Denial Of Religious Exemptions To Vaccine Mandate Violated Free Exercise Rights

In Grantonz v. Earley, (ND OH, Dec. 10, 2021), an Ohio federal district court issued a temporary restraining order preventing the Cleveland Municipal Court from enforcing its COVID vaccine mandate against two employees (a bailiff and a court reporter) who sought, but were denied, religious exemptions. The court said in part:

Where the Cleveland Municipal Court Order compels Plaintiffs to choose between following their religious beliefs or forfeiting their jobs, it significantly burdens their free exercise of religion and is not neutral. Further, by setting up a mechanism for exemptions which are granted at Defendants’ discretion and without an opportunity for appeal, AO 2021-05 is not generally applicable....

The Cleveland Municipal Court’s Administrative Order AO 2021-05 does not pass the test of strict scrutiny. Defendants have not articulated compelling reasons for denial of religious exemptions. In the October 2, 2021 letters to Plaintiffs, in fact, Defendants provided no reasons whatsoever. A policy, such as the one before this Court, that infringes the free exercise of religion, that does not serve interests of the highest order and is not narrowly tailored to achieve those interests cannot survive strict scrutiny. 

Loss On COVID Houses Of Worship Restrictions Proves Costly To New York

After extensive litigation, in February a New York federal district court (without opposition from the state) issued an injunction against New York state's COVID-19 fixed capacity and percentage capacity limits on houses of worship” in red and orange zones. (See prior posting). Now in Agudath Israel of America v. Hochul, (ED NY, Dec. 6, 2021), a New York federal district court awarded to plaintiffs attorneys' fees totaling $446,521.94 which must be paid by the state of New York.

9th Circuit Lifts Injunction Against School District's Vaccine Mandate

On Nov. 28, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals enjoined, pending appeal, the San Diego school district's COVID vaccine mandate because it denied religious exemptions while allowing a deferral option for pregnant students. (See prior posting.) Subsequently the school district removed the deferral option for pregnant students. So in John Doe v. San Diego Unified School District, (9th Cir., Dec. 4, 2021), the court, in a 2-1 decision, held:

Given the removal of the “per se” deferral option for pregnant students, the injunction issued in the November 28, 2021 order has terminated under its own terms.

The majority rejected the claim that medical exemptions, temporary exemptions for students who are homeless, in migrant status or foster care, or in military families, and special provisions for students with Individualized Education Programs, but the absence of religious exemptions, undermine the general applicability of the vaccine mandate.

Judge Ikuta dissented, arguing that these secular exemptions mean that the mandate is not generally applicable and thus must be evaluated under the strict scrutiny standard, saying in part:

These religious and secular activities pose identical risks to the government’s asserted interest in ensuring the “safest environment possible for all students and employees,” because both result in the presence of unvaccinated students in the classroom, who could spread COVID-19 to other students and employees.

Plaintiff's attorney has said that emergency relief will be sought from the U.S. Supreme Court.

UPDATE: Here is plaintiffs' Petition for emergency relief from the Supreme Court, asking for an injunction or stay pending appeal.

Oklahoma AG Sues To Invalidate Biden's Vaccine Mandate For Federal Employees

Oklahoma's Attorney General and its Governor, along with 16 Oklahoma Air National Guard members, have sued to invalidate President Biden's Executive Order requiring COVID-19 vaccination for all federal employees. The complaint (full text) in State of Oklahoma v. Biden, (WD OK, filed 12/2/2021), contends that the mandate violates various provisions of the Constitution and federal law, including the Free Exercise Clause:

The vaccine mandate is undermining the sincerely held religious beliefs of Oklahoma residents and at least some individual Plaintiffs. This mandate is not a law of  general applicability because it contains exemptions that almost certainly will be unavailable to some individual Plaintiffs. Specifically, although EO 14043 does not even discuss religious exemptions, the SFWTF says only that a religious exemption might apply.... It adds: “Determining whether an exception is legally required will include consideration of factors such as the basis for the claim; the nature of the employee’s job responsibilities; and the reasonably foreseeable effects on the agency’s operations, including protecting other agency employees and the public from COVID-19.” Id. This non-committal and uncertain language gives Plaintiffs no assurance whatsoever.

The Oklahoma Attorney General issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Suits In Delaware Seek Bans On Future Emergency Orders Affecting Worship Activities

Two similar lawsuits were filed yesterday in a Delaware state trial court seeking to prevent any future pandemic or other emergency declarations from placing limits on gatherings for religious worship.  The complaints in Hines v. Carney, (DE Ch., filed 12/1/2021) (full text) and Landow v. Carney, (DE Ch., filed 12/1/2021) (full text), citing state and federal constitutional protections, seek injunctions to prohibit

(1) any shutdown Order prohibiting Sunday or weekday assembly for religious worship or setting any attendance limit of 10 or more on the number of persons permitted to worship; (2) any shutdown or subsequent Orders preventing or directing how speech, preaching and teaching from the pulpit is to occur; (3) any shutdown or subsequent Orders prohibiting speech through singing in worship of God, individually or as a group; (4) any shutdown or subsequent Orders prohibiting assembly of worshipers based on age or any other personal characteristics such as health, wealth, race, gender, or other physical or emotional characteristic; (5) any Orders prohibiting Baptism or directing how the ritual is to be conducted; (6) any Orders prohibiting the Lord’s Supper or directing how the ritual is to be conducted; and (7) expressing preferences or favoritism for the practices of one religion over another.

WDEL News reports on the lawsuits.

Supreme Court Denies Injunction Pending Appeal Of Case On Vaccine Mandate Exemptions

On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court in Together Employees v. Mass General Brigham Inc. through an Order by Justice Breyer denied an Emergency Application for an injunction pending appeal to the 1st Circuit of a district court decision. At issue is the denial to eight employees of religious or medical exemptions from a health care system's COVID vaccine mandate.  The 1st Circuit in an Opinion handed down Nov. 18 had previously denied an injunction pending appeal. Boston Globe reports on the case.

New York City Educators' COVID Mandate Falters On Religious Exemption Procedures

In Kane v. De Blasio, (2d Cir., Nov. 28, 2021), the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals held that New York City's COVID vaccine mandate for school teachers and administrators is not facially unconstitutional under the 1st Amendment because it is a neutral law of general applicability. However the court held that the process-- determined by an arbitrator-- for deciding whether a person is entitled to a religious exemption is unconstitutional:

The Accommodation Standards allowed employees to request a religious accommodation by submitting a request that is “documented in writing by a religious official (e.g., clergy).”... Requests “shall be denied where the leader of the religious organization has spoken publicly in favor of the vaccine, where the documentation is readily available (e.g., from an online source), or where the objection is personal, political, or philosophical in nature.”...

Denying an individual a religious accommodation based on someone else’s publicly expressed religious views — even the leader of her faith —runs afoul of the Supreme Court’s teaching that “[i]t is not within the judicial ken to question the centrality of particular beliefs or practices to a faith, or the validity of particular litigants' interpretations of those creeds.”

Bloomberg Law reports on the decision.

Vaccine Mandate For Chicago City Employees Upheld

In Troogstad v. City of Chicago, (ND IL, Nov. 24, 2021), an Illinois federal district court refused to grant a temporary restraining order to city employees who were challenging the state and city mandatory COVID vaccination policy.  Among plaintiffs' various challenges was a free exercise claim, to which the court said in part:

To be clear, if a particular employee is denied a religious exemption, she may challenge that denial, based on the particular facts of her case, as a violation of her free exercise rights. But no Plaintiffs have been denied a religious exemption on grounds other than failing to adequately articulate their individual circumstances, as the City Vaccination Policy requires....

The court also rejected plaintiffs' claims that the vaccination mandate violates the Illinois Healthcare Right of Conscience Act, saying in part:

Plaintiffs might well be correct, if the City Vaccination Policy did not contain any avenue for religious exemptions.

But the City Vaccination Policy does provide a detailed religious exemption process that protects anyone who holds sincere religious objections to being vaccinated.

Court Defers Ruling On Military's Actions On Religious Exemption Requests From Vaccine Mandate

In Seal I v. Biden, (MD FL, Nov. 22, 2021), a Florida federal district court, after a lengthy discussion of free exercise protection under the 1st Amendment and RFRA, deferred until at least Jan. 7, 2022, ruling on a motion for a preliminary injunction sought by service members seeking religious exemptions from the federal government's COVID vaccine mandate for members of the military. According to the court:

[P]laintiffs claim the regulations — governing in each respective branch the availability of a religious exemption from the COVID vaccine and purporting to comply with the demands of RFRA — in reality disguise an unlawful and pervasive policy of the Secretary of Defense and each branch of the armed forces to deny individual consideration of each claim for a religious exemption, to instead “deny them all,” and to punish, possibly by discharge, without exemption and without accommodation, those who assert a sincere religious objection and accordingly refuse the vaccine....

[T]he data produced by the defendants show that more than 16,643 requests for a religious exemption pend. The military has granted no exemptions but has denied hundreds. This disparity, although susceptible to a benign explanation is, as well, susceptible to an explanation actionable and remediable under RFRA.

The court ordered each branch of the armed forces, beginning Jan. 7, 2022, to file bi-weekly reports on the number of exemption requests and the number granted, as well as on the number of service members court martialed after the denial of a religious exemption. Liberty Counsel issued a press release announcing the decision.

School's Vaccine Mandate Without Religious Exemptions Upheld

In Doe v. San Diego Unified School District, (SD CA, Nov. 18, 2021), a California federal district court denied a temporary restraining order in a suit by a high school student and her parents objecting to the school district's COVID vaccine mandate which did not provide for religious exemptions. The court held that the scope of the injunction sought by plaintiff created standing issues, but regardless of that:

In light of the overwhelming weight of authority upholding vaccination requirements in response to free exercise challenges, the Court finds that Plaintiffs are not likely to succeed on the merits of their claim.

Thomas More Society has more background on the case.

Cert. Denied In Challenge To Oregon's Limits On Parochial Schools

The U.S, Supreme Court today denied review in Horizon Christian School v. Brown, (Docket No. 21-567, certiorari denied 11/15/2021). (Order List).  In the case, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in an Aug. 2 opinion (full text) affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction against Oregon's previous COVID-19 restrictions on in-person schooling. The suit was brought by parents of students who attend religious schools. (See prior related posting.)

6th Circuit Grants En Banc Review Of Catholic School's Challenge To Mask Order

In Resurrection School v. Hertel, (6th Cir., Nov. 10, 2021), the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the 3-judge panel opinion and granted en banc review. The panel decision, by a 2-1 vote, upheld  Michigan's previous COVID-19 mask order for schools.  The court affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction sought by a Catholic elementary school, concluding that the order was neutral and generally applicable. (See prior posting.) AP reports on yesterday's action by the court.

United Airlines Can Place Employees With Religious Objections To Vaccine On Unpaid Leave

In Sambrano v. United Airlines, Inc., (ND TX, Nov. 8, 2021), a Texas federal district court refused to issue a preliminary injunction to prevent United Airlines from placing on unpaid leave employees who received religious or medical exemptions from United's COVID vaccine mandate. The court said in part:

This Order does not rule on the ultimate merits of this case. Instead, this Order merely rules on Plaintiffs’ request for the extraordinary remedy of a preliminary injunction....

The Court is not insensitive to Plaintiffs’ plight. A loss of income, even temporary, can quickly ripple out to touch nearly every aspect of peoples’ lives, and the lives of their families and dependents. But the Court’s analysis must be guided by the law, not by its sympathy.

Despite the novel facts presented here, the case law is clear that hardships stemming from loss of income are remediable; axiomatically such hardships cannot be called irreparable.

The Hill reports on the decision.

Catholic School Parents Lose Challenge To School Mask Requirement

In  Resurrection School v. Hertel, (WD MI, Nov. 3, 2021), a Michigan federal district court refused to issue a preliminary injunction against a county health department COVID order requiring (with certain exceptions) all persons in indoor educational settings to wear face coverings. Parents of Catholic school students argued that the order violates their free exercise rights because masks in school inhibit their children's Catholic education. The court said in part:

[Plaintiffs] argue that ... they are likely to succeed on the merits ... because (1) the emergency order targets Catholic and private schools, (2) the emergency order does not pass strict scrutiny ... and (3) the emergency order is not generally applicable because it only applies to schools and not all public spaces. The Court does not find any of these arguments to be persuasive and instead finds that Plaintiffs are not likely to succeed on the merits.

Navy's Limits On Religious Exemptions To Vaccine Mandate Are Challenged

New litigation over limited religious exemptions to COVID vaccine mandates continues to arise.  This time, 35 members of the U.S. Navy filed suit in a Texas federal district court contending that the Navy's policy of denying exemptions or disqualifying from special operations deployment personnel who claim a religious exemption violates their rights under RFRA and the 1st Amendment, as well as the Administrative Procedure Act. The complaint (full text) in U.S. Navy SEALs 1-26 v. Biden, (ND TX, filed 11/9/2021) alleges a wide variety of religious objections held by various of the plaintiffs who represent Catholic, Protestant and Eastern Orthodox traditions:

60. Plaintiffs believe that receiving a COVID-19 vaccine that was tested, developed, or produced using aborted fetal cell lines would force them to violate their sincerely held religious beliefs by causing them to participate in the abortion enterprise, which they believe to be immoral and highly offensive to God....

63. Multiple Plaintiffs hold to the sincere religious belief that the human body is God’s temple, and that they must not take anything into their bodies that God has forbidden or that would alter the functions of their body such as by inducing the production of a spike protein in a manner not designed by God....

73. Multiple Plaintiffs hold to the sincere religious belief that, upon seeking guidance from God as to whether to receive a COVID-19 vaccine, God instructed them not to do so.

74. One Plaintiff holds to the sincere religious belief that trace animal cells in the COVID-19 vaccines, such as from swine, should not be injected into his body.

First Liberty issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

 

School Must Offer Alternatives To Nursing Students Who Assert Religious Objection To COVID Vaccination Requirement

In Thoms v. Maricopa County Community College District,(D AZ, Nov. 5, 2021), an Arizona federal district court granted a preliminary injunction to two nursing students who sought religious exemptions from the COVID vaccination requirement they faced in order to complete their 3-day clinical rotation. Originally the school required all students to comply with the placement requirements of its most stringent clinical partner, but later modified this for students doing their rotation at a clinic that had less stringent standards. However this did not help plaintiffs since their clinic required universal vaccination with no religious exemptions. The court held that under Arizona's Free Exercise of Religion Act, the school had not shown that it met the compelling interest/ least restrictive means test.  It undermined its interest in preventing the spread of COVID by allowing religious exemptions when students were assigned to rotations at clinics which did not mandate vaccination. It also had options such as simulated clinical experiences that could be offered as accommodations. The court applied a similar strict scrutiny analysis to plaintiffs' 1st Amendment free exercise claim, finding that the school's policy is not a generally applicable one since in at least one case the school provided an alternative to in-person clinicals.

From 2nd Circuit To Supreme Court, Fight Over NY's Removal Of Vaccine Religious Exemptions Continues

One day after hearing oral arguments in the cases challenging the elimination of religious exemptions from New York's requirement that health care workers be vaccinated against COVID, the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals vacated temporary injunctions that had been issued in We the Patriots USA, Inc. v. Hochul  and Dr. A v. Hochul. In its October 29 Order (full text), the 2nd Circuit said that written opinions in the two cases would follow expeditiously. On Nov. 1, petitioners in We the Patriots case filed an Emergency Application (full text) with the U.S. Supreme Court seeking a new injunction while they file a petition for certiorari with the Court. Washington Examiner reports on the filing.

UPDATE: Here is the 2nd Circuit's 50-page opinion supporting its Order rejecting requests for a preliminary injunction. We the Patriots USA, Inc. v. Hochul, (2d Cir., Nov. 4, 2021).

UPDATE2: On Nov. 12, petitioners in the Dr. A case also filed an Emergency Application for an Injunction or in the alternative the granting of certiorari. (Full text of application).

Texas Voters Approve Measure To Ban Limits On Religious Services

In reaction to limits imposed on religious gatherings during the COVID pandemic, Texas voters yesterday approved Proposition 3, a state constitutional amendment which provides:

This state or a political subdivision of this state may not enact, adopt, or issue a statute, order, proclamation, decision, or rule that prohibits or limits religious services, including religious services conducted in churches, congregations, and places of worship, in this state by a religious organization established to support and serve the propagation of a sincerely held religious belief.

The vote was 62.42% in favor, 37.58% opposed. More details at Ballotpedia.

Illinois Legislature Eliminates Religious Exemption For COVID Vaccine Employer Mandates

Last week, the Illinois legislature gave final passage to SB 1169 (full text) which amends the Illinois Health Care Right of Conscience Act to provide:

It is not a violation of this Act for any person or public official, or for any public or private association, agency, corporation, entity, institution, or employer, to take any measures or impose any requirements ... intended to prevent contraction or transmission of COVID-19....

JD Supra explains:

The HCRCA has recently gained notoriety as a way for individuals to avoid complying with employer-mandated vaccine and testing policies and other COVID-19 safety measures. The HCRCA was enacted primarily to ensure that health care providers would not be compelled to participate in providing health care services that they find morally objectionable, such as performing abortions or dispensing contraceptives. However, the HCRCA is broadly worded.... 

While these protections are similar in some ways to Title VII in terms of requiring employers to accommodate employee religious beliefs ..., unlike Title VII, the HCRCA has no “undue hardship” exemption, even if granting an exception would create a significant risk to health and safety or prevent the employer from complying with federal or state regulations.

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.