene Cerankosky and Maria Arcara are third-year law students. Two weeks after they expressed concerns regarding a proposal from another third-year law student about adding feminine hygiene products to male bathrooms, the school, without any explanation or warning, issued no-contact orders that prohibit them from having any contact with the other student. ADF attorneys explain in the lawsuit that the school unlawfully used its Title IX and Office of Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion sexual harassment policy against the students because of their religious beliefs and privacy concerns.
“Universities—including law schools—must preserve the marketplace of ideas for all in order to encourage civil discourse for our future attorneys, politicians, judges, and leaders,” said ADF Senior Counsel Tyson Langhofer, director of the ADF Center for Academic Freedom. “Selene and Maria respectfully voiced their opinion about biological differences between men and women and how the other student’s proposal blurs those lines at the expense of safety, privacy, and religious conviction. Because of this, their academic and professional careers are now in serious jeopardy. George Mason’s policy is far too subjective and allows university officials to punish students simply because their opinions about hotly debated social issues don’t align with their own. We are urging the court to restore the students’ First Amendment rights and order George Mason to stop enforcing its policy against protected expression.”
In a “Scalia Law ‘25” GroupMe chat, Cerankosky and Arcara expressed concern when a male law student informed the group that he submitted a proposal to add feminine hygiene products to male restrooms. After the male student solicited comments in an open discussion, Cerankosky responded to the post saying that, if women accessed male restrooms, she believed that men would seek to access private female spaces, which would violate her safety and privacy as well as her religious convictions about human sexuality. Arcara voiced her agreement with Cerankosky’s concerns along with other students, but the male student accused them of bigotry. The student then complained to the DEI Office. Two weeks after the group chat, the university issued no-contact orders to Cerankosky and Arcara, prohibiting them from any contact with the male student.
Attorneys note in the complaint that the school’s policy allows the school to include protected speech as “sexual harassment.” The policy also does not require the DEI Office to determine that sexual harassment occurred, give notice to students before they are disciplined, advise the accused of the allegations, or allow students to appeal “Supportive Measures”—which include no-contact orders—imposed by the DEI Office. The lawsuit also explains that the students potentially face expulsion from school and scrutiny in their legal careers as a result of the no-contact orders.
Attorneys filed the case Cerankosky v. Washington with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria Division. In another similar case, ADF attorneys successfully defended a graduate student at Southern Illinois University Edwardsville after the school punished her with no-contact orders for sharing her religious beliefs with other students on social media.
