Church Challenges Colorado's Limitation On Size Of Worship Services

9News reports that on Monday a church in Ault, Colorado filed suit against the governor and other state officials challenging public health orders that limit church gatherings to ten people:

High Plains Harvest Church ... filed the lawsuit Monday in district court and argues that the health order violates their first amendment right to freedom of religion. They also allege that it violates freedom of speech and their right to equal protection under the law.

The complaint alleges in part:

Today in Colorado it is perfectly legal for hundreds of shoppers to pack themselves cheek by jowl into a Lowe’s. But if 50 people meet to worship God in a small rural church, they do so at the risk of being fined and imprisoned.

UPDATE: On May 29, the U.S. Department of Justice filed a Statement of Interest in support of Plaintiffs (full text).

Court Refuses To Dismiss Title VII Suit Because Ministerial Exception Unclear On Facts

In Tucker v. Faith Bible Chapel International, (D CO, May 18, 2020), a Colorado federal district court refused to dismiss a Title VII and state common law complaint brought against Faith Christian Academy. The suit was filed by Gregory Tucker who was a science teacher and chaplain/ director of student life at Faith Christian Academy.  Gregory was fired after he organized a controversial chapel service titled "Race and Faith." Defendant contends that the "ministerial exception" doctrine bars the lawsuit. The court said in part:

I find that whether Mr. Tucker was a “minister” within the meaning of the “ministerial” exception” is genuinely disputed on the evidence presented. Defendant’s position is substantially grounded in the wording of documents, most notably the extension agreement that characterized Mr. Tucker as “chaplain” and the handbook which purports to make all teachers and other full-time employees “ministers.” To be sure, those documents are relevant to the issue. But the substance of Mr. Tucker’s position turns on the totality of the facts and circumstances of his employment, and he has come forward with facts that, if believed by the jury, could rationally support the opposite conclusion.

Suit Challenges Colorado Stay-At-Home Order Partly On Free Exercise Grounds

A suit was filed on Monday by a pro se plaintiff in a Colorado federal district court seeking a preliminary injunction to bar enforcement of the COVID-19 stay-at-home orders issued by the state and local officials.  The complaint (full text) in Lawrence v. State of Colorado, (D CO, filed 3/30/2020) alleges in part:

As a result of the Orders listed above that restrict the gathering of more than ten people at a time, the plaintiff's parish has ceased conducting weekly Mass, has ceased offering the Eucharist, and has ceased hearing confessions. The defendants' conduct has impaired the plaintiff's ability to freely exercise his religious faith, in violation of the First Amendment.

Colorado Politics reports on the lawsuit.

"Neutral Principles" Approach Controls Issue of Joining Parent Church

In Korean New Life Methodist Church v. Korean Methodist Church of the Americas,(CO App., Feb. 6, 2020), a Colorado state appellate court held that the neutral principles of law approach should be used in deciding a dispute over whether a local church agreed to be under the authority of a national denomination.  It agreed that the trial court, using that approach, correctly determined that the local church never gave up control to submit to the authority of the parent church body, saying in part:

[W]e conclude that the question of submission does not involve a “religious dispute” covering ecclesiastical matters or involving church doctrine.... Rather, it involves an inquiry into the local church’s organizational intent as evidenced by church documents, testimony, and conduct.

Hate Crime Charges Filed In Plot To Bomb Synagogue

Yesterday, the U.S. Attorney's Office in Colorado announced that a criminal complaint was filed charging a Colorado man with federal hate crimes for plotting to blow up a synagogue:

Richard Holzer, 27, of Pueblo, Colorado, was charged by criminal complaint with intentionally attempting to obstruct persons in the enjoyment of their free exercise of religious beliefs, through force and the attempted use of explosives and fire, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 247.  

According to the affidavit in support of the criminal complaint, Holzer planned to destroy Temple Emanuel, a synagogue in Pueblo, Colorado, that is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. After visiting Temple Emanuel and observing Jewish congregants, Holzer, who self-identifies as a skinhead and a white supremacist, told undercover FBI agents that he wanted to do something that would tell Jewish people in the community that they are not welcome in Pueblo, and they should leave or they will die. The affidavit states that during a meeting with the undercover agents, Holzer repeatedly expressed his hatred of Jewish people and his support for RAHOWA, shorthand for a racial holy war. Holzer went on to suggest using explosive devices to destroy the Synagogue and “get that place off the map.” The affidavit notes that Holzer’s actions meet the federal definition of domestic terrorism in that his actions involve criminal acts dangerous to human life that are intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population.

Doctor Sues Over Hospital's Limits On Providing Aid-In-Dying Medications

Last month, a doctor and her terminally ill patient filed a lawsuit in a Colorado state court against Centura Health's St. Anthony Hospital challenging its religion-based policy of refusing to allow its physicians to prescribe medication for patients under the state's End of Life Options Act, or to assist in qualifying a patient for use of aid-in-dying medication. The complaint (full text) in Mahoney v. Morris, (CO Dist. Ct., filed 8/21/2019), alleges that the hospital's policy goes beyond the opt-out permitted by the Colorado statute which only permits hospitals to bar their physicians from writing prescriptions for assisted-suicide medications that will be used on hospital premises.

Last week, Centura Health fired plaintiff Dr. Barbara Morris, and filed a petition to remove the case to federal court, contending that the hospital, sponsored by Catholic and Seventh Day Adventist ministries, cannot be barred from dismissing an employee who violates its policy.  The Notice of Removal (full text) in Mahoney v. Morris, (D CO, filed 8/30/19) alleges that the hospital's rights under the Free Exercise and Establishment clauses would be violated if it cannot discipline its doctors for acting in opposition to its religious doctrines. It also invokes 42 U.S. Code § 2000e–1, the exemption from Title VII for religious institutions. Kaiser Health News reports on these developments. [Thanks to Michael Peabody for the lead.]

Suit By Mennonite Group Over Lockers For Homeless Is Settled

The Rocky Mountain Collegian yesterday reported on the settlement of a lawsuit brought by the Fort Collins Mennonite Fellowship against the city of Fort Collins after City Council added restrictions on the Fellowship's locker program for the homeless.  The city limited the hours of operation and required constant supervision of the lockers during those hours.  The Fellowship sued claiming that the restrictions are unreasonable, vague, overly burdensome and prevent the church from practicing its religious obligation of helping those less fortunate. According to the paper's report, a negotiated settlement has been reached, but must still be approved by City Council at its Sept. 3 meeting:

The City will pay a negotiated amount of $60,000 to FCMF’s lawyers to cover some of the costs incurred during the lawsuit.

As for the locker program, access hours are expanded to 6 a.m. to 9 p.m., and a church representative no longer has to supervise during all hours of operation. Lockers will still be physically restricted outside those hours, but guests may access their belongings if a church representative unlocks the lockers for them. 

The church’s surveillance camera, installed early on in the program, will continue running 24/7. Footage will be retained for seven days.

Challenge To Attempted Search of Church Is Dismissed

In Aguilera v. City of Colorado Springs, (D CO, July 23, 2019), a Colorado federal district court dismissed a suit brought by plaintiff who leases two rooms to the Green Faith Ministry. The suit grew out of an attempt by city authorities to conduct an occupancy check of the building leased by the Ministry, apparently suspecting that it was a retail marijuana outlet. Authorities took photos of license plates, but never gained access to the building. The court held that plaintiff lacks standing to bring most of her claims:

Plaintiff complains that Defendants ... deterred others from entering the building... She alleges that Defendant Vargason attempted a warrantless entry of the Green Faith Ministry building.... She contends that the City of Colorado Springs is entangled financially with many Christian organizations and targeted Green Faith Ministry.... Plaintiff fails to allege how this conduct, directed to other individuals and to the Green Faith Ministry entity, harmed her.

The court went on to find a few actions that did impact plaintiff, including one of the defendants telling her "to Praise the Lord." The court concluded that this did not violate the Establishment Clause or plaintiff's free exercise rights.

Another Suit Filed Against Masterpiece Cakeshop For Refusal To Create Cakes For LGBT Events

Another lawsuit has been filed against Masterpiece Cakeshop owner Jack Phillips, this time over his refusal on religious grounds to create a pink birthday cake with blue icing for a transgender female customer.  The complaint (full text) in Scardina v. Masterpiece Cakeshop, Inc., (CO dist. Ct., June 5, 2019), contends that the refusal violates Colorado's anti-discrimination and deceptive practices acts. This suit was filed by the aggrieved customer after litigation over the same issue between Phillips and the Colorado Civil Rights Commission was dropped. (See prior posting.)  Last year the U.S. Supreme Court on narrow grounds ruled against the Colorado Civil Rights Commission in its attempt to issue a cease and desist order against Masterpiece Cakeshop for its refusal to provide a wedding cake for a same-sex marriage. (See prior posting.) Christian Post reports on the most recent lawsuit.

Christian Wedding Services Owner Loses Challenge To Colorado's Public Accommodation Law

303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, (D CO, May 17, 2019), is another in the growing line of cases in which Christian wedding service providers refuse on religious grounds to make their services available for same sex weddings.  Here plaintiff Lorie Smith wanted to expand her business to design custom websites for couples planning weddings. However she would not provide her services for same-sex weddings.  In the case, a Colorado federal district court rejected a constitutional challenge to the application of the "communications clause" of Colorado's public accommodation law to Lorie Smith's business.  That law prohibits publication of any notice or advertisement indicating that services will be withheld on the basis of, among other things, sexual orientation. The court rejected both 1st and 14th Amendment claims.

In their equal protection challenge, plaintiffs argued that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission has applied the law only where business owners disfavor same sex marriages, but not to refusals to produce products with pro-religious messages. The court concluded however that businesses in the other cases were not similarly situated to plaintiff's business.

In rejecting plaintiffs' free speech challenge, the court emphasized that only the clause in the law barring communication of an intent to discriminate was at issue.  The court assumed, for purposes of its decision, that the law's "accommodation clause" which is a substantive ban on discrimination is constitutional. This led it to conclude that under Supreme Court precedent:

the government’s ability to regulate unlawful economic activity allows it to prohibit advertisements of this type, even if it must do so by defining the prohibited message based on its content.

The court rejected plaintiffs' Free Exercise challenge, finding that the communications clause is a neutral of general applicability.

Settlement Reached In Student Group's Challenge To Denial of Registered Status

A Settlement Agreement (full text) has been reached in Ratio Christi at the University of Colorado, Colorado Springs v. Sharkey, according to a press release today from ADF.  The  Christian group, Ratio Christi sued last year in a Colorado federal district court challenging the University of Colorado's denial to it of registered status. The University objected to the group's policies requiring its officers to personally hold Christian beliefs, and requiring prospective members to agree with and promote the organization's purposes. (See prior posting.)  Under the Settlement Agreement, the University will change its non-discrimination policy to provide:

All student clubs are permitted to require their leadership to promote the purposes of the club, to ascribe to sincerely held beliefs of the club, and/or to act in accordance with club standards.

However student clubs will not be permitted to limit membership on the basis of  "race, color, national origin, sex, pregnancy, age, disability, creed, political affiliation or philosophy, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, or veteran status." Ratio Christi will change its constitution to provide:

Students are not required to profess faith in, endorse, or adopt any religious beliefs to become members of the Chapter or participate in its activities. Any efforts to undermine or subvert the purposes enumerated in Article II will be addressed by the Chapter Officers in consultation with the Faculty Advisor and/or Chapter Director.

The University will also make a settlement payment to Ratio Christi of $20,574.

Colorado and Masterpiece Cakeshop Agree To End Their Litigation

In a press release yesterday, the Colorado Attorney General's Office announced that the state and Masterpiece Cakeshop have agreed to end their battle over the right of a bakery owner to refuse to design cakes celebrating LGBT events. As previously reported, while the U.S. Supreme Court appeal involving Masterpiece Cakeshop owner Jack Phillip's refusal to design a cake for a same-sex wedding ceremony was pending, another customer, Autumn Scardina, sought a cake from Masterpiece Cakeshop to celebrate her gender transition. Phillips refused and the Commission issued a probable cause determination.  In response, Phillips filed a federal lawsuit claiming that the Commission was targeting him in violation of his constitutional rights.  In yesterday's announcement, the state said:

Under the terms of the agreement, the Colorado Civil Rights Commission will voluntarily dismiss the state administrative action against Masterpiece Cakeshop and its owner, Jack Phillips, and Mr. Phillips will voluntarily dismiss his federal court case against the State.... This agreement does not affect the ability of Autumn Scardina ... to pursue a claim on her own.

“After careful consideration of the facts, both sides agreed it was not in anyone’s best interest to move forward with these cases. The larger constitutional issues might well be decided down the road, but these cases will not be the vehicle for resolving them. Equal justice for all will continue to be a core  value that we will uphold as we enforce our state’s and nation’s civil rights laws,” said [Attorney General] Weise...

ADF, which represents Phillips, issued a press release yesterday saying that the dismissal of litigation comes "in the wake of newly discovered evidence of the state’s ongoing hostility toward religious freedom."

Colorado Bakery Can Move Ahead With Suit Over Non-Discrimination Laws

In Masterpiece Cakeshop Inc. v. Elenis, (D CO, Jan. 4, 2018), a Colorado federal district court held that the owner of a Colorado bakery may move ahead with his suit seeking injunctive relief against enforcement of the state's anti-discrimination laws. However the court dismissed plaintiffs' damage claims on immunity grounds.  Plaintiff Jack Phillips won a U.S. Supreme Court victory last year when the Supreme Court held that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission showed impermissible hostility toward his religious objections to designing a cake for a same-sex wedding ceremony.  While that case was pending, a different customer sought a cake to celebrate her gender transition. Phillips refused to make the cake that conveyed a message in conflict with his religious belief that gender is immutable. The Commission again issued a probable cause determination and the state filed a formal complaint against Phillips. In response Phillips filed this suit claiming that the Division's bullying of him violates his free exercise, free speech, due process and equal protection rights. Catholic News Agency reports on the decision.

Christian Student Group Sues University For Registration

A suit was filed in Colorado federal district court this week by a Christian student organization at the University of Colorado that was denied registered status because it requires its officers must share and personally hold its Christian beliefs. It also requires prospective members to agree with and promote the organization's purposes. Registered status gives an organization access to student activity fees. The complaint (full text) in Ratio Christi at the University of Colorado v. Sharkey, (D CO, filed 11/14/2018) alleges:

[The University] has promised to register Ratio Christi only if the group changes its leadership and membership criteria. That is, Plaintiffs must agree to abandon their rights to free speech, free association, free exercise of religion, freedom from unconstitutional conditions, due process, and equal protection to access campus resources available to all other student organization.

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

Teacher Lacks Standing To Challenge Contraceptive Mandate Exemptions

In Campbell v. Trump, (D CO, Sept. 11, 2018), a Colorado federal district court held that a teacher in a private school lacks standing to challenge the Trump administration rules that allow employers to refuse on religious or moral grounds to provide health insurance coverage for contraceptive services. Plaintiff currently has coverage in her employer's policy but argues that she fears her employer might withdraw coverage.  The court held:

There are no factual allegations in the complaint that support an inference that injury to plaintiff, economic or otherwise, is “actual and imminent” as required to constitute an injury in fact under Article III standing principles.

Masterpiece Cakeshop Sues Colorado In New Religious Accommodation Dispute

In the wake of the Masterpiece Cakeshop decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in June, Masterpiece Cakeshop owner Jack Phillips is again entangled in litigation.  The complaint (full text) in Masterpiece Cakeshop, Inc. v. Elenis, (D CO, filed 8/14/2018) alleges that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission violated Phillips' free exercise, free speech, equal protection and due process rights when on July 2 it issued a Determination (full text) that Phillips violated the state's public accommodation anti-discrimination law by refusing to bake a birthday cake that celebrates a customer's gender transition.  The district court lawsuit alleges in part:

6.... [S]ome Colorado citizens, emboldened by the state’s prosecution of Phillips, have targeted him. On the same day that the Supreme Court announced it would hear Phillips’s case, a Colorado lawyer called his shop and requested a cake designed with a blue exterior and pink interior, which the caller said would visually depict and celebrate a gender transition. Throughout the next year, Phillips received other requests for cakes celebrating Satan, featuring Satanic symbols, depicting sexually explicit materials, and promoting marijuana use. Phillips believes that some of those requests came from the same Colorado lawyer.

7. Phillips declined to create the cake with the blue and pink design because it would have celebrated messages contrary to his religious belief that sex—the status of being male or female—is given by God, is biologically determined, is not determined by perceptions or feelings, and cannot be chosen or changed. A mere 24 days after Phillips prevailed in the Supreme Court, Colorado told him that he violated Colorado law by declining to create that cake. In so doing, the state went back on what it told the Supreme Court in its Masterpiece briefing—that its public accommodation law allows Phillips to decline to create cakes with pro-LGBT designs or themes.

ADF issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit. Fox 31 News reports on the lawsuit.

School's Mission Trip Fundraising Violated Establishment Clause

In American Humanist Association, Inc. v. Douglas County School District RE-1, (D CO, July 17, 2018), a Colorado federal district court, in a case on remand from the 10th Circuit, held that a school district's promotion and fund raising for a Christian mission trip to assist orphans in Guatemala violated the Establishment Clause.  The court concluded that the school's activities violated both the effect and entanglement prongs of the Lemon test.  The court said in part:

The very concept of a mission trip has religious intimations. The Guatemala mission trip was overtly religious. It was organized by District students and teachers who are part of the Fellowship of Christian Athletes; it was planned through a Christian organization called Adventures in Missions: Christian Mission Trips; and the fundraising page for the trip noted “our group’s primary goal is to share the love and hope of Jesus.” ... In addition, the student organizer of the trip testified that “the plan was to . . . introduce [children] to the Bible” and to “promote Christianity.” ... It was no secret to the defendants that the supplies and money donated during the Cougar Run supply drive would be used to directly advance Christian goals.

The court granted summary judgment to the individual plaintiff, but dismissed the associational plaintiff in the case. Denver Post reports on the decision.

Creativity Movement Is Not A "Religion"

In Hale v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, (D CO, March 28, 2018), a Colorado federal district court in a 33-page opinion held that the White supremacist Creativity movement is not a "religion" for purposes of the Free Exercise clause of the First Amendment or the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.  In reaching this conclusion, the court (applying tests from a 1996 10th Circuit opinion) said that while Creativity has many of the accoutrements of religion, several other factors weigh against accepting its claim as being religious:

Creativity lacks an ultimate belief system that addresses philosophical and existential issues such as the nature of man, whether there is life after death, what role man plays in the universe, and the like. These beliefs address only the relative positions of people of different races during their lifetimes. Thus, the Court finds that Creativity fails to address ultimate ideas or metaphysical issues because it lacks any cosmological, teleological and existential focus....

Creativity does have a moral or ethical system, found mostly in its commandments. These commandments take definitive positions on what constitutes good, evil, right, and wrong in Creativity’s belief system. However, the system is less of a system and more of a single, binary precept.... Also at the same time, Creativity creates duties to itself, not to a higher power. There is no religious connotation to Creativity’s moral or ethical system; it is entirely based on the secular concern of white supremacy....

Creativity does not attempt to answer human kind’s basic questions; it either avoids questions or to the extent it has an answer, that answer is reduced to the single-dimensional idea of white dominance. 

Appeals Court Says Mennonite Woman Must Remain In Jail Until She Will Answer Prosecution's Questions

A Colorado appeals court. after expedited consideration, has rejected religious liberty arguments raised by a Mennonite woman who refuses to testify on behalf of the prosecution in a capital case.  Greta Lindekranz was an investigator for defense attorneys. The prosecution wants her testimony to rebut arguments that convicted murderer Robert Ray received ineffective assistance of counsel.  Lindekranz, who opposes capital punishment on religious grounds, argues that answering questions on direct examination by the prosecution would make her a tool in the prosecution's efforts to execute Ray.  The trial court held that her refusal to answer questions put forward by the prosecution placed her in contempt, and it ordered her held in jail until she elects to answer the questions. (See prior posting.)  In People v. Ray and Concerning Lindekranz, (CO App., March 8, 2018), the appellate court refused to reverse the contempt citation.  It held that even if strict scrutiny applies, the state has a compelling interest in ascertaining the truth and rendering a just judgment in accordance with the law.  The court rejected Lindekranz's alternative of answering questions from the court, with the prosecution and defense then cross-examining her.

The court concluded:

Ms. Lindecrantz is in a tough spot — caught between the proverbial rock and a hard place. We take no pleasure in declining to extricate her. But the state of the law being what it is, decline we must.

Colorado Public Radio, reporting on the decision, says that an appeal will be filed with the Colorado Supreme Court.

UPDATE: AP reports (March 10) that Lindekranz will now testify because her refusal to do so is hurting Ray's appeal. According to her lawyer: "Based on this dramatic change in circumstance, she has concluded that her religious principles honoring human life now compel that she must testify."

Mennonite Woman Jailed For Contempt For Refusal To Testify In Capital Case

CBS4 reports that in Arapahoe County, Colorado, a Mennonite woman has been held in contempt and remanded to jail for refusing to testify for the prosecution in the challenge to a conviction by Robert Ray who was sentenced to death for murder.  Ray is claiming inadequate representation at trial. The woman, Greta Lindecrantz, was an investigator for the defense in the original trial. Prosecutors want her to testify to show the adequacy of Ray's lawyers.  However Lindecrantz says that her religious beliefs prohibit her from participating in the killing of another person, and that is what prosecutors are asking her to do.