Air Pollution Did Not Violate City Residents' Free Exercise Rights

In Dancer v. United States, (WD MI, March 15, 2024), residents of Kalamazoo, Michigan sued a variety of governmental and private parties alleging injuries from airborne pollution, chemical discharges and odors from a nearby paper mill. Among the 34 separate claims in the lawsuit was a claim that the city's failure to deal with air quality problems caused pollution and odors that interfered with plaintiffs' ability to attend congregational worship services. The Michigan federal district court said in part:

The city’s alleged failure to improve the air quality of its residents does not give rise to a free exercise claim because that failure impacts city residents without regard to their religion.... Ordinarily, a policy or practice that is “neutral, generally applicable, and ‘incidentally burdens religions practices’” does not give rise to a free exercise claim.... Those are the circumstances here.

D.C. Circuit Hears Arguments on Tax Exempt Status of Church Promoting Religious Use of Psychedelic Drug

The U.S. court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit yesterday heard oral arguments in Iowaska Church of Healing v. Werfel (audio of full oral arguments). In the case, the D.C. federal district court upheld the IRS's refusal to grant §501(c)(3) non-profit status to a church that promotes the religious use of Ayahuasca, a tea brewed from plants containing a drug that is illegal under the federal Controlled Substances Act. (See prior posting.) Bloomberg Law reports on the oral arguments.

Michigan Prisons Implement Settlement Agreement on Religious Practices

In a press release yesterday, the Department of Justice announced that Michigan correctional authorities have now fully implemented prison reforms required by a 2021 settlement agreement. DOJ had alleged that various prison policies violated the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. The challenged policies required at least 5 people for group worship, barred group religious practices for Hindu, Yoruba, Hebrew Israelite and Thelema inmates and allowed access to the kosher Passover diet only to those who were on the year-round kosher diet.  According to DOJ's press release:

MDOC changed each of these policies to expand access to religious practice in compliance with the settlement. Under the revised policies, MDOC allows group religious practice for groups of two or more, permits previously banned religious groups to hold group services and allows people to participate in the Passover diet even if they do not participate in the kosher diet year-round. Department monitoring revealed that a significant number of people whose religious exercise was previously limited by policy can now worship together and can celebrate Passover consistent with their beliefs.

2nd Circuit Remands Free Exercise Claim of Inmate Who Could Not Attend Religious Services

In Wiggins v. Griffin, (2d Cir., Nov. 20, 2023), the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals vacated and remanded a New York federal district court's dismissal of a suit against prison officials by a Baptist inmate who contends that his exercise of religion was burdened when there was a delay of over five months in updating the call-out list for Protestant religious services after plaintiff was moved to a new cellblock. Plaintiff was unable to attend religious services until the list was updated. Because one of the 3 judges on the appeals panel died after argument, the case was decided by a 2-judge panel. The court held that it did not need to decide whether plaintiff needed to show a "substantial burden" or just a "burden" on his free exercise rights since there was evidence from which a jury could find a substantial burden and defendants conceded that a substantial burden was present.  In a concurring opinion, Judge Menashi said in part:

In an appropriate case, we should hold that a prisoner alleging a violation of the Free Exercise Clause under § 1983 need only show a burden on sincerely held religious beliefs—not a “substantial” burden that involves showing that the beliefs are “central.” Three decades is too long for federal judges to be telling litigants which of their religious beliefs are “unimportant.”

The court remanded the case for a jury determination of whether defendants had qualified immunity, saying in part:

[A] jury may find that one or more Defendants purposefully ignored or delayed processing Wiggins’s requests, seeking to deny his participation in communal worship, or may have been deliberately indifferent to Wiggins’s requests. In such a scenario, they would have violated Wiggins’s clearly established right....  But, on the other hand, a Defendant may have simply missed Wiggins’s requests or failed to take extra steps to ensure they were processed. If so, qualified immunity may be appropriate.

The court went on to decide the state of mind necessary to show a violation of the 1st Amendment's free exercise clause: 

The First Amendment‘s command that government not “prohibit” the free exercise of religion... “connotes a conscious act, rather than a merely negligent one,”.... Given this understanding of the First Amendment, isolated acts of negligence cannot violate an individual’s free exercise of religion in this context....

Although mere negligence cannot support a First Amendment free exercise claim, we have previously held that deliberate indifference “clearly suffices.”...

With these principles to guide us, we affirm the district court’s dismissal of the claim against [prison Superintendent] Griffin. Wiggins sent Griffin two letters. Although Griffin left one letter unanswered, he quickly acted upon the second. ... [T]his evidence ... establishes (at most) that Griffin acted negligently in response to the first letter. Such a showing is insufficient. Whether the record suffices to permit a finding that any of the remaining [three] defendants were deliberately indifferent poses a closer question. Instead of single acts of negligence, the record contains sufficient evidence to allow a jury to conclude that one or more of the remaining defendants repeatedly failed to redress Wiggins’s exclusion from the call-out list....

Challenge To Maine's Past Covid Restrictions on Churches Is Dismissed

In In re COVID-Related Restrictions on Religious Services, (DE Super., Aug. 28, 2023), a Delaware Superior Court dismissed a suit challenging now-rescinded restrictions that limited the number of attendees and the activities in houses of worship during the Covid pandemic. The court concluded that the governor had qualified immunity from damage claims because at the time it was not clearly established that these types of restrictions violated the U.S. Constitution. The State Tort Claims Act gives the governor immunity from damage actions for violation of the Delaware Constitution. The court also concluded that there is no case or controversy to give it jurisdiction to issue a declaratory judgment and that plaintiffs lack standing to bring their claims, saying in part:

The Court can have no influence on the alleged past harm caused by the Restrictions when they have already been terminated years ago.

WDEL News reports that plaintiffs plan an appeal to the state Supreme Court.

Court Refuses to Dismiss Suit by Civil Detainee Who Was Forced to Attend a Christian Religious Service

In Erie v. Hunter, (MD LA, May 31, 2023), a Louisiana federal district court refused to dismiss an Establishment Clause suit brought by a civil detainee at mental health facility who was forced to attend a Christian religious service at the facility by a psychiatric aide who claimed that she had to accompany 25 other residents to the service and could not leave plaintiff in his room unsupervised. The court said in part:

... [T]he State reverts to its position that ... Ms. Hunter faced a binary choice: either compel Mr. Erie's attendance at the worship service, or “refuse[] to allow the 25 other patients in SFF unit 1” to attend the service, thereby violating “their own free exercise rights.”.... And because the Supreme Court has rejected “a ‘heckler's veto' which would allow religious activity to be proscribed based upon [Mr. Erie's] perception or discomfort,” it was reasonable for Ms. Hunter to choose an “incidental infringement” on Mr. Erie's rights....

... [N]o reasonable official would confuse this case with a “heckler's veto” case. Mr. Erie is not challenging ELMHS's  practice of allowing weekly worship services in the SFF recreation hall, and there is no evidence whatsoever that Mr. Erie attempted to disrupt the January 9 worship service....

Second, and in any event, Mr. Erie has raised a fact dispute even regarding Ms. Hunter's claim that her choices were limited to forcing Mr. Erie to attend church or prohibiting the remaining SFF residents from attending church. Again, ELMHS's own investigation concluded that “there was [sic] other options [Ms. Hunter] could have use [sic] to locate other staff to stay with the [residents] who do not want to go to attend the religious services,”....

[Thanks to Glenn Katon for the lead.]

COVID Order Violated Priest's Free Exercise Rights

 In Urso v. Mohammad, (D CT, March 10, 2023), a Catholic priest sued a town's health director over COVID orders that cancelled religious gatherings and congregational prayers. The court concluded that the health Directive violated plaintiff's free exercise rights, but left for trial the question of whether plaintiff suffered an injury, saying in part:

[N]ot all secular businesses in the Town of Orange were closed, and the Directive itself is unquestionably stricter than the Governor’s Executive Orders, which imposed capacity limits on religious institutions in line with those imposed on other secular businesses, and never cancelled all religious services completely.... In Agudath Israel, the Second Circuit applied strict scrutiny when businesses such as retail stores, news media, financial services, and construction were not as restricted as houses of religious worship.... Thus, the Second Circuit has already made the determination there is no meaningful difference between a retail store and a house of worship in terms of COVID-19 risk.... Regardless of how well intentioned it might have been and the difficult circumstances under which it was issued, the Directive “expressly singles out religion for less favored treatment” by subjecting religious services to complete cancellation while not imposing such strict measures on other businesses regardless of their size or the length of time people were gathering there ... and is thus subject to strict scrutiny....

The Court determines therefore as a matter of law both that the Directive is subject to strict scrutiny, and that it fails that scrutiny, thus violating the First Amendment....

The court concluded that plaintiff's equal protection claim is tied to the free exercise claim.  The court found that claims for injunctive and declaratory relief were now moot. It rejected plaintiff's Establishment Clause claim saying that the health directive did not "establish religion or espouse a religious message." It rejected plaintiff's free speech and freedom of assembly claims, relying on the Supreme Court's 1905 decision in Jacobson v. Massachusetts.

5th Circuit Rejects Pastor's Jurisdictional Theory of Religion Clauses

 In Spell v. Edwards, (5th Cir., Feb. 17, 2023), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a suit brought by a pastor and his church claiming that their First Amendment rights were violated by enforcement against them of COVID orders in the early months of the pandemic that barred their holding church services. The court said in part:

Pastor Spell explicitly waived the argument that defendants’ actions violated his constitutional rights under current free exercise jurisprudence....  Pastor Spell instead advanced an absolute, categorical theory of the Religion Clauses, arguing that church assembly is “beyond the jurisdiction of the government.”... He maintained that, under Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing Township, there is a “jurisdictional limit on intrusion by the state into the church.”  In so doing, he expressly waived other arguments.

Pastor Spell is the master of his case, and he cannot prevail on the theory he advances. Controlling precedent directly contradicts Pastor Spell’s jurisdictional theory of the Religion Clauses.

Unfiltered With Kiran reports on the decision.

Church Can Move Ahead Against County in Suit on Covid Restrictions

 In Abiding Place Ministries v. Newsom, (SD CA, Feb. 14, 2023), a California federal district court allowed a church to move ahead with certain of its claims against San Diego County for enforcing Covid restrictions against public gatherings. The court held that the county's public health officer had qualified immunity against the damage claims because "there was no clear precedent in March or April 2020 that would have put every reasonable official on notice that promulgating orders restricting in person religious gatherings to slow the spread of the COVID-19 virus was clearly and definitively unconstitutional."

The court however allowed plaintiff to move ahead with Free Exercise, Freedom of Assembly, Establishment Clause, Free Speech and Equal Protection claims against the County. The court said in part:

The County threatened enforcement, penalties, and fines if Plaintiff did not comply with the County Order.... Plaintiff alleges this action by the County “forced the Church’s members to remain away from church against their will, under threat of punishment,,,,”  [T]he allegations of the FAC regarding the County’s alleged unconstitutional policy is sufficient overcome the County Defendants’ argument that it cannot be liable under Monell. Accordingly, the County Defendants’ motion to dismiss is DENIED on this ground.....

[The FAC] alleges the County’s Orders and Defendants’ enforcement “had the primary effect of inhibiting religious activity” and caused “excessive government entanglement with religion.” ... Plaintiff contends its religious services exempted from gatherings were treated differently than other public gatherings.... At this stage of the pleadings, the County Defendants’ motion to dismiss the second cause of action is DENIED....

Whatever level of scrutiny is applied, Plaintiff has alleged they were prohibited from engaging in protected speech and assembling in person for the purpose of worship while other gatherings promoting non-religious speech were permissible.... Taking those allegations as true, Plaintiff has plausibly alleged claims for violations of the First Amendment’s freedom of speech and freedom of assembly clauses....

Plaintiff contends Defendants “intentionally and arbitrarily categorized individuals and conduct as either ‘essential’ or ‘non-essential.’”... At the pleading stage, Plaintiff has alleged sufficient facts to state a claim for violation of the Equal Protection clause....

Canadian Church Not in Contempt for Violating Covid Restrictions

In New Brunswick v. His Tabernacle Family Church Inc., (KB NB, Feb. 3, 2023), a trial court in the Canadian province of New Brunswick refused to hold a church in contempt for a violation of Covid restrictions because it was not unequivocally clear that the church knew it was in violation of a previous consent decree.  The church, after signing a consent decree, moved its services to a commercial tent in order to avoid restrictions on gatherings in "public indoor spaces." Initially the sides of the tent were raised, but as weather became colder, the church lowered the sides.  The Province contended that once the sidewalls of the tent were down, the tent became an enclosed space. The court said in part:

The Applicant was aware that initially the Respondents were using the commercial tent with the side walls up. My understanding of the Applicant's position is that such activity would not be in violation of the Mandatory Order as it relates to "public indoor spaces." However, once all four side walls of the tent were down, the Applicant was of the view that the Mandatory Order had been breached. At a minimum, it was incumbent on the Applicant to advise the Respondents at what point they would be in breach of the Mandatory Order.... [T]here is a point at which the use of the commercial tent becomes an "enclosed space". However, as I write this decision, it is unclear to me when that occurs and counsel for the Applicant were unable to provide a clear answer to the question.... [T]he court struggles to understand how the Respondents were to know....

Fox News reports on the decision.

New Ohio Law Focuses on Zoom-Bombing and Other Disruptions of Religious Services

As reported by JTA, the Ohio legislature in its final session earlier this month gave final passage to H.B. 504 (full text) amending the ban on disturbing a lawful meeting to increase penalties and to focus specifically on disturbing religious services.  The Act now provides in part:

Disturbing a lawful meeting is a misdemeanor of the first degree if either of the following applies:

(1) The violation is committed with the intent to disturb or disquiet any assemblage of people met for religious worship at a tax-exempt place of worship, regardless of whether the conduct is within the place at which the assemblage is held or is on the property on which that place is located and disturbs the order and solemnity of the assemblage.

(2) The violation is committed with the intent to prevent, disrupt, or interfere with a virtual meeting or gathering of people for religious worship, through use of a computer, computer system, telecommunications device, or other electronic device or system, or in any other manner.

Clause (2) of this section is particularly aimed at the practice of Zoom-bombing religious services that are being held online. Zoom-bombing has especially been used during the COVID pandemic to create antisemitic disruptions of online synagogue services.  In Ohio, a first-degree misdemeanor is punishable by up to 6 months in jail and a fine of up to $1000.

British Columbia's COVID Restrictions on Worship Services Upheld

In Beaudoin v. Attorney General of British Columbia, (BC Ct. App., Dec. 16, 2022), the highest court in the Canadian province of British Columbia upheld 2020 and 2021 COVID orders of BC's Provincial Health Officer that prohibited in-person worship services.  The court concluded that the Gathering and Events Order did not violate §15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms that protects the equality rights of the churches that were plaintiffs in the suit, saying in part:

[T]he G&E orders did not create any distinction based on the religious or non-religious nature of the setting in question. Any distinction between settings permitted to remain open and those required to close was based on epidemiological data and the PHO’s assessment—supported by provincial, national and international data and experience—that the level of risk of viral transmission was unacceptably high in certain types of settings or gatherings involving certain types of activities. The risks associated with retail and other permitted activities—typically involving more transient contact between individuals of a transactional nature—were determined to be different than the risks associated with the activities that form an essential component of in-person religious worship and the celebration of faith.

The court also concluded that plaintiffs' religious freedom rights under §2 of the Charter were not infringed, saying in part:

In my view, the limitation on the religious freedom of the appellants stemming from the G&E orders has been shown to be a proportionate one in light of the unprecedented risk to public health that arose during the second wave of the virus, the need to take precautions to stop preventable deaths from occurring, and the need to protect the capacity of the healthcare system....

[T]here was an ample evidentiary basis upon which the PHO could reasonably conclude that, when faith-based communities gathered for worship, the risk of transmission was unacceptably high.... [O]bservance of the liturgy requires a spiritual communion of faith that involves participation of the congregation in physically intimate acts—sharing communion, prayer, and song. These activities were known to be associated with a heightened risk of transmission.... [T]here is no proper basis upon which a reviewing court could interfere with the scientific determinations underlying the PHO’s orders....

CBC News reports on the decision.

3rd Circuit: Challenge to COVID Limits on Worship Services Is Moot

In Clark v. Governor of the State of New Jersey, (3d Cir., Nov. 28, 2022), the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of appeals in a 2-1 decision held that a challenge by two Christian congregations and their pastors to former COVID limits on in-person worship services is moot. The court affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the suit.  In the case, plaintiffs challenged orders by the Governor of New Jersey that limited religious gatherings while permitting certain essential secular activities to continue. The majority said in part:

Appellants offer nothing more than speculation to suggest that we have a live controversy here. They invite us to hypothesize about future scenarios in which (a) not only does the COVID-19 pandemic reach crisis levels comparable to early-2020, but (b) New Jersey’s executive officials will choose to ignore everything—both legal and factual—we have learned since those early months and bluntly reintroduce legally-suspect gathering restrictions on religious worship. This will not do, and we will therefore affirm.

Judge Matey dissented, saying in part:

[N]o lively imagination is needed to conjure up future competitions between public health and religious liberty given the volatility of respiratory viruses, the increased probability of future pandemics, and the routine declaration of “emergencies” by Governor Murphy. I would take the opportunity to provide an answer now, giving the people of New Jersey, and its representatives, the guidance they are entitled to under the Constitution.

Delaware Chancery Court Says Religious Leaders' Challenge to COVID Orders Was Filed in Wrong Court

In In re Covid Related Restrictions on Religious Services, (Del. Ch., Nov. 22, 2022), the Delaware Court of Chancery held that a challenge by religious leaders to now-lifted Covid-related restrictions on religious services should be brought in Superior Court, not in Delaware's Chancery Court which is limited to providing equitable relief. The state's other courts are capable of awarding damages and issuing a declaratory judgment. In reaching that conclusion, however, the court modified the test it has traditionally used to determine whether to grant a permanent injunction. The court said that in order to obtain a permanent injunction, as opposed to a TRO or preliminary injunction, petitioner must only show that remedies at law would be inadequate. Threat of irreparable harm is one way, but not the only way, to show this. The court went on, however, to conclude:

[W]hen a plaintiff seeks to ground equitable jurisdiction on the potential need for a permanent injunction, the pled facts must support a reasonable apprehension that the defendant will act in a manner that will necessitate the injunction’s issuance. Under the reasonable-apprehension test, a plaintiff’s subjective fears are not sufficient. There must be objectively good reasons to think that a permanent injunction will be warranted. The plaintiffs have not pled facts that make it reasonably conceivable that the Governor will re-impose the Challenged Restrictions.

5th Circuit Hears Oral Arguments On Alabama COVID Limits On Religious Gatherings

 On Oct. 3, the 5th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals heard oral arguments (audio of full arguments) in Spell v. Edwards. Former Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice and U.S. Senate candidate Roy Moore argued for appellant. In the case, a Louisiana federal district court dismissed a challenge to a now expired COVID Order limiting the size of religious gatherings. The district court dismissed because the challenged restrictions had already expired, and defendants had qualified immunity in the claim for damages. (See prior posting.) AP reports on the oral arguments.

Court Reverses Sanctions Imposed On Church For Violating COVID Orders

In People v. Calvary Chapel, San Jose, (CA App., Aug. 15, 2022), a California state appellate court annulled contempt orders imposed by trial courts and reversed trial court imposition of monetary sanctions which resulted from a church's refusal to comply with state COVID public health orders. The order restricted the holding and conduct of public gatherings. The court said in part:

[W]e conclude that the temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions are facially unconstitutional pursuant to the recent guidance of the United States Supreme Court regarding the First Amendment’s protection of the free exercise of religion in the context of public health orders that impact religious practice (see, e.g., Tandon v. Newsom (2021) ....) As the underlying orders which Calvary Chapel violated are void and unenforceable, we will annul the orders of contempt in their entirety and reverse the orders to pay monetary sanctions.

Advocates for Faith & Freedom issued a press release announcing the decision and reporting that Santa Clara County is still attempting to enforce $2.8 million in fines imposed for violation of county health orders.

San Francisco Permit Requirement For Park Church Services Enjoined

In Stewart v. City and County of San Francisco, California, (ND CA, June 22, 2022), a California federal district court issued a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of a provision in the San Francisco Park Code requiring a permit for any religious event held in a public park involving 50 or more persons. The court found the provision to be a content-based restriction that triggers strict scrutiny, and concluded that it violates free speech and free exercise protections. However the court upheld a provision requiring a permit for events utilizing sound amplification equipment. Plaintiffs hold their weekly church services in public parks.

Free Exercise Challenge To New Mexico COVID Orders Moves Ahead

McKinley v. Grisham, (D NM, June 7, 2022), involves various challenges to Executive Orders and Public Health Orders issued by New Mexico officials in response to the COVID pandemic. While most of the challenges were dismissed, the court allowed plaintiffs to move ahead with their free exercise challenge to restrictions on in-person gatherings at houses of worship. The court said in part:

Some New Mexico public health orders treated comparable secular activities more favorably than religious exercise. For example, the April 11, 2020, public health order allowed essential businesses 20% occupancy capacity but prohibited mass gatherings in a church, synagogue, mosque or other place of worship....

Taking the allegations as true, it is plausible that the Plaintiffs state a freedom of religion claim. Therefore, whether the public health orders survive strict scrutiny is a factual inquiry that cannot be resolved on this Motion. For the above reasons, Plaintiffs alleged a plausible freedom of religion claim, and this Count cannot be dismissed at this stage.

Challenge to Louisiana COVID Worship Restrictions Dismissed As Moot

In Spell v. Edwards, (MD LA, Jan. 12, 2022), a Louisiana federal district court, on remand from the 5th Circuit, again dismissed a challenge to a now expired COVID Order limiting the size of religious gatherings. The court explained:

On July 6, 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit vacated this Court’s November 10 dismissal order, and remanded with instructions to reconsider Plaintiffs’ First Amendment Free Exercise Clause claim in light of new guidance from the U.S. Supreme Court, specifically, Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo, ... South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom, ... and Tandon v. Newsom....

Now, with the benefit of the Supreme Court’s guidance, the Court reaches the same result as before: Plaintiffs’ consolidated actions will, again, be dismissed. In short, the Supreme Court’s most recent jurisprudence cannot save Plaintiffs’ claims for injunctive relief because the challenged restrictions have expired on their own terms and there is no indication whatsoever that crowd-size limits on indoor assembly will be reinstated. Thus, an injunction is a moot point. Further, Plaintiffs’ demand for damages fails because there is not now, and never has been, a “clearly established” right to unrestricted religious assembly.... Thus, Defendants are shielded from liability by qualified immunity.

RNS reports on the decision.

7th Circuit: Church's Suit Against Rescinded COVID Order Is Moot

In Elim Romanian Pentecostal Church v. Pritzker, (7th Cir., Jan. 11, 2022), the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed an Illinois federal district court's denial of an injunction against a now-rescinded COVID order by the Governor of Illinois limiting the number of people who could attend a religious service. The district court based its decision on mootness grounds, even though the 7th Circuit had previously held the case was not moot. The 7th Circuit now said however:

More than 19 months have passed since they were last subject to an attendance limit, and the Governor has not suggested that another is likely.  A legal conclusion that a rescinded order violated the Constitution would not entitle anyone to an injunction....