LifeWise Academy Lawsuit: Everett, Parrish, and Ohio Cases

LifeWise Academy, the Ohio-based evangelical program that pulls public school students off campus for Bible instruction during the school day, is currently the plaintiff in a First Amendment lawsuit against a Washington state school district and has been through several other legal fights in the last two years. The active LifeWise Academy lawsuit is LifeWise Academy v. Everett School District, filed in federal court in December 2025, where a judge issued a partial preliminary injunction against the district in April 2026 and set trial for April 2027. Alongside that case, LifeWise settled a copyright suit against a critic, lost a bid at the Ohio Supreme Court to block a state employment investigation, and has publicly addressed criminal charges filed against three former teachers and volunteers.

What LifeWise Academy Is

LifeWise operates under the “released time” framework the U.S. Supreme Court approved in Zorach v. Clauson (1952), which permits public schools to release students for off-campus religious education so long as it happens off school property, is privately funded, and requires parental consent.1Justia. Zorach v. Clauson Classes are scheduled during elective periods, lunch, or recess, cost families and schools nothing, and run roughly $300 to $400 per student per year in donor funding.2Ohio Capital Journal. LifeWise Academy Offers Off-Site Bible Instruction at Various School Districts Across Ohio By 2025, the organization was reportedly serving close to 100,000 students in roughly 1,100 schools across 34 states.3Education Week. More States Guarantee Students the Right to Religious Instruction Off Campus That growth is the backdrop to most of the litigation below.

The Everett Public Schools First Amendment Case

The highest-profile active case is LifeWise Academy v. Everett School District, filed in December 2025 in federal court in Washington. LifeWise and parent Sarah Sweeny, represented by First Liberty Institute and Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner, allege the district violated their free speech and free exercise rights through four specific policies: barring LifeWise from a community resource fair open to secular groups, prohibiting LifeWise flyers in schools, requiring parents to submit weekly written permission slips (more burdensome than for secular releases), and requiring students to keep LifeWise materials and Bibles sealed in backpacks throughout the school day.4The Herald (Everett). LifeWise Sues Everett District Alleging First Amendment Violations5WFMD. Judge Orders Washington School District to Loosen Limits on Off-Campus Bible Club for Public School Students

Board Member’s Statements on the Record

A central piece of LifeWise’s case is a December 9, 2025, school board meeting at which board member Charles Adkins said: “I want to make it very, extremely, abundantly clear, that, yes, I do in fact hold animus toward LifeWise Academy. It is an organization of homophobic bullies who are active and willing participants in the efforts to bring about an authoritarian theocracy.” Adkins had previously described LifeWise’s mission as bringing “white supremacy and Christian nationalism to our schools.” According to the complaint, other board members did not distance themselves from the remarks; one official told him, “We do appreciate you coming back and you are being heard.”6First Liberty Institute. LifeWise Academy v. Everett School District

The Preliminary Injunction

On April 24, 2026, U.S. District Judge Lauren King partially granted LifeWise’s motion for a preliminary injunction. She found LifeWise was likely to succeed on its First Amendment claims and that the district’s policies were not neutral or generally applicable. The timing of the restrictions after Adkins’ remarks, she wrote, supported a finding that they reflected “school board animus toward LifeWise.”6First Liberty Institute. LifeWise Academy v. Everett School District

Under the order, the district must let LifeWise attend community resource fairs and display flyers wherever secular organizations may, must allow Sweeny’s children to read LifeWise materials and Bibles during times other non-scholastic materials are permitted, and must accept semester-long permission slips at Emerson Elementary that identify up to four authorized adults, replacing the weekly requirement. Judge King declined LifeWise’s broader requests, including access to the district’s electronic flyer platform, year-long permission slips, and a blanket order allowing release to “LifeWise Inc.” rather than named individuals.5WFMD. Judge Orders Washington School District to Loosen Limits on Off-Campus Bible Club for Public School Students

The district said it was reviewing the order with legal counsel. Trial is scheduled for April 2027.7The Herald (Everett). Judge Issues Partial Injunction Against Everett District in LifeWise Case

The Parrish Copyright Lawsuit (Settled)

In July 2024, LifeWise sued Zachary Parrish, an Indiana resident who runs the advocacy group “Parents Against LifeWise,” in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana. The complaint alleged Parrish obtained LifeWise’s proprietary curriculum through a volunteer training portal and posted it on his website. LifeWise initially sought up to $150,000 in damages.8The Columbus Dispatch. Copyright Lawsuit Filed by Hilliard Christian Group Against Critic

The parties settled in December 2024. LifeWise dropped its financial demand. Parrish agreed to destroy his copies and stop distributing the materials. In exchange, LifeWise committed to providing access to its complete current curriculum to any adult who requests it, in 48-hour viewing windows that can be requested repeatedly. Users may publish screenshots of up to half a page but cannot print or save full documents. Parrish signed on December 20 and CEO Joel Penton on December 23, 2024.9WOSU. LifeWise Academy Settles Copyright Lawsuit With Parent Who Posted Curriculum Online

The Ohio Supreme Court Employment Case (Dismissed)

In January 2025, Rachel Snell, a former teacher at LifeWise’s Tri-County North program, filed an age discrimination complaint with the Ohio Civil Rights Commission. She alleged she was forced to resign in December 2024 and replaced by a younger employee willing to work for free, that she had been pressured to falsify timecards by working unpaid hours, and that a disciplinary notice citing alleged political activity and failure to uphold “standards of holiness” was a pretext for discrimination.10Yahoo News. LifeWise Asks Court to Stop State Investigation

In June 2025, LifeWise asked the Ohio Supreme Court to block the OCRC investigation, arguing that as a religious organization it has a constitutional right, under the ministerial exception, to make employment decisions about its teaching staff without interference from “a secular tribunal.”11The Columbus Dispatch. Ohio Supreme Court Dismisses LifeWise Religious Exemption Claim in Labor Dispute

On October 1, 2025, the court dismissed the case as moot. Snell had withdrawn her OCRC complaint on her attorney’s advice to pursue a direct lawsuit, and the commission had closed its file after issuing her a right-to-sue letter, leaving “no controversy for this court to consider.” Snell has said she plans to seek punitive damages in a direct suit.12WOSU. Ohio Supreme Court Dismisses LifeWise Academy’s Religious Exemption Claim in Labor Dispute

Criminal Cases Involving Former Affiliates

Three men who previously taught or volunteered with LifeWise programs in Ohio have faced sex-crime charges involving minors in 2026. LifeWise is not a defendant in any of these cases. The organization has said all three passed required background screenings and that it has received no reports of misconduct involving LifeWise students in connection with any of the charges.13Ohio Capital Journal. Ohio Men Previously Involved With LifeWise Academy Charged With Sex Crimes Involving Minors

LifeWise has said its programming requires multiple adults in classroom settings and that students are not left one-on-one with adults.14Dayton Daily News. Sheriff’s Office: Bethel Twp. Man Accused of Child Rape Could Have More Victims

The Renee Beck Firing

In July 2024, LifeWise fired Renee Beck, director of its Firelands program in Lorain County, Ohio, after learning she had failed to disclose her employment history. Beck had been terminated in 2018 from Loudonville-Perrysville Exempted Village Schools following allegations that she sent sexually explicit messages and photographs to students, and she voluntarily surrendered her teaching license in 2019. No criminal charges were filed, so she had no record and passed LifeWise’s background screening.15The Columbus Dispatch. LifeWise Fires Director Renee Beck After Past Alleged Sexting Scandal With Minors

Ohio’s Released-Time Law and District Pushback

Much of LifeWise’s legal environment has been shaped by Ohio House Bill 8, the “Parents’ Bill of Rights,” which changed state law from permitting school districts to adopt released-time policies to requiring them to do so. HB 8 took effect on April 9, 2025.16Ohio Legislature. House Bill 8 Both the Westerville and Worthington school districts had voted in late 2024 to rescind their release-time policies, citing lost instructional time and logistical concerns; after HB 8 took effect, Worthington restored its policy on March 10, 2025, with Westerville expected to follow.17WOSU. Worthington, Westerville Schools Bring Back Religious Release Time Under New State Law Ohio’s 2025 budget process added a cap of two release periods per week while guaranteeing a floor of at least one.18Ohio Statehouse News Bureau. Ohio House Budget Changes Rules for LifeWise and Other Religious Groups That Take Kids Out of School

Outside Ohio, some districts have declined the program outright. The Calloway County Board of Education in Kentucky voted unanimously to reject LifeWise in November 2025, citing lost instructional time, student safety, and administrative burden.19WPSD Local 6. Calloway Unanimously Rejects LifeWise Academy Religious Instruction Program The Everett case in Washington is the first to test, in active federal litigation, how far a school district can go in restricting a released-time program without running into the First Amendment.