HHS To Allow Grantees To Refuse To Serve LGBT Clients

On Nov. 1, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services announced actions that effectively allow agencies receiving HHS grants, including foster care and adoption agencies, to refuse to serve gay, lesbian and transgender individuals and families on religious grounds. First, HHS issued a Notice of Non-Enforcement of  rules adopted in 2016 that prohibit such discrimination. The non-enforcement decision was based on "significant concerns about compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act" in the promulgation of the 2016 rules.  HHS then issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that would repromulgate the rules with narrower anti-discrimination protections. The proposed new rules would replace this section:

(c) It is a public policy requirement of HHS that no person otherwise eligible will be excluded from participation in, denied the benefits of, or subjected to discrimination in the administration of HHS programs and services based on non-merit factors such as age, disability, sex, race, color, national origin, religion, gender identity, or sexual orientation. Recipients must comply with this public policy requirement in the administration of programs supported by HHS awards.

(d) In accordance with the Supreme Court decisions in United States v. Windsor and in Obergefell v. Hodges, all recipients must treat as valid the marriages of same-sex couples. This does not apply to registered domestic partnerships, civil unions or similar formal relationships recognized under state law as something other than a marriage.

The new rules will instead provide:

(c) It is a public policy requirement of HHS that no person otherwise eligible will be excluded from participation in, denied the benefits of, or subjected to discrimination in the administration of HHS programs and services, to the extent doing so is prohibited by federal statute.

(d) HHS will follow all applicable Supreme Court decisions in administering its award programs.

In its announcement, HHS said in part:

The proposed rule would better align its grants regulations with federal statutes, eliminating regulatory burden, including burden on the free exercise of religion.

New York Times reports on the HHS action.

Michigan Catholic Adoption Agency Gets Preliminary Injunction Protecting Its Policy on LGBTQ Couples

In Buck v. Gordon, (WD MI, Sept. 26, 2019), a Michigan federal district court issued a preliminary injunction to prevent the state from requiring that a Catholic adoption and foster care agency place children with same-sex couples. The agency currently refers such couples to other agencies.  As summarized by the court:

The State pays St. Vincent to place children with foster or adoptive parents certified as suitable by the State. St. Vincent has done that faithfully, regardless of whether the certified parents were opposite sex, same-sex, or unmarried couples. St. Vincent would like to continue doing so under existing and renewed contracts with the State.  

What St. Vincent has not done and will not do is give up its traditional Catholic belief that marriage as instituted by God is for one man and one woman. Based on that belief, St. Vincent has exercised its discretion to ensure that it is not in the position of having to review and recommend to the State whether to certify a same-sex or unmarried couple, and to refer those cases to agencies that do not have a religious confession preventing an honest evaluation and recommendation. In 2015, the Michigan legislature enacted legislation designed to protect that choice, and until January of 2019, the State defended the right of the State and St. Vincent to make that choice.

That changed when Defendant Attorney General Nessel took office. Leading up to and during the 2018 general election campaign, she made it clear that she considered beliefs like St. Vincent’s to be the product of hate. She stated that the 2015 law seeking to protect St. Vincent’s practice was indefensible and had discriminatory animus as its sole purpose. After her election, she ... put St. Vincent in the position of either giving up its belief or giving up its contract with the State. That kind of targeted attack on a sincerely held religious belief is what calls for strict scrutiny in this case and supports entry of a preliminary injunction preserving the status quo while the case is fully litigated.

Detroit News reports on the decision.

Court Rejects Christian Adoption Agency's Challenge To Anti-Discrimination Regulation

In New Hope Family Services v. Poole, (ND NY, May 16, 2019), a New York federal district court rejected a constitutional challenge by a Christian adoption agency to New York's anti-discrimination provisions. Regulations of New York's Office of Children & Family Services prohibit adoption agencies from discriminating, among other things, on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity or marital status. New Hope Family Services will not place children with same-sex couples or with unmarried couples. Inquiries from such couples are referred to other agencies. The court rejected New Hope's contention that the regulation violates its free exercise rights because it was adopted to target faith-based agencies.  Instead, the court found that the regulation "is facially neutral and generally applicable, and that it has been neutrally and generally applied in this case...." The court also rejected New Hope's free speech and equal protection challenges to New York's regulation. In a press release, ADF said that the decision is likely to be appealed.

Catholic Agency Challenges Michigan's Child-Placement Anti-Discrimination Policy

Last week, a second lawsuit was filed challenging a settlement entered into by Michigan's Attorney General in which she agreed to enforce anti-discrimination provisions against adoption and foster care agencies contracting with the state which refuse to place children with same-sex couples or LGBTQ individuals who are otherwise qualified as foster care or adoptive parents. The first challenge was filed earlier this month in federal court. In last week's lawsuit, Catholic Charities West Michigan v. Michigan Department of Health and Human Services, (MI Ct. Claims, filed 4/25/2019), filed in state court, the complaint (full text) cites protections for faith-based child placement agencies found in Michigan statutes such as MCL §722.124e and §722.124f, and alleges in part:

[T]he Michigan Legislature intended to-- and did-- protect the religious exercise of faith-based providers like Catholic Charities.... Defendants have adopted a new policy that forces Catholic charities to choose between violating its religious beliefs about same-sex marriage and shutting down its foster care and adoption ministry.  Defendants' new policy misinterprets state law, violates Catholic Charities' rights under the U.S. and Michigan Constitutions, and adopts the anti-religious views and policy preferences of Defendant Attorney General Dana Nessel-- who has previously criticized Michigan's statutory protections for faith-based foster care and adoption providers as "a victory for the hate mongers."

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

Catholic Agency Sues Michigan Over Adoption Agency Non-Discrimination Policy

As previously reported, last month Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel announced that the state has entered into a settlement agreement that calls for the state to enforce non-discrimination provisions in agreements with foster care and adoption agencies.  The settlement applies to any agency contracting with the state that discriminates against same-sex couples or LGBTQ individuals otherwise qualified as foster care or adoptive parents.  Yesterday suit was filed in a Michigan federal district court by a Catholic adoption and foster care agency, and by some of its clients, challenging Michigan's new policy.  The complaint (full text) in Buck v. Gordon, (WD MI, filed 4/15/2019), contends that the new policy violates plaintiffs' 1st and 14th Amendment rights as well as RFRA. The Federalist reports on the lawsuit.

Religious Adoption Agency Sues Over Nondiscriminaton Rule

A suit was filed this week in New York federal district court challenging a New York regulation that (Title 18 NYCCR Sec.421.3) that adoption agencies may not discriminate against applicants for adoption services on various grounds, including sexual orientation, gender identity and marital status.  New Hope Family Services, a faith based adoption agency, refuses to recommend or place children with unmarried couples or same-sex couples.  The complaint (full text) in New Hope Family Services, Inc. v. Poole, (ND NY, filed 12/6/2018) contends that this regulation violates the agency's free exercise, free expression and equal protection rights. ADF issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Court Refuses To Dismiss Challenge To Michigan's Protection of Catholic Adoption Agencies

In an important decision, a Michigan federal district court in Dumont v. Lyon, (ED MI, Sept. 14, 2018), held that same-sex couples can move ahead with their Establishment Clause and equal protection claims against the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services for permitting child placing agencies that contract with the state and receive state funds to use religious criteria to refuse to place children with same-sex couples.  Laws enacted by the Michigan legislature in 2015 protect child-placing agencies from being required to provide adoption or foster care placements that conflict with their sincerely held religious beliefs, or being penalized for doing so. (See prior posting.)

In a 93-page opinion, the court first concludes that plaintiffs have Article III (but not taxpayer) standing to bring their challenges. Then, denying defendants' motion to dismiss, the court says in part:

Plaintiffs plausibly allege ... that the State’s practice of contracting with and permitting faith-based child placing agencies to turn away same-sex couples has both the subjective purpose of discriminating against those who oppose the view of the faith-based agencies ... and objectively endorses the religious view of those agencies that same-sex marriage is wrong, sending a “‘message [to Plaintiffs] that they are outsiders, not full members of the community.’”....

The child placing agencies are, in many ways, the gateway for a family seeking to adopt or foster a child into Michigan’s adoption and foster care system. The scope of their duties, and hence any “government exclusivity” of the functions they perform, must be the subject of further discovery. For purposes of analyzing Plaintiffs’ Establishment Clause claim, the Court must accept the allegations of the Complaint as true and such allegations surely “implicate” the Establishment Clause and plausibly suggest “excessive entanglement” such that the Court will allow Plaintiffs’ Establishment Clause claim to proceed further....

Plaintiffs are entitled to an opportunity to conduct discovery to support their claim that the State’s practice of continuing to contract with faith-based agencies that invoke PA53’s religious belief protection to turn away same-sex couples lacks a rational basis and to further develop their Equal Protection claim.

ACLU issued a press release announcing the decision.

Kansas, Oklahoma Pass Bills Protecting Religious Beliefs of Adoption Agencies

As reported by AP, last week both the Kansas an the Oklahoma legislatures  approved bills allowing faith-based social service agencies to provide adoption services consistent with their religious beliefs. Wichita Eagle had this report on Kansas SB 284 (legislative history) (full text):

A bill that ensures faith-based adoption agencies can turn away gay and lesbian couples based on religious beliefs will be signed into law by Gov. Jeff Colyer....

The Senate approved the bill 24-15 at 1:51 a.m. Friday after the House passed it Thursday night, 63-58. The bill had been dormant for weeks before lawmakers revived and passed it in a matter of hours....

The bill doesn’t apply to organizations that contract directly with DCF [Kansas Department of Chidren and Families], allowing DCF to prohibit discrimination in placements. Agencies that refuse to place children with LGBT couples can continue to receive reimbursement from the state if they are making placements on behalf of a DCF contractor.

The Oklahoma bill, SB 1140 (legislative history) (full text) covers both adoption and foster care placement by agencies that act in accordance with their "written religious or moral convictions or policies." However agencies may not refuse any services for children in custody of the state Department of Human Services.  Gov.Mary Fallin has not said whether she will sign the bill. 

UPDATE: On May 11, Gov. Fallin signed SB 1140, but also ordered the  Department of Human Services to publish a list of Oklahoma adoption and foster agencies on its website who are willing to serve everyone who meets the Department's criteria for being a foster or adoptive parent. (Press release from Governor's office.)

Judge Reprimanded For Gay Adoption Recusal Order

The Kentucky Judicial Conduct Commission has voted to reprimand now-retired Family Court Judge W. Mitchell Nance.  In In re Nance, (Jud. Con. Commn, Dec. 19, 2017), the Commission concluded that Nance had violated Canons of Ethics that require judges to decide cases fairly and impartially when, based on his religious views, he issued an Order recusing himself from any case involving adoption of a child by a gay or lesbian.  As described by the Commission:

On April 27th, 2017 the Respondent issued General Order 17-01 declaring that “under no circumstance” would the adoption of a child by a homosexual be in the child’s best interest. Acknowledging that this declaration constitutes a “personal bias or prejudice” against homosexuals seeking to adopt children, Judge Nance ordered that any attorney filing a motion for adoption on behalf of a homosexual party notify court staff so that he could recuse and disqualify himself from any such proceeding.

(See prior related posting.) The Richmond Register reports on the Commission's decision.

Canadian Christian Couple Sues Over Alberta's Policy On Adoptions

In a lawsuit filed in Canada at the beginning of this month, an Evangelical Christian couple is challenging a decision by the Province of Alberta's Child and Family Services to refuse to approve them to adopt a child.  the refusal stemmed from the couple's Biblical views on marriage, sexuality and gender.  The complaint (full text) in C.D and N.D. v. Province of Alberta, (Q.B. AL, filed 11/1/2017), says that "Child and Family Services considered the Applicants' religious beliefs regarding sexuality a 'rejection' of children with LGBT sexual identities...."  It contends that the decision violates their rights under Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Judge Resigns Over His Refusal To Handle Gay Adoptions

According to a report from WDRB yesterday, Kentucky Family Court  Judge W. Mitchell Nance has resigned rather than defend against charges filed against him by the Judicial Conduct Commission.  Nance had sent out a general order to attorneys informing them that he would not hear cases involving adoptions by gays or lesbians.  Nance had argued that his religious beliefs and convictions required him to recuse himself in such cases. (See prior related posting.) [Thanks to Tom E. Rutledge for the lead.]

Couple Sues Over Catholic Charities Refusal To Allow Adoption

AP reports that a North Dakota couple is suing Catholic Charities for $6.5 million because the organization refused to allow them to adopt a 15-year old girl who was in foster care.  The refusal was based on the fact that the adopting couple, in violation of Catholic religious teachings, were living together and were not yet married.  Their planned wedding was 5 months away and they had hoped the 15-year old would be a bridesmaid.

Lawsuit Challenges Adoption Agencies' Refusal To Place Children With Same-Sex Couples

Today two same-sex couples and a Michigan taxpayer filed suit in a Michigan federal district court challenging the state's practice of contracting out foster-care and adoptive placement to social service agencies that apply religious criteria in placing children.  Statutes passed the state legislature in 2015 approve this practice.  The complaint (full text) in Dumont v. Lyon, (ED MI, filed 9/20/2017), alleges that religiously affiliated agencies' practice of turning away qualified families on the basis of sexual orientation, violates the Establishment Clause and the Equal Protection Clause.  ACLU issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Texas Legislature Passes Conscience Protections For Adoption, Foster Care, Counseling Services

The Texas legislature yesterday gave final passage to HB 3859 (full text), a bill that prohibits any governmental agency from discriminating or taking adverse action against a child welfare service provider that refuses to provide adoption, foster care, counseling or other services that conflict with the agency's religious beliefs.  The bill, which now goes to the governor for signature, also protects agencies that place children with providers who will give the children a religious education. Where an agency refuses to serve a client, it must refer the client to, or to a listing of, other agencies that can serve them.  AP, reporting on the bill, says:

The private foster care and adoption organizations, which are paid by the state to place children with families, make up about 25 percent of the agencies working in Texas. Those groups say they face a threat of lawsuits for exercising their religious beliefs if they don’t get specific state legal protection.  Many Texas adoption agencies admit they don’t work with adoptive parents who are single, gay or non-Christian, and the bill could keep them from being sued.

[Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]

Judge Recuses Himself Over Conscientious Objection To Gay Adoptions

The Louisville Courier Journal last week reported on Kentucky Family Court Judge W. Mitchell Nance who issued an order last Thursday stating that he will recuse himself from all adoption proceedings involving "homosexual parties." His order explains that "as a matter of conscience" he believes that "under no circumstance" would "the best interest of the child be promoted by the adoption by a practicing homosexual." He cited judicial ethics rules that require a judge to recuse himself when he has a personal bias or prejudice.

Alabama Legislature Passes Protections For Faith-Based Adoption Agencies

On Tuesday, the Alabama legislature gave final passage to HB 24, the  Alabama Child Placing Agency Inclusion Act (full text).  The bill protects religiously affiliated adoption and foster care agencies that refuse to provide, facilitate or refer for placement in a manner that conflicts with their sincerely held religious beliefs.  The protections only apply to agencies that receive no state or federal funds.  The state may not refuse to license, discriminate or take adverse action against such agencies because they act on their religious beliefs. The bill now goes to Gov. Kay Ivey who must sign it before it becomes law. AL.com reports on the legislature's action. [Thanks to Tom Rutledge for the lead.]

UPDATE: Gov. Ivey signed the bill into law on May 3. (Jurist).

New South Dakota Law Protects Religious Child-Placement Agencies

ACLU reports that on March 10, South Dakota Governor Dennis Daugaard  signed SB 149 (full text) into law.  The new law protects adoption and foster care agencies that act in accordance with religious or moral beliefs in placing children, providing in part:

No child-placement agency may be required to provide any service that conflicts with, or provide any service under circumstances that conflict with any sincerely-held religious belief or moral conviction of the child-placement agency.

It also explicitly bars any adverse action by the state against a child placement agency that acts in accordance with its religious or moral principles, except it does not authorize discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity or national origin.  One of the primary effects of the legislation is to allow agencies to refuse to permit adoptions by same-sex couples.

Dakota Free Press reported on February hearings on the bill in which an ACLU witness pointed out that the bill would allow agencies to exclude adoptions or foster care placements by

not only same-sex couples, but also people who have a different religion [from] the agency, single parents, interfaith couples… families that don’t attend church weekly, service members or gun owners… based on the agency’s moral conviction regarding pacifism, all while children in need of homes languish in foster care and await permanent families. This bill even authorizes agencies to deny a child placement with a close relative and instead place that child with strangers if that relative is of the wrong religion….

Court Strikes Down Mississippi's Ban On Adoption By Same-Sex Couples

In Campaign for Southern Equality v. Mississippi Department of Human Services, (SD MS, March 31, 2016), a Mississippi federal district court issued a preliminary injunction barring Mississippi from enforcing its statutory ban on adoption by same-sex couples. After devoting much of the opinion to issues of standing and 11th Amendment immunity, the court held that the Supreme Court's Obergefell decision requires striking down of the Mississippi adoption ban:

... [T]he majority opinion [in Obergefell] foreclosed litigation over laws interfering with the right to marry and “rights and responsibilities intertwined with marriage.”... It also seems highly unlikely that the same court that held a state cannot ban gay marriage because it would deny benefits—expressly including the right to adopt—would then conclude that married gay couples can be denied that very same benefit.

MS News Now reporting on the decision notes that Mississippi was the last state in the country to have a statutory ban on same-sex adoption.

Supreme Court: Alabama Must Recognize Georgia's Order Granting Same-Sex Spouse Adoption Rights [CORRECTED]

The U.S. Supreme Court today in a summary per curiam opinion reversed the Alabama Supreme Court's refusal to recognize a Georgia court's approval of the adoption of one woman's children by her lesbian partner.  In V.L. v. E.L., (Sup. Ct., March 7 2016), the Supreme Court held that the Constitution's full faith and credit clause requires Alabama courts to recognize the Georgia adoption order.  The Alabama Supreme Court had wrongly concluded that Georgia courts lacked jurisdiction to enter the order.  The issue arose in the context of the adoptive mother seeking visitation rights after the couple separated. New York Times reports on the decision. [Note correction-- an earlier version of this posting incorrectly referred to Louisiana instead of Alabama.]

Supreme Court Stays Alabama Refusal To Recognize Georgia Adoption

On Monday in V.L. v. E.L., (Docket No. 15-648) the U.S. Supreme Court issued a stay of an Alabama Supreme Court decision while it considers whether to grant certiorari in the case. (Order List, 12/14/2015.)  At issue is the Alabama Supreme Court's refusal to grant full faith and credit to a 2007 Georgia adoption decision involving a lesbian couple who were living together in Alabama as partners since 1995.  As reported by the Washington Post, one of the women, E.L., had three children conceived in 2002 and 2004 through donor insemination. The couple moved briefly to Georgia so that V.L. could obtain parental rights.  They then moved back to Alabama.  When the couple broke up in 2011, V.L. sought joint custody or visitation rights, but the Alabama Supreme Court refused holding that Georgia had violated its own laws in granting the initial adoption.  It held it need not recognize the adoption because the Georgia court lacked subject matter jurisdiction when it granted it.