Pope Says Biden Should Not Be Denied Communion

According to a New York Times report yesterday:

President Biden told reporters on Friday that Pope Francis had called him a “good Catholic” and said he should keep receiving communion, an unexpected development that appeared to put a papal finger on the scale in a debate raging in the United States’ Roman Catholic Church over whether the president and other Catholic politicians who support abortion rights should be denied the sacrament....

Asked to confirm Mr. Biden’s remarks, Matteo Bruni, the Vatican spokesman, said the Holy See limited its comments to the news release about subjects discussed during the meeting and added, “It’s a private conversation.”

In a separate article today, the New York Times reports that President Biden received communion Saturday evening at St. Patrick’s Church in Rome, an English-speaking church dedicated to the American Catholic community. President Biden is in Italy for a meeting of G20 leaders, as well as for his meeting with Pope Francis.

Supreme Court, 6-3, Denies Injunction Pending Appeal In Maine COVID Vaccination Case

The U.S. Supreme Court yesterday, by a vote of 6-3, in John Does 1-3 v. Mills, (Sup. Ct., Oct. 29, 2021), refused to enjoin enforcement of Maine's COVID vaccine mandate while a petition for Supreme Court review of the 1st Circuit's decision is pending. Healthcare workers sued objecting to the absence of religious exemptions from the mandate. The 1st Circuit in an Oct. 19 opinion (full text) refused a preliminary injunction against enforcement. The Supreme Court's Order was issued without an accompanying majority opinion. However, Justice Barrett, joined by Justice Kavanaugh, issued a short concurring opinion which appears to recognize the concern with the Court's increasing use of its "shadow docket" to render important decision.  Justice Barrett wrote in part:

When this Court is asked to grant extraordinary relief, it considers, among other things, whether the applicant “‘is likely to succeed on the merits.’” ... I understand this factor to encompass not only an assessment of the underlying merits but also a discretionary judgment about whether the Court should grant review in the case.... Were the standard otherwise, applicants could use the emergency docket to force the Court to give a merits preview in cases that it would be unlikely to take—and to do so on a short fuse without benefit of full briefing and oral argument....

Justice Gorsuch, joined by Justices Thomas and Alito, filed an opinion dissenting from the denial of injunctive relief, saying in part:

Maine has so far failed to present any evidence that granting religious exemptions to the applicants would threaten its stated public health interests any more than its medical exemption already does.

This case presents an important constitutional question, a serious error, and an irreparable injury.... [H]ealthcare workers who have served on the front line of a pandemic for the last 18 months are now being fired and their practices shuttered. All for adhering to their constitutionally protected religious beliefs. Their plight is worthy of our attention.

SCOTUS blog reports on the decision.

Biden Meets With Pope Francis

As reported by CNN, President Joe Biden met for 90 minutes this morning with Pope Francis at the Vatican. The White House released a brief readout (full text) of the meeting, which said:

In his audience with Pope Francis today, President Biden thanked His Holiness for his advocacy for the world’s poor and those suffering from hunger, conflict, and persecution. He lauded Pope Francis’ leadership in fighting the climate crisis, as well as his advocacy to ensure the pandemic ends for everyone through vaccine sharing and an equitable global economic recovery.

After his audience with the Pope, Biden met with Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Parolin. They discussed a variety of issues (White House readout), including advocacy for religious freedom world-wide.

Supreme Court Lifts Stay Of Execution Despite Inmates' Religious Objections To Sentence Conditions

The U.S. Supreme Court yesterday, by a vote of 5-3, in a brief Order (full text) vacated a stay of execution that had been entered by the 10th Circuit in Crow v. Jones (Sup. Ct., Docket No. 21A116). According to the New York Times:

The inmates, John Marion Grant and Julius Jones, had argued that the state’s [Oklahoma's] lethal injection protocol, which uses three chemicals, could subject them to excruciating pain.

They also objected on religious grounds to a requirement imposed by a trial judge that they choose among proposed alternative methods of execution, saying that doing so would amount to suicide.

President Biden's Statement On International Religious Freedom Day

Yesterday was International Religious Freedom Day, commemorating the signing of the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998.(Current version). Yesterday President Biden issued a Statement (full text) marking the day, saying in part:

We stand in defense of religious freedom not only as an expression of our deepest values but also because it is a vital national security priority. The United States will continue to rally the globe to protect and promote the right of freedom of religion or belief, including through multilateral coalitions such as the International Religious Freedom or Belief Alliance.

2nd Circuit Hears Arguments On New York Vaccine Mandate

The U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday heard oral arguments in Dr. A v. Hochul. (Audio of oral arguments (mp3 file download)). In the case, a New York federal district court issued a preliminary injunction to health care workers who object to the elimination of religious exemptions from New York's requirement that health care workers be vaccinated against COVID. (See prior posting.) The case was consolidated for oral argument with We the Patriots USA, Inc. v. Hochul which poses similar issues. (Memorandum of Law ).

Texas Governor Signs Ban On Transgender Girls Participating On Female Sports Teams

On Monday, Texas Governor Gregg Abbott signed HB 25 (full text) which requires transgender students on interscholastic high school athletic teams to compete only on teams that conform to their biological sex as specified on their original birth certificate. The only exception is for female students competing on male teams when no female team is available. The law states that its purpose is:

to further the governmental interest of ensuring that sufficient interscholastic athletic opportunities remain available for girls to remedy past discrimination on the basis of sex.

KRIS TV reports on the new legislation. [Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]

Washington Vaccine Mandate Upheld Over Free Exercise Challenge

 In Wise v. Inslee, (ED WA, Oct. 25, 2021), a Washington federal district court refused to enjoin Washington state's COVID vaccine mandate for for educators, healthcare workers, and state employees and contractors. One claim was that the mandate violates free exercise rights. The mandate recognizes that individuals may be entitled to disability related or religious accommodations under various anti-discrimination statutes. According to the court:

Plaintiffs appear to argue Proclamation 21-14 is facially neutral but not generally applicable because it essentially creates “an unlawful faith-based barrier to gainful employment.”....

As Defendants rightly indicate, because there are no exemptions for political, personal, or other objections, if anything, the Proclamation encourages religious practice....   Plaintiffs cannot demonstrate a discriminatory application solely because they disagree with the availability of accommodations. Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate how the Proclamation is not generally applicable....

Plaintiffs’ objections to the Proclamation relate primarily to their disagreement with Defendants’ judgment regarding public health, which is insufficient to overcome the constitutionality of Defendants’ actions in enacting and promulgating the Proclamation, regardless of which level of scrutiny is applied.

Center Square reports on the decision.

Christian Student Group Challenges University's Non-Discrimination Policy

Suit was filed this week in a Texas federal district court by a Christian student organization at the University of Houston challenging the University's non-discrimination policy that led to a denial of recognition of the group as a Registered Student Organization. The complaint (full text) in Ratio Christi at the University of Houston- Clear Lake v. Khator, (SD TX, filed 10/25/2021), contends that the University violated the 1st and 14th Amendments by:

a. Denying Ratio Christi registered status because it requires that its officers, who have religious responsibilities, share the organization’s religious beliefs and support its purposes;

b. Conditioning a student organization’s access to campus resources and student services fee funding on a system where UHCL officials have unbridled discretion... [and [c]] must consider multiple content- and viewpoint-based factors; and

d. Compelling Plaintiffs to pay student service fees into a system that is viewpoint discriminatory.

ADF issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

UPDATE: ADF announced on Oct. 29 that the University has now recognized Ratio Christi as a Registered Student Organization.

New Survey of Antisemitism In U.S. Released

The American Jewish Committee yesterday released it latest annual State of Antisemitism in America report. It includes a Survey of American Jews, a Survey of the U.S. General Public, and a Comparison of the two surveys. Among other things, it indicates that 40% of American Jews and 21% of the general public think that anti-Semitism is a "very serious problem."

EEOC Updates Guidance On Religious Objections To COVID Vaccine

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission yesterday announced an update to its Technical Assistance Questions and Answers, adding Part L Title VII and Religious Objections to COVID-19 Vaccine Mandates. The extensive new guidance provides in part:

The employer may ask for an explanation of how the employee’s religious belief conflicts with the employer’s COVID-19 vaccination requirement.  Although prior inconsistent conduct is relevant to the question of sincerity, an individual’s beliefs – or degree of adherence – may change over time and, therefore, an employee’s newly adopted or inconsistently observed practices may nevertheless be sincerely held.  An employer should not assume that an employee is insincere simply because some of the employee’s practices deviate from the commonly followed tenets of the employee’s religion, or because the employee adheres to some common practices but not others.  No one factor or consideration is determinative, and employers should evaluate religious objections on an individual basis.

When an employee’s objection to a COVID-19 vaccination requirement is not religious in nature, or is not sincerely held, Title VII does not require the employer to provide an exception to the vaccination requirement as a religious accommodation.

Bloomberg Law reports on the new guidance.

Home-Based Synagogue Sues Over Zoning Restrictions

Suit was filed this month in an Ohio federal district court by a home-based synagogue in a Cleveland suburb alleging that the city's land use regulations violate the Religious Land Use an Institutionalized Persons Act, as well as the federal and state constitutions. The complaint (full text) in Aleksander Shul v. City of University Heights, Ohio, (ND OH, filed 10/13/2021), alleges in part:

Since 2009, Rabbi Shnior Zalman Denciger ... has engaged in prayer services at his residence.... The Property has become known throughout the City as the “Aleksander Shul,” ... that offers Orthodox Jewish prayer services in the Polish Chassidic style, and according to the unique customs of the Aleksander Chassidic sect, which was decimated by the Nazis during the Holocaust.

The City for many years permitted the Aleksander Shul to operate informally at the Property. For many residents of the City, the Aleksander Shul is the only place for them to exercise their religion because, pursuant to their Orthodox Jewish beliefs, they do not travel in cars on the Sabbath....The City, however, has taken various actions to shut down Orthodox Jewish shuls, including the Aleksander Shul, and the City’s zoning scheme makes it impossible to locate any parcel within the City where a place of worship can legally operate.

News 5 Cleveland has additional background on the lawsuit.

Canadian Court Upholds Job Program Funding Limited To Groups Supporting Abortion Rights

In Right to Life Association of Toronto v. Canada , (Fed.Ct., Oct. 22, 2021), Canada's Federal Court in a 63-pagae opinion upheld a requirement in the 2018 Canada Summer Jobs program that required organizations applying for funding to attest that they respected individual human rights, Charter rights and reproductive rights. A right-to-life organization and individuals associated with it claimed that the attestation went beyond the Ministry's authority, was added at the behest of an abortion rights lobby, and infringes their freedom of religion and of speech. The court said in part:

[191] As found, the Attestation was a reasonable policy decision and within the Minister’s authority in accordance with the DESDA [Department of Employment and Social Development Act]. The decision to add the Attestation was not made with a closed mind, for improper purposes, or based on irrelevant considerations.

[192] The effect of the Attestation restricted or limited the Applicants’ rights to freedom of religion and protection against compelled speech, but only minimally and only in the context of the application for 2018 CSJ [Canadian Summer Jobs] funding. The limitation on the Applicants’ Charter rights reflects a proportionate balancing with the objectives of the DESDA and the CSJ program.

National Post reports on the decision.

USCIRF Calls Attention To Persecution of Ahmadiyya Muslims

The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom has recently issued a new Factsheet on Persecution of Ahmadiyya Muslims, focusing particularly on issues in Pakistan, Algeria and Malaysia, saying part:

In these countries, authorities have targeted Ahmadis through hate speech and speech inciting violence against them, denied them citizenship, restricted their rights to worship, and prosecuted them for practicing their faith, including by charging them with, and in some cases convicting them of, blasphemy. Some states prohibit Ahmadis from declaring their faith publicly, criminalize them for identifying as Muslim, and prohibit them from calling their houses of worship mosques....

 USCIRF explains:

Because of the differences between Ahmadiyya beliefs and beliefs in Sunni and Shi’a Islam, many Muslims consider Ahmadiyya Muslims to be heretics.

Recent Articles and Books of Interest

 From SSRN:

• Linda C. McClain & James Fleming,  Civic Education in Circumstances of Constitutional Rot and Strong Polarization, (Boston University Law Review, Vol. 101, No. 1771, 2021).
• Judith Geldenhuys & Michelle Kelly-Louw, Demystifying Hate Speech under the PEPUDA, (PER / PELJ 2020(23)).
• Charles W. (Rocky) Rhodes & Howard Wasserman, Solving the Procedural Puzzles of Texas’ Fetal-Heartbeat Law and its Imitators: The Potential for Defensive Litigation, (SMU Law Review, (forthcoming 2022)).
• Howard Wasserman & Charles W. (Rocky) Rhodes, Solving the Procedural Puzzles of Texas’ Fetal-Heartbeat Law and its Imitators: The Limits and Opportunities for Offensive Litigation, (American University Law Review, Vol. 71, 2022).
• Abdul Muqaddas Opeyemi Ishaaq El-Mubarak, Zakariya Mustapha & Isyaku Hassan, Regulation Not Mere Legislation: The Issue of Enhancing Islamic Banking Performance Across Nigeria, (International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences 2021).

Recent Books of Interest:

• Spencer W. McBride, Joseph Smith for President-- The Prophet, the Assassins, and the Fight for American Religious Freedom, (Oxford Univ. Press, May 2021).
• Michael Graziano, Errand into the Wilderness of Mirrors-- Religion and the History of the CIA, (University of Chicago Press, June 2021).
• Greg Bourke, Gay, Catholic, and American-- My Legal Battle for Marriage Equality and Inclusion, (Notre Dame Univ. Press, Sept. 2021).
• Alvin H. Rosenfeld (ed.), Contending with Antisemitism in a Rapidly Changing Political Climate,(Indiana Univ. Press, Nov. 2021).

9th Circuit Hears Arguments In Apache Attempt To Prevent Sacred Land Transfer

Last Friday, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments in Apache Stronghold v. United States. (Video of full oral arguments.) In the case, an Arizona federal district court refused to issue a preliminary injunction to prevent a land exchange between the federal government and two foreign mining companies known as Resolution Copper. The land to be conveyed to Resolution Copper contains a sacred Apache ceremonial ground know as Oak Flat. (See prior posting.) In March, the 9th Circuit refused to issue an injunction pending appeal sought by Apache tribal members. (See prior posting.) Eagle Tribune reports on last week's oral arguments.

General Religious Objection Available Under Hawaii's COVID Mandate

In Pelekai v. State of Hawai'i, (D HI, Oct. 22, 2021), a Hawaii federal district court rejected various challenges to Hawaii state and county mandates that public employees be vaccinated against COVD or else submit to regular testing. One of plaintiffs' objections was to language rejecting any religious exemption based on opposition to "specific vaccinations". The court rejected that claim, saying in part:

The policy ... does not prohibit an employee from making the following objection: “I object to all vaccines that have been developed using aborted fetal cell lines on religious grounds.” The latter is not an objection to a specific vaccine, is not prohibited by Honolulu’s policy, and is the objection Plaintiffs themselves claim to want to make.

Oklahoma Governor Condemns State's Issuance Of Non-Binary Birth Certificate

According to The Oklahoman, Oklahoma Governor Kevin Stitt has reacted sharply to a legal settlement by the state's former attorney general. Under the settlement, a state district court in August ordered the State Health Department to reissue a birth certificate with a non-binary sex designation. Last week, Gov. Stitt issued a statement saying:

I believe that people are created by God to be male or female. Period. There is no such thing as non-binary sex and I wholeheartedly condemn the purported OSDH court settlement that was entered into by rogue activists who acted without receiving proper approval or oversight.

Oklahoma House Speaker Charles McCall contended that the settlement is invalid because state law requires any settlement that "substantially impacts the operation or programs of a state agency" be reviewed first by legislative leaders and the governor's office. A member of the legislature has already pre-filed a bill to prevent non-binary designations on birth certificates in the future. Oklahoma House Minority Leader Emily Virgin says she is disgusted by the Governor's statement. [Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]

U.S. Returns As Member Of U.N. Human Rights Council

As reported by CNN, on Thursday the United States was elected by the U.N. General Assembly to the United Nations Human Rights Council. This reverses the Trump Administration's withdrawal from the Council three years ago. US Ambassador to the United Nations Linda Thomas-Greenfield, commenting on the U.S.'s role, said in part:

[W]e will promote respect for fundamental freedoms and women's rights, and oppose religious intolerance, racial and ethnic injustices, and violence and discrimination against members of minority groups, including LGBTQI+ persons and persons with disabilities....

[The U.S.]  will oppose the Council's disproportionate attention on Israel, which includes the Council's only standing agenda item targeting a single country.

Also on Thursday, President Biden announced his intention to nominate Michèle Taylor as U.S Representative to the UN Human Rights Council with the rank of Ambassador. The Atlanta Jewish Times has extensive background information on Taylor.

Supreme Court Grants Extra Rapid Review In Texas Abortion Cases, But Postpones Granting Interim Stay

The U.S. Supreme Court today took action to decide quickly whether Texas has effectively shielded its new "heartbeat" abortion law (S.B. 8) from review.  In two cases in which emergency relief was sought, the Court granted review ahead of any decision by the Court of Appeals. In Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson, it granted a petition for certiorari before judgment. (Order List). In the case, the Supreme Court previously refused to prevent Texas' S.B.8 from continuing in effect while its constitutionality is being litigated. (See prior posting.) Also today, the Court acted in United States v. Texas, the Justice Department's challenge to the Texas law.  The Court granted certiorari before judgment and "deferred pending oral argument" the government's motion to vacate the 5th Circuit's stay of the district court's injunction barring enforcement of S.B.8. The grant of review was limited to:

May the United States bring suit in federal court and obtain injunctive or declaratory relief against the State, state court judges, state court clerks, other state officials, or all private parties to prohibit S.B. 8 from being enforced.

This parallels the question presented by the Petition for Certiorari in Whole Woman's Health:

[W]hether a State can insulate from federal-court review a law that prohibits the exercise of a constitutional right by delegating to the general public the authority to enforce that prohibition through civil actions.

In both cases, the Court ordered that petitioners' briefs (as well as any amicus briefs) be filed electronically by Oct. 27, and reply briefs be filed by Oct. 29. Oral argument in both cases is set for Nov. 1.

Justice Sotomayor filed a dissent to the Court's refusal in United States v. Texas to grant an immediate stay, pending the appellate process, of enforcement of the law, saying in part:

[T]he Court’s failure to issue an administrative stay of the Fifth Circuit’s order pending its decision on this application will have profound and immediate consequences. By delaying any remedy, the Court enables continued and irreparable harm to women seeking abortion care and providers of such care in Texas—exactly as S. B. 8’s architects intended... 

 CNN reports on the Court's action, as does the New York Times.

Catherine Lhamon Confirmed By Senate To Head DOE's Office For Civil Rights

On Wednesday, the United States Senate confirmed the nomination of Catherine Lhamon to be Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights at the U.S. Department of Education.  The vote was 51-50, with Vice-President Harris casting a tie-breaking vote. This returns Lhamon to a position she held under the Obama administration. According to Education Week:

During her first tenure under Obama, Lhamon oversaw the office when it helped draft 2016 guidance to schools directing them to allow transgender students to use facilities like restrooms and locker rooms that matched their gender identity.

Canadian Court Upholds COVID Restrictions On Churches

In Gateway Bible Baptist Church v. Province of Manitoba, (MBQB, Oct. 21, 2021), a Manitoba (Canada) trial court, in a 156-page opinion, upheld against constitutional challenges the public health restrictions imposed by the province on gatherings at places of worship and at private homes.  Plaintiffs were several churches and individuals. The court concluded that while the restrictions infringed the rights to freedom of conscience and religion; freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression; and freedom of peaceful assembly, the Public Health Orders are constitutionally justifiable as reasonable limits under Section 1 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The court said in part:

[T]he decision to temporarily close places of worship and otherwise limit the size of gatherings, was rational, reasoned and defensible in the circumstances of an undeniable public health crisis.

The court went on to conclude that the restrictions did not infringe the rights of liberty or security and did not amount to religious discrimination. The court said in part:

It is the position of the applicants that the impugned PHOs discriminate on the basis of religion in that they classify liquour, cannabis and big-box retailers as “essential” and therefore allow them to remain open [while they] classify churches and religious gatherings as “non-essential”.... Put simply, the applicants submit that it is discriminatory to allow people to assemble in liquor and grocery stores, but not worship at church.... [T]he applicants have inaccurately described Manitoba’s use of the adjective “essential” as it relates to churches and religious gatherings just as they have also failed to appreciate that the distinction in question (between what is permitted to remain open and what must remain closed) is not based on religion.

The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms issued a press release discussing the decision.

European Court Says Tabloid Coverage Of Deceased Priest Violated Privacy Rights

In M.L. v. Slovenia, (ECHR, Oct. 14, 2021), the European Court of Human Rights held that Article 8 (Respect for private life) of the European Convention on Human Rights was violated when Slovenian courts rejected claims that the mother of a deceased Roman Catholic priest brought against three newspapers. The son had been convicted in 1999 and 2002 on charges growing out of homosexual conduct. The son died in 2006, apparently of suicide. In 2008, three tabloid newspapers published sensationalized stories about the son's life. The Court said in part:

[I]t was crucial in the present case that the domestic courts make a careful assessment of the presence and level of public interest in the publishing of the information in question, and that the domestic courts strike a balance between any such public interest and the applicant’s individual interests....

[T]he domestic courts failed to carry out a balancing exercise between the applicant’s right to private life and the newspaper publishers’ freedom of expression in conformity with the criteria laid down in the Court’s case-law.

The Court awarded damages of 5000 Euros plus costs.  The Spectator reports on the decision.

Defamation Suit Filed By Prominent Pastor Against Former Southern Baptist Ethics Commission Head

Suit was filed this week in a Tennessee federal district court by Michael Stone, a prominent Southern Baptist pastor of a congregation in Georgia, against Russell Moore, former head of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission (ERLC) of the Southern Baptist Convention. The complaint (full text) in Stone v. Moore, (MD TN, filed 10/18/2021), alleges that soon after Stone, as Chairman of the Executive Committee, began to serve on a task force created to assess whether the actions of ERLC and Moore were negatively affecting the Southern Baptist Convention's fiscal well-being, Moore defamed him in two letters leaked to the news media. According to the complaint:

The First Letter ... contained numerous false allegations against Plaintiff, who was then a prominent candidate for the presidency of the SBC.... [It] indirectly identifies Plaintiff by alleging that “the current chairman of the Executive Committee” and the “Executive Committee... ‘exonerated’ churches, in a spur-of-the-moment meeting, from serious charges of sexual abuse cover-up.”...

[A]dditional statements made by Defendant in the First Letter, including a statement declaring the existence of an SBC “culture where countless children have been torn to shreds, where women have been raped” are demonstrably false.

Stone seeks damages of $750,000 for libel, false light invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Religion News Service has more background on the case.

DC Circuit: USCIS Denial Of Religious Worker Visa Violated RFRA

In National Capital Presbytery v. Mayorkas, (D DC, Oct. 19, 2021), the D.C. federal district court held that USCIS violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act when it refused to renew the R-1 nonimmigrant religious worker visa for one of National Capital Presbytery's (NCP) ministers who is a citizen of Myanmar. The church applying for a R-1 visa must show how it intends to compensate the religious worker. Here the agency's Administrative  Appeals Office concluded that NCP had not adequately shown this. The court said in part:

Plaintiffs note that Defendants promulgated the compensation regulation to improve its “ability to detect and deter fraud and other abuses in the religious worker program.”... No compelling interest exists here. Defendants do not argue that NCP does not exist, or that there is any fraud afoot here. Given the interest the compensation regulation serves, and that Defendants do not allege fraud, they cannot show a compelling interest in denying NCP’s petition for the reasons asserted....

Justice Breyer Refuses To Enjoin Maine Vaccine Mandate Pending Appeal

As previously reported, a Maine federal district court rejected claims by health care employees that Maine violated their free exercise rights when it eliminated religious exemptions from its COVID vaccine mandate for health care workers. The 1st Circuit refused to issue an injunction pending appeal, and plaintiffs sought similar relief from the U.S. Supreme Court through a filing with Justice Breyer. Yesterday in John Does 1-2 v. Mills, Justice Breyer issued an Order reading:

The application is denied without prejudice to applicants filing a new application after the Court of Appeals issues a decision on the merits of the appeal, or if the Court of Appeals does not issue a decision by October 29, 2021.

AP reports on developments.

Christian Employers Group Challenges HHS And EEOC Protection for Transgender Health Care

Suit was filed this week in a North Dakota federal district court by a Christian membership ministry that serves for-profit and non-profit employers challenging two federal rules on health care coverage for gender transition surgery. At issue are (1) an EEOC interpretation of Title VII that requires employers to cover gender transition services in their health plans; and (2) An HHS non-discrimination requirement that forces religiously-affiliated healthcare providers to perform gender transition surgeries, procedures, counseling, and treatments. The complaint (full text) Christian Employers Alliance v. U.S. EEOC, (D ND, filed 10/18/21), alleges in part:

31. CEA members believe and teach that each human being bears the image and likeness of God, and that the two, distinct biological sexes of male and female are complementary and together reflect the image and nature of God.

32. CEA members believe and teach that rejection of one’s biological sex is a rejection of the image of God within that person.

The suit alleges violations of RFRA, free exercise and free speech protections. ADF issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Appellate Court Says Injunction Against Church Picketer Was Too Broad

In Tenth Presbyterian Church v. Snyder, (PA Super, Oct. 18, 2021), a Pennsylvania state appellate court held that the trial court was justified in issuing a preliminary injunction against Phillip Snyder, an excommunicated member of the church, who picketed the church every Sunday. However the appellate court held that the preliminary injunction's requirement that Snyder remain at least 5,000 feet from the church property was not narrowly enough tailored. The appellate court pointed out that Snyder had engaged in aggressive and agitated behavior that frightened Church members, and that he carried a concealed firearm. Nevertheless, it concluded:

[T]he trial court couched its preliminary injunction in the broadest terms to protect the interest of the Church and its members, disregarding Snyder’s constitutional right to protest the Church and its leadership. A five-thousand-foot restriction places Snyder well beyond the point at which his constitutional right to protest is utterly extinguished.  Put succinctly, the five-thousand-foot restriction is not “couched in the narrowest terms that will accomplish the pin-pointed objective permitted by constitutional mandate and the essential needs of public order.”

2nd Circuit Upholds Prison's Change In Schedule For Quaker Meetings

In Green Haven Prison Preparative Meeting of the Religious Society of Friends v. New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, (2d Cir., Oct. 18, 2021), the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's denial of a preliminary injunction to plaintiffs who are individual and groups of Quakers who object to changes in the schedules for Quaker meetings at a maximum security prison. The court held that as to quarterly meetings attended by incarcerated as well outside Quakers, the non-incarcerated plaintiffs had not shown that under RLUIPA the schedule change had imposed a substantial burden on their exercise of religion. As to weekly meetings attended only by incarcerated Quakers, plaintiffs had not exhausted their administrative remedies as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act.

Justice Department Asks Supreme Court To Reinstate District Court's Injunction Against Texas Abortion Law

In United States v. Texas, the Justice Department today filed in the Supreme Court an Application (full text) to vacate the 5th Circuit's stay of a preliminary injunction that had been granted by a Texas federal district court. The application on the Court's Shadow docket was filed with Justice Alito who is assigned to take emergency filings from the 5th Circuit. At issue is the Justice Department's challenge to the Texas "heartbeat" abortion law. The Justice Department adds that the Court may treat this as a petition for a grant of certiorari before judgment. The Application says in part:

The question now is whether Texas’s nullification of this Court’s precedents should be allowed to continue while the courts consider the United States’ suit. As the district court recognized, it should not: The United States is likely to succeed on the merits because S.B. 8 is clearly unconstitutional and because the United States has authority to seek equitable relief to protect its sovereign interests -- including its interest in the supremacy of federal law and the availability of the mechanisms for judicial review that Congress and this Court have long deemed essential to protect constitutional rights.... 

Again, the Fifth Circuit disputed none of this. Instead, the divided panel’s one-paragraph order stayed the preliminary injunction solely for “the reasons stated in” two decisions addressing a prior challenge to S.B. 8.... But those reasons do not apply to this very different suit. Sovereign immunity forced the private plaintiffs in Whole Woman’s Health to sue individual state officers, and this Court and the Fifth Circuit questioned whether those officers were proper defendants. This suit does not raise those questions because it was brought against the State of Texas itself, and the State has no immunity from suits by the United States. The Fifth Circuit ignored that distinction, which refutes the court’s only justification for the stay.

Justice Alito ordered Texas to file a response by noon on Thursday.  Twenty-three states and the District of Columbia filed a joint amicus brief (full text) in support of the Justice Department.

CNN reports on these developments.

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Caroline Mala Corbin, The Pledge of Allegiance Revisited: Requiring Parental Consent, (Indiana Law Journal, Forthcoming).
• Rafael Domingo Osle, The Right to Religious Freedom: Extension or Erosion?, (Tom Angier, Iain Benson, and Marc Retter (eds), Handbook on Natural Law and Human Rights (Cambridge University Press Forthcoming)).
• Mohammad Fadel, Sovereignty, Territoriality and Islamic Private International Law, (October 12, 2021).

From SmartCILP:

• UCLA Journal of Islamic and Near Eastern Law, Vol. 18 (2020): Engy Abdelkader, China's Repression of Uigher Muslims: A Human Rights Perspective in Historical Context; Yael Efron & Mohammed S. Watad, When "Allahu Akbar" Becomes a Crime: The Israeli Case; Hallie Ludsin, International Human Rights Law and Religious and Cultural Law: Breaking the Impasse; Ryan Riegg, Sources of Saudi Conduct: How Saudi Family Law and Royal Polygyny Produce Political Instability.

LGBTQ Discrimination In Placing Unaccompanied Minor Refugees Is Challenged

Suit was filed earlier this week in federal district court for the District of Columbia challenging the Office of Refugee Resettlement's contracting with religiously-sponsored agencies (including the USCCB) that discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation in providing foster parents for unaccompanied minor refugees. The complaint (full text) in Easter v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, (D DC, filed 10/13/2021), alleges in part:

Some ... organizations ... provide taxpayer-funded foster placement services on the federal government’s behalf in a discriminatory manner that categorically excludes lesbian, gay, and bisexual people from participating as prospective foster parents. They contend that the organizations’ religious beliefs justify denying lesbian, gay, and bisexual people from participating equally in the government program that the agencies receive taxpayer funds to administer....

The United States Constitution constrains the government by requiring freedom without favor and equality without exception in performing its functions. And what the government cannot do directly, it may not do indirectly.

Americans United issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit. 

Class Action Challenges Denials Of Religious Exemptions From Federal COVID Vaccine Mandate

A class action lawsuit was filed yesterday in a Florida federal district court on behalf of military personnel, federal employees federal civilian contractors who have been denied a religious exemption from the federal government's COVID vaccine mandate. The complaint (full text) in Navy Seal I v. Biden, (MD FL, filed 10/15/2021) alleges in part:

Plaintiffs ... face a deadline under the Federal COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate to receive a COVID-19 vaccine that violates their sincerely held religious beliefs, and have been refused any religious exemption or accommodation....

Plaintiffs all have sincerely held religious beliefs, rooted in Scripture, that preclude them from complying with the Federal COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate because of the connections between the various COVID-19 vaccines and the cell lines of aborted fetuses, whether in the vaccines’ origination, production, development, testing, or other inputs. Plaintiffs also have sincerely held religious beliefs, rooted in Scripture, that their bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit and that they cannot place anything into their Temples without confirmation and conviction from the Holy Spirit.

The suit seeks a temporary restraining order and preliminary and permanent injunctions, claiming violations of the Free Exercise Clause, RFRA and the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. Liberty Counsel issued a lengthy press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Supreme Court Denies Cert. In Case Alleging Religious Belief Discrimination

The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday denied review in Pasadena Republican Club v. Western Justice Center, (Docket No. 20-1773, certiorari denied 10/12/2021). (Order List). In the case, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed a suit claiming viewpoint discrimination and religious belief discrimination by the Western Justice Center (WJC) that was leasing the historic Maxwell House from the city of Pasedena.  WJC refused to rent space to the Republican Club for a speech by the president of the National Organization for Marriage because NOM's position on same-sex marriage, gay adoption, and transgender rights are antithetical to the values of WJC.  The 9th Circuit (full text of opinion) held that WJC was not a state actor for purposes of the Republican Club’s constitutional claims, and that the the government did not become vicariously liable for the discretionary decisions of its lessee. (See prior related posting.) Pasedena Now reports on the Court's action.

Virginia County Allows Muslim Cemetery, Settling DOJ and Private Litigation

The  Justice Department yesterday announced that it had filed a Notice of Dismissal in United States v. Stafford County Virginia, (ED VA, Oct. 14, 2021). The Department said that it is dismissing its RLUIPA lawsuit because the county has repealed the ordinances that prevented the All Muslim Association of America (AMAA) from developing a religious cemetery for Muslims. the county has also approved a site plan for the new cemetery and has settled a private lawsuit by agreeing to pay AMAA $500,000 in damages.

2nd Circuit: Protesters' Sidewalk Tables Were Not A "Place of Worship" Under FACEA

A provision (18 USC §248) in the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act of 1994 (“FACEA”) prohibits intentionally injuring, intimidating, or interfering with anyone who is exercising 1st Amendment religious freedom rights “at a place of religious worship.”  In Zhang Jingrong v. Chinese Anti-Cult World Alliance, Inc., (2nd Cir., Oct. 14, 2021), the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals held that "a place of religious worship" in the statute is limited to "a place recognized or dedicated as one primarily used for religious worship", and not merely any place where religion is practiced.  Applying this definition, the court concluded that five tables on the sidewalk in Flushing, Queens, New York where Falun Gong adherents passed out flyers and displayed posters were not a "place of religious worship." The court said in part:

Plaintiffs and their fellow practitioners treated the tables primarily as a base for protesting and raising public awareness about the Chinese Communist Party’s alleged abuses against Falun Gong, rather than for religious worship. Nor was there evidence that the Falun Gong religious leadership had designated the tables as a place primarily to gather for or hold religious worship activities.

Judge Walker filed a concurring opinion arguing that 18 USC §248 exceeds Congress Commerce Clause power, saying in part:

In prohibiting violence against worshippers at places of religious worship, FACEA regulates local, non-economic conduct that has at best a tenuous connection to interstate commerce.

Courthouse News Service reports on the decision.

Maine's Vaccine Mandate Without Religious Exemption Upheld

In Jane Does 1-6 v. Mills, (D ME, Oct. 13, 2021), a Maine federal district court rejected claims by health care employees that Maine violated their free exercise rights when it eliminated religious exemptions from its COVID vaccine mandate for health care workers. The court, denying a preliminary injunction, said in part:

Here, the Rule does not compel the Plaintiffs to be vaccinated against their will, and the Plaintiffs have, in fact, freely exercised their religious beliefs by declining to be vaccinated. This is not to minimize the seriousness of the indirect consequences of the Plaintiffs’ refusal to be vaccinated, as it affects their employment. Nonetheless, the Rule has not prevented the Plaintiffs from staying true to their professed religious beliefs....

The medical exemption at issue here was adopted to protect persons whose health may be jeopardized by receiving a COVID-19 vaccination. The exemption is rightly viewed as an essential facet of the vaccine’s core purpose of protecting the health of patients and healthcare workers, including those who, for bona fide medical reasons, cannot be safely vaccinated. Because the medical exemption serves the core purpose of the COVID-19 vaccine mandate, it does not reflect a value judgment prioritizing a purely secular interest ...—over religious interests.

In addition, the vaccine mandate places an equal burden on all secular beliefs unrelated to protecting public health—for example, philosophical or politically-based objections to state-mandated vaccination requirements—to the same extent that it burdens religious beliefs....

The court rejected plaintiffs' Title VII failure to accommodate claim by concluding that plaintiffs had not exhausted their administrative remedies.

UPDATE: After the 1st Circuit refused to issue an injunction pending appeal, plaintiffs filed a Motion For Writ of Injunction Pending Appeal with the U.S. Supreme court on Oct. 15. (Liberty Counsel press release.)

5th Circuit Reinstates Texas "Heartbeat" Abortion Ban While Appeal Is Pending

By a 2-1 vote tonight, in United States v. State of Texas, (5th Cir., Oct. 14, 2021), the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in a one-page Order allowed Texas' restrictive "heartbeat" abortion law to go back into effect while an expedited appeal of the district court's decision enjoining it is heard.

Suit Uniquely Brings Together Issues of Abortion and Vaccines

Suit was filed this week in a California federal district court challenging California's recently enacted SB 742 which creates a 30-foot floating buffer zone to prevent harassment or interference with any person who is entering or exiting a vaccination site. The buffer zone applies to anyone within 100 feet from the vaccination site entrance. The complaint (full text) in Right To Life of Central California v. Bonta, (ED CA, filed 10/13/2021), raises the challenge in a unique factual context. Right to Life is an organization that attempts to dissuade women from having abortions and which provides support to pregnant women and those who have had abortions. Its Outreach Center is located next door to a Planned Parenthood clinic and its staff regularly approaches women who are entering Planned Parenthood. The new law prevents this-- even when outreach staff is on its own property-- because the contiguous Planned Parenthood Center offers HPV vaccine. The complaint alleges that the new law violates plaintiff's 1st and 14th Amendment rights. ADF issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Suit Challenges Connecticut Regulation Of Limited Services Pregnancy Centers

Suit was filed this week in a Connecticut federal district court challenging a Connecticut Public Act 21-17 that prohibits deceptive advertising practices by limited services pregnancy centers which are facilities that do not provide or refer for abortions or emergency contraception. The complaint (full text) in Pregnancy Support Center, Inc. v. Tong, (D CT, filed 10/12/2021), alleges that the law violates plaintiff's free speech, expressive association, free exercise, equal protection and due process rights. It contends in part:

The Act ... is informed by hostility toward pregnancy services centers’ religious beliefs and pro-life viewpoint, and it targets pregnancy service centers’ disfavored religious beliefs for punishment.

ADF issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Baltimore Wrongly Denied Permission For Rally To Protest USCCB Conference

In St. Michael's Media, Inc v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, (D MD, Oct. 12, 2021), a Maryland federal district court in an 86-page opinion held that the city of Baltimore violated the free speech and assembly rights of St. Michael's (also known as "Church Militant") when it instructed the company managing the city-owned Pavilion to cease contract discussions with Church Militant.  Church Militant was planning a protest prayer rally across from the Fall General Assembly of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. According to the court, Church Militant:

“often criticizes the current leadership” of the Catholic Church for what it perceives as “corruption in the Church,” including the Church’s protection of priests and others implicated in the sexual abuse of minors.... In addition, St. Michael’s “is a vocal critic of what it perceives as politicization of the Catholic Church by the USCCB.” ... In particular, it “disagrees with, and criticizes, a number of the USCCB’s positions on religious doctrine and morality, as well as the Catholic Church’s covering up of the sexual abuse committed by priests.”

The city contended:

Church Militant is attempting to hold an event on November 16, 2021 with confirmed speakers including Steve Bannon and others whose speaking engagements and statements have a track record of inviting protestors and counter protestors and supporting the January 6 attack on the Capitol in Washington, D.C. According to available media reports, their events and statements have a demonstrated history of inciting property destruction, physical assaults, and other violence....

The court held, however:

Even under the more lenient standard applied to nonpublic and limited fora, viewpoint discrimination is constitutionally impermissible.... I conclude that plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits of its claim that the City was not viewpoint-neutral in barring the rally. Therefore, I need not consider whether the City’s actions would have been reasonable in the absence of viewpoint discrimination....

Without question, the City reacted to a perceived safety concern arising from past use of inflammatory remarks by some of the rally speakers. In thwarting the rally, the City essentially invoked or relied on the heckler’s veto. And, in doing so, it exercised complete, unfettered discretion; it acted on an ad hoc basis, without any standards. Further, it has presented somewhat shifting justifications for its actions, with little evidence to show that the decision was premised on these justifications....

The City cannot conjure up hypothetical hecklers and then grant them veto power.... Moreover, invocation of the events of January 6, 2021, as horrifying as they were, cannot, without more, serve as a license for the City to dispense with its obligations under the First Amendment.

The court granted a preliminary injunction and the city has appealed to the Fourth Circuit.

UPDATE: In an Order dated Nov. 3 (full text), the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, without opinion, affirmed the district court.

European Court Upholds Vatican's Immunity From Suit In Member-State Courts

In J.C. and Others v. Belgium, (ECHR, Oct. 12, 2021) (full text in French) (press release in English) the European Court of Human Rights in a 6-1 Chamber judgment held that Belgian courts acted properly in recognizing immunity of the Holy See from jurisdiction of domestic courts. At issue was a suit by 24 Belgian, French and Dutch nationals who alleged that as children they were abused by priests. They filed a class action for damages contending that the Church dealt with its sexual abuse problem in a structurally deficient manner. After the dismissal by Belgian courts, 20 of the plaintiffs were able to obtain compensation through the Church's own arbitration center for sexual abuse claims.

6th Circuit: RLUIPA Requires More Than Vegan Sabbath And Holiday Meals For Jewish Inmates

In Ackerman v. Washington, (6th Cir., Oct. 12, 2021), the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals held that Michigan Department of Corrections universal religious meal plan is inadequate to meet the religious needs of Jewish prisoners. The court summarized its holding:

The Michigan Department of Corrections serves a universal religious diet to all prisoners with religious dietary needs. It created this meal plan to avoid forcing prisoners to eat foods that violate their sincere religious beliefs. And because some religious beliefs forbid eating animal products, the universal religious meals are vegan. Because other prisoners require kosher food, the vegan meal is also kosher.

Gerald Ackerman and Mark Shaykin are Jewish prisoners confined in MDOC facilities. Their religious beliefs require them to eat a meal with kosher meat and a meal with dairy on the Jewish Sabbath and four Jewish holidays. They also believe that they must eat cheesecake on the holiday of Shavuot to celebrate the holiday properly. So they claim that MDOC policies that force them to eat vegan meals on these days substantially burden their sincere religious beliefs. And they argue that the MDOC needs to accommodate their beliefs under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). We agree and affirm the district court’s judgment in the prisoners’ favor.

Law & Crime reports on the decision.

New York Enjoined Over Elimination of Religious Exemptions In Vaccine Mandate

In Dr. A v. Hochul, (ND NY, Oct. 12, 2021), a New York federal district court issued a preliminary injunction to health care workers who object to the elimination of religious exemptions from New York's requirement that health care workers be vaccinated against COVID. The court concluded that the absence of an exemption conflicts with the anti-discrimination provisions of Title VII and with the Free Exercise clause.  The court said in part:

What matters here is not whether a religious practitioner would win or lose a future Title VII lawsuit. What matters is that plaintiffs’ current showing establishes that § 2.61 has effectively foreclosed the pathway to seeking a religious accommodation that is guaranteed under Title VII.....

The court also concluded that the law is neither neutral nor generally applicable. The state's original vaccine mandate included both medical and religious exemptions. Subsequently religious exemptions were eliminated. The court said in part:

This intentional change in language is the kind of “religious gerrymander” that triggers heightened scrutiny.

The court had previously issued a temporary restraining order in the case. (See prior posting.) Liberty Counsel issued a press release announcing the decision. AP reports on the decision.

 

Wyoming Supreme Court Rejects Nun's Claim That She Was Engaged In Ritual Of Mortification

In ASM v. State of Wyoming, (WY Sup. Ct., Oct. 12, 2021), the Wyoming Supreme Court rejected appellant's claim that the state violated her free exercise rights when it ordered her involuntary hospitalization after she began injuring herself while in detention on arson charges. Appellant (ASM) claimed that she is a Catholic nun and that she was engaged in the Catholic ritual of mortification when she scratched skin off her face. According to the Court, the psychiatrist who examined ASM explained her conduct in part as follows:

Dr. Schaaf was aware of ASM’s religious beliefs but believed that she “engage[d] [in] and promote[d] religious beliefs as a way to manipulate others around her.” He was also aware of some form of self-chastisement in Catholicism, but opined that it did not fit the way ASM chose to self harm.... Further, ASM’s self-harming behaviors correlated with many occasions when she contacted police officers to report being assaulted when she had in fact been hitting herself. He explained that “at some level [ASM] engage[d] in self[-]harm behaviors not as a way to express herself in a spiritual sense but to again manipulate.” That manipulation was due to her personality disorder.

The Court concluded:

... [E]ven assuming ASM held a sincere religious belief about the Catholic ritual of mortification, she failed to establish that she was engaged in such practice when she injured herself in the detention facility.

Supreme Court Hears Arguments Today On State AG's Intervention To Defend Abortion Law [UPDATED]

Today the U.S. Supreme Court hears oral arguments in Cameron v. EMW Women’s Surgical Center. In the case, the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 decision (full text of decision) refused to allow the state attorney general to intervene to defend the constitutionality of a Kentucky statute which banned D&E abortions prior to fetal demise. The AG sought to intervene after the 6th Circuit held the statute unconstitutional and no state official would seek a rehearing or an appeal. The Supreme Court's grant of review was limited to the question of whether intervention should have been allowed. SCOTUSblog has a preview of today's arguments. The arguments will be streamed live on C-SPAN at 10:00 a.m. EST. The SCOTUSblog case page has links to all the filings in the case. When a transcript and recordings of the arguments become available, I will update this post with links to them.

UPDATE: Here are links to the transcript and audio of the oral arguments. CNBC reports extensively on the oral arguments in an article titled Supreme Court signals it will side with Kentucky attorney general in bid to defend restrictive abortion law.

Israeli Court On Appeal Upholds Ban On Jewish Prayer On Temple Mount

In Israel last Friday, a Jerusalem district court reversed a Magistrate Court's decision that would have allowed Jews to pray on the Temple Mount. The appeals court heeded concerns by Israeli authorities that allowing Jewish prayer there could lead to violence that could endanger national security. As reported by Haaretz:

The earlier ruling by the Jerusalem Magistrate’s Court concerned a Jewish man, Arye Lipo, who was barred from the Temple Mount for 15 days after the police caught him quietly praying there. The court rescinded the ban, ruling that the man, “like many others, prays on a daily basis on the Temple Mount.”...

Under an unofficial understanding, Jews are allowed to visit but not pray on the Mount, which is known to Muslims as the Haram al-Sharif, or the Noble Sanctuary. Although the police enforce this, recent months have seen a loosening of the status quo, with more Jews praying in the compound individually and even in groups.

Noting that Lipo prayed “quietly” and privately, the magistrate's court said that “this activity by itself is not enough to violate the police’s instructions.”...

Hamas spokesman Abdel Latif al-Qanua called the decision "blatant aggression against the Al-Aqsa Mosque and a declaration of war...."

Biden Picks Former Indiana Senator As Ambassador To Vatican

Last Friday, the White House announced that President Biden will nominate former Indiana senator Joseph Donnelley as Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary to the Holy See. Indianapolis Star reported on the nomination. Donnelley has also been a faculty member at Notre Dame and is presently a partner at the law firm of Aiken Gump.

Recent Articles of Interest

 From SSRN:

• Saud M. Alholiby & Zakaria A. Almulhim, From the Lack to the Requirement: The Public Consultation Reform in Saudi Arabia,  (UCLA Journal of Islamic and Near Eastern Law, Forthcoming).
• Mark Movsesian, Law, Religion, and the COVID Crisis, (Journal of Law and Religion, Forthcoming).
• Scott W. Gaylord, Roe as Potemkin Village: Fallacies, Facades, and Stare Decisis (September 17, 2021).
• Jean-Francois Achille, 'Unnecessary Cruelty': Freedom of Religion and the Humane Slaughter Act (May 15, 2021).
• David R. Stras, What My Grandparents’ Experiences in the Holocaust Taught Me About the First Amendment, (NYU Journal of Law & Liberty, Forthcoming).
• Moorthy S. Muthuswamy, Does Sharia Act as both a Mediator and Moderator in Salafi Radicalism?, (August 29, 2021).

New Journal

• The Inaugural Issue of the Australian Journal of Law & Religion is now being developed.

From SmartCILP:

• Richard S. Myers, The Significance of Trinity Lutheran, 17 Ave Maria Law Review 1-17 (2019).
• John C. Eastman, "Religiously Scrupulous"': Freedom of Conscience at the Founding, 17 Ave Maria Law Review 18-34 (2019).
• Massimo Campanini & Mohamed 'Arafa, Islam and Democracy: Appreciating the Nuance and Complexity of Legal Systems with a Basis in Religion, 26 Barry Law Review 1-30 (2020).
• Volume 5, Buddhism Law & Society (2019-20).

5th Circuit Issues Narrow Stay Of Injunction Against Texas "Heartbeat" Abortion Law

As has been widely reported (CNN), the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals early today in United States v. State of Texas, (5th Cir. Oct. 9, 2021) temporarily lifted the Texas federal district court's preliminary injunction against enforcement of Texas S.B. 8, the state's "heartbeat" abortion ban that is enforced solely through private civil actions for statutory damages. An appeal was filed by Texas and by three intervenors who planned to sue under the new law. In its motion (full text) filed yesterday, Texas said:

The State respectfully requests an emergency stay pending appeal ...  and an administrative stay as soon as possible to prevent it from being held in contempt for the actions of third parties it cannot and does not control.

In its motion, Texas argued in part:

[S]tate court clerks are now enjoined from “accepting,” “docketing,” or “maintaining” any S.B. 8 case, ... but “[t]he longstanding rule in Texas is that an instrument is deemed in law filed at the time it is left with the clerk, regardless of whether or not” a clerk adds “a file mark.”... Thus, an S.B. 8 suit “is ‘filed’ when it is tendered to the clerk,” regardless of the clerk’s actions.... Once such a suit is filed, clerks can be accused of “accepting,” “docketing,” and “maintaining” it, especially given the district court’s failure to define the terms it used. Put simply, there is no way for the State to ensure compliance with this injunction and avoid contempt proceedings.

In its decision today, the 5th Circuit apparently focused on this narrow concern. Its order provides:

IT IS ORDERED that Intervenors’ emergency motion to stay the preliminary injunction pending appeal is temporarily held in abeyance pending further order by this motions panel. Appellee is directed to respond to the emergency motion by 5 pm on Tuesday, October 12, 2021.

IT IS ORDERED that Intervenors’ motion for a temporary administrative stay pending the court’s consideration of the emergency motion is GRANTED.

Canadian Court Says Tai Chi Institute Is A Religious Institution

In Fung Loy Kok Taoism Institute v. City of Montreal, (Quebec Super. Ct., Sept. 20, 2021), a Canadian trial court in Quebec held that a Taoist Tai chi Institute is entitled to an exemption from property, municipal and school taxes. The court's 50-page opinion includes a lengthy discussion of what constitutes a "religion". Summarizing its ultimate conclusion on the tax issues, the court says in part:

These ... requests ... raise two major questions: what is a religion? What is a religious institution?....

... [S]hould Taoist Tai chi , as practiced, taught and disseminated in Canada by the Chinese monk Moy Lin-Shin ("master Moy"), be regarded as a religion in its own right rather than for proper gymnastics to promote internal balance and health?

... The Fung Loy Kok Institute of Taoism ... which offers classes or sessions of tai chi for a monetary contribution from the participants, does it qualify as a religious institution within the meaning of the law allowing it to benefit in Quebec from an exemption from property taxes? ...

At the end of its analysis, the Tribunal comes to the conclusion that both the first and the second of these two questions must be answered in the affirmative.

Windsor Star reports on the decision.

Police Officer Who Prayed Outside Abortion Clinic Sues Over Suspension From Duty

An officer in the Louisville, Kentucky police department this week filed suit in a Kentucky federal district court seeking damages for the Department's four-month suspension of him. The suspension was in effect during an extended investigation of the officer's praying outside an abortion clinic while in uniform, but before he went on duty for the day. He was ultimately cleared of any violation of rules.  The complaint (full text) in Schrenger v. Shields, (WD KY, filed 10/4/2021) alleges violations of the 1st and 14th amendments as well as of Title VII, and state civil rights laws. It also alleges a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. WDRB News, reporting on the lawsuit, says:

EMW staff said the officer intimidated patients and medical staff while wearing his uniform and gun.

Surveillance video from the clinic showed Schrenger in a marked police cruiser. He marched outside of the clinic for approximately 45 minutes, at one point holding a sign that read "pray to end abortion."

6th Circuit: Christian Student Athletes Wrongly Denied Exemption From COVID Vaccine Mandate

In Dahl v. Board of Trustees of Western Michigan University, (6th Cir., Oct. 7, 2021), the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld, pending appeal, a district court's injunction barring Western Michigan University from enforcing its COVID vaccine mandate against 16 Christian student athletes who had applied for religious exemptions. The university requires student athletes to be vaccinated, but provides for medical and religious exemptions. Plaintiffs here however were denied a religious exemption. The court said in part:

[W]here a state extends discretionary exemptions to a policy, it must grant exemptions for cases of “religious hardship” or present compelling reasons not to do so....

True, the University did maintain plaintiffs’ athletic scholarships and did not formally dismiss them from their teams. But that is not the same thing as granting an exception from the University’s policy of conditioning “full involvement in the athletic department” on vaccination status. After all, the purported exception plaintiffs received did not allow them to play college sports. Yet playing on the team (and not just receiving a scholarship) is their goal, a point the University itself recognized....

Because the University’s policy is not neutral and generally applicable, we analyze the policy through the lens of what has come to be known as “strict scrutiny.” ... The University’s interest in fighting COVID-19 is compelling..... But the University falters on the narrow tailoring prong. For one, public health measures are not narrowly tailored if they allow similar conduct that “create[s] a more serious health risk.”... That is the case at the University, which allows non-athletes—the vast majority of its students—to remain unvaccinated. One need not be a public health expert to recognize that the likelihood that a student-athlete contracts COVID-19 from an unvaccinated non-athlete with whom she lives, studies, works, exercises, socializes, or dines may well meet or exceed that of the athlete contracting the virus from a plaintiff who obtains a religious exemption to participate in team activities....

Fox2Detroit reports on the decision.

Woman Required To Remove Hijab Loses Suit Against Security Guard and County

In Niblett v. Universal Protection Service, LP, (CD CA, Oct. 5, 2021), a California federal district court dismissed a damage action by a Muslim woman who was required by a security guard to remove her hijab in order to enter Los Angeles County's Department of Public Social Services building. The court dismissed on qualified immunity grounds the suit against the security guard and his employer that were hired to provide security for the county building, saying in part:

Assuming that Rodriguez and UPS were acting under color of state law when they exercised their authority to control access to a County building, which the Court does not decide, Plaintiff has not alleged a violation of any clearly established First Amendment right. Plaintiff ... cites no authority whatsoever holding that requiring someone to remove a hijab to pass through a metal detector violates the First Amendment.

Plaintiff's suit against the County was dismissed for failure to show a policy or practice of constitutional violations, saying in part:

Plaintiff does not allege that before her encounter with Rodriguez any County employee or agent had ever forced a Muslim woman to remove her hijab in any context, much less that County employees and agents had a widespread practice of requiring Muslim women to remove their hijabs in order to pass through security screenings at County buildings. Similarly, she does not allege facts suggesting that the County knew of such a practice and endorsed it or had reason to know further training was required about allowing hijabs to be worn through metal detectors.

Federal District Court Enjoins Texas' Controversial "Heartbeat" Abortion Ban

In United States v. State of Texas, (WD TX, Oct. 6, 2021), a Texas federal district court in a 113-page decision, preliminarily enjoined enforcement of Texas S.B. 8, the state's "heartbeat" abortion ban that is enforced solely through private civil actions for statutory damages. In another case, the U.S. Supreme Court last month refused to prevent the Texas law from going into effect while its constitutionality was being litigated. Today's decision comes in a lawsuit filed by the U.S. Department of Justice. In it, the court explores at length the standing and redressability issues that have been seen as impediments to courts' reviewing the law that effectively bans almost all abortions after six weeks of gestation.  The court said in part:

A person’s right under the Constitution to choose to obtain an abortion prior to fetal viability is well established. With full knowledge that depriving its citizens of this right by direct state action would be flagrantly unconstitutional, the State contrived an unprecedented and transparent statutory scheme whereby it created a private cause of action in which private citizens with no personal interest in or connection to a person seeking an abortion would be able to interfere with that right using the state’s judicial system, judges, and court officials.....

This Court finds that S.B. 8 concretely injures the United States by prohibiting federal personnel and contractors from carrying out their obligations to provide abortion-related services and subjecting federal employees and contractors to civil liability for aiding and abetting the performance of an abortion....

The next question is whether the United States suffers an injury-in-fact such that it has standing to challenge a potential violation of Constitutional rights that not only impacts federal agencies, but the public at large.... The United States has standing to file suit in parens patriae for probable violations of its citizens’ Constitutional rights.... [W]hen, as here, a state appears to deprive individuals of their constitutional rights by adopting a scheme designed to evade federal judicial review, the United States possesses sovereign interest in preventing such a harm. This interest is sufficient to establish a particularized injury....

... [I]n the alternative, ... the concepts underpinning In Re Debs and its progeny likewise establish a particularized injury to sovereign interests of the United States.... Debs supports standing where the government’s interest is preventing harms to “the general welfare” and the “public at large."... 

However, this Court notes that were Debs’s progeny to be read narrowly to support standing only in cases involving interstate commerce, the United States has likewise demonstrated an interest sufficient to establish standing..... By extending liability to persons anywhere in the country, S.B. 8’s structure all but ensures that it will implicate commerce across state lines.... In addition to imposing liability on those coming into Texas, the law has also already had the effect of pushing individuals seeking abortions into other states.... This stream of individuals across state lines burdens clinics in nearby states and impedes pregnant individuals in surrounding states from accessing abortions due to backlogs.....

[T]he State’s scheme to disguise its enforcement role and disclaim accountability collapses upon cursory inspection. The State enacted S.B. 8 and created a private enforcement scheme that clothes private individuals with the State’s enforcement power.... That delegation alone would have been sufficient to show state action. The practical operation of an S.B. 8 lawsuit in Texas courts deepens the State’s enforcement role.... [T]he State plays a role at every step of an S.B. 8’s lifecycle in Texas courts. A private cause of action enforcement scheme is meaningless without state action.... An injunction properly runs against the State....

... [T]he State has intentionally crafted a statute to employ private citizens as its proxy. Put simply, the State’s participation in enforcing S.B. 8 lawsuits amounts to actionable state action....

... [P]rivate individuals enforcing S.B. 8 are properly regarded as state actors.... The private individuals who bring S.B. 8 lawsuits are [also] in active concert with the State to enforce S.B. 8....

IT IS ORDERED that the State of Texas, including its officers, officials, agents, employees, and any other persons or entities acting on its behalf, are preliminarily enjoined from enforcing Texas Health and Safety Code §§ 171.201–.212, including accepting or docketing, maintaining, hearing, resolving, awarding damages in, enforcing judgments in, enforcing any administrative penalties in, and administering any lawsuit brought pursuant to the Texas Health and Safety Code §§171.201–.212. For clarity, this Court preliminarily enjoins state court judges and state court clerks who have the power to enforce or administer Texas Health and Safety Code §§171.201– .212.

As set out above, this Court has the authority to enjoin the private individuals who act on behalf of the State or act in active concert with the State.... However, the Court need not craft an injunction that runs to the future actions of private individuals per se, but, given the scope of the injunctions discussed here and supported by law, those private individuals’ actions are proscribed to the extent their attempts to bring a civil action ... would necessitate state action that is now prohibited.

IT IS ORDERED that the State of Texas must publish this preliminary injunction on all of its public-facing court websites with a visible, easy-to-understand instruction to the public that S.B. 8 lawsuits will not be accepted by Texas courts.....

CNN reports on today's decision and notes that quickly after the decision, Texas filed a notice of appeal to the 5th Circuit.

French Commission Reports On History Of Sexual Abuse In Catholic Church

As reported by CNN, France's Independent Commission on Sexual Abuse in the Church (CIASE) yesterday filed its final report:

Members of the Catholic clergy in France sexually abused an estimated 216,000 minors over the past seven decades, according to a damning report published Tuesday that said the Church had prioritized the protection of the institution over victims who were urged to stay silent.

The number of abused minors rises to an estimated 330,000 when including victims of people who were not clergy but had other links to the Church, such as Catholic schools and youth programs. Between 2,900 and 3,200 abusers were estimated to have worked in the French Catholic Church between 1950 and 2020, out of a total of 115,000 priests and other clerics, the report found.

An English language 32-page summary (full text) of the Final Report is available online. It includes 45 recommendations to prevent future abuse, Links to the full text in French of the Final Report, Testimony and other documents are available here.

Trial Court Bars Some, Allows Other Oklahoma Abortion Restrictions

An Oklahoma state trial court judge yesterday, in a ruling from the bench in Oklahoma Call for Reproductive Justice v. O'Connor, (OK Dist. Ct., Oct. 4, 2021) (full text of complaint), issued a temporary restraining order barring enforcement of some of Oklahoma's new abortion restrictions, but denying a TRO as to other provisions. According to a press release from Center for Reproductive Rights:

The laws blocked by today’s ruling include: a total abortion ban declaring that providing abortion at any stage in pregnancy qualifies as “unprofessional conduct” by physicians; and a law banning abortion as early as six weeks into pregnancy, before many people even know they are pregnant. The state conceded that these laws are unconstitutional under Roe v. Wade.

However the court refused to enjoin provisions that would require doctors performing abortions to be board-certified OB/GYNs; and various restrictions on medication abortions, including an admitting privilege requirement and and ultrasound requirement.

HHS Reverses Trump Administration Rules For Family Planning Grantees

The Department of Health and Human Services yesterday revoked the Trump Administration rules that prohibit family planning clinics receiving Title X funds from making referrals for abortions and which require strict physical and financial separation between abortion services and services funded by Title X monies. The HHS 124-page rule release (full text) titled Ensuring Access to Equitable, Affordable, Client-Centered, Quality Family Planning Services reinstates pre-2019 requirements, saying in part:

In addition to readopting the requirements as they existed prior to the 2019 rule, the 2021 rule also includes several revisions that will strengthen the Title X program and ensure access to equitable, affordable, client-centered, quality family planning services for all clients, especially for low-income clients, while retaining the longstanding prohibition on directly promoting or performing abortion that follows from Section 1008’s text and subsequent appropriations enactments.

The new rules require that grantees offer the opportunity for clients to receive non-directive counseling on the range of options available-- pre-natal care and delivery; infant care, foster care or adoption; and pregnancy termination. However "objecting individuals and grantees will not be required to counsel or refer for abortions in the Title X program in accordance with applicable federal law."

The new rules become effective on Nov. 6. AP reports on the new rules. Planned Parenthood issued a press release regarding the new rules.

Cert. Denied In COVID, Chaplaincy and Abortion Cases

Today the U.S. Supreme Court issued its lengthy (66-page) first-day-of-the-Term Order List denying review in several hundred cases. It includes the denial of certiorari in the following:

Calvary Chapel of Bangor v. Mills (Docket No. 20-1346): In the case, the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed a church's interlocutory appeal challenging the Maine governor's COVID Orders limiting attendance at faith-based events. (See prior posting.)

Chaplaincy of Full Gospel v. Department of Navy (Docket No. 20-1794): A case in litigation for over 20 years involving allegations by non-liturgical Protestant chaplains of discrimination against them by selection boards that control promotions and early retirements of Navy chaplains. (See prior posting.)

Schmitt v. Planned Parenthood (Docket No. 21-3): A challenge to Missouri  HB 126 imposing Down Syndrome and Gestational Age limits on abortions. The Supreme Court noted: "After this petition was filed, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit withdrew the panel opinion from which the petition sought certiorari. Accordingly, given the absence of any opinion for our review at this time, the petition is denied  without prejudice to the filing of a new petition by either party following the Eighth Circuit’s final disposition of the case."