Supreme Court Denies Review Of California Donor Disclosure Law

The U.S. Supreme Court yesterday denied certiorari in Center for Competitive Politics v. Harris, (Docket No. 15-152, cert. denied 11/9/2015). (Order List).  In the case, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld California's requirement that in order to solicit tax deductible contributions in the state, a charity or other non-profit must file a non-public annual report that includes an unredacted IRS Form 990 Schedule B, the names and contributions of significant donors. (See prior posting.) AP reports on the Supreme Court's action.

Churches Sue In Challenge To California Mandate For Health Insurance Abortion Coverage

In California yesterday, three churches filed  suit against the California Department of Managed Health Care (DMHC) to prevent enforcement against those who object on religious grounds of a requirement that most health insurance policies issued in California provide coverage for abortions.  The complaint (full text) in Foothill Church v. Rouillard, (ED CA, filed 10/16/2015) focuses on a letter (full text) sent to insurance companies last year reminding them that

the Knox-Keene Health Care Service Plan Act of 1975 ... requires the provision of basic health care services and the California Constitution prohibits health plans from discriminating against women who choose to terminate a pregnancy. Thus, all health plans must treat maternity services and legal abortion neutrally.

ADF issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit and tracing prior administrative complaints about DMHC's action.

Pregnancy Centers Sue To Enjoin California's New Mandatory Disclosure Law

Last Friday, California Governor Jerry Brown signed into law AB 775 , the Reproductive FACT Act which requires reproductive health clinics to disseminate a notice to all clients stating that California has public programs that provide immediate free or low-cost access to comprehensive family planning services, prenatal care, and abortion, for eligible women.  On Saturday, the Pacific Justice Institute (press release) on behalf of two religiously affiliated non-profit pregnancy counseling centers filed a lawsuit seeking to enjoin enforcement of the new law.  The complaint (full text) in A Woman's Friend Pregnancy Resource Center v. Harris, (ED CA, filed 10/10/2015) contends that the new law infringes plaintiffs' free speech and free exercise rights by mandating speech inconsistent with their religious convictions.  The Sacramento Bee reports on the lawsuit.

Challenge To City Council Invocation Policy Is Moot

In Beaton v. City of Eureka, (CA App, Sept. 21, 2015), a California Court of Appeals dismissed as moot a state constitutional challenge to the city of Eureka's Invocation Policy adopted in 2012.  That policy required invocations at city council meetings to be non-sectarian.  In 2014, after a 9th Circuit opinion holding that sectarian prayers at city council meetings do not violate the Establishment Clause of the California or federal constitutions, Eureka adopted a revised Invocation Policy.  The challenge to the original policy is moot and the court refused to rule on the broader question of whether legislative prayer in all forms violates the California constitution.

Remaining Challenges To California's Ban On Reparative Therapy For Minors Dismissed

In 2013, the 9th Circuit rejected a facial free speech challenge by mental health providers to California's ban on engaging in sexual orientation change efforts with patients under 18. It also rejected a parental rights claim.  (See prior posting.) Now in Pickup v. Brown, (ED CA, Sept. 15, 2015), a California federal district court dismissed remaining challenges to the statute.  Finding the law is neutral and generally applicable, the court dismissed a facial Free Exercise challenge. The court also rejected, with leave to file an amended complaint, plaintiffs' "as applied" free speech challenge.

9th Circuit: Indian Tribe's Challenge To California Geothermal Leases Can Proceed

In Pit River Tribe v. Bureau of Land Management, (9th Cir., July 20, 2015), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district court's dismissal of an Indian tribe's challenge to the Bureau of Land Management's extension of 26 unproven geothermal leases in northeastern California’s Medicine Lake Highlands. Several environmental groups were also plaintiffs.  The Pit River Tribe contends that development on geothermal leases will interfere with its members use of the area for spiritual and traditional cultural purposes. The Court held that plaintiffs' claims include a challenge under a provision of the Geothermal Steam Act that requires the BLM to conduct environmental, historical, and cultural review under the National Environmental Policy Act and the National Historic Preservation Act. Sacramento Bee reports on the decision.

California's Governor Signs New Law Ending Religious and Personal Belief Exemptions To Immunization Requirements

California Governor Jerry Brown yesterday signed SB 277 (full text), a law requiring school students (other than those being home-schooled) to be immunized against ten specific diseases, and removing California's prior personal belief and religious belief exemptions.  Under the new law, only medical exemptions, certified by a licensed physician, are permitted. The personal belief exemption, however, is preserved for any additional diseases that the Department of Health by regulation adds to the ten listed in the statute. In his signing statement (full text), Gov. Brown said in part:

The science is clear that vaccines dramatically protect children against a number of infectious and dangerous diseases.

 Los Angeles Times reports on the governor's action.

California AG Need Not Process Unconstitutional Anti-Gay Ballot Proposal

In Harris v. McLaughlin, (CA Super. Ct., June 22, 2015), a California trial court judge entered a default judgment allowing California's attorney general to ignore the statutory requirement to prepare a circulating title and summary for a proposed anti-gay ballot measure that had been filed.  These steps are required before the proponent can attempt to obtain the required number of signatures. The measure, the so-called Sodomite Suppression Act, would have barred "sodomistic propaganda" and called for the killing of anyone who "willingly touches another person of the same gender for purposes of sexual gratification" (see prior posting). The court held that the proposal "is patently unconstitutional on its face" and that any action by the attorney general moving ahead with the proposal "would be inappropriate, waste public resources, generate unnecessary divisions among the public, and tend to mislead the electorate." Huntington Beach Independent reports on the decision.

9th Circuit: State AG Can Require Disclosure of IRS Form 990 List of Donors

In a decision handed down early last month, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld California's requirement that in order to solicit tax deductible contributions in the state, a charity or other non-profit must file an annual report that includes an unredacted IRS Form 990 Schedule B, the names and contributions of significant donors.  In Center for Competitive Politics v. Harris, (9th Cir., May 1, 2015), the court held that the organization challenging the requriement had not shown that its donors would experience threats or harassment because of the disclosure requirement.  It also rejected the argument that Congress had intended to protect the privacy of Schedule B information. BNA Daily Report for Executives (subscription required) reported on the decision this week.

Court Defers To Ecclesiastical Decision In Church Control Lawsuit

Kim v. The True Church Members of the Holy Hill Community Church, (Cal. App., May 21, 2015), involves a dispute between two factions of a Los Angeles congregation that was part of a presbytery of the Korean American Presbytery Church.  The congregation owns valuable property on Los Angeles' Sunset Boulevard.  The dispute involved attempts by one faction to excommunicate members of the other and an attempt to withdraw the congregation from the parent church body.  The California state appeals court affirmed the trial court's decision deferring to the determination by the parent body of the congregation.

Suit Claims Drug Treatment Center Uses Scientology Rituals

Yesterday's Santa Cruz Sentinel reports on a lawsuit filed last month in a California federal district court against Narconon drug rehabilitation centers (and related entities) alleging that they falsely represent their success rate and are used to recruit people into the Church of Scientology. The class action complaint (full text) in Burgoon v. Narconon of Northern California, (ND CA, filed 3.25/2015), alleges false advertising, deceptive trade practices, negligent misrepresentations and breach of contract.  Among the key allegations in the complaint is:

Defendants represented, through their advertising and other express representations, that the drug rehabilitation services they offered were “secular” and not associated with any religion when, in fact, their treatment program required the Plaintiff and Class Members to study Scientology and engage in Scientology religious rituals as “treatment.”

A similar lawsuit was filed in Michigan in January against a Narconon Center there. (See prior posting.)

Plaintiffs Say LA County Continues To Use Seal With Cross In Violation of Agreement

According to the Los Angeles Times,, yesterday a group of Christian, Jewish and Muslim leaders in Los Angeles filed papers in federal court alleging that Los Angeles County is violating an agreement it entered in connection with a pending lawsuit challenging the new design of the county seal.  In February 2014, the religious leaders, represented by the ACLU, sued challenging the redesign that added a cross atop the depiction of the San Gabriel Mission that is already on the county seal. (See prior posting.)  Last June, the county agreed to stop using the new seal while the litigation was pending.  In yesterday's motion, plaintiffs claim that the seal containing the cross is still on the county supervisor's website, a cover sheet for a recent Board of Supervisors meeting transcript and a program for the county's "Women of the Year" luncheon.  The county contends that all of these are materials that were in place before the June agreement. The ACLU says that materials for every new Board of Supervisor's meeting involves a new use of the county seal.

California AG Asks Court To Allow Her To Reject Virulently Anti-Gay Initiative Measure

Religion News Service reports that California Attorney General Kamala Harris this week asked a state court to allow her to refuse to process a virulently anti-gay (and likely unconstitutional) initiative petition filed in proper form last month with the Attorney General's office.  Harris asked for an order so that she will not be required to issue a title and ballot summary for the proposal which could get on the ballot only if the sponsors were able to collect over 365,000 valid signatures. The initiative measure (full text) is titled the "Sodomite Suppression Act."  It begins by describing sodomy as "a monstrous evil that Almighty God ...commands us to suppress...." Not only would the Act outlaw "sodomistic propaganda" and bar "sodomites" from public office and public employment, but it also calls for "death by bullets to the head or by any other convenient method" for anyone who "willingly touches another person of the same gender for purposes of sexual gratification." The punishment for distributing sodomistic propaganda would be a $1 million fine, 10 years in prison, and/ or expulsion from the state of California.

Supreme Court Denies California Prop 8 Backers Review of Contribution Disclosure Law

The U.S. Supreme Court today denied certiorari in ProtectMarriage.com v. Padilla, (Docket No. 14-434, cert. denied 3/2/2015) (Order List).  In the case, the 9th Circuit in a 2-1 decision (full text) rejected a challenge by backers of California's Proposition 8 to the state's campaign contribution disclosure requirements. Challengers had argued that contributors to the campaign against same-sex marriage had been harassed.

Suit Challenges County Resolution Recognizing Christian Pregnancy Services Organization

The ACLU of Northern California earlier this week announced the filing of a state court lawsuit against the county of Calaveras, California on behalf of several residents and taxpayers who object to a resolution passed by the county Board of Supervisors.  The Resolution (full text) as passed in July 2014 recognizes the local Door of Hope pregnancy center "for serving the women of Calaveras County and helping to save the lives of our most vulnerable children." The complaint (full text) in Lavagetto v. County of Calaveras, (CA Super. Ct., filed 2/13/2015) objects to language in the resolution recognizing Door of Hope, among other things, for "enlighten[ing] and strengthen[ing]the lives of women and young women in Calaveras County by inviting them to test and see for themselves the many blessings that can come from living the teachings of Christ." Plaintiffs contend that the resolution favors one religon over another in violation of provisions in the California constitution which bar the establishment of religion and the expenditure of public funds to aid any religious sect.

Free Exercise Challenge To Marijuana Seizure Rejected

In Jenkins v. Micks, (ND CA, Feb. 5, 2014), a California federal magistrate judge dismissed a civil rights action alleging that plaintiff's free exercise rights were infringed when Del Norte, California sheriff's officers seized marijuana allegedly authorized for medical use.  The court said:

Plaintiff provides a discussion of the use of cannabis by different cultures and religions, including the Native American Church. He states that he believes that for him, "Cannabis enhances the truth of the universe," that this plant is a "beneficial and life sustaining herb," and that "by consuming Cannabis [he] is communing with nature."... He also expresses his views regarding the regulation of Cannabis by governmental entities, and some of his political and religious beliefs. No where, however, does Plaintiff allege that he has a central religious belief or practice that is burdened by the criminalization of marijuana. The court finds, therefore, that Plaintiff has failed to state a free exercise of religion claim under the First Amendment. 

California Legislators Urge End To Vaccination Exemptions For Religious and Personal Beliefs

With the number of measles cases in California since December reaching 99, California's two U.S. Senators-- Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein-- yesterday sent a letter (full text) to the state's Health and Human Services Secretary urging that state religious and personal belief exemptions to vaccination requirements be eliminated.  The letter reads in part:

California’s current law allows two options for parents to opt out of vaccine requirements for school and daycare: they must either make this decision with the aid of a health professional, or they can simply check a box claiming that they have religious objections to medical care. We think both options are flawed, and oppose even the notion of a medical professional assisting to waive a vaccine requirement unless there is a medical reason, such as an immune deficiency.

The Wall Street Journal reported yesterday that State Sen. Richard Pan, a pediatrician, plans to introduce legislation to end these exemptions, though he is open to discussion about keeping the religious exemption.

California Judicial Ethics Code Changed To Bar Judges From Membership In Boy Scouts

As reported by the Los Angeles Times, on Wednesday, the California Supreme Court approved a recommendation of an ethics advisory committee to strengthen the prohibition in California Code of Judicial Ethics, Sec. 2.C. that prohibits judges from holding membership in any organization that discriminates on the basis of race, sex, gender, religion, national origin, ethnicity, or sexual orientation. Previous exceptions for membership in military organizations or nonprofit youth organizations (such as the Boy Scouts) were eliminated in the recently approved change. However an exception for membership in discriminatory religious organizations remains in the Code. Here is the full text of the ethics code as amended.

Churches File Complaint With HHS Over California Abortion Coverage Requirement

Following up on a similar complaint filed last month on behalf employees of Loyola Marymount University (see prior posting), two advocacy groups filed a complaint (full text) last week with the Department of Health and Human Services on behalf of seven churches and a church-run school objecting to recent California actions requiring all group health plans to cover elective abortions. The complaint contends that the churches' health plans were changed without their consent to comply with the California Department of Managed Health Care's directive interpreting the scope of "basic health care services."  The churches argue that the California requirement violates the federal Hyde-Weldon Conscience Protection Amendment (Sec. 507 of the 2014 Consolidated Appropriations Act) that prohibits states from discriminating against a health care entity because it does not provide abortion coverage. They say that denying approval of their plans that do not cover abortions amounts to illegal discrimination. Alliance Defending Freedom issued a press release announcing the filing of the Oct. 9 complaint.

Complaint Filed With HHS Over California Requirement That Insurance Policies Cover Elective Abortions

Last week, seven employees of the religiously-affiliated Loyola Marymount University filed a complaint (full text) with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services objecting to a decision by the California Department of Managed Health Care requiring all private health care plans in the state to cover elective abortions. The complaint contends that the state's decision depriving them of a plan that omits elective abortion coverage violates the Hyde-Weldon Conscience Protection Amendment (Sec. 507 of the 2014 Consolidated Appropriations Act). That provision prohibits states from discriminating against a health care entity because it does not provide abortion coverage. A press release announced the filing of the complaint by Life Legal Defense Foundation and Alliance Defending Freedom.