California Law Barring Misgendering Of Long Term Care Residents Violates 1st Amendment

In Taking Offense v. State of California, (CA App., July 16, 2021), a California state appellate court held that a provision in California's Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) Long-Term Care Facility Residents’ Bill of Rights violates free speech rights.  At issue is a provision that prohibits staff members of long-term care facilities from willfully and repeatedly referring to a resident by anything except the person's preferred name or pronoun. The court said in part:

[W]e conclude the pronoun provision ... is overinclusive in that it restricts more speech than is necessary to achieve the government’s compelling interest in eliminating discrimination, including harassment, on the basis of sex.... [T]he law criminalizes even occasional, isolated, off-hand instances of willful misgendering-- provided there has been at least one prior instance--without requiring that such occasional instances of misgendering amount to harassing or discriminatory conduct.

The court however rejected an equal protection challenge to a different provision of the law that requires room assignments in long term care facilities to be made on the basis of a resident's gender identity, unless a transgender resident requests otherwise.

Judge Hull filed a concurring opinion discussing the right of intimate association. Judge Robie also filed a concurring opinion.

Suit Claims Change Of High School's Name Was Motivated By Anti-Catholic Sentiment

Suit was filed this week in a California state trial court challenging on Establishment Clause, as well as other, grounds the change of name of San Diego's Junipero Serra High School to Canyon Hills High School.  The complaint (full text) in Cox v.Renfree, (CA Super. Ct., filed 7/14/2021) alleges in part:

the entire effort to rebrand Junipero Serra High School has demonstrated systemic, deep-seated, anti-Catholic motivations....

The Franciscan priest, Junipero Serra, has been regarded as California's founding father. He established a Mission on the shores of San Diego Bay in 1769. The complaint in the lawsuit contends:

In the summer of 2020, Black Lives Matter protests and other demonstrations swept across the county, sparking an acute interest in Critical Race Theory and public erasure of symbols of colonialism—including Serra himself. Statues of Serra were defaced and attacked, and one of his churches was burned in an attack that represented animosity toward the Catholic faith and its role in California history. 

The complaint goes on to argue:

By selecting the rattlesnake as the school’s new mascot, which tribal members have stated is a sacred creature to their people, and removing the name of a Catholic saint from the school, Defendants are clearly endorsing and celebrating the religion of one group at the expense of another.

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

Supreme Court Strikes Down California Donor Disclosure Rules

The U.S. Supreme Court today in Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta, (Sup. Ct., July 1,2021), held unconstitutional California's requirement that charitable organizations soliciting funds in the state disclose their major donors to the state Attorney General. In a 6-3 opinion written by Chief Justice Roberts, the Court said in part:

We are left to conclude that the Attorney General’s disclosure requirement imposes a widespread burden on donors’ associational rights. And this burden cannot be justified on the ground that the regime is narrowly tailored to investigating charitable wrongdoing, or that the State’s interest in administrative convenience is sufficiently important. We therefore hold that the up-front collection of Schedule Bs is facially unconstitutional, because it fails exacting scrutiny in “a substantial number of its applications . . . judged in relation to [its] plainly legitimate sweep.

Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion. Justice Alito, joined by Justice Gorsuch, filed a concurring opinion. Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justices Breyer and Kagan, dissented, saying in part:

Today, the Court holds that reporting and disclosure requirements must be narrowly tailored even if a plaintiff demonstrates no burden at all. The same scrutiny the Court applied when NAACP members in the Jim Crow South did not want to disclose their membership for fear of reprisals and violence now applies equally in the case of donors only too happy to publicize their names across the websites and walls of the organizations they support. 

SCOTUSblog reports on the decision in greater detail.

Supreme Court Refuses Original Suit By Texas Against California

Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court in Texas v. California, (Sup. Ct., April 26, 2021), (SCOTUSblog case page) denied the state of Texas leave to invoke the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction to file a bill of complaint against the state of California. USA Today described the background:

California passed a law in 2016 prohibiting taxpayer-funded travel – such as for state employees to attend conferences – to any state that doesn’t ban discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Texas law allows foster-care and adoption agencies to deny same-sex couples on religious grounds.

Texas took California directly to the Supreme Court last year, asserting the travel ban was "born of religious animus" and that it violates the Constitution....

The justices had been considering whether to take the suit for months. The court did not explain its decision not to hear the case.

Justice Alito, joined by Justice Thomas, dissented, saying in part:

The practice of refusing to permit the filing of a complaint in cases that fall within our original jurisdiction is questionable, and that is especially true when, as in this case, our original jurisdictional is exclusive. As the history recounted above reveals, the Court adopted this practice without ever providing a convincing justification....

Texas raises novel constitutional claims, arguing that California’s travel ban violates the Privileges and Immunities Clause, U. S. Const., Art. IV, §2, cl. 1, the Commerce Clause, Art. I, §8, cl. 3, and the Equal Protection Clause, Amdt. 14, §1. I express no view regarding any of those claims, but I respectfully dissent from the Court’s refusal even to permit the filing of Texas’s complaint.

Supreme Court GVR's Challenge To California Limits On Indoor Worship

In February, the U.S. Supreme Court in South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom, (US Sup. Ct., Feb. 5, 2021), enjoined while a petition for certiorari is pending a portion of California's restrictions on indoor worship services. (See prior posting.) Today in the case (Docket No. 20-746, April 26, 2021) the Supreme Court granted certiorari, summarily vacated the 9th Circuit's judgment upholding the restrictions, and remanded for further consideration in light of Tandon v. Newsom. (Order List).

Supreme Court Hears Oral Arguments Today In Challenge To California's Required Disclosure of Donors To Non-Profits

The U.S. Supreme Court this morning will hear consolidated oral arguments in Thomas More Law Center v. Rodriquez (SCOTUSblog case page) and Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Rodriquez (SCOTUSblog case page). At issue is a California administrative rule requiring non-profit organizations that wish to solicit tax deductible contributions in the state to file an annual report that includes an unredacted IRS Form 990 Schedule B. That Schedule contains the names and contributions of significant donors. Petitioners argue that disclosure subjects donors to dangers of hate mail and retaliation.  Thomas More Law Center describes its mission, in part, as preserving America’s Judeo-Christian heritage and defending the religious freedom of Christians. This post will be updated with a link to the transcript of the oral arguments when it becomes available later today.

Here are links to the audio and transcript of the full arguments.

9th Circuit Upholds California Limits On In-Home Bible Study Groups

In Tandon v. Newsom, (9th Cir., March 30, 2021), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision, refused to issue an emergency injunction pending appeal to prevent enforcement of California's COVID-19 limitations against appellants' in-home Bible study and communal worship sessions. The majority said in part:

[T]he district court concluded that the State reasonably distinguishes in-home private gatherings from the commercial activity Appellants assert is comparable. For example, the district court found that the State reasonably concluded that when people gather in social settings, their interactions are likely to be longer than they would be in a commercial setting; that participants in a social gathering are more likely to be involved in prolonged conversations; that private houses are typically smaller and less ventilated than commercial establishments; and that social distancing and mask-wearing are less likely in private settings and enforcement is more difficult.... Appellants do not dispute any of these findings. Therefore, we conclude that Appellants have not established that strict scrutiny applies to the gatherings restrictions.

Judge Bumatay dissented, saying in part:

Even if studying scripture at home risks some level of transmission of COVID-19, the exemptions for barbershops, tattoo and nail parlors, and other personal care businesses reveal that less-restrictive alternatives are available to California to mitigate that concern. If the State is truly concerned about the “proximity, length, and interaction” of private gatherings, as it claims, it could regulate those aspects of religious gatherings in a narrowly tailored way. But the one thing California cannot do is privilege tattoo parlors over Bible studies when loosening household limitations.

Prominent Ex-Mormon Sues Church For Fraud In The Use Of Members' Tithes

Suit was filed this week in a California federal district court against the Mormon church by a prominent former member who had contributed millions of dollars to it alleging fraud in the solicitation of contributions from members. The complaint (full text) in Huntsman v. Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, (CD CA, filed 3/22/2021), alleges: 

For decades, in a fraudulent effort to elicit the donation of tithing funds from Mr. Huntsman and other devout Church members, the LDS Corporation repeatedly and publicly lied about the intended use of those funds, promising that they would be used for purely non-commercial purposes consistent with the Church’s stated priorities – namely, to fund missionary work, member indoctrination, temple work, and other educational and charitable activities. Behind the scenes, however, rather than using tithing funds for the promised purposes, the LDS Corporation secretly lined its own pockets by using the funds to develop a multi-billion dollar commercial real estate and insurance empire that had nothing to do with charity.

According to an RNS report on the lawsuit, plaintiff is a filmmaker, the son of a prominent philanthropist and the brother of a former governor of Utah.

The complaint says:

Mr. Huntsman ... will ... use the recovered funds to benefit organizations and communities whose members have been marginalized by the Church’s teachings and doctrines, including by donating to charities supporting LGBTQ, African-American, and women’s rights.

KUTV News has published a statement from the LDS Church responding to the allegations in which it denies using tithed funds for a commercial development.

Communications Decency Act Allows Video Hosting Site To Ban Conversion Therapy Promoter

In Domen v. Vimeo, Inc., (2d Cir., March 11, 2021), the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals held that Section 230 of the federal  Communications Decency Act immunizes the video sharing platform Vimeo from a lawsuit alleging religious and sexual orientation discrimination under California law. The suit was filed by Church United and its founder after Vimeo deleted their account because plaintiffs had uploaded videos that promote sexual orientation change therapy. The court said in part:

A broad provision [in Section 230], subsection (c)(2) immunizes interactive computer service providers from liability for “any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected.” 12 U.S.C § 230(c)(2). Notably, the provision explicitly provides protection for restricting access to content that providers “consider[] . . . objectionable,” ... granting significant subjective discretion.... Therefore, Vimeo is statutorily entitled to consider SOCE content objectionable and may restrict access to that content as it sees fit.

Bloomberg Equality reports on the decision.

California Church Not Exempt From Property Tax Assessed On Basis of Square Footage

In Valley Baptist Church v. City of San Rafael, (CA App., Feb. 26, 2021), a California state appellate court held that the "property taxation" exemption for property used exclusively for religious worship (California Constitution Art. XII, §3(f)) applies only to ad valorem taxes. Therefore plaintiff church was not exempt from the San Rafael's Paramedic Tax which is assessed on the basis of property square footage, not property value.

Cert Filed In Case On Curricular Treatment of Hinduism

A petition for certiorari (full text) was filed this week in the U.S. Supreme Court in California Parents for the Equalization of Educational Materials v. Torlakson,(cert. filed 2/16/2021). In the case,  the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal of a suit claiming that California's History-Social Science Standards and Framework incorrectly describe Hinduism and treat it negatively in relation to the treatment of other religions. (See prior posting.) The cert petition frames the question presented as:

Whether the Free Exercise Clause permits the government to single out a religion for disfavored treatment so long as it does not “substantially burden” religious exercise.

[Thanks to Glenn Katon for the lead.]

9th Circuit Rejects Church's Challenge On COVID Restrictions

In Gateway City Church v. Newsom, (9th Cir., Feb. 12, 2021), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a Santa Clara County, California COVID-19 Order that prohibits all indoor gatherings, including worship services. The court said in part:

The challenged ban on indoor “gatherings” ... applies equally to all indoor gatherings of any kind or type, whether public or private, religious or secular. The Directive, which appears to affect far more activities than most other jurisdictions’ health measures, does not “single out houses of worship” for worse treatment than secular activities.

Santa Clara County issued a press release announcing the decision.

Another Decision On California COVID Limits On Worship Services

In Gateway City Church v. Newsom, (ND CA, Jan. 29, 2021), a California federal district court, discussing recent 9th Circuit and Supreme Court precedents, upheld portions of COVID-19 state and county restrictions on worship services, while preliminarily enjoining other parts of the state's orders.  The court upheld the state prohibition on indoor worship in Tier I high risk areas. It also upheld the county's general prohibition on gatherings of all sorts. The court however enjoined enforcement of state 100- and 200- person capacity limits in Tier II and III recovery-- but allowed percentage-based capacity limits. Finally it enjoined restrictions on activities other than worship services in houses of worship.

Christian Student Group May Move Ahead With Damage Claim For School's Derecognition

In Roe v. San Jose Unified School District Board, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16633 (ND CA, Jan. 28, 2021), a California federal district court, while dismissing a number of plaintiffs' claims, permitted the Fellowship of Christian Athletes (FCA) to move ahead on an "as applied" challenge to the school district's nondiscrimination policies. Plaintiffs allege that schools used those policies as a pretext to revoke recognition of student FCA chapters because of their religious beliefs and their speech. At issue is FCA's Sexual Purity Policy that requires FCA leaders to resign their positions if they engage in extramarital sex or homosexual acts. The court held that claims of the individual plaintiffs should be dismissed because they cannot proceed under pseudonyms. It held that individual plaintiffs' claims for prospective relief are moot because they have graduated, and that FCA failed to plead organizational standing for prospective relief. It concluded, however, that claims for damages against defendants in their personal capacities (but not their official capacities) survive a motion to dismiss.

Church Again Asks Supreme Court To Invalidate California COVID Restrictions

In its continuing challenge to California's COVID-19 restrictions on worship services, a California church is again seeking an emergency injunction from the Supreme Court.  The application for an injunction (full text) in Harvest Rock Church, Inc. v. Newsom, (Sup. Ct., filed 1/26/2021) challenges the 9th Circuit's decision earlier this week upholding California's total ban on indoor worship services in highest risk (Tier I) areas, while striking down 100- and 200-person limits at places of indoor worship in Tier 2 and 3 areas. In December, the Supreme Court had remanded the case for further consideration. (See prior posting.) Liberty Counsel issued a press release announcing the filing of the latest application with the Supreme Court.

9th Circuit Again Upholds Some of California's Restrictions On Indoor Worship; Enjoins Others

In Harvest Rock Church v. Newsom, (9th Cir., Jan. 25, 2021), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, relying on the South Bay decision handed down by a different 9th Circuit panel three days earlier (see prior posting) enjoined California from enforcing its COVID-19 related 100- and 200-person limits at places of indoor worship. It however upheld the total ban on indoor worship services in higher risk areas. Judge O'Scannlain concurred specially, criticizing the South Bay decision and arguing that the total ban on indoor worship should also be enjoined. Orange County Register reports on the decision.

9th Circuit Upholds California's Temporary Ban On Indoor Worship Services

 In South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom, (9th Cir., Jan. 22, 2021), the U.S. 9th Circuit court of Appeals affirmed a California federal district court's denial of a preliminary injunction to a church that objects to the state's COVID-19 ban on indoor religious services. The court describes the current restrictions:

California permits unlimited attendance at outdoor worship services and deems clergy and faith-based streaming services “essential,” but has temporarily halted all congregate indoor activities, including indoor religious services, within portions of the state currently identified by objective measures as being at high risk....

South Bay argues that the current restrictions on indoor services prohibit congregants’ Free Exercise of their theology, which requires gathering indoors.

In upholding the state's requirement, the court said in part:

Notably, in response to the State’s mountain of scientific evidence, South Bay has not pointed to anything in the record to support the notion that the lesser restriction that it seeks—100% occupancy with a reliance solely on mask-wearing, social distancing, and sanitation measures—would be effective to meet California’s compelling interest in controlling community spread. South Bay’s self-serving assertion that it has experienced no incidence of the virus among its worshipers is entirely anecdotal and undermined by evidence of outbreaks in similarly situated places of worship.

The court concluded, however, that 100- and 200-person caps for later stages of recovery are unconstitutional "because California has imposed different capacity restrictions on religious services relative to non-religious activities and sectors."

Supreme Court Wil Hear Challenge To California Donor-Disclosure Requirement

The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday granted certiorari in Thomas More Law Center v. Becerra (Docket No. 19-255, cert. granted 1/8/2021) and Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Becerra (Docket No. 19-251, cert. grange 1/8/2021) (Order List), and consolidated the cases for oral argument.  At issue is a California administrative rule requiring non-profit organizations that wish to solicit tax deductible contributions in the state to file an annual report that includes an unredacted IRS Form 990 Schedule B. That Schedule contains the names and contributions of significant donors. Thomas More Law Center, which describes itself in its petition for certiorari as a non-profit organization that defends religious freedom, family values, and the sanctity of life, argues in its cert. petition:

For those associated with charities that speak on contentious matters—like Petitioner the Thomas More Law Center (the “Law Center”)—disclosing donor information to the Attorney General’s Registry poses an imminent danger of hate mail, violence, ostracization, and boycotts. Only the most stalwart supporters will give money under such a toxic cloud. Most will reasonably conclude that the risk of association is too great, with the result that groups who make the most threats will effectively shut down those with whom they disagree.

See prior related posting. SCOTUSblog case pages (1, 2) for the cases have links to all the pleadings and related materials.

9th Circuit Hears Oral Arguments in Harvest Rock Church Appeal

Yesterday, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments (video of arguments) in Harvest Rock Church v. Newsom. In the case, a California federal district court, on remand from the U.S. Supreme Court, upheld California's COVID restrictions on houses of worship. (See prior posting.) Plaintiffs then asked the 9th Circuit for an emergency injunction pending appeal. (Links to briefs and supplemental briefs filed in the 9th Circuit.) That motion was the subject of yesterday's arguments.

Court Again Refuses To Enjoin California's COVID Limits On Church Services

In a case in which the U.S. Supreme Court previously refused to grant injunctive relief, a California federal district court again denied a preliminary injunction against California's COVID orders to a church seeking to hold indoor services. In South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom, (SD CA, Dec. 21, 2020), the court said in part:

In drawing this difficult balance between religious liberty and public health, the Court must follow the higher courts’ precedents, when the precedents seem to change course as quickly as the various pandemic restrictions. Admittedly, this has been a rapidly evolving—and escalating—pandemic. And in this very case, the Supreme Court declined to intervene after the Court refused to enjoin California’s prior regulation. Now, by all measures, the pandemic is worse and more out of control in Southern California than when that decision was made. Nevertheless, the Court is tasked with deciding whether Chief Justice Roberts’ rationale for not intervening in this case has now “expired,” as Justice Gorsuch’s recent concurrence in another case suggests. See Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo...

California has carefully designed the different exemptions to match its goal of reducing community spread, based on a neutral, seven-factor risk analysis. The Court does not find that California’s Regional Stay at Home Order is underinclusive as to exceed the boundaries drawn by the First Amendment. Therefore, based on the record before the Court, Plaintiffs are not likely to show that the Regional Stay at Home Order restricts more than is necessary to advance the California’s compelling interest in reducing community spread.

Fox5 News reports on the decision.