Wisconsin Courts End COVID Suspension of Prison Religious Services

 In Archdiocese of Milwaukee v. Wisconsin Department of Corrections, (WI Cir. Ct., June 21, 2021), a Wisconsin trial court issued a Provisional Writ of Mandamus ordering the Wisconsin prison system to allow Catholic clergy the opportunity, at least once a week, to conduct in-person religious services in state correctional institutions. Access for clergy is mandated by Wis. Stat. 301.33(1). The state had suspended visits beginning in March 2020 to minimize the spread of COVID. Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty has additional information on the case. Wisconsin Journal Sentinel reports that the Department of Corrections has extended the order to any religious denomination that wishes to offer in-person services.

Catholic Members of U.S. House Confront Bishops Over Possible Denial of Communion To Pro-Choice Democrats

As reported by CNN, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops today voted 168-55 with 6 abstentions to direct its Committee on Doctrine to draft a formal statement on the meaning of the Eucharist in the life of the Church.  Conservative bishops want to deny communion to public officials, including President Biden, who support abortion rights.

In response to these developments, today 60 Catholic Democratic members of the House of Representatives issued a Statement of Principles which reads in part:

We envision a world in which every child belongs to a loving family and agree with the Catholic Church about the value of human life. Each of us is committed to reducing the number of unintended pregnancies and creating an environment with policies that encourage pregnancies to be carried to term and provide resources to raise healthy and secure children. We believe this includes promoting alternatives to abortion, such as adoption, improving access to children's healthcare and child care, and creating a child benefit through the expanded and improved Child Tax Credit.

In all these issues, we seek the Church's guidance and assistance but believe also in the primacy of conscience.... [W]e acknowledge and accept the tension that comes with being in disagreement with the Church in some areas. We recognize that no political party is perfectly in accord with all aspects of Church doctrine. This fact speaks to the secular nature of American democracy, not the devotion of our democratically elected leaders. Yet we believe we can speak to the fundamental issues that unite us as Catholics and lend our voices to changing the political debate ... that often fails to reflect ... the depth and complexity of these issues....

We believe the separation of church and state allows for our faith to inform our public duties and best serve our constituents. The Sacrament of Holy Communion is central to the life of practicing Catholics, and the weaponization of the Eucharist to Democratic lawmakers for their support of a woman’s safe and legal access to abortion is contradictory. No elected officials have been threatened with being denied the Eucharist as they support and have supported policies contrary to the Church teachings, including supporting the death penalty, separating migrant children from their parents, denying asylum to those seeking safety in the United States, limiting assistance for the hungry and food insecure, and denying rights and dignity to immigrants.

We solemnly urge you to not move forward and deny this most holy of all sacraments ... over one issue....

UPDATE: After the June 17 Conference of Bishops, the USCCB clarified the Conference resolution on drafting a document on the meaning of the Eucharist: " The question of whether or not to deny any individual or groups Holy Communion was not on the ballot."

Supreme Court Sides With Catholic Social Services In Its Refusal To Certify Same-Sex Couples As Foster Parents

The U.S. Supreme Court today in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia,  (Sup. Ct., June 17, 2021), held unanimously that Philadelphia has violated the free exercise rights of Catholic Social Services by refusing to contract with CSS to provide foster care services unless it agrees to certify same-sex couples as foster parents.  Chief Justice Roberts wrote the opinion of the court which was joined by five other justices, avoiding the question of whether to overrule Employment Division v. Smith. The Court said in part:

Smith held that laws incidentally burdening religion are ordinarily not subject to strict scrutiny under the Free Exercise Clause so long as they are neutral and generally applicable.... CSS urges us to overrule Smith, and the concurrences in the judgment argue in favor of doing so.... But we need not revisit that decision here. This case falls outside Smith because the City has burdened the religious exercise of CSS through policies that do not meet the requirement of being neutral and generally applicable....

Government fails to act neutrally when it proceeds in a manner intolerant of religious beliefs or restricts practices because of their religious nature....

[S]ection 3.21 incorporates a system of individual exemptions, made available in this case at the “sole discretion” of the Commissioner. The City has made clear that the Commissioner “has no intention of granting an exception” to CSS.... But the City “may not refuse to extend that [exemption] system to cases of ‘religious hardship’ without compelling reason.” Smith, 494 U. S., at 884....

The question, then, is not whether the City has a compelling interest in enforcing its non-discrimination policies generally, but whether it has such an interest in denying an exception to CSS. 

Once properly narrowed, the City’s asserted interests are insufficient.

Justice Barrett filed a concurring opinion, joined by Justice Kavanaugh and (except for one paragraph) by Justice Breyer, saying in part:

In my view, the textual and structural arguments against Smith are more compelling. As a matter of text and structure, it is difficult to see why the Free Exercise Clause—lone among the First Amendment freedoms—offers nothing more than protection from discrimination.

Yet what should replace Smith? The prevailing assumption seems to be that strict scrutiny would apply whenever a neutral and generally applicable law burdens religious exercise. But I am skeptical about swapping Smith’s categorical antidiscrimination approach for an equally categorical strict scrutiny regime, particularly when this Court’s resolution of conflicts between generally applicable laws and other First Amendment rights—like speech and assembly—has been much more nuanced.

Justice Alito, joined by Justices Thomas and Gorsuch filed a 77-page opinion concurring in the judgment, arguing that the Smith case should be overruled. Justice Gorsuch, joined by Justices Thomas and Alito also filed an opinion concurring in the judgment and contending that Smith should be overruled.

CNBC reports on the decision. 

Catholic Group Challenges Zoning Refusal To Allow Building Of Chapel

Suit was filed this week in a Michigan federal district court challenging Genoa Township's refusal to allow a Catholic religious organization to develop and construct a 95-seat Chapel and prayer campus on land it acquired from the Diocese of Lansing in 2020. The Township has also demanded that all religious signage already on the property be removed. The complaint (full text) in Catholic Healthcare International, Inc. v. Genoa Charter Township, (ED MI, filed 6/2/2021), alleges that the Township's actions violate plaintiff's rights under RLUIPA, the Michigan Constitution and the First and 14th Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. American Freedom Law Center issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Pope Francis Promulgates Revised Canon Law Criminal Code

Pope Francis today announced the promulgation of a  revised version of Book 6 of the Code of Canon Law-- Penal Sanctions in the Church (full text in English). AP reports on significant changes brought about by the revised Code:

The most significant changes are contained in two articles, 1395 and 1398, which aim to address shortcomings in the church’s handling of sexual abuse. The law recognizes that adults, not only children, can be victimized by priests who abuse their authority. The revisions also say that laypeople holding church positions, such as school principals or parish economists, can be punished for abusing minors as well as adults.

The Vatican also criminalized priests “grooming” minors or vulnerable adults to compel them to engage in pornography. The update represents the first time church law has officially recognized as a criminal act the method used by sexual predators to build relationships with victims they have targeted for sexual exploitation.

The new law, which is set to take effect on Dec. 8, also removes much of the discretion that long allowed bishops and religious superiors to ignore or cover up abuse, making clear those in positions of authority will be held responsible if they fail to properly investigate or sanction predator priests.

A bishop can be removed from office for “culpable negligence” or if he does not report sex crimes to church authorities, although the canon law foresees no punishment for failing to to report suspected crimes to police.

The President and the Secretary of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts spoke at a news conference announcing the revisions. (full text of their remarks in Latin). [Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]

Florida State Settles With Catholic Student Who Was Removed As Student Senate Head

As previously reported, last October a student court at the University of Florida concluded that the University's Student Senate violated the 1st Amendment when it removed Jack Denton, a Catholic student, from the Senate presidency. Student Senate took the action because Denton criticized Black Lives Matter, the ACLU and Reclaim the Block, saying they take views opposed to Catholic teachings. Now, the University has entered a settlement agreement (full text) with Denton under which the University has agreed to pay Denton $10,000 in damages and $1050 in back pay that he would have earned if he had remained Senate president. It will also pay Denton's attorney fees of $83,950. ADF, which represented Denton, issued a press release announcing the settlement.

Suit On Misrepresentations In Settling Clergy Sex Abuse Claims Is Dismissed

 In Caldwell v. Archdiocese of New York, (SD NY, May 19, 2021), individuals who released their childhood sexual abuse claims as part of the Archdiocese's ’ Independent Reconciliation and Compensation Programs brought a class action claiming misrepresentations in procuring the releases. They claimed misrepresentations regarding the fairness of the settlements, the independence of the plan administrators, as well as failure to advise claimants of the prospects for enactment of the New York Child Victims Act.  The court dismissed the claims because plaintiffs failed to plead them with particularity as required by Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 9(b).  They also failed to show a special relationship that would give rise to a duty to disclose information about the Child Victims Act and failed to show that they were induced to refrain from carrying out their own investigation.

Suspended Priest's Age Discrimination Claim Dismissed Under Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine

In In re Roman Catholic Diocese of El Paso, (TX App., May 17, 2021), a Texas appellate court by a vote of 2-1 held that under the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine, Texas civil courts lack jurisdiction over an age discrimination and fraud case brought by a Catholic priest against his diocese.  The suit was brought when the diocese reduced payments being made to the priest who was placed on administrative leave after criminal allegations were lodged against him. The majority said in part:

The Diocese contends in this mandamus that a civil court cannot adjudicate whether Bishop Seitz exercised his discretion to reduce Olivas’s payment of decent support in a reasonable manner without inextricably involving itself in the governance of the Catholic Church. We agree and conclude that for both of the asserted claims in this case, that the fact finder would have to judge the stated rationale of Bishop Seitz’s reduction of payments which is grounded under the church’s canon law.

Chief Justice Rodriguez dissented on several grounds. He said in part:

I believe that employment discrimination laws such as the age discrimination provision of Texas Commission on Human Rights Act ... may be constitutionally enforced against religious entity employers, provided that the employee bringing the claim is not one of the defendant’s “ministers.”...

[T]he wrinkle in this case is that while Olivas retains the title of priest, he is by the Church’s own assessment a priest in name only. Seitz admitted that Olivas does not and cannot perform any ministerial duties for the Diocese due to Olivas’ suspension of faculties.

Vatican Cautions U.S. Bishops Over Moves To Deny Communion To President Biden

AP reported last month that the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops is considering issuing a document that would call for denying Communion to public officials-- including President Joe Biden-- who support abortion rights. Now the Vatican has made its views on the process known.  According to yesterday's National Catholic Reporter:

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has urged the U.S. bishops to proceed with caution in their discussions about formulating a national policy "to address the situation of Catholics in public office who support legislation allowing abortion, euthanasia or other moral evils."...

In the letter to Archbishop José Gomez of Los Angeles, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, [Cardinal Luis] Ladaria also insisted: such a policy cannot usurp the authority of an individual bishop in his diocese on the matter; the policy would require near unanimity; and it would be "misleading" to present abortion and euthanasia as "the only grave matters of Catholic moral and social teaching that demand the fullest level of accountability on the part of Catholics."

The letter, dated May 7 and obtained by Catholic News Service in Rome, said it was in response to a letter from Gomez informing the doctrinal congregation that the bishops were preparing to address the situation of Catholic politicians and "the worthiness to receive holy Communion."...

Archdiocese Sues For in-Person Access To Inmates

The Catholic Archdiocese of Milwaukee last week filed suit in state court against the Wisconsin Department of Corrections challenging its continued ban on volunteer clergy visiting prison inmates during the COVD crisis. The complaint (full text) in Archdiocese of Milwaukee v. Wisconsin Department of Corrections, (WI Cir. Ct., filed 6/7/2021),  alleges that the policy violates statutory provisions in Wisconsin on clergy access to prisons as well as the state constitution's protection of religious liberty. Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Missouri Supreme Court Upholds Some Claims of Failure To Supervise Abusive Clergy

In John Doe 122 v. Marianist Province of the United States, (MO Sup. Ct., April 6, 2021), the Missouri Supreme Court dismissed negligent supervision claims of plaintiff who was sexually abused by a Marianist brother in the early 1970's. In dismissing the claim, the court relied on its earlier precedent in Gibson v. Brewer, (1997). However the court reversed the trial court's dismissal of plaintiff's intentional failure to supervise claims, saying in part:

Using all of the evidence before them, including Father Doyle’s expert testimony, the jury may infer Chaminade knew the risk that Brother Woulfe would visit sexual abuse upon a student was certain or substantially certain and – if so – whether Chaminade disregarded that known risk. And they may not. The only issue before this Court, and the issue on which the circuit court erred, is whether Father Doyle’s testimony (taken together with all the other evidence) is sufficient for the jury to draw that inference reasonably if persuaded to do so. This Court concludes there is.... 

St. Louis Today reports on the decision.

Court Upholds NY Law Barring Discrimination Against Employees Because Of Reproductive Health Decisions

In Slattery v. Cuomo, (ND NY, March 31, 2021), a New York federal district court dismissed free exercise, free speech, freedom of association and vagueness challenges to a New York Labor Law §203-e  which prohibits employers from discriminating or taking retaliatory action against an employee because of the person's reproductive health decision making. The law was challenged by a pro-life crisis pregnancy center which required its employees to agree with, adhere to and convey the Catholic view on abortion and sexual relations outside of marriage. The court concluded that the law does not target the Catholic religion in violation of the free exercise clause. Rejecting plaintiffs' free speech challenge, the court said in part:

Section 203-e does not serve to limit any of Plaintiffs’ advocacy against abortion, promotion of certain religious views, and public arguments for particular versions of sexual morality. The statute does not prevent the Plaintiffs, who provide medical information to pregnant women, from telling those women that they should not get abortions, urging them not to use contraception, or telling them about Plaintiffs’ religious beliefs. The statute simply prohibits employers from taking employment action based on the reproductive health decisions of an employee or potential employee. Hiring, firing, or refusing to hire an employee is conduct, not speech, and the law does not implicate Plaintiffs’ First-Amendment rights in that.

Puzzling Opinion Dismisses Suit Against Archdiocese and Counselor On Ecclesiastical Abstention Grounds

In a somewhat puzzling opinion in Mosby v. Kleinguetl (TX App., March 4, 2021), a Texas state appellate court affirmed a trial court's dismissal on ecclesiastical abstention grounds of a husband's suit against the Catholic Archdiocese of Galveston-Houston and one of its marriage counselors. Claiming, among other things, breach of fiduciary duty and negligent counseling, plaintiff alleged that his wife developed a relationship with the counselor and that she eventually sued for divorce.  Despite its affirmance of the trial court's dismissal, the appellate court's opinion seems to conclude that the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine does not apply:

[T]he allegations at issue here do not clearly intrude upon a religious matter or interfere with the Archdiocese’s ability to manage its internal affairs. Mosby does not allege that the conduct forming the basis of his claims (i.e., the “family and marriage counseling” Kleinguetl provided to Cynthia) was grounded in religious doctrine or otherwise undertaken pursuant to guidance from the Archdiocese. Instead, Mosby alleges that Kleinguetl was having a “personal relationship” with Cynthia and had a history of “inappropriate relationships with others”. These general allegations do not implicate any religious standards or indicate that judicial resolution of this dispute will encroach upon the Archdiocese’s internal affairs or religious doctrine. Therefore, they do not affirmatively demonstrate that the underlying dispute is inherently ecclesiastical as necessary to warrant First Amendment protection.

The court went on:

Construing Mosby’s allegations liberally and taking them as true, we cannot unequivocally hold that Mosby’s pleadings demonstrate an incurable jurisdictional defect....

Then the court concluded: 

Here, Mosby had an opportunity to cure the jurisdictional defects and did not do so. After Kleinguetl and the Archdiocese filed their pleas to the jurisdiction, Mosby twice amended his pleadings but failed to present any additional facts sufficient to invoke the trial court’s jurisdiction. Mosby is not entitled to an additional opportunity to replead.

Southeast Texas Record reports on the decision.

Minnesota Diocese Settles Clergy Sex-Abuse Claims In Bankruptcy Reorganization

According to WXOW News, the Catholic Diocese of Winona-Rochester, Minnesota which filed for bankruptcy reorganization in 2018 has agreed with its creditors' committee to settle clergy sex-abuse claims from 145 claimants for $21.5 million. The diocese also issued an apology to victims. The settlement must still be approved by the court in the final plan of reorganization.

7th Circuit En Banc Hears Arguments In Ministerial Exception Case

The full U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, sitting en banc, yesterday heard oral arguments in Demkovich v. St. Andrew the Apostle Parish. (Audio of full oral arguments.) In the case, a 3-judge panel of the 7th Circuit held by a 2-1 vote that the ministerial exception doctrine does not bar hostile work environment claims brought by a ministerial employee where no tangible employment action was taken.  In the case, the music director of a Catholic church alleged that his supervisor harassed an humiliated him about his sexual orientation, as well as his weight and his medical issues. (See prior posting.)  Becket has more on the case.

New Hampshire Priest Sues Conservative Catholic Website For Defamation

A suit alleging defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress was filed last Friday in a New Hampshire federal district court by a New Hampshire Catholic priest against the controversial Church Militant website and persons affiliated with it. The complaint (full text) in de Laire v. Voris, (D NH, filed 2/5/2021), contends that false attacks on the character of Father Georges de Laire were published on the traditionalist website and on YouTube by Gary Michael Voris, his Church Militant media company and another reporter for the company. The false attacks began after Father de Laire issued a decree banning the New Hampshire-based St. Benedict Center from holding itself out as being affiliated with the Catholic Church or purporting to hold Roman Catholic religious services on its property.  According to the complaint, St. Benedict Center champions the views put forward in the 1940's by Father Leonard Feeney who "became known for incendiary and hate-filled speeches, primarily anti-Semitic in nature." Feeney was ultimately expelled from the Jesuit Order and excommunicated from the Catholic Church over these views and another doctrinal disagreement. [Thanks to Eugene Volokh via Religionlaw for the lead.]

AP Report Critical of Catholic Church's Participation In Paycheck Protection Program

AP yesterday published an investigative report critical of the Catholic Church's participation in the COVID-19 Paycheck Protection Program.  The report says in part:

As the pandemic began to unfold, scores of Catholic dioceses across the U.S. received aid through the Paycheck Protection Program while sitting on well over $10 billion in cash, short-term investments or other available funds....

Overall, the nation’s nearly 200 dioceses, where bishops and cardinals govern, and other Catholic institutions received at least $3 billion. That makes the Roman Catholic Church perhaps the biggest beneficiary of the paycheck program....

Church officials have said their employees were as worthy of help as workers at Main Street businesses, and that without it they would have had to slash jobs and curtail their charitable mission as demand for food pantries and social services spiked. They point out the program’s rules didn’t require them to exhaust their stores of cash and other funds before applying....

By using a special exemption that the church lobbied to include in the paycheck program, Catholic entities amassed at least $3 billion — roughly the same as the combined total of recipients from the other faiths that rounded out the top five.... Baptist, Lutheran, Methodist and Jewish faith-based recipients also totaled at least $3 billion. Catholics account for about a fifth of the U.S. religious population while members of Protestant and Jewish denominations are nearly half....

U.S. Catholic Bishops Call For Biden To Change His Policies On Abortion Rights

The head of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Archbishop José H. Gomez, released a lengthy statement (full text) on Wednesday as Joe Biden was inaugurated as U.S. President. The statement particularly focuses on Biden's stance on abortion, saying in part:

I look forward to working with President Biden and his administration, and the new Congress....

Working with President Biden will be unique, however, as he is our first president in 60 years to profess the Catholic faith.... [I]t will be refreshing to engage with a President who clearly understands, in a deep and personal way, the importance of religious faith and institutions. Mr. Biden’s piety and personal story, his moving witness to how his faith has brought him solace in times of darkness and tragedy, his longstanding commitment to the Gospel’s priority for the poor — all of this I find hopeful and inspiring.

At the same time, as pastors, the nation’s bishops are given the duty of proclaiming the Gospel in all its truth and power, in season and out of season, even when that teaching is inconvenient or when the Gospel’s truths run contrary to the directions of the wider society and culture. So, I must point out that our new President has pledged to pursue certain policies that would advance moral evils and threaten human life and dignity, most seriously in the areas of abortion, contraception, marriage, and gender. Of deep concern is the liberty of the Church and the freedom of believers to live according to their consciences....

For the nation’s bishops, the continued injustice of abortion remains the “preeminent priority.”...

Rather than impose further expansions of abortion and contraception, as he has promised, I am hopeful that the new President and his administration will work with the Church and others of good will.... My hope is that we can begin a dialogue to address the complicated cultural and economic factors that are driving abortion and discouraging families.

Biden Attending Mass This Morning With Bipartisan Congressional Leadership

According to The Hill, this morning President-Elect Joe Biden is attending Mass at Cathedral of St. Matthew the Apostle in downtown Washington, DC. At his invitation top leaders of both parties in the House and Senate-- Nancy Pelosi, Kevin McCarthy, Chuck Schumer and Mitch McConnell-- will attend with him.

2nd Circuit Invalidates New York's Fixed Capacity Limits For Houses of Worship

Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court in a widely noted decision enjoined while appeals are pending New York's 10 and 25 person occupancy limits on houses of worship in red and orange zones of high COVID infections. (See prior posting.) Now the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals has come down with a decision in that pending appeal.  In Agudath Israel of America v. Cuomo, (2nd Cir., Dec. 28, 2020), (in a decision that also covers the suit brought by the Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn), the court held that these limits imposed on houses of worship are subject to strict scrutiny, and that they are not narrowly tailored to stem the spread of COVID-19. It remanded the cases to the district court, instructing it to issue a preliminary injunction. It also ordered the district court to determine in the first instance whether alternative limits in the governor's Order of 25% and 33% of capacity can satisfy strict scrutiny. In reaching its conclusion, the court said in part:

[T]he [Governor's] Order does not impose generally applicable public-health guidelines, like requiring masks and distancing or limiting capacity by time. Instead, the Governor has selected some businesses (such as news media, financial services, certain retail stores, and construction) for favorable treatment, calling them “essential,” while imposing greater restrictions on “non-essential” activities and religious worship. That lack of general applicability is also subject to strict scrutiny.

Further, although the Governor asserts that “all” activities not restricted by the Order present lesser risks of COVID-19 transmission than religious worship, he has never claimed that the unrestricted category of “essential” activities was created based on transmission risk. Instead, “[t]he only explanation for treating religious places differently seems to be a judgment that what happens there just isn’t as ‘essential’ as what happens in secular spaces.”

Reuters reports on the decision.