Vice President JD Vance will host a Hanukkah Reception at the Vice President's Residence on December 15. The Invitation features a rendition of the Vice President's Residence in gold with the caption "The Golden Noel. Celebrating 50 Years of Christmas at the Vice President's Residence".
In a Statement released today (full text), President Biden and Jill Biden sent greetings to Orthodox Christians who are celebrating Christmas today. The Statement says in part:
Today, we pray for Orthodox Christians who are suffering around the world due to war, conflict, deprivation, and oppression. They, like all human beings, are created in the image of God, and deserve safety and security, dignity and respect. We will continue to advocate for these core principles, including religious freedom, and on this day, we keep these communities close to our hearts.
President Biden yesterday issued Christmas greetings on X (formerly Twitter), saying:
This Christmas Eve, my wish for you and your family is that you take a few moments of quiet reflection and find that stillness that's at the center of the Christmas story.
May you find peace in this silent night. And warmth from those surrounding you.
Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau also issued Christmas greetings yesterday, saying in part:
As we reflect on the past year and look to the future, let us continue to show love and kindness – to ourselves and to those in need. Let us also take a moment to thank those who give so much of themselves to make Canada the place we are proud to call home, including the brave members of our Canadian Armed Forces, the dedicated first responders and essential workers, and the countless volunteers. Thank you, to all of you.
Here is United Kingdom Prime Minister Keir Starmer's Christmas message in which he said in part:
Because as Christians celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ, the Christmas story reminds all of us to reach out to one another. To care for one another. And to look after those around us.
This Christmas, I will be hoping for peace, particularly in the Middle East as the birthplace of the Christmas story.
I’ll be looking towards a better, brighter future for every person and celebrating the joy and wonder that Christmas brings.
In Knights of Columbus Council 2616 v. Town of Fairfield, (D CT, Aug. 22, 2024), a Connecticut federal district court allowed the Knights of Columbus to move ahead with free speech, free exercise and equal protection claims when the town denied its Special Event Permit Application to host a Christmas Vigil in a prominent public park rather than a less centrally located one. The court said in part:
... [P]laintiffs have shown that the defendants’ stated reason for denying their 2020 application, i.e. COVID-19 concerns, was pretextual....
Therefore, the motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claims to the extent they are based on the 2020 application, on the grounds that denial of the 2020 application was a valid discretionary action by the Town to mitigate a public health emergency, is being denied. ...
The Special Events Permitting Scheme does not satisfy the requirement that it contain adequate standards to guide the official’s decision. It contains no criteria, restraints, temporal limits, or guidelines to which the Commission must adhere when ruling on an application. Nor does it contain a method to appeal the Commission’s determination or require that the Commission furnish justifications for its decisions with respect to applications for Special Events Permits. Rather, the Special Events Permitting Scheme vests the Commission with unbridled discretion....
Viewing the factual allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs have plausibly alleged that the defendants’ actions were content-based. They have alleged facts showing that the Commission permitted other groups to use Sherman Green in a manner that was inconsistent with the reasons the Commission gave for denying the plaintiffs’ applications....
The Hartford Courant reports on the decision.
In Morris v. West Hayden Estates First Addition Homeowners Association, Inc., (9th Cir., June 17, 2024), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals partially affirmed an Idaho federal district court's rejection of a jury's verdict against a Homeowner's Association charged by plaintiff with violating provisions of the Fair Housing Act. At issue was efforts by the Homeowners Association to prevent plaintiffs from purchasing a home in the subdivision because of plaintiffs' plans to put on at their home a multi-day Christmas festival with thousands of lights, a live nativity scene, costumed characters and a real camel, all in order to raise funds for charity. A letter from the Homeowners Association to plaintiffs included a sentence reading: "And finally, I am somewhat hesitant in bringing up the fact that some of our residents are non-Christians or of another faith and I don’t even want to think of the problems that could bring up."
Judge Berzon's opinion, reflecting the conclusion of a majority of the 3-judge panel, held that there was insufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict of religious discrimination in violation of §3604(b) the Fair Housing Act, saying in part:
... [T]o support a disparate treatment claim, plaintiffs must be able to point to some concrete adverse impact suffered as a result of the defendants’ behavior. The Morrises have pointed to no such harm.
Similarly she held that the evidence did not support claims of a violation of §3604(c), saying in part:
Viewing the letter as a whole, an ordinary reader would understand the Board to have indicated a preference, limitation, or discrimination based not on whether the prospective homeowners were themselves religious or nonreligious, Christian or atheist, but on whether the event they proposed to host once a year would disturb the neighbors, both by its size and raucousness and by offending non-Christians.
However, the court upheld the jury's conclusion that the Homeowners Association violated §3617 of the Act, saying in part:
The Board’s letter to the Morrises could reasonably be read to indicate that the program’s association with the Christian faith was one consideration in the Board’s opposition to the show....
These statements sufficiently support an inference by the jury that an anti-Christian purpose was at least a motivating factor in the Board’s conduct regarding the proposed Christmas event, independent of any other concerns also underlying that conduct. And given this permissible inference, there was sufficient evidence for the jury rationally to conclude that the Board interfered with the Morrises’ exercise of their right to purchase and enjoy their home at least in part because of their religious expression, and therefore violated § 3617 of the FHA.
Judge Berzon went on to conclude that on the facts of this case, the Homeowners Association was not liable for harassing conduct of subdivision residents.
Judge Tashima dissented in part, contending that the district court correctly granted judgment for the Homeowners Association on all claims because the Homeowners Association's concern was with the size and scale of the Morrises' holiday events, not with the Morrises' religion.
Judge Collins dissented in part saying that he would have affirmed the jury's finding of liability on all the Morrises' claims.
Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc. v. Abbott, (WD TX, June 5, 2024), is an opinion and order requiring the state of Texas to pay Freedom From Religion Foundation an award of attorneys' fees and costs totaling $346,500 that had been entered against the state in January 2024. The award grew out of long-running litigation challenging the state's action in 2015 removing from the state Capitol building FFRF's Bill of Rights Nativity display. (See prior posting.) Texas contended that under state law, the judgment against it could only be paid through an appropriation from the state legislature which would come on September 1, 2025, at the earliest. The court said in part:
The Court finds that it is empowered to compel execution of the judgment. Given that Defendants maintain that they lack the ability to disburse these funds prior to the end of next year, it appears to the Court that “an order directing the responsible state official to satisfy the judgment out of state funds is the only reasonable way to ensure compliance with a valid federal judgment.”... While the Court acknowledges that execution of the judgment is a drastic step, the Court believes that this step is warranted to ensure that FFRF timely recovers for Defendants’ federal civil rights violation. Texas “may not successfully hide behind state procedural shields to avoid the consequences of a valid district court judgment effectuating an appropriate § 1988 award.”
The court ordered this payment to be made by August 5, 2024. It also allowed FFRF to recover for attorneys' fees and costs incurred in enforcing payment of the prior award.
AP reports that last Friday. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy signed a law that moves the date on which Ukraine will celebrate Christmas from January 7 (the date observed by the Russian Orthodox Church) to December 25. According to AP:
The explanatory note attached to the law said its goal is to “abandon the Russian heritage,” including that of “imposing the celebration of Christmas” on Jan. 7. It cited Ukrainians’ “relentless, successful struggle for their identity” and “the desire of all Ukrainians to live their lives with their own traditions, holidays,”....
The law also moves the dates for two other Ukrainian patriotic holidays.
Yesterday President Biden delivered his Christmas Address to the Nation (full text). He said in part:
And we look to the sky, to a lone star, shining brighter than all the rest, guiding us to the birth of a child — a child Christians believe to be the son of God; miraculously now, here among us on Earth, bringing hope, love and peace and joy to the world....
The Christmas story is at the heart of the Christmas — Christian faith. But the message of hope, love, peace, and joy, they’re also universal.
It speaks to all of us, whether we’re Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist, or any other faith, or no faith at all. It speaks to all of us as human beings who are here on this Earth to care for one another, to look out for one another, to love one another....
I sincerely hope ... this holiday season will drain the poison that has infected our politics and set us against one another.
I hope this Christmas season marks a fresh start for our nation, because there is so much that unites us as Americans, so much more that unites us than divides us.
In Lyons v. Carmel Unified School District, (ND CA, Dec. 10, 2021), a California federal district court denied a temporary restraining order sought to allow the mother of Jewish children in a public school to display a 6-foot inflatable menorah at the PTA's tree lighting ceremony. The school was only willing to permit plaintiff to bring a small menorah to hang as a tree decoration. Rejecting plaintiff's Establishment Clause claim, the court said in part:
Plaintiffs contend that the event advances Christian religions over other religious ... by allowing display of Christian holiday symbols – the tree and ornaments – but banning display of non-Christian holiday symbols such as a menorah....
Defendants argue that they have not referred to the tree lighting event as involving a “Christmas” tree. Even assuming that the event is viewed as involving the decoration and display of a Christmas tree, however, that would not implicate the Establishment Clause. The Supreme Court has held that “[t]he Christmas tree, unlike the menorah, is not itself a religious symbol.” Cty. of Allegheny v. Am. C.L. Union Greater Pittsburgh Chapter, 492 U.S. 573, 616 (1989)....
The court also rejected plaintiff's free speech claim because the school offered plaintiff the opportunity to reserve School grounds for her own event where she could display the menorah.
Suit was filed this week in a California federal district court alleging that a California school district has given preference to Christian cultural and speech activities over those of other religions, including Judaism. The complaint (full text) in Lyons v. Carmel Unified School District, (ND CA, filed 12/7/2021), particularly focuses on the refusal by Carmel River School to allow the display of an inflatable menorah at a widely-promoted after-school holiday celebration which will include the decoration and lighting of a Christmas tree and Christmas-themed holiday songs. The complaint alleges that the school has violated the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses as well as free speech and equal protection provisions. Courthouse News Service reports on the lawsuit.
President Trump and First Lady Melania Trump issued Christmas greetings in a video posted to the President's Twitter account yesterday.
Last week, the Catholic Diocese of Washington, D.C. sued in federal district court challenging D.C.'s COVID-related 50-person cap on religious gatherings. It seeks, instead, percentage-based limits similar to those imposed on numerous commercial establishments. The complaint (full text) in Roman Catholic Archbishop of Washington v. Bowser, (D DC, filed 12/11/2020), alleges that half of the churches in the Archdiocese can accommodate 500 or more worshippers, and the largest can accommodate thousands. It contends that the current limits violate its 1st and 14th Amendment rights. The complaint declares:
Christmas should be a time for reconciliation and joy, and the Archdiocese simply wants to welcome its flock home. It respectfully requests that it be allowed to do so.
Catholic News Service reports on the lawsuit.
UPDATE: In order to resolve the litigation, D.C.'s Mayor on Dec. 16 issued modified rules (full text of Mayor's Order) that allow houses of worship to admit up to 25% of their capacity, not to exceed 250 persons, for worship services. Other events or programs at churches are limited to 10 persons indoors or 25 outdoors. Other safety protocols are also required for religious services. Washington Post reports on the new Order.
In Knights of Columbus Star of the Sea Council 7297 v. City of Rehoboth Beach, Delaware, (D DE, Dec. 11, 2020), a Delaware federal district court refused to issue a preliminary injunction against the city's policy on religious displays at the Rehoboth Beach Bandstand. Plaintiffs want to continue their past practice of erecting a creche on the site for the Christmas season. The city's policy, which allegedly at one time banned religious displays of all kinds, was revised while this litigation was pending so that it now prohibits only any unattended private display on city property. However it permits attended religious and secular displays. The court said in part:
[B]ecause the motion is directed to a policy that no longer exists (if it ever did) and there is no realistic chance the alleged unconstitutional conduct will be resumed before the Court can reach the merits of the case, the motion must be denied as moot. It is also unripe. The Knights is free to apply to display an attended creche, but it has not yet done so. Finally, ... even assuming Plaintiff has established a likelihood of success on the merits, the motion must be denied because Plaintiff has failed to show it will suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary injunctive relief.
Because the full Court is unable to hear this case, it makes a poor candidate for our review. But for that complication, however, our intervention and a reversal would be warranted for reasons admirably explained by Judge Griffith in his dissent below and by Judge Hardiman in an opinion for the Third Circuit....
... [T]he government may minimize religious speech incidentally by reasonably limiting a forum like bus advertisement space to subjects where religious views are unlikely or rare. But once the government allows a subject to be discussed, it cannot silence religious views on that topic.... So the government may designate a forum for art or music, but it cannot then forbid discussion of Michelangelo’s David or Handel’s Messiah. And once the government declares Christmas open for commentary, it can hardly turn around and mute religious speech on a subject that so naturally invites it.
16. The website also requires customers to agree that Stamps.com, in its sole discretion, may determine if designs meet the eligibility criteria and may also reject orders without explanations. If customers submit a design Stamps.com determines is in violation of their requirements, those customers may be charged a processing fee of $10 per image.
17. If customers publicly complain about the rejection of a stamp design, Stamps.com claims it will be harmed and may pursue legal action. The website states, “[if] you intentionally publicize such violation, you acknowledge that Stamps.com will suffer substantial damage to its reputation and goodwill and that you can be liable for causing such substantial damage.”The complaint goes on to allege that:
... USPS chose to promulgate a regulation allowing third-party providers, such as PhotoStamps, to discriminate against speech. Regulation 39 C.F.R. § 501.7(c)(1) requires the provider—here, PhotoStamps—to ensure that what it prints is “[c]onsistent with the Postal Service’s intent to maintain neutrality on religious, social, political, legal, moral, or other public issues.”First Liberty Institute issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.
While the challenges that face our country are great, the bonds that unite us as Americans are much stronger. Together, we must strive to foster a culture of deeper understanding and respect—traits that exemplify the teachings of Christ.The White House also posted the transcript of the President's Video Teleconference With Members of the Military, extending Christmas and New Years greetings to them.
On one side, a devoutly Christian couple throwing extravagant celebrations for thousands at a home decked to the halls with 200,000 light bulbs. At times, even featuring a camel and donkey to re-create the Nativity scene.
On the opposite side, a Hayden homeowners association with specific rules that prohibited such excessive celebrations – and the noise that follows – in favor of a more modest showing of holiday spirit.Despite a jury verdict in favor of plaintiffs, the court ruled as a matter of law that plaintiffs had not shown that the Homeowners Association discriminated against them on the basis of religion in violation of the Federal Fair Housing Act. Plaintiff had pointed to a letter from the Homeowners Association which described rule violations that would be involved in the Christmas display. The letter added that some of the subdivision residents are non-Christians. The court said in part:
While January 2015 Letter was not drafted with lawyerly precision and contained a boorish reference to “undesireables,” it cannot be read as evidence that the Homeowners Association intended to discriminate against Plaintiffs because they were Christian. On this score, the Court notes that several members of the Board were practicing Christians. Furthermore, Board President Jennifer Scott is both a practicing Christian and married to a Christian minister. The Court is not suggesting that Christians cannot, per se, discriminate against other Christians. But, the fact that the Board was at least partially composed of practicing Christians significantly decreases the probability that the Board intended to discriminate against Plaintiffs based on a faith shared by both Plaintiffs and several Board members.The court concluded that the jury was likely prejudiced by testimony which they were instructed to ignore relating to threats received by plaintiffs from other homeowners who were not Association board members. Because the decision is likely to be appealed, the court held that if its conclusion of law was reversed, defendants should be granted a new trial or alternatively the jury's award of $75,000 in damages should be reduced to $4.
WMATA allows entities like Walmart to speak on the subjects of the perfect Christmas gift (toys) and how to spend the Christmas season (buying gifts and visiting stores at specified hours). And WMATA permits the Salvation Army to run ads encouraging people to donate to certain charities. The Archdiocese would also like to express its views on the perfect Christmas gift (Christ), how to spend the holiday (caring for the needy and visiting churches for Mass at specified hours), and whether to contribute to charities (yes, and particularly to religious charities). By barring the Archdiocese from doing so, WMATA’s policy discriminates against religious viewpoints,,,,[Thanks to James Phillips for the lead.]