In In re Navy Chaplaincy, (DC Cir., Nov. 6, 2020), the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals issued the latest decision in a controversy that has been in litigation for over twenty years. In the case, non-liturgical Protestant chaplains allege discrimination against them by selection boards that control promotions and early retirements of Navy chaplains. The court said:
the district court made no mistake in granting summary judgment for the Navy on the Plaintiffs’ various First Amendment challenges to its selection board policies. See Chaplaincy, 323 F. Supp. 3d at 35-36, 55-56. With regard to the claims that certain selection board policies violated the Establishment Clause, the Plaintiffs had to show each policy had an unconstitutional effect; that is, the Plaintiffs had to show “the selection policies appear[ed] to endorse religion in the eyes of a reasonable observer.”... To prove an endorsement with statistics, the Plaintiffs had to show a stark disparity in outcomes during the relevant period ..., but the statistics they offered came nowhere close to doing so.
However the court remanded for further proceedings a claim by a chaplain endorsing agency, Associated Gospel Churches, of injury because of the Navy's policy. The trial court had dismissed the claim for lack of standing. The Court of Appeals said in part:
On appeal, AGC argues it has standing in its own right to challenge the Navy’s faith-neutral accession goals. We agree. AGC alleged the Navy’s accession goals resulted in AGC’s chaplain candidates entering the Navy at a significantly lower rate than they otherwise would have. AGC further alleged, because it relies upon its chaplains for financial support, it loses money when its ability to find placements for its candidates is hindered. AGC also alleged its low rate of success placing candidates in the Navy tarnished its reputation. These allegations satisfy all three elements of standing. We express no opinion on the sufficiency of the allegations in any other respect.
The court also reversed and remanded claims that had been dismissed as untimely, ordering the trial court to consider whether equitable tolling applies. Finally, the court held:
Allowing chaplains to sit on chaplain selection boards does not create a de jure denominational preference and does not create excessive entanglement.