Court Refuses To Enjoin Medical Campus' Vaccination Mandate

In Jane Does 1-11 v. Board of Regents of the University of Colorado, (D CO, Jan. 27, 2022), a Colorado federal district court refused to grant a preliminary injunction against the COVID vaccination requirements of the University of Colorado's Medical Campus.  Under a revised policy, employees are entitled to a religious accommodation if the accommodation would not unduly burden the health and safety of others.  Medical students are not entitled to religious accommodations.  The court found the policy neutral and generally applicable, and so subject only to rational basis review.  The court said in part:

[T]he Court does not see how offering employees the opportunity to request a religious accommodation could amount to treating comparable secular activity more favorably than religious exercise. For one thing, Plaintiffs have not shown that employees and students are comparable in this context....

[A]lthough the University has determined it can accommodate some employees by allowing them to work remotely, Plaintiffs have made no showing that a similar accommodation for students is practicable.  And ... the ... Policy treats employees and students differently because of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which protects the former but not the latter....

The court also concluded that the presence of medical exemptions does not prevent the Policy from being generally applicable.

10th Circuit Affirms Dismissal Of Churches Challenge To Colorado COVID Restrictions

In Denver Bible Church v. Polis, (10th Cir., Jan. 24, 2022), the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a district court's denial of a preliminary injunction in a free exercise challenge by two churches and one of their pastors to COVID restrictions imposed by the state of Colorado.  It similarly affirmed the dismissal of a challenge to the federal government's award of COVID relief aid to the state.  The court dismissed most of the claims against the state on mootness grounds, finding that changes in state restrictions have lifted all COVID limits on churches. The facial challenge to the state's emergency disaster statute was dismissed because the statute is neutral and generally applicable.  The court then dismissed for lack of standing plaintiffs' claim that the federal government violated RFRA by distributing COVID relief aid to Colorado while the state was violating plaintiffs' free exercise rights.

Magistrate Recommends Dismissing Religious Objections To School's Teaching Transgender Understanding

In Jones v. Boulder Valley School District RE-2, (D CO, Oct. 4, 2021), a Colorado federal magistrate judge recommended dismissing a suit by parents of three elementary school students who contended that their free exercise and equal protection rights, as well as their parental rights to control the upbringing of their children, were violated when the school instituted a program to teach tolerance and understanding of transgender individuals that conflicted with the parents religious beliefs.

Plaintiffs ... emphasize that all they want is proper advance notice and the ability to opt-out of transgender programming as provided for by Colorado law....  The problem is that the federal constitution does not mandate advance notice or the ability to opt out of particular classes or programs, and especially not from particular classroom discussions. The federal constitution protects religious children and families by ensuring that a state cannot punish them if they choose to educate their children outside the public system, whether at home or at areligious school. But the federal constitution gives parents no First Amendment or due process right to direct to what is taught in the schools based on their own personal religious beliefs, nor does the federal constitution mandate the right to a religious "opt-out" option from particular classes or specific programming. From the federal constitutional perspective ..., it is up to the local school district to decide what is taught and at what age....

A Notice of Settlement was filed with the court on Nov. 15, and the case was terminated.

Limited Religious Exemptions From Vaccine Mandate Challenged

Suit was filed this week in a Colorado federal district court challenging provisions limiting religious exemptions from the University of Colorado Medical School's vaccine mandate.  The school offers a religious exemption only to those whose objections are based on a religious belief whose teachings are opposed to all immunizations. The complaint (full text) in Jane Doe, M.D. v. University of Colorado,(D CO, filed 9/29/2021), says in part:

[The policy] imposes two necessary conditions to ... any religious accommodation, namely:

a. ... [A] sincere religious belief that opposes acceptance of “all immunizations” and vaccines; and

b. That the person requesting a religious accommodation be a member of an organized religion whose tenets include a hierarchically promulgated, authoritative position on the moral liceity of “all immunizations” and vaccines....

Both conditions are clearly forbidden by the Establishment, Free Exercise, and Equal Protection clauses of the United States constitution and the Religious Freedom provisions of the Colorado constitution.... [They] privileg[e] hierarchically prescribed religious belief over autonomously prescribed (yet sincerely held) religious belief.

Thomas More Society issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

10th Circuit: Muslim Inmate Can Move Ahead On Claim That He Was Forced To Shave Beard

In Ashaheed v. Currington, (10th Cir., Aug. 10, 2021), the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a Colorado federal district court's dismissal of a Muslim inmate's free exercise and equal protection claims. The Colorado corrections center requires inmates to shave their beards at intake but provides an exemption for inmates who wear beards for religious reasons. Plaintiff says he repeatedly asserted this exemption, but that Defendant-- motivated by anti-Muslim animus-- forced him to shave.

The court rejected Defendant's qualified immunity defense, saying: "The constitutional violation alleged here was clear beyond debate." The court concluded in part:

Sergeant Currington’s refusal to follow the Center’s beard-shaving policy and grant Mr. Ashaheed a religious exemption, when he previously accommodated the religious needs of non-Muslims under the Center’s personal-effects policy, shows that he burdened Mr. Ashaheed’s religion in a discriminatory and nonneutral manner.

10th Circuit: Colorado Anti-Discrimination Law Can Apply To Wedding Website Designer

 In 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, (10th Cir., July 26, 2021), the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the application of Colorado's Anti-Discrimination Act to a wedding website design company whose owner for religious reasons refuses to create websites that celebrate same-sex marriages. The Act bars refusing services because of a customer's sexual orientation and publishing any communication that indicates such discriminatory practices. The majority conceded that the law compelled speech and acted as a content-based restriction. However the majority found that it nevertheless was constitutional because it was narrowly tailored to further a compelling state interest.  The majority said in part:

Here, Colorado has a compelling interest in protecting both the dignity interests of members of marginalized groups and their material interests in accessing the commercial marketplace....

To be clear, we, like the Dissent, do not question Appellants’ “sincere religious beliefs” or “good faith.”... Yet, we fail to see how Appellants’ sincerity or good faith should excuse them from CADA. Appellants’ intent has no bearing on whether, as a consequence, same-sex couples have limited access to goods or services....

The Communication Clause does not violate the Appellants’ Free Speech rights. As the district court correctly held, Colorado may prohibit speech that promotes unlawful activity, including unlawful discrimination....

Chief Judge Tymkovich filed a lengthy dissenting opinion. saying in part:

While everyone supports robust and vigorously enforced anti-discrimination laws, those laws need not and should not force a citizen to make a Hobson’s choice over matters of conscience. Colorado is rightfully interested in protecting certain classes of persons from arbitrary and discriminatory treatment. But what Colorado cannot do is turn the tables on Ms. Smith and single out her speech and religious beliefs for discriminatory treatment under the aegis of anti-discrimination laws.

 ADF issued a press release announcing the decision.

Baker Violated Public Accommodation Law In Refusing To Sell Gender Transition Cake

Scardina v. Masterpiece Cakeshop, Inc., (CO Dist. Ct., June 15, 2021), is the latest installment in lawsuits against the owner of a Lakewood, Colorado bakery who refuses to furnish cakes that violate his religious beliefs.  Here, a transgender woman sought to order a birthday cake with a pink interior and blue exterior to reflect her transition from male to female. According to the court:

Mr. Phillips ... claims his religious beliefs prevent him from creating a custom cake celebrating a transition from male to female because expressing that message—that such a transition is possible and should be celebrated—would violate his religious convictions.... He and his wife believe that God designed people male and female, that a person’s gender is biologically determined, and that gender does not change based on an individual’s perception or feelings.....  

The court concluded that defendants violated the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act, and that the law does not infringe defendants' free speech or free exercise rights:

Defendants denied Ms. Scardina goods and services because of her transgender status. Defendants admit that they were willing to make the requested cake until Ms. Scardina identified that she chose the colors to reflect and celebrate her identity as a transgender female....

The Court concludes that a reasonable observer of the requested cake would not attribute any message to Defendants and would not understand the cake to convey the message claimed by Defendants, i.e., endorsement of a gender transition. Therefore, Defendants have failed to carry their burden to show that providing the requested cake constituted any type of symbolic or expressive speech protected by the First Amendment.....

A press release from ADF says that the decision will be appealed.

Justice Gorsuch Denies "Shadow Docket" Injunction Pending Appeal Sought By Two Churches

In a little-noticed order on the Supreme Court's "shadow docket", earlier this week Justice Gorsuch, without referring the petition to the entire Court, denied an emergency application for an injunction pending appeal filed by two churches who oppose Colorado's COVID-19 executive orders and public health orders. In Denver Bible Church v. Polis, (US Sup. Ct., application denied 6/1/2021), the churches sought an injunction while appeals are pending to prohibit the state from issuing future disaster emergency or public health orders against houses of worship and from enforcing against them any current orders issued since the beginning of the COVID pandemic. (Full text of application and brief in support). SCOTUSblog has more on the action. Here are links to other filings in the case.

10th Circuit Hears Oral Arguments In Ministerial Exception Case

On Tuesday, the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments (audio of full arguments) in Tucker v. Faith Bible Chapel International.  In the case, a Colorado federal district court refused to dismiss on the pleadings a ministerial exception case. At issue is whether a science teacher and chaplain/ director of student life at Faith Christian Academy is a "minister" for purposes of the exception.  Plaintiff  was fired after he organized a controversial chapel service titled "Race and Faith." Reuters has additional background on the oral arguments.

Colorado Bakery, In Court Again, Loses Attempt to Dismiss Transgender Discrimination Claim

 In Scardina v. Masterpiece Cakeshop, Inc.,(CO Dist. Ct., March 4, 2021), a Colorado state trial court dismissed Colorado Consumer Protection Act claims against a bakery that has been the subject of extensive litigation over its refusal to design wedding cakes for same-sex weddings. In the current case, plaintiffs claimed that the bakery engaged in misleading advertising indicating that they would sell birthday cakes to LGBT individuals. The court dismissed the claim because "the most salient materials Plaintiff allegedly relied on are not advertisements," but were news articles and op-eds. However the court refused to dismiss plaintiff's Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act claim that she was discriminated against because of her transgender status when plaintiff refused to make a blue and pink cake celebrating her gender transition. The court said in part:

Whether making Plaintiff’s requested cake is inherently expressive, and thus protected speech, depends on whether Defendants would thereby convey their own particularized message, and whether the likelihood is great that a reasonable observer would both understand the message and attribute that message to Defendants.... The Court cannot conclude, based on the current record, that the act of making a pink cake with blue frosting, at Plaintiff’s request, would convey a celebratory message about gender transitions likely to be understood by reasonable observers. Further, to the extent the public infers such a message, that message is far more likely to be attributed to Plaintiff, who requested the cake’s simple design. Therefore, if Defendants violated CADA here, they have not shown that their freedom of speech would be violated by holding them liable.

No Free Exercise Infringement When Court Allocates Vaccination Decision-Making Between Parents

 In In re Marriage of Crouch, (CO App., Jan. 14, 2021), a Colorado state appellate court remanded a trial court's refusal to modify the allocation of medical decision-making by divorced parents for their children. Originally both parents had agreed, largely for religious reasons, that their children should not be vaccinated. Subsequently the father changed his mind and sought to have them vaccinated.  The appeals court held that the trial court improperly imposed on the father an added burden in order to overcome the mother's right to free exercise of religion.  The court said in part:

A parent’s free exercise rights are not implicated by a court’s allocation of decision-making responsibility between parents.

Grand Junction Daily Sentinel reports on the decision.

Colorado Supreme Court: Same-Sex Common Law Marriages Before Obergefell Are Valid

In In re Marriage of LaFleur & Pyfer, (CO Sup. Ct., Jan. 11, 2021), the Colorado Supreme Court held that a court may recognize as a common law marriage a relationship entered into by same-sex couples before the U.S. Supreme Court's Obergefell decision that legalized same-sex marriages. Chief Justice Boatright concurred in part. Justice Samour dissented. In In re Marriage of Hogsett & Neale, decided at the same time, the Colorado Supreme Court refined the test for common law marriages in Colorado.

10th Circuit Dismisses Objections To Attempted Search of Church

 In Aguilera v. City of Colorado Springs, (10th Cir., Nov. 18, 2020), the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of a civil rights claim brought by the High Priestess/ Property Manager of Green Faith Ministry who objected to an attempt by a police officer and fire marshals to inspect the ministry's building. Officers apparently suspected marijuana usage or occupancy standard violations. The court rejected plaintiff's complaint that one officer told her to "praise the Lord." The court said in part:

Aguilera’s amended complaint does not allege facts indicating that an objective observer would view Officer Vargason’s purpose in saying “Praise the Lord” as an official endorsement of religion.

The court also rejected plaintiff's free exercise claim, concluding:

Aguilera has failed to allege that any defendant burdened her exercise of religious beliefs or practices.

10th Circuit Hears Oral Arguments In Colorado Ban On Discriminating Against Same-Sex Weddings

 On Monday, the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of appeals heard oral arguments (audio of full arguments) in 303 Creative v. Elenis. In the case, 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.  Last year, a Colorado federal district court rejected a constitutional challenge to the application of the "communications clause" of Colorado's public accommodation law to 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. (See prior posting.) KNSI News reports on the oral arguments.

Colorado Marijuana Ban May Be Applied To Cannabis Ministry

 In People v. Torline, (CO App., Nov. 12, 2020), a Colorado state appellate court held that Colorado’s law barring possession and growing of marijuana does not violate the state or federal Free Exercise rights of defendant, an ordained minister who grows the plants as part of his Cannabis Ministry. The court said in part:

[T]he incorporation of marijuana and marijuana concentrate into religious rituals is subject to regulation on equal terms with secular marijuana use. Colorado law does not penalize such conduct because of its religious character.

New Developments In the Abortion Rights Controversy

The past few days have brought several developments in the battle over abortion rights. In Colorado, an Initiative measure on the ballot that would have banned abortions after 22 weeks of gestation was defeated 59% to 41% (89% of precincts reporting). In Louisiana voters approved by a margin of 62% to 38% an amendment to the state constitution providing "To protect human life, nothing in this constitution shall be construed to secure or protect a right to abortion or require the funding of abortion."

Meanwhile last week, the Alabama Supreme Court in Magers v. Alabama Women's Center Reproductive Alternatives, LLC, (LA Sup. Ct., Oct. 30, 2020), dismissed a wrongful death action brought by the father of an aborted 6-week old fetus against a clinic that provided the mother with a pill to induce a medication abortion. The trial court dismissed the suit, and the state Supreme Court dismissed because appellant did not comply with the procedural requirements for the type of brief that needs to be submitted for an appeal. However Justice Mitchell, joined by 3 other justices wrote concurring opinion that said in part:

I write separately, however, to state my view that Roe v. Wade ... and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey ... are due to be overruled by the United States Supreme Court....

First, the central holding of Roe -- that there is a constitutional right to have an abortion based on a judicially created trimester framework -- has no grounding in the text of the United States Constitution....

Second, the right to have an abortion has no foundation "so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental." Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U.S. 97, 105 (1934).

[Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead as to Alabama.]

Colorado Limits On Worship Services Enjoined

In Denver Bible Church v. Azar, (D CO, Oct. 15, 2020), a Colorado federal district court granted a preliminary injunction barring enforcement against two churches of portions of Colorado's COVID-19 restrictions on worship services. The court said in part:

Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their free exercise claim for a simple reason. Having decided that the risk of allowing various activities to be exempt from the strictest Safer at Home rules is justified on the basis that those activities are critical and necessary, the State cannot decide for Plaintiffs what is critical and necessary to their religious exercise. With each exception Colorado makes for secular institutions, the failure to make the same exemption for houses of worship becomes increasingly problematic.... So Colorado’s failure to offer a compelling reason why houses of worship are subject to greater restrictions than warehouses, schools, and restaurants violates the First Amendment’s guarantee of the free exercise of religion....

Note well that the implications of this conclusion aren’t as broad as some might hope or others might fear. Plaintiffs will still be subject to the neutrally applicable rules and prohibitions in Public Health Order 20-35. They will, for example, have to enforce sanitization requirements, maintain social distancing between individuals, and not permit shaking hands.... All in all, based on their bona fide religious need to do so, Plaintiffs will be allowed to open their sanctuaries subject to the same capacity, social distancing, and masking rules that are applicable to other critical businesses, and will be able to permit congregants to remove their masks if and when it is necessary to carry out their religious exercise.

CBSN Denver reports on the decision.

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.