State Funding of Only Secular Home-School Materials Upheld

In Woolard v. Thurmond, (ED CA, June 10, 2024), a California federal district court rejected challenges by parents of children enrolled in home study programs through California public charter schools to the requirement that state funds be used only for secular instructional materials. Parents contended that refusing to fund faith-based curricular materials denied families equal access to state benefits solely because of their religious nature.  The court disagreed, saying in part:

The state action of failing to provide requested religious curriculum is not an infringement on Plaintiffs’ freedom of exercise.  As confirmed in Plaintiffs’ own cited case, Carson v. Makin, states are allowed to provide a strictly secular education in its public schools....  A strictly secular education does not substantially burden the Plaintiffs’ practice of religion....

This case involves California’s laws and regulations for state funded public schools, not private schools.  There are no “public benefits” in the form of grants or otherwise that the state is excluding Plaintiffs from....

UCLA Students Sue University For Failing to Protect Jewish Students

Three Jewish students at UCLA yesterday filed a civil rights lawsuit in a California federal district court alleging that the University, by tolerating widespread antisemitic behavior, has violated a lengthy list of state and federal statutory and constitutional provisions.  The complaint (full text) alleges in part:

1.  The University of California, Los Angeles ..., has deteriorated into a hotbed of antisemitism. This rampant anti-Jewish environment burst into view on October 8, 2023, the day after Hamas terrorists attacked Israel....

2. In the wake of these horrifying events, UCLA should have taken steps to ensure that its Jewish students were safe and protected from harassment and undeterred in obtaining full access to campus facilities. Instead, UCLA officials routinely turned their backs on Jewish students, aiding and abetting a culture that has allowed calls for the annihilation of the Jewish people, Nazi symbolism, and religious slurs to go unchecked....

4. Starting on April 25, 2024, and continuing until May 2, 2024, UCLA allowed a group of activists to set up barricades in the center of campus and establish an encampment that blocked access to critical educational infrastructure on campus....

6. With the knowledge and acquiescence of UCLA officials, the activists enforced what was effectively a “Jew Exclusion Zone,” segregating Jewish students and preventing them from accessing the heart of campus, including classroom buildings and the main undergraduate library....

11. Yet even as the activists continued to enforce the Jew Exclusion Zone, Defendants not only failed to marshal resources to intervene— they adopted a policy facilitating the Jew Exclusion Zone.....

19. The administration’s cowardly abdication of its duty to ensure unfettered access to UCLA’s educational opportunities and to protect the Jewish community is not only immoral—it is illegal.  

20. Specifically, it violates numerous federal and state constitutional guarantees, including the Equal Protection Clause, the Free Exercise Clause, and the freedom of speech.  

21. And it contravenes the basic guarantee of equal access to educational facilities that receive federal funding, as well as numerous other statutory guarantees of equality and fair treatment.

Fox 11 reports on the lawsuit. Becket Fund issued a press release announcing the filing of the suit.

 

Lifeguard Sues L.A. County Over Required Flag Raising for Pride Month

A suit was filed last week in a California federal district court by plaintiff who is employed as a lifeguard by Los Angeles County objecting to the requirement that he raise the Progress Pride Flag at his lifeguard station during June which has been designated as LGBTQ+ Pride month. The complaint (full text) in Little v. Los Angeles County Fire Department, (CD CA, filed 5/24/2024), alleges in part:

Captain Little is ... an evangelical Christian with beliefs on marriage, family, sexual behavior and identity that align with the traditional and orthodox biblical-social teachings....

... While Captain Little understands that the government can speak its own messages, and thus may promote Pride Month, he believes that he cannot personally do so by raising the Progress Pride Flag. Doing so would be to personally participate in, espouse, and promote messages contrary to his sincerely held religious beliefs, similar to how many courts have recognized that Jehovah’s Witnesses may not salute or pledge allegiance to the flag of any nation or state....

The complaint alleges that requiring him to raise the Pride Flag, refusing to provide him with a religious accommodation and taking retaliatory action against him violate Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the California Fair Employment and Housing Law, the Free Exercise Clause of the U.S. and California Constitutions and the Free Speech clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Thomas More Society issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit. Los Angeles Times has additional details.

UPDATE: According to a June 5. 2024 press release from the Thomas More Society, Los Angeles County has agreed to give plaintiff a partial accommodation by not requiring him to raise the Progress Pride Flag as part of his job for the remainder of June.

Civil Court Must Accept Disciplinary Actions by Hierarchical Church's Parent Body

In San Jose Korean Central Church v. Korean Evangelical Church of America, (CA App., May 29, 2024), a California state appellate court applied the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine, holding that a trial court was required to accept as binding internal disciplinary judgments by a church's parent body, Korean Evangelical Church of America (KECA).  At issue was an attempt by a local congregation, San Jose Korean Central Church (SJKCC) to disaffiliate from KECA. As explained by the court:

... [T]he board of SJKCC, led by its senior pastor, Francis Chung, purportedly approved new bylaws and voted to disaffiliate itself from KECA.  One week later, at a special meeting set by the board, the congregation ... approved the new bylaws and voted in favor of SJKCC’s disaffiliation from KECA.  Prior to these actions, however, KECA had issued a disciplinary judgment suspending Chung from performing his duties as an SJKCC board member.  KECA therefore contended that the purported actions taken by the SJKCC board, with Chung acting as its chairman ... were void.  As a result of Chung’s disobedience of the judgment of suspension, ... KECA entered a further disciplinary judgment revoking Chung’s SJKCCs pastorship and excommunicating him from KECA.  Shortly before that date, ... KECA entered a disciplinary judgment against two Chung allies, Ki Soo Kim, Jung Young Lee, removing their status as elders and as members of the SJKCC board....

... [I]t is plain that the May 26, 2019 judgment suspending Francis Chung—being a disciplinary action taken by the national hierarchical church, KECA, through the Judgment Committee of its Northern California District Conference—was an internal ecclesiastical decision that was not subject to review by the civil judicial system.  The rule of judicial deference to ecclesiastical matters applies not only to decisions related to matters of religious doctrine; it “also [applies to] issues of membership, clergy credentials and discipline, and church polity and administration.... The rule of deference to internal decisions of clergy discipline applies irrespective of whether the action taken was “by a procedure contrary to church law and regulations, and for improper, false and fraudulent motives.” ...

Churches' Challenges To Day Care Licensing Dismissed

In Foothills Christian Ministries v. Johnson, (SD CA, May 20, 2024), a California federal district court dismissed challenges by three churches to the California Child Day Care Facilities Act. The churches wish to open day cares but object to the requirement that they obtain a license to do so. The opinion relates to plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint after a prior dismissal. (See prior posting.) The court said in part:

... [I]ndignation is not injury and Plaintiffs have provided no further grounds for standing to challenge the licensure requirement itself beyond that they do not want a preschool that operates at the pleasure of DSS through the State’s licensing scheme...

The court also dismissed claims relating to removal of a preschool director and actions against it for refusing to comply with a past masking mandate over the objection of parents to the mandate. Plaintiffs' Establishment Clause, free speech and due process claims were dismissed without prejudice.

Suit For Misappropriating Church Funds Not Precluded by Church Autonomy Doctrine

In Buck v. Peace Apostolic Church, Inc., (CA Super. Ct., March 8, 2024), a California trial court rejected the contention that the church autonomy or ecclesiastical abstention doctrine precludes the court from adjudicating a claim that two church officers and directors improperly spent church funds.  The court said in part:

The First Amendment does not immunize the Church or the individual defendants from illegal acts that apply equally to everyone, religious or not. The Plaintiffs alleged and proved that Defendants committed fraud and engaged in false advertising. Defendants solicited donations from the public promising that “no part of the income or assets of this corporation shall ever inure to the benefit of any director, officer, or member thereof or to the benefit of any private person.”... Prince used her position in the church and the representations made by her and by the church to enrich herself. While Brown did not enrich herself, she facilitated the enrichment of her son, Howard Woods. The defendants cannot take money based on a representation that it would be used for charitable purposes and church mission and use it for personal benefit. That's not internal church governance. That's fraud. The activities that occurred in that case are not protected by the First Amendment.... 

On December 19, 2023, the Court ordered injunctive relief. In part, PAC was ordered to post warnings that read “WARNING: A Jury has found that Tamara Swancy-Prince, Priscilla Woods Brown and Peace Apostolic Church have improperly misappropriated donations.” PAC objects to the injunction arguing that the Court misapplied the law.... The Court is simply not convinced that similar abuses won’t recur.

DOJ Sues California Prisons for Failing to Accommodate Officers' Religious Beard Requirements

The Department of Justice this week filed suit in a California federal district court seeking to enjoin the California correctional system from requiring its peace officers to be clean shaven in contravention of their sincerely held religious beliefs.  The problem arose for Muslim and Sikh correctional employees when they were required to meet the conditions for wearing tight-fitting respirators.  The complaint (full text) in United States v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, (ED CA, filed 3/25/2024), contends that the Department of Corrections has not attempted to accommodate the peace officers' concerns by offering them positions in the Department that do not require wearing of respirators or by offering alternative respirators that could be worn with beards.  The complaint alleges in part:

The Charging Parties allege that CDCR has discriminated against them on the basis of religion in violation of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(a)(2), by: a. Failing to provide a religious accommodation;  b. failing to adequately engage in the interactive process with the Charging Parties, including by failing to make good faith efforts to consider whether alternative accommodations will eliminate the conflict between the Charging Parties’ religious beliefs and CDCR’s clean  shaven policy; and c. failing to demonstrate that implementing the alternative accommodations proposed by the Charging Parties would pose an undue hardship.

The Department of Justice issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit. AP reports on the lawsuit.

California's Removal of Personal Belief Exemption from School Immunization Requirement Is Upheld

 In Royce v. Bonta, (SD CA, March 25, 2024), a California federal district court upheld the constitutionality of a law enacted by California in response to a 2015 measles outbreak. The law removed the personal belief exemption, but retained the medical exemption, from the requirement that school children enrolled in public and private schools be immunized against nine specific diseases.  The law also gives immigrant and homeless children a grace period in which to prove compliance with the immunization requirement. The court rejected parents free exercise challenge to the law, concluding that the law is neutral and generally applicable, saying in part:

In considering California’s interest in the health and safety of students and the public at large, the risk posed by SB 277’s enumerated exemptions does not qualify as comparable to the risk posed by a personal belief exemption....  Accordingly, SB 277 is generally applicable....

There is a legitimate State interest in protecting the health and safety of students and the public at large, and SB 277’s repeal of California’s prior personal belief exemption is rationally related to furthering that interest.  Because Plaintiffs fail to allege facts from which an inference can be drawn to hold otherwise, SB 277 survives rational basis review.  Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Free Exercise claim fails as a matter of law.

National Guard General Seeks $1.6M Damages for Antisemitic Harassment and Termination

A suit charging antisemitic discrimination was filed last week in a California state trial court by a retired Brigadier General in the Air National Guard against his former supervisor as well as against the state of California, the California Military Department and California Governor Gavin Newsom seeking $1.6 million in damages and injunctive relief. The complaint (full text) in Magram v. Beevers, (CA Super. Ct., filed 1/24/2024), alleges in part:

This case is an action for Religious Discrimination, Harassment, and Wrongful Termination in violation of California Government Code § 12940, and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) arising out of Magram’s 37-plus years of employment with the California Air Guard and United States Air Force, which includes 14-plus years as a full time officer on State Active Duty with the CMD. Beevers discriminated against Magram by harassing and wrongfully terminating Magram because of Magram’s Jewish faith, Jewish heritage, and Magram’s complaints about Beevers’ anti-Semitic discrimination and harassment. Beevers’ discrimination against Magram violated FEHA and California public policy. The State of California, CMD, and Governor Newsom were aware of Beevers’ anti-Semitism, Beevers’ anti-Semitic campaign, and Beevers’ retaliation against Magram. The State California, CMD and Governor Newsom facilitated and ratified Beevers’ anti-Semitism and Beevers’ anti-Semitic campaign against Magram.

Stars and Stripes reports on the lawsuit.

Court Rules On Class Action Certification of Claims by Religious Objectors to Covid Vaccine

 In Chavez v. San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District, (ND CA, Jan. 28,2024), a California federal district court refused to certify as a class action a suit on behalf of employees of the Transit District (BART) who were denied a religious exemption or accommodation from BART's Covid vaccine mandate. The court concluded that the disparate factual issues underlying the claims under Title VII and California's Fair Employment and Housing Act means that common issues of law or fact do not predominate. The court said in part:

Plaintiffs submitted nearly as many systems of belief and grounds for objection as they did applications. Whether or not any one request rests on a bona fide religious belief presents an individual inquiry that requires the consideration of evidence pertaining only to the response in question....

BART’s undue hardship showing—likely to be the dispositive issue in this action—also rests on individual factual issues....

It similarly concluded that common issues did not predominate in plaintiffs' First Amendment Free Exercise Claim, saying in part:

Plaintiffs cite myriad scripture and personal experiences, CDC VARS data and concerns regarding health consequences ... among others, as grounds for objection. Many identify non-vaccination as a core religious tenant, some characterize their decision as a “personal choice,” a number discuss medical concerns.... [T]he need to determine whether plaintiffs have met the bona fide religious belief threshold generates “an unmanageable variety of individual . . . factual issues,” and forecloses on class certification....

Finally, the court concluded that plaintiffs also failed to meet the requirement that a class action is the superior way to adjudicate the claims.

In UnifySCC v. Cody, (ND CA, Jan. 29, 2024), a different Northern District of California judge certified a class action (except as to damages) on behalf of 463 individuals who obtained a religious exemption from the Covid vaccine mandate of San Jose County but who, because they were in high risk roles, were placed on administrative leave until reassignments or transfers to lower risk positions became available.  The court ruled:

This Class is certified with respect to the following common questions regarding Defendants’ liability: 

1. Whether Defendants violated Plaintiffs’ right to free exercise and equal protection of the law by prioritizing medical exemptions over religious exemptions in high-risk settings; 

2. Whether Defendants’ Risk Tier System violated the Free Exercise Clause and Equal Protection Clause because it relegated Plaintiffs and the Class members to unpaid leave but allowed some unvaccinated or non-boosted employees to continue to work; 

3. Whether the County’s religious exemption and/or accommodation procedure was either non-neutral or not generally applicable such that it constitutes an individualized assessment ... and is thereby subject to strict scrutiny; 

4. Whether Defendants provided Individual Plaintiffs and the Class members with reasonable accommodation as required under FEHA and Title VII; and 

5. Whether Defendants violated the Establishment Clause by demonstrating hostility towards religion. 

The Class is NOT certified with respect to questions of damages.

Church May Move Ahead with RFRA Challenge to Limits on Its Use of Ayahuasca

In Church of the Celestial Heart v. Garland, (ED CA, Jan. 9, 2023), a California federal magistrate judge refused to dismiss a suit under RFRA challenging the application of the Controlled Substances Act to use of sacramental tea by a church whose beliefs are based on the Santo Daime religion. The court concluded that plaintiffs had adequately alleged that application of the CSA would substantially burden a sincere religious exercise, saying in part:

Similar to part of Defendants’ arguments above relating to standing, and additionally the alternative request for stay below, Defendants argue under 12(b)(6) that the complaint fails to state a claim because, fundamentally, all of Plaintiffs’ grievances stem from their failure to obtain, much less apply for, a registration through DEA’s exemption process. Defendants argue that to prevail on the RFRA claim, Plaintiffs must demonstrate how DEA’s exemption process substantially burdens their allegedly sincere exercise of religion, and Plaintiffs have not attempted to plead such burden.

The Court rejects this argument....

The court also refused to stay proceedings and require the Church to apply for a religious exemption from the Drug Enforcement Administration before reaching a decision on plaintiff's claims. 

Jewish Groups Sue Over Berkeley Law Student Organizations' Antisemitic Policies

Suit was filed yesterday in a California federal district court against the University of California at Berkely and Berkeley Law School challenging growing antisemitic discrimination and harassment on campus. The complaint (full text) in Louis D. Brandeis Center, Inc. v. Regents of the University of California, (ND CA, filed 11/28/2023), alleges that policies of law student organizations violate the Equal Protection and Free Exercise Clauses, violates the §1981 right to contract and violates Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The complaint alleges in part:

4. In spite of the recognition of anti-Zionism as a form of anti-Semitism, no fewer than 23 Berkeley Law student organizations have enacted policies to discriminate against and exclude Jewish students, faculty, and scholars. For example: 

• To be a member of Women of Berkeley Law, the Queer Caucus at Berkeley, or the Asian Pacific American Law Students Association, Jewish students must accede to the groups' support of the Boycott Divestment and Sanctions movement, which seeks to dismantle the modern State of Israel; 

• In order to volunteer to provide pro bono legal services through a number of Berkeley Law Legal Services organizations, Jewish students must undergo a "Palestine 101" training program that emphasizes the illegitimacy of the State of Israel; 

• And to speak to any of these student organizations, invited speakers must first repudiate Zionism under a bylaw that prohibits speakers who hold Zionist views (the "Exclusionary Bylaw"). In fact, the Berkeley Journal of Gender, Law, and Justice, goes one step further, prohibiting Zionists not only from speaking to its members but from publishing in its pages. 

5. Under these policies, Jewish students, faculty, and guest speakers must deny a central part of their cultural, ancestral heritage and a fundamental tenet of their faith in order to be eligible for the same opportunities Berkeley accords to others....

118.  Specifically, Defendants have selectively chosen not to enforce Berkeley's all-comers policy and Policy on Nondiscrimination against student organizations in the Law School and the undergraduate campus that have discriminated against or excluded Jewish members of the school community from participating in organizations, programs, and activities. For similar reasons, Defendants' decision not to enforce the Policy on Nondiscrimination against these groups where they refuse to accept Jewish speakers is unlawful.,,,

Politico reports on the lawsuit.

Kapparot Protesters Lose Suit Against City

In Karlan v. City of Los Angeles, (CA App., Nov. 27, 2023), a California state appellate court affirmed the dismissal of a lawsuit brought by protesters who objected to an Orthodox synagogue's pre-Yom Kippur kapparot ritual in which chickens are killed and their carcasses are discarded.  According to the court:

The complaint alleged the City abused its discretion and endorsed the exercise of religion by refusing to enforce Penal Code section 597, which prohibits the intentional and malicious killing of animals, against Kapparot practitioners. The complaint also alleged violations of the Tom Bane Civil Rights Acts ... and the Ralph Civil Rights Act of 1976... against Captain Vernon for his threats to arrest appellants if they used a projector or amplified sound during their protest....

The order appellants seek in this case—“to compel [the City] ‘to make enforcement decisions without regard to religion’”—would control the manner in which the City exercises its discretion to enforce criminal laws. This type of order is barred under the rule codified in Civil Code section 3369....

Appellants here fail to demonstrate how the City acted unreasonably and arbitrarily. Appellants admit their purpose in filing this action was to obtain a ruling as to whether “religious motivation [can lawfully] create[ ] an exemption from prosecution” under Penal Code section 597. Appellants’ pursuit of a definitive ruling means the issue remained unsettled at the time the City made its choice not to enforce the law....

... Appellants identify no allegation in which Captain Vernon threatened them with violence beyond his threats of arrest. Without more, appellants have failed to plead sufficient facts to establish violations under the Bane and Ralph Act....

Appellants finally contend ... violation of the Establishment Clause..... Raised for the first time on appeal, appellants contend they have taxpayer standing to assert this claim. Appellants’ failure to present this theory in the trial court and adequately brief the issue on appeal has forfeited the argument....

Inclusion of "Caste" In Antidiscrimination Policy Does Not Violate Establishment Clause

In Kumar v. Koester, (CD CA, Nov. 21, 2023, a California federal district court rejected an Establishment Clause challenge to the inclusion of "caste" in California State University's Discrimination, Harassment and Retaliation Policy. The Policy includes in its anti-discrimination ban a prohibition on discrimination based on "Race or Ethnicity (including color, caste, or ancestry)". Plaintiffs-- two Hindu professors-- contend that the Policy defines Hinduism as including a caste system and amounts to government disapproval of Hinduism.  In rejecting these contentions, the court said in part:

Plaintiffs argue that the CFA [California Faculty Association] and CSSA [California State Student Association] Resolutions demonstrate anti-Hindu sentiments. And because Defendant considered its stakeholders' input when amending the Policy, Defendant, in turn, expressed disapproval of Hinduism when it included the word "caste" in the Policy.

Plaintiffs' argument fails for two reasons. First, Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that CFA or CSSA speak for Defendant.... Plaintiffs do not offer any evidence that the Workgroup inappropriately considered the two Resolutions amongst the large amount of feedback it received from a wide array of CSU stakeholders....

Second, Plaintiffs' argument fails because the resolutions do not express anti-Hindu sentiments. To be sine, the Resolutions clearly denounce caste discrimination that occurs in South Asian societies and CFA's resolution explicitly references the presence of caste discrimination in "the Hindu religion."... But CFA's resolution does not link caste discrimination to Hinduism exclusively.... [Its] description of "caste" recognizes caste discrimination as a social ill that permeates South Asian culture and society....

Just as Plaintiffs fail to show that the Policy disapproves of Hinduism, they also fail to demonstrate that the Policy defines Hindu doctrines.

The court also dismissed plaintiffs' due process challenges for lack of standing. 

Ban on California's Publicly Funded Home School Program Covering Faith-Based Instruction Challenged

California's public charter school program includes schools that fund independent study home schooling. Parents may use state funds for secular educational materials, but not for religious materials.  A school staff member must approve materials purchased with state funds and must periodically review work samples to assure that state educational standards are met. California Constitution Art. IX, Sec. 8 prohibits the teaching of religious doctrine in public schools, and the California Education Code requires charter schools to be non-sectarian. Suit was filed this week in a California federal district court seeking an injunction that will allow parents to spend instructional funds for faith-based materials and will require schools to accept work samples that derive from a faith-based curriculum.  The complaint (full text) in Woolard v. Thurmond, (ED CA, filed 10/11/2023), alleges that applying state law to prevent disbursement of instructional funds for faith-based materials and refusal to accept faith-based work samples violates plaintiffs Free Exercise and Free Speech rights. First Liberty Institute issued a press release announcing the filling of the lawsuit.

California Governor Vetoes Bill Explicitly Barring Caste Discrimination

Yesterday, California Governor Gavin Newsome vetoed Senate Bill 403 (veto message). The bill would have explicitly outlawed discrimination on the basis of caste. The Governor's message said that caste discrimination is already prohibited by current law that bars discrimination, among other things, on the basis of race, color, religion, ancestry and national origin. As reported by Reuters, opponents of the bill contend that it broadly paints the Hindu and South Asian communities as being discriminatory.

Suit Challenges Adoption of Ethnic Studies Courses That Contain Anti-Jewish Materials

Suit was filed last week in a California state trial court by several Jewish groups who contend that the ethnic studies curriculum adopted by the Santa Ana Unified School District Board of Education includes antisemitic and anti-Israel content.  The complaint (full text) in Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law v. Santa Ana Unified School District Board of Education, (CA Super. Ct., filed 9/8/2023), alleges violations of California's open meeting law ("Brown Act") that prevented adequate participation in school board meetings by members of the Jewish community.  The complaint alleges both inadequate notice of meetings and harassment during the meetings.  The complaint alleges in part:

Comments made by members of the public during the May 23, 2023 meeting included classic antisemitic tropes as well as threatening and violent language against Jews and Israelis. Furthermore, audience members hissed as the names of Jewish attendees were called, applause broke out in response to antisemitic slurs, and during a presentation by two Jewish high school students, Board meeting attendees shouted, “you’re racists” and “you’re killers.” A Jewish student reported being followed to her car and harassed by a meeting attendee, and that SAUSD’s security was unable to provide sufficient protection or support.

ADL issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

9th Circuit En Banc: California School District Must Recognize Fellowship of Christian Athletes Clubs

In Fellowship of Christian Athletes v. San Jose Unified School District board of Education, (9th Cir., Sept. 13, 2023), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals sitting en banc, in a set of opinions spanning 134 pages, held that Fellowship of Christian Athletes (FCA) is entitled to a preliminary injunction requiring the school district to restore recognition to FCA chapters as student clubs. Because FCA requires its officers to affirm a Statement of Faith and abide by a sexual purity policy, i.e. because a homosexual student could not be an officer of FCA, the District had revoked FCA's recognition. The court said in part:

While it cannot be overstated that anti-discrimination policies certainly serve worthy causes—particularly within the context of a school setting where students are often finding themselves—those policies may not themselves be utilized in a manner that transgresses or supersedes the government’s constitutional commitment to be steadfastly neutral to religion. Under the First Amendment’s protection of free exercise of religion and free speech, the government may not “single out” religious groups “for special disfavor” compared to similar secular groups.... 

The District, rather than treating FCA like comparable secular student groups whose membership was limited based on criteria including sex, race, ethnicity, and gender identity, penalized it based on its religious beliefs. Because the Constitution prohibits such a double standard—even in the absence of any motive to do so—we reverse the district court’s denial of FCA’s motion for a preliminary injunction....

Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their Free Exercise claims because the District’s policies are not neutral and generally applicable and religious animus infects the District’s decision making.

Judge Forrest filed a concurring opinion contending that the case should be seen as a free-speech care more than a religious freedom case.

Judge Smith filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, with two other judges partially joining his opinion. Judge Sung filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part. Chief Judge Murguia filed a dissenting opinion, joined in part by Judge Sung.

National Review reports on the decision.

California AG Challenges School District's Policy On Disclosure To Parents of Students' Gender Dysphoria

Suit was filed last week by California's Attorney General against the Chino Valley Unified School District challenging the district's policy that requires school personnel to notify parents whenever a student asks to be identified or treated as a gender other than the biological sex listed on the student's birth certificate.  The complaint (full text) in People ex rel. Bonta v. Chino Valley Unified School District, (CA Super. Ct., filed 8/28/2023), alleges in part:

Policy 5020.1 has placed transgender and gender nonconforming students in danger of imminent, irreparable harm from the consequences of forced disclosures. These students are currently under threat of being outed to their parents or guardians against their express wishes and will. They are in real fear that the District’s policy will force them to make a choice: either “walk back” their constitutionally and statutorily protected rights to gender identity and gender expression, or face the risk of emotional, physical, and psychological harm from non-affirming or unaccepting parents or guardians.

Policy 5020.1 unlawfully discriminates against transgender and gender nonconforming students, subjecting them to disparate treatment, harassment, and abuse, mental, emotional, and physical. This is by design: the Board’s plain motivations in adopting Policy 5020.1 were to create and harbor animosity, discrimination, and prejudice towards these transgender and gender nonconforming students, without any compelling reason to do so.

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

Yesterday, in an oral ruling from the bench, the court issued a temporary restraining order barring the school district from enforcing its disclosure policy. The Attorney General issued a press release announcing the court's ruling and providing links to briefs in the case.

California Legislature Passes Amendment to Outlaw Caste Discrimination

California's Unruh Civil Rights Act already bars discrimination, among other things, on the basis of "ancestry". The California legislature this week gave final passage to an amendment to the Act (full text) that adds a definition of "ancestry", making it clear that it includes discrimination on the basis of caste. The amendment defines "caste" as "a system of social stratification on the basis of inherited status". The bill now goes to Governor Gavin Newsom for his signature. The Independent reports on the passage of the bill and on those who opposed its passage.