School Board Votes To End Appeals of Board Prayer Policy Decision

As previously reported, last month the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, over a number of dissenting views, denied en banc review in Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc. v. Chino Valley Unified School District Board of Education. In the case, a 3-judge panel applied the Lemon test to strike down a California school board's prayer policy for board meetings. Now, according to the Chino Champion, on Thursday with two new board members voting, the Board voted 3-2 to end all appeals of the decision. One of the new Board members voting with the majority works as a 1st Amendment lawyer.

Suit Challenges School Limits on Flyer Distribution For Bible Event

A suit was filed this week in a California federal district court against the Huntington Beach School District for barring a 2nd and a 5th-grade student from handing out flyers promoting Focus on the Family's "Bring Your Bible to School Day."  The complaint (full text) in M.B. v. Huntington Beach City School District, (CD CA, filed 1/7/2019),  contends that plaintiffs' free speech, free exercise, equal protection and due process rights were infringed by not allowing them to distribute the flyers at lunch, recess and other non-instructional times during the school day. School officials limited the distribution to before- and after-school hours. OC Weekly reports on the lawsuit.

9th Circuit Denies En Banc Review In School Board Prayer Case

Yesterday, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals denied en banc review in Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc. v. Chino Valley Unified School District Board of Education, (9th Cir., Dec. 26, 2018). In the case, a 3-judge panel applied the Lemon test to strike down a California school board's prayer policy for board meetings. (See prior posting.)  Seven active judges plus one judge holding senior status who is technically unable to vote on the rehearing petition disagreed with the denial of en banc review.  An opinion by Senior Judge O'Scannlan argued that the case should be governed by the legislative prayer precedents rather than by the Lemon test. An opinion by Judge Nelson argued that even it the Lemon test applies, no Establishment Clause violation was present. The seven dissenting active judges joined all or part of both opinions. San Francisco Chronicle reports on the denial of review.

Vandalizing Religious Building Includes Vandalizing Sign Outside It

In People v. Laduke, (CA App., Dec. 14, 2018), a California appellate court held that defendant could properly be convicted under California Penal Code Sec., 594.3(a) for vandalism of a building owned and occupied by a religious institution after he torched a sign in front of John Paul the Great Catholic University. The court said in part:

Because the vandalism set forth in section 594.3, subdivision (a) prohibits damage to both real and personal property, we reject LaDuke's suggested interpretation limiting that offense to damage to only an occupied structure with four walls and a roof....  [W]e construe section 594.3, subdivision (a) as prohibiting, inter alia, malicious damage to personal property or fixtures located on or attached to the real property of, and related to, a "building owned and occupied by a religious educational institution."

The court also rejected the argument that Sec. 594.3 violates the Establishment Clause and the Equal Protection clause.

Suit Challenges School District's Anti-Bias Training

The Santa Barbara Independent today reports on a federal lawsuit filed by a group calling itself Fair Education Santa Barbara challenging the Santa Barbara schools anti-bias training for teachers and administrators.  It seeks cancellation of a contract with Just Communities Central Coast that provides the training.  Among other things, the lawsuit contends in part:

Under the guise of promoting so-called ‘unconscious bias’ and ‘inclusivity’ instruction, (Just Communities’) actual curriculum and practices are overtly and intentionally anti-Caucasian, anti-male, and anti-Christian.

The suit claims that the curriculum violates the Equal Protection clause and other civil rights protections by discriminating against white people.

Appeals Court Vacates Invalidation of California's Assisted Suicide Law

In People ex rel Becerra v. Superior Court of Riverside County, (CA App., Nov. 27, 2018), a California state appellate court issued a writ of mandate ordering the trial court to vacate its decision striking down California's End of Life Option Act.  The Act legalizes physician-assisted suicide for the terminally ill.  The trial court had held that the Act was outside the scope of the proclamation calling the special session of the legislature that passed it.  The majority in the appellate court held that plaintiffs-- doctors and a Christian medical society-- lack standing to bring the challenge.  Judge Slough, dissenting in part, argued that the court should reach the merits of the challenge to the law and should hold that the law was constitutionally enacted.  Courthouse News Service reports on the decision.

9th Circuit: Animal Rights Group Lacks Standing To Challenge Kapparot Practices

In United Poultry Concerns v. Chabad of Irvine, (9th Cir., Nov. 20, 2018), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held that an animal rights group lacks standing to sue a Jewish religious organization for violating California's Unfair Competition Law. The suit challenged Chabad's sponsoring of kapparot -- an atonement ritual carried out before Yom Kippur involving the use and slaughter of live chickens.  The district court had reached the merits of the claim and had held that the acceptance of a donation in connection with the performance of religious ritual is not covered by the state's Unfair Competition Law. (See prior posting.) The 9th Circuit, by contrast, held that plaintiff was not injured by Chabad's actions and so lacks Article III standing. It vacated the district court's judgment and ordered the case dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Metropolitan News-Enterprise reports on the decision.

California Appeals Court OK's Repeal of Belief Exemption To Immunization Requirements

In Love v. Department of Education, (CA App., Nov. 20, 2018), a California state appellate court rejected state constitutional challenges to a California law that repealed the personal belief exemption to the state's immunization requirements for school children.  Saying that "Plaintiffs’ arguments are strong on hyperbole and scant on authority," the court rejected claims that the repeal violates the constitutional right to attend school, substantive due process, or rights of privacy or free exercise of religion.

Anti-Semitism Suit Against San Francisco State Dismissed

In Mandel v. Board of Trustees of the California State University, (ND CA, Oct. 29, 2018), a California federal district court dismissed an amended complaint charging that San Francisco State University tolerated, or even encouraged, anti-Semitic conduct. The court summarized its holding:

While I understand that these plaintiffs, and some other members of the Jewish or Israeli community in or around SFSU, feel deeply that SFSU has not done enough to curtail others’ anti-Semitic behaviors and to foster a better environment for Jewish and pro-Israeli students, the acts described in the SAC do not adequately allege a violation of federal anti-discrimination laws so that liability may be imposed on SFSU, its administrators, or its faculty.

San Francisco Chronicle reports on the decision.

9th Circuit Hears Oral Arguments In Challenge To Expanded Contraceptive Coverage Exemptions

Last week, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments in State of California v. Little Sisters of the Poor. (Video of full oral arguments). The case involves the appeal by a religious order (as an intervenor) of a nationwide preliminary injunction that a California federal district court issued blocking the Trump administration's Interim Final Rules expanding religious and moral exemptions from the Affordable Care Act's contraceptive coverage mandate. (See prior posting.) According to Courthouse News Service,  two of the three judges on the panel indicated during oral argument that they were inclined to lift the injunction. [Thanks to Blog from the Capital for the lead.]

Law Firm Releases Report On Abusive Priests In California

A law firm that is suing to obtain release by three Catholic dioceses in the San Francisco Bay area of the names of all clergy accused of sexual misconduct yesterday released its own report. The 66-page report lists the names and provides background information on 212 accused priests. (Full text of report.)  The report was compiled from various public sources of information. Fox 2 News has reactions to the report.

Dean's Contract Claim Not Barred By Ministerial Exception

In Sumner v. Simpson University, (CA App., Sept. 25, 2018), a California appellate court summarized its holding in a case brought by the former dean of Tozer Seminary who was terminated for insubordination:

[T]he trial court correctly concluded that Simpson University is a religious organization and that Sumner is a minister for purposes of the ministerial exception, but that her contract cause of action is not foreclosed by the ministerial exception. Defendants have failed to show that resolution of Sumner’s contract claim would excessively entangle the court in religious matters. However, her tort causes of action are part and parcel of the actions involved in her termination, and are therefore barred by the ministerial exception.

Suit Against Vatican Seeks Release of Names of Sex Offenders

A lawsuit was filed this week in a California federal district court seeking an injunction to require the Vatican to release to the public and law enforcement authorities the names of perpetrators involved in more than 3,400 credible cases worldwide of sexual misconduct with children, as well as the names of those previously convicted.  The complaint (full text) in Vega v. Holy See, (CD CA, filed 10/3/2018), charges that the Vatican has created a public nuisance, saying in part:

Defendant Holy See has created and exposed the public to these unsafe conditions continuously and on an ongoing basis before and since the time that Plaintiff was sexually abused and has continued to expose the public to that unabated threat until the present day.

The complaint also charges private nuisance, violation of California's Business and Professions Code, as well as violation of customary international law of human rights. Washington Post reports on the lawsuit.

No Preliminary Injunction Against Schools' Anti-Islamophobia Initiative

In Citizens for Quality Education San Diego v. Barrera, (SD CA, Sept. 25, 2018), a California federal district court refused to issue a preliminary injunction against an initiative undertaken by the San Diego school district to address Islamophobia and anti-Muslim bullying. The court held that plaintiffs are unlikely to succeed on the merits of their Establishment Clause and state constitutional no-aid clause claims. San Diego Union Tribune reports on the decision.

Judge Authorizes Shut-Down of Cannabis-Based Church

A Riverside, California trial court judge last week authorized the city of Jurupa Valley to close down the Vault Church of Open Faith, a cannabis-based church that lists the prices for various kinds of marijuana online. According to the Press-Enterprise, the Vault's lead minister,  Gilbert Aguirre, who has no formal religious training typically leads services which often include smoking or eating marijuana products. Jurupa Valley bans marijuana businesses of all kinds.

9th Circuit: School Board Invocations Violate Establishment Clause

In Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc. v. Chino Valley Unified School District Board of Education, (9th Cir., July 25, 2018), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the district court that a California school board's prayer policy at board meetings violates the Establishment Clause. The court said in part:

The invocations to start the open portions of Board meetings are not within the legislative prayer tradition that allows certain types of prayer to open legislative sessions. This is not the sort of solemnizing and unifying prayer, directed at lawmakers themselves and conducted before an audience of mature adults free from coercive pressures to participate, that the legislative-prayer tradition contemplates.... Instead, these prayers typically take place before groups of schoolchildren whose attendance is not truly voluntary and whose relationship to school district officials, including the Board, is not one of full parity.....

Instead of the legislative-prayer analysis, we apply the three-pronged Establishment Clause test articulated in Lemon v. Kurtzman.... The Chino Valley Board’s prayer policy and practice fails the Lemon test and is therefore unconstitutional.

Los Angeles Times reports on the decision.

City Sues To Close Down Church Allegedly Operating As Marijuana Dispensary

Los Angeles Times reported on Tuesday that Newport Beach, California officials have filed a civil suit in state court seeking an injunction to close down Church of the Holy Grail. The suit claims that the Church is operating as an illegal marijuana dispensary. The suit also seeks a $25,000 civil penalty. Holy Grail's attorney says that use of marijuana at the site is a lawful exercise of religion.

California Elimination of Personal Belief Exemption From Vaccination Requirements Upheld

In Brown v. Smith, (Cal. App., July 2, 2018), a California appellate court rejected a challenge to a 2015 California legislative change that eliminated the personal beliefs exemption from the requirement that children receive vaccines for certain infectious diseases before being admitted to any public or private school. The court rejected a challenge under the state constitution's free exercise clause, finding that the state has a compelling interest in preventing the spread of communicable diseases. The court also rejected other state constitutional and statutory challenges. (See prior related posting.)

Supreme Court Holds California's FACT Act Violates Speech Rights of Pro-Life Clinics

The U.S. Supreme Court this morning, in a victory for pro-life pregnancy centers, decided National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra, (US Sup. Ct., June 26, 2018).  At issue was California's FACT Act which requires licensed pregnancy counseling clinics to post and distribute a notice on the existence of publicly-funded family planning services, including contraception and abortion.  Unlicensed clinics must disseminate a notice that they and their personnel are unlicensed.  Justice Thomas, writing for the majority (Thomas, Roberts, Kennedy, Alito, Gorsuch) held that these disclosure requirements likely violate 1st Amendment free speech rights of the clinics. The Court concluded that the disclosures required of licensed clinics are content-based regulations:

... licensed clinics must provide a government-drafted script about the availability of state-sponsored services, as well as contact information for how to obtain them. One of those services is abortion—the very practice that petitioners are devoted to opposing. By requiring petitioners to inform women how they can obtain state-subsidized abortions—at the same time petitioners try to dissuade women from choosing that option— the licensed notice plainly “alters the content” of petitioners’ speech.

The majority then went on to largely reject the 9th Circuit's conclusion that  strict scrutiny does not apply because the regulation deals with "professional speech," saying in part:

... this Court has not recognized “professional speech” as a separate category of speech. Speech is not unprotected merely because it is uttered by “professionals.”...

This Court has afforded less protection for professional speech in two circumstances—neither of which turned on the fact that professionals were speaking. First, our precedents have applied more deferential review to some laws that require professionals to disclose factual, noncontroversial information in their “commercial speech.” ... Second, under our precedents, States may regulate professional conduct, even though that conduct incidentally involves speech.... But neither line of precedents is implicated here....

As with other kinds of speech, regulating the content of professionals’ speech “pose[s] the inherent risk that the Government seeks not to advance a legitimate regulatory goal, but to suppress unpopular ideas or information.”

Turning to the required disclosures for unlicensed centers, the Court said in part:

California has not demonstrated any justification for the unlicensed notice that is more than “purely hypothetical.”

A concurring opinion by Justice Kennedy, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Alito and Gorsuch emphasizes a viewpoint discrimination argument, saying in part:

... here the State requires primarily pro-life pregnancy centers to promote the State’s own preferred message advertising abortions. This compels individuals to contradict their most deeply held beliefs, beliefs grounded in basic philosophical, ethical, or religious precepts, or all of these.

Justice Breyer filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Kagan, saying in part:

Because much, perhaps most, human behavior takes place through speech and because much, perhaps most, law regulates that speech in terms of its content, the majority’s approach at the least threatens considerable litigation over the constitutional validity of much, perhaps most, government regulation....

If a State can lawfully require a doctor to tell a woman seeking an abortion about adoption services, why should it not be able, as here, to require a medical counselor to tell a woman seeking prenatal care or other reproductive healthcare about childbirth and abortion services?

City Violated Establishment Clause By Acquiring Cross Site As Park Land

In Lions Club of Albany, California v. City of Albany, (ND CA, June 15, 2018), a California federal district court held that a city violated the Establishment Clause by acquiring for a public park a 1.1 acre parcel of land that includes a large cross. Originally the cross was on private property, and the Lion's Club held an easement to maintain the 20-foot high cross and to illuminate it each Christmas and Easter.  The city acquired the 1.1 acres along with adjacent land in exchange for approving a high rise project nearby. The court said in part:

While the City portrays itself as a victim of the easement, the fact is that the City must bear responsibility. To repeat, the City could have rejected the deal, burdened as it was by the easement. The First Amendment ran against the City, not the private parties. Once the City accepted title and began converting the land into a public park, it then could have solved its Establishment Clause problem by condemning the easement (and paying its value) under its power of eminent domain, selling off, if feasible, a subdivided parcel containing the cross to a private party (and keeping the rest for a park), or by possibly imposing zoning restrictions against all religious displays on public land.