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.

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.

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.

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.

 

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.

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."

Kentucky Governor Has Qualified Immunity From Church's Damage Suit Over COVID Orders

In Pleasant View Baptist Church v. Beshear, (ED KY, Sept. 30, 2021), a Kentucky federal district court held that Kentucky's governor has qualified immunity from a damage action against him brought by a church that objected to his COVID Orders that temporarily suspended in-person classes in public and private schools. Plaintiff sought compensatory and punitive damages. The court said in part:

After examining the applicable precedent, particularly in light of a global pandemic, Pleasant View cannot demonstrate that Governor Beshear’s issuance of Executive Order 2020-969 violated a clearly established constitutional right, and qualified immunity will be granted on that basis. In fact, courts across the country have addressed qualified immunity for government officials at the 12(b)(6) stage regarding Covid-19 measures and found government officials to be immune from suit in their personal capacities.

The court found that plaintiff's claims for declaratory relief are moot.

Rhode Island Vaccine Mandate, Silent On Religious Exemptions, Is Upheld

In Dr. T v. Alexander-Scott, (D RI, Sept. 30, 2021), a Rhode Island federal district court refused to issue a temporary restraining order to prevent enforcement of a Rhode Island Department of Health Emergency Regulation that requires all healthcare workers (except if medically exempt) to be vaccinated against COVID-19. Plaintiffs challenge the absence of a provision for religious exemptions.  Rejecting plaintiffs' 1st Amendment challenge, the court held that the regulation is a neutral law of general applicability. Responding to plaintiffs' claim that the Regulation is in conflict with Title VII, the court said in part:

Nothing in the language [of the Regulation] prevents any employer from providing a reasonable accommodation to an employee who seeks one in accord with their sincerely held religious beliefs. Indeed, the Regulation is silent on the issue of religious exemptions. Title VII requires employers to accommodate religious beliefs, practices, or observances only to the extent that doing so would not impose “undue hardship” on the employer.... While the Regulation may make it more difficult for employers to accommodate religious objections; it does not create a “physical impossibility.”

Limited Religious Exemptions From Vaccine Mandate Challenged

Suit was filed this week in a Colorado federal district court challenging provisions limiting religious exemptions from the University of Colorado Medical School's vaccine mandate.  The school offers a religious exemption only to those whose objections are based on a religious belief whose teachings are opposed to all immunizations. The complaint (full text) in Jane Doe, M.D. v. University of Colorado,(D CO, filed 9/29/2021), says in part:

[The policy] imposes two necessary conditions to ... any religious accommodation, namely:

a. ... [A] sincere religious belief that opposes acceptance of “all immunizations” and vaccines; and

b. That the person requesting a religious accommodation be a member of an organized religion whose tenets include a hierarchically promulgated, authoritative position on the moral liceity of “all immunizations” and vaccines....

Both conditions are clearly forbidden by the Establishment, Free Exercise, and Equal Protection clauses of the United States constitution and the Religious Freedom provisions of the Colorado constitution.... [They] privileg[e] hierarchically prescribed religious belief over autonomously prescribed (yet sincerely held) religious belief.

Thomas More Society issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Court Says Objections To Mask Requirement Were Not Sincerely Held Religious Beliefs

 In Geerlings v. Tredyffrin/ Easttown School District, (ED PA, Sept. 27, 2021), a Pennsylvania federal district court refused to issue a preliminary injunction sought by parents of four students who claim that the students are entitled to religious exemptions from a school district's COVID-19 mask requirement. The court held that none of the plaintiffs demonstrated a "sincere religious belief". In each case the court concluded either that the asserted beliefs were not sincerely held or were not religious in nature.  The court described the asserted beliefs of each plaintiff:

Ms. Marvin believes people are made in the image of God and it therefore dishonors God to cover our faces....

Ms. Geerlings believes the body is a temple and must not be harmed, and in her view, masks violate the prohibition on harming the body because they are unhealthy....

Mr. Governanti came to believe that he must not harm his daughter, which, in his view, means he must not allow his daughter to wear a mask....

Mr. McLellan believes God intervened in his life to save him from certain trauma, and that masks are a mockery of the gift of life because they cover what makes us human and show a lack of gratitude to the creator.

No Violation In Refusing To Accommodate Prosecutor's Religious Request For Permanent Remote Work

In Leone v. Essex County Prosecutor's Office, (D NJ, Sept. 23, 2021), a New Jersey federal district court ruled against an assistant prosecutor in the Essex County Prosecutor's Office who sought a religious accommodation that would allow him to continue to work from home indefinitely as pandemic remote-work schedules were phased out. Plaintiff claims that his religion "'requires him to pray, including aloud and spontaneously, throughout each day,' preferably in his backyard to access 'peace and solitude.'" Plaintiff rejected numerous proposed accommodations that would allow him to pray while at his office. The court applied rational basis review to plaintiff's 1st Amendment claim, concluding that defendants had articulated "a myriad of reasons" justifying their denial of plaintiff's requested accommodation. It also concluded that there had not been a violation of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination.

Suit Says Trader Joe's Failed To Accommodate Religious Objection To COVID Vaccination

Suit was filed earlier this month under Title VII and California state law by a 26-year Christian employee of Trader Joe's who was fired after the company refused to adequately accommodate his religious objections to being vaccinated against COVID. Plaintiff Gregg Crawford was initially granted a religious exemption from the company's mandatory vaccination policy. However an important management meeting was limited to vaccinated employees, and the company refused to arrange an accommodation that would allow Crawford to attend in person or remotely. He was told his non-attendance would negatively affect his performance review. Shortly after Crawford complained about this and consulted an attorney, he was fired. The complaint (full text) in Crawford v. Trader Joe's Company, (CD CA, filed 9/7/2021), alleges violations of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and of state anti-discrimination laws. KTLA News reports on the lawsuit.

TRO Issued Barring Denial of Religious Exemptions To Health Care Workers' Vaccine Mandate

 In Dr. A v. Hochul, (ND NY, Sept. 14, 2021), a New York federal district court issued a temporary restraining order barring the New York Department of Health from enforcing any requirement that employers deny religious exemptions from the Department's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. At issue is the Department's recent vaccine mandate for health care workers employed at hospitals and nursing homes. The TRO was issued one day after the suit was filed. The state has until Sept. 22 to file its objections and the court set a hearing for September 28 at which time the state will be able to present its arguments against turning the TRO into a preliminary injunction. Hudson Valley360 reports on the decision. (See prior related posting.)

Suit Challenges Absence Of Religious Exemptions In New York's Vaccine Mandate For Health Care Workers

Suit was filed Friday in a New York federal district court by New York health care workers challenging the absence of religious exemptions in New York state's mandate that all health care workers be vaccinated against COVID-19. The complaint (full text) in John Doe I v. Hochul, (ED NY, filed 9/10/2021) and the accompanying motion and memorandum of law (full text) seeking a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction allege free exercise, equal protection and Title VII violations, among others. Plaintiffs allege in part:

Plaintiffs’ sincerely held religious beliefs, rooted in the above Scriptures, preclude them from accepting any one of the three currently available COVID-19 vaccines derived from, produced or manufactured by, tested on, developed with, or otherwise connected to aborted fetal cell lines.

The suit, filed by Liberty Counsel (press release) is similar to one filed by the same organization last month against the state of Maine. (See prior posting.) Yesterday's New York Times carried a lengthy article on the growing reliance on religious objections to COVID-19 vaccinations.

UPDATE: A similar suit was filed on Monday in the Northern District of New York on behalf of health care personnel, brought by the Thomas More Society.  Dr. A. v. Hochul, (ND NY, filed 9/13/2021) (full text of complaint).

Mask Mandate Did Not Violate Jewish Student's Rights

In Zinman v. Nova Southeastern University, Inc., (SD FL, Aug. 30, 2021), a Florida federal magistrate judge recommended dismissing a suit by a law student against his law school and several other defendants challenging on religious grounds COVID-related mask mandates. The court described plaintiff's claim:

Plaintiff, who is Jewish, contends that the mask mandates require actions that run contrary to his religious beliefs. Specifically, he alleges that Judaism prohibits idolatry ... and that complying with mask mandates would be tantamount to worshiping false idols – i.e., the “so-called  ‘experts’ who claim to be able to save lives if people simply obey their commands without question.”

The magistrate judge ruled that Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act only covers discrimination on the basis of race, color or national origin, and does not cover religious discrimination. He went on:

Even if the Court were to assume that one’s race or national origin can be “Jewish” for purposes of a Title VI claim, Plaintiff fails to include factual allegations to show that Nova’s mask mandate was discriminatory from a racial or national origin perspective. That is because Plaintiff implies that the issue with the mask mandate is that compliance with it is tantamount to worshiping false idols, and that it is impermissible for Jewish people to worship idols.... However, this issue pertains to a religious belief, not a racial characteristic. If the Court were to accept Plaintiff’s argument, then one who discriminates against a Jewish person would automatically be liable for discrimination based on race, religion, and national origin, without any regard to what the nature of the discriminatory act was. Such a broad and overgeneralized position, however, is untenable.

The magistrate also concluded that plaintiff's free exercise rights were not violated because the mask mandates were neutral and generally applicable requirements that are subject only to rational basis review. He also found no free speech violation, saying in part: "neither wearing or not wearing a mask is inherently expressive."

Suit Claims Mask Mandates Violate Free Exercise Rights and Establishment Clause

In a wide-ranging 128-page complaint, a woman who alleges that her medical conditions make it dangerous for her to wear a face mask filed suit in an Indiana federal district court earlier this month against 16 separate defendants challenging the legality of COVID- related mandates or recommendations to wear cloth face masks. Defendants include the CDC, the FDA, Dr. Anthony Fauci, the governor of Indiana, state and local health departments, local officials and several private businesses. Among the numerous challenges, the complaint (full text) in Reinoehl v. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, (ND IN, filed 8/18/2021), includes these state and federal free exercise and federal Establishment Clause claims:

418. Non-medical masks have been used since ancient times in pagan religious ceremonies to ward of evil spirits and prevent illness....

421. Wearing talismans and other pagan, non-medical masks is against Plaintiff's religious beliefs.

422. Mandating everyone wear non-medical masks to prevent disease when the mask manufacturers cannot make claims they prevent disease transmission is the same as the State establishing a religion in which the Mask Deity prevents its wearers from becoming infected with disease.

423. The State cannot mandate the Plaintiff follows its religion. Plaintiff has the right to freely exercise her religion according to the dictates of her own conscience.

Friendly Atheist blog has more on the lawsuit.

Meanwhile, elsewhere in the country novel religious freedom arguments are being asserted to avoid mask mandates.  According to Fox47 News, a Mason, Michigan mother is seeking a religious exemption from a school mask requirement for her children based on a verse from 2 Corinthians, Chap. 3: "But when one turns to the Lord, the veil is removed..."

TRO Requires University Soccer Team To Grant Religious Exemptions From Vaccine Mandate

In Dahl v. Board of Trustees of Western Michigan University, (WD MI, (Aug. 31, 2021), a Michigan federal district court issued a temporary restraining order requiring the University to grant religious exemptions from its COVID vaccine requirement to four members of the women's soccer team. The university had previously denied the students' exemption requests. The 14-day TRO was issued on the basis of an ex parte motion.  The court said in part:

On the record before this Court, and understanding that WMU has not been afforded an opportunity to response, WMU’s vaccination requirement for student athletes is not justified by a compelling interest and is not narrowly tailored.... WMU has asserted that it has a compelling reason, albeit in a perfunctory manner. WMU appears to conclude that unvaccinated players pose a risk to the health of the vaccinated players.

Great Lakes Justice Center issued a press release announcing the decision, and providing links to pleadings in the case.

Texas Governor's Order Invalid; Catholic Charities Can Continue Work With Migrants

In United States v. State of Texas, (WD TX, Aug. 26, 2021), a Texas federal district court held unconstitutional on Supremacy Clause grounds Texas Governor Greg Abbott's Executive Order which prohibits, during the COVID pandemic, anyone except federal, state or local law enforcement officials from providing transportation to migrants who have been detained for crossing the border illegally or are subject to expulsion. The Order directs the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS) to stop any vehicle suspected to be in violation of this Order and send it back to its point of origin if a violation is confirmed. The court concluded that enforcement of the Order would require state officials to decide whether a person has been detained for crossing the border illegally. It went on:

Because the Order authorizes DPS agents to make and act on immigration determinations, the province of federal law, it is facially invalid.

According to The Tablet, this decision allows Catholic Charities of the Rio Grande Valley and other organizations to continue their work with migrants.

Denial Of Religious Exemption From Vaccine Mandate OK'd

In Harris v. University of Massachusetts, (D MA, Aug. 27, 2021), a Massachusetts federal district court rejected student Cora Cluett's objections to the manner in which her request for a religious exemption from the school's COVID-19 vaccine requirement was handled. According to the court:

[Student Affairs Vice Chancellor DeVeau] denied her appeal, since he determined from the substance of her request that she was Roman Catholic and concluded from his research that the COVID-19 vaccine would not violate tenets of that faith.... In interpreting Cluett’s faith to be Roman Catholic, De Veau stated “[i]f this is incorrect, please let me know.”... De Veau then cited a statement from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops that receiving the COVID-19 vaccines was “morally justified.”

The court held first that insofar as plaintiff was asserting state law claims against state officials, these are barred by the 11th Amendment because Ex parte Young only creates an exception for federal constitutional claims. As to Cluett's 1st Amendment Free Exercise claims, the court said in part:

... UMass is under no constitutional obligation to offer a religious exemption to its Vaccine Requirement. See Nikolao v. Lyon, 875 F.3d 310, 316 (6th Cir. 2017) ....  Certainly, once the university offers religious exemptions, it must not administer them in an unconstitutional way.... Here, however, Cluett has not alleged anything to suggest that Defendants have administered their religious exemption policy in a way that burdens some religions but not others, ... or that Defendants have coerced her in her religious practices....

Suit Challenges Vaccine Mandate Without Religious Exemption

Suit was filed yesterday in a Maine federal district court on behalf of over 2000 health care workers (all filing anonymously) challenging Maine Governor Janet Mills' order that all health care workers be vaccinated against COVID-19, without any accommodation or exception for religious objections. Medical exemptions are still available.  The complaint (full text) in Jane Does 1-6 v. Mills, (D ME, filed, 8/25/2021), alleges free exercise and religious discrimination violations, saying in part:

The dispute in this case is not about what accommodations are available to Plaintiffs or whether accommodation of Plaintiffs’ sincerely held religious objections can be conditioned on compliance with certain reasonable requirements....The dispute is about whether Defendants are required to even consider a request for reasonable accommodation of Plaintiffs’ sincerely held religious beliefs....

Plaintiffs all have sincerely held religious beliefs that preclude them from accepting or receiving any of the three available COVID-19 vaccines because of the connection 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 have all informed their respective employers that they are willing to wear facial coverings, submit to reasonable testing and reporting requirements, monitor symptoms, and otherwise comply with reasonable conditions that were good enough to permit them to do their jobs for the last 18 months with no questions asked.

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