Before she was accepted into the program in 1998, Axson-Flynn told department officials she would not take her Lord's name in vain or use certain expletives. But when she later objected to the words, Axson-Flynn claims she was threatened with a failing grade and told to "get over" her religious convictions.

She left the program in 1999 and filed the federal lawsuit the next year.

"There is no question that in the instant case, defendants attempted to compel Axson-Flynn to speak," Tuesday's opinion states. "Although they never suspended her from the ATP or explicitly threatened her with expulsion, defendants made it abundantly clear that Axson-Flynn would not be able to continue in the program if she refused to say the words with which she was uncomfortable."

The question, then, is whether the compelled speech was meant for purely educational reasons or if there was an underlying discriminatory purpose.

The opinion is clear that restricted or compelled speech is appropriate in schools if it is "reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns." It noted students are often required to express viewpoints contrary to their personal beliefs for any number of reasons, most of which are entirely justified

The U. has argued in court documents that scripts are chosen as a teaching tool to "challenge students with characters and stories that might be quite different from their own life experiences."

However, Tuesday's opinion calls into question the theater department's motivation in requiring Axson-Flynn's strict adherence to the texts.

The court noted Axson-Flynn's allegations that professors instructed her to look to "good Mormon girls" for guidance and that she was told she could fulfill the assignments and "still be a good Mormon." She has also alleged that a male Jewish student was allowed to skip an exercise on Yom Kippur without consequence.

The evidence, which the university has not yet had an opportunity to dispute, "certainly raises concern that hostility to her faith rather than a pedagogical interest in her growth as an actress was at stake in (the university's) behavior in this case," the court said.

"(W)e find that there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether defendants' justification for the script adherence requirement was truly pedagogical or whether it was a pretext for religious discrimination," the court said. To prevail at trial, Axson-Flynn must prove professors refused to grant her an exemption specifically because of her religion.

While her attorneys said Tuesday that would be easy to do, Assistant Utah Attorney General Alain Balmanno is confident jurors will see that the Actor Training Program is specifically designed to prepare students for a career in professional acting.