Challenge To Narrow Religious Exemption in Maryland Employment Law Is Dismissed In Part

In General Conference of Seventh-Day Adventists v. Horton, (D MD, June 18, 2025), a Maryland federal district court denied a preliminary injunction in a suit challenging the Maryland Supreme Court's interpretation of the religious exemption in the Maryland Fair Employment Practices Act. The Maryland Supreme Court has held that the exemption is limited to claims brought by employees who perform duties that directly further the core mission of the religious entity. As summarized by the court, plaintiffs allege in part:

(1) the exemption violates Plaintiffs' church autonomy rights under the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment; (2) it violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment because it excessively entangles government with religion; (3) it violates the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment; (4) it violates the Establishment Clause by discriminating against Plaintiffs based on their denomination; (5) it violates Plaintiffs' First Amendment right to expressive association; (6) it violates Plaintiffs' First Amendment right to assembly; and (7) it violates the right to due process of law under the Fifthand Fourteenth Amendments because it is unconstitutionally vague.

In a 43-page opinion, the court found that plaintiffs are not likely to succeed on the merits of any of these claims. However it refused to dismiss outright three of plaintiff's claims, saying in part:

... [T]he Court recognizes that Plaintiffs are in good faith seeking an extension of the law in Count 1 [church autonomy], and that on Count 3 [free exercise], Plaintiffs have a different interpretation of the law on the issue of the applicable level of scrutiny that is not strictly foreclosed by precedent. Ordinarily, a court should refrain from dismissing outright a claim asserting a novel legal theory that can better be assessed after factual development....

... [T]he Court finds that under its view of the legal landscape, Plaintiffs have not stated a viable claim of a violation of the right to expressive association. Nevertheless, as with Counts 1 and 3, where Plaintiffs are seeking an extension of the law to have claims based on expressive association apply to the employment context, and further factual development is arguably warranted before full disposition of this claim, the Motion to Dismiss will be denied as to this claim.

5th Circuit Upholds Preliminary Injunction Against Louisiana's 10 Commandments In Classrooms Law

In Roake v. Brumley, (5th Cir., June 20, 2025), the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a district court's grant of a preliminary injunction against enforcement of a Louisiana statute that requires public schools to display the Ten Commandments in every classroom. In a lengty opinion the appellate court found that plaintiffs had standing to challenge the statute and that plaintiffs had shown a substantial likelihood of succcess on the merits of their Establishment Clause claim.  The court said in part:

The precedents of the Supreme Court and this court establish that, in an Establishment Clause case, a plaintiff can generally satisfy the injury-infact element of standing when he experiences—or certainly will experience—unwanted exposure to government-sponsored religious displays or exercises in the course of his regular activities....

Although the Supreme Court set aside the Lemon test in Kennedy [v. Bremerton School District],...  Kennedy did not overrule Stone [v. Graham]. Kennedy does  not mention Stone or purport to overrule the decisions (other than Lemon) on which Stone relies, i.e., Schempp or Engel. Stone remains good law andtherefore controls....

An H.B. 71 display that meets the statute’s minimum requirements is materially identical to the displays challenged in Stone....

It is also unclear how H.B. 71 ensures that students in Louisiana public schools “understand and appreciate the foundational documents of [its] stateand  national government” when it makes displaying those “foundational” documents optional, and does not require that they also be printed in a large, easily readable font.... When the Ten Commandments must be posted prominently and legibly, while the other “contextual” materials need not be visible at all, the disparity lays bare the pretext....

... [T]he question before us is whether the permanent posting of the Ten Commandments in public school classrooms fits within, or is consistent with, a broader tradition of using the Ten Commandments in public education....

Plaintiffs presented the expert testimony of Dr. Steven Green, a religious and constitutional legal historian. Dr. Green testified that the public school system did not exist at the founding; rather, public education originated sometime around the late 1820s. Dr. Green also found no evidence that the Ten Commandments were permanently displayed in early American public schools. He testified that no state enacted a law allowing the display of the Ten Commandments in public schools until North Dakota did so in 1927, and that a court later stuck down the statute....

Judge Dennis filed a concurring opinion, saying in part:

I join the majority opinion in full. I write separately to offer two additional bases for affirming the district court’s judgment. First, the Plaintiffs have standing under settled Supreme Court precedents recognizing “offended observer” standing in Establishment Clause cases.... Second, Louisiana vastly overstates both the holding and reach of Kennedy v. Bremerton School District.... That decision did not undermine—much less overrule—Stone v. Graham.... Nor did it eliminate the component parts of Lemon v. Kurtzman....

Axios reports on the decision.

Court Denies TRO In Challenge To Trump's Executive Orders on Antisemitism

In McClanahan v. Trump, (WD MO, June 9, 2025), a Missouri federal district court refused to grant a temporary restraining order in a challenge to President Trump's Executive Orders directing federal agencies to use the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (“IHRA”) definition of antisemitism in enforcing Title VI of the Civil Rights Act and which direct federal agencies to withhold funding from universities that do not bar criticism of Israel.  According to the court:

Plaintiff brings his action challenging the constitutionality of Executive Orders 13899 and 14188 based on alleged violations of his First Amendment Right of free speech, Violation of his Fifth Amendment Right under the Due Process Clause; and violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment....

Plaintiff identifies five constitutional arguments he believes have a likelihood of succeeding on the merits. Those arguments are First Amendment – Viewpoint Discrimination; First Amendment – Chilling Effect; First Amendment – Right to Petition; Establishment Clause; and Fifth Amendment – Due Process and Vagueness. Defendants argue that Plaintiff has alleged not facts indicating a reasonable belief that he will lose his federal benefits and no link betweean y prospective loss of his federal benefits and the challenged executive orders. 

The court concluded that plaintiff's likelihood of success on any of these claims was low.

Supreme Court: Wisconsin's Religious Nonprofit Exemption from Unemployment Comp. Tax Must Include Catholic Charities

In Catholic Charities Bureau, Inc. v. Wisconsin Labor and Industry Review Commission, (Sup. Ct., June 5, 2025), the U.S. Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice Sotomayor, unanimously held that Wisconsin violated the First Amendment's religion clauses when it held that Catholic Charities Bureau does not qualify for the exemption from unemployment compensation tax that is granted by state statute to nonprofits "operated primarily for religious purposes". The Wisconsin Supreme Court had held that Catholic Charities' activities were no different than those offered by a secular organization; they did not involve worship services, religious outreach, ceremony, or religious education. In reversing the Wisconsin supreme Court, the U.S. Supreme Court said in part:

A law that differentiates between religions along theological lines is textbook denominational discrimination....

This case involves that paradigmatic form of denominational discrimination....

Put simply, petitioners could qualify for the exemption while providing their current charitable services if they engaged in proselytization or limited their services to fellow Catholics. Petitioners’ Catholic faith, however, bars them from satisfying those criteria. Catholic teaching, petitioners say, forbids “‘misus[ing] works of charity for purposes of proselytism.’” ... It also requires provision of charitable services “without making distinctions ‘by race, sex, or religion.’” ...  Many religions apparently impose similar rules.... Others seemingly have adopted a contrary approach....

Wisconsin’s exemption, as interpreted by its Supreme Court, thus grants a denominational preference by explicitly differentiating between religions based on theological practices.

Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion, saying in part:

As a matter of church law, Catholic Charities and its sub-entities are an arm of the Diocese of Superior, and thus, for religious purposes, are not distinct organizations.  But, when determining whether Catholic Charities was a religious organization entitled to a tax exemption, the Wisconsin Supreme Court nevertheless relied on Catholic Charities’ separate corporate charter to treat it as an entity entirely distinct and separate from the Diocese. That holding contravened the church autonomy doctrine....

Justice Jackson filed a concurring opinion, saying in part:

The Federal Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA) allows a State to exempt from its unemployment-coverage mandate any “organization which is operated primarily for religious purposes and which is operated, supervised, controlled, or principally supported by a church or convention or association of churches.”... The State treats church affiliated charities that proselytize and serve co-religionists exclusively differently from those that do not.... Because I agree that this distinction violates the neutrality principle of the Constitution’s Religion Clauses, I join the Court’s opinion in full.

... [B]oth the text and legislative history of FUTA’s religious-purposes exemption confirm that Congress used the phrase “operated primarily for religious purposes” to refer to the organization’s function, not its inspiration....

Congress sought to extend to most nonprofit workers the stability that unemployment insurance offers, while exempting a narrow category of church-affiliated entities most likely to cause significant entanglement problems for the unemployment system—precisely because their work involves preparing individuals for religious life. It is perfectly consistent with the opinion the Court hands down today for States to align their §3309(b)(1)(B)-based religious-purposes exemptions with Congress’s true focus.

SCOTUSblog reports on the decision. 

Washington Bishops Sue Challenging Expanded Child Abuse Reporting Law

Last week, the Catholic bishops in Washington state filed suit challenging the constitutionality of a recently adopted amendment to the state's mandatory child abuse reporting law. The amendment requires clergy to report child abuse or neglect when they have reasonable cause to believe that it has occurred, even when a priest learns of the abuse or neglect in a confessional. The complaint (full text) in Etienne v. Ferguson, (WD WA, filed 5/29/2025) alleges in part:

1. Consistent with the Roman Catholic Church’s efforts to eradicate the societal scourge of child abuse, the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Seattle and the Dioceses of Yakima and Spokane have each adopted and implemented within their respective dioceses policies that go further in the protection of children than the current requirements of Washington law on reporting child abuse and neglect....

3. Yet despite these self-imposed reporting policies—policies that go beyond what Washington law requires—Washington is targeting the Roman Catholic Church in a brazen act of religious discrimination.  Without any basis in law or fact, Washington now puts Roman Catholic priests to an impossible choice: violate 2,000 years of Church teaching and incur automatic excommunication or refuse to comply with Washington law and be subject to imprisonment, fine, and civil liability....  Washington has done so at the same time that it expanded exemptions from mandatory reporting requirements for certain non-clergy.  The object of this law is clear: subject Roman Catholic clergy to dictates of the state. 

4. Putting clergy to the choice between temporal criminal punishment and eternal damnation, interfering with the internal governance and discipline of the Catholic Church, and targeting religion for the abrogation of all privileges, is a patent violation of both the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and a violation of Article I, Section 11 of the Washington Constitution.

The Pillar reports on the lawsuit.

State Court Order to Cooperate in Religious Divorce Cannot Be Challenged in Federal Trial Court Proceeding

In Azimi v. Worrell, (WD VA, June 3, 2025), plaintiff appearing pro se, challenged on Free Exercise and Establishment Clause grounds an order by a Virginia state trial court judge in plaintiff's divorce proceeding. The state court had ordered that plaintiff "cooperate with any and all actions and procedures necessary to accomplish a religious divorce pursuant to the Islamic Religion with all due speed and dispatch." A Virginia federal district court dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction. The court invoked the Rooker-Feldman doctrine that bars federal courts from hearing cases that amount to appellate review of a state court judgment when plaintiff instead should have appealed through the state court system.

Suit Challenges Exclusion of Religious Training from Virginia Tuition Grant Programs

Suit was filed last week in a Viginia federal district court challenging the exclusion from Virginia's Tuition Assistance Grant Program and its National Guard Grants of educational programs that provide religious training or theological education. The complaint (full text) in Johnson v. Fleming, (ED VA, filed 5/28/2025), alleges that the exclusions violate the Free Exercise, Establishment and Equal Protection clauses.  The complaint reads in part:

297. Defendants’ religious exclusions violate the Free Exercise Clause several ways....

298. The government violates the Free Exercise Clause when it disqualifies otherwise eligible persons or organizations from receiving otherwise available government benefits “solely because of their religious character,”....

327. Because the VTAG and National Guard religious exclusions are not neutral or generally applicable, they trigger strict scrutiny....

335. So the State Council [of Higher Education] considers CIP Code 39 programs as too religious and excludes them from participation in the Tuition Assistance Grant Program. This requires the State Council to entangle itself in religious matters. 

336. The [Virginnia] Department [of Military Affairs] likewise does not deem religious majors at secular private schools and public schools to be for “religious training or theological education” and students who pursue those programs at those schools can receive a National Guard Grant. 

337. The Department favors students who pursue religious programs at secular private schools and public schools to the detriment of students who pursue religious programs at religious schools....

347. Defendants’ religious exclusions create arbitrary and irrational distinctions based on nothing more than government officials’ discretion about whether a certain program is too religious.

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

Texas Passes 3 Bills Promoting Religion in Public Schools

In addition to the much-publicized Ten Commandments bill (see prior posting), the Texas legislature this week gave final passage to three other bills relating to religion in public schools:

S.B. 11 (full text) (legislative history) creates an elaborate structure that school districts may adopt to provide for a daily period of prayer and reading of the Bible or other religious text in each school. The daily ceremony is to be open to both students and employees but must be outside the hearing of those who are not participants. Also, it may not be a substitute for instructional time. To participate, a student's parent must sign a consent form that includes a waiver of a right to bring an Establishment Clause claim to challenge the prayer/ Bible reading policy. For an employee to participate in the daily sessions, they must sign a similar consent and waiver. Districts may not broadcast the prayer or Bible reading over the school's public address system.

SB 965 (full text) (legislative history) provides:

The right of an employee of a school district ... to engage in religious speech or prayer while on duty may not be infringed on by the district or school or another state governmental entity, unless the infringement is: (1) necessary to further a compelling state interest; and (2) narrowly tailored using the least restrictive means to achieve that compelling state interest.

SB 1049 (full text) (legislative history) requires all public schools to adopt policies that provide for students, at their parents' request, to attend for 1 to 5 hours per week off-premises released time programs operated by private entities and which offer religious instruction. Under the mandated policy, students remain responsible for any schoolwork issued during the student's absence.

Suit Challenges Refusal to Recognize Ministers Ordained Online

Suit was filed last week in a Virginia federal district court challenging Augusta County and the City of Staunton's refusal to recognize ministers of the Universal Life Church who obtained ordination online as ministers authorized to perform marriage ceremonies under Virginia Code §20-23. Instead, they are required to register under §20-25 as a civil officiant which includes posting a $500 bond. The complaint (full text) in Universal Life Church Monastery Storehouse v. Landes, (WD VA, filed 5/22/2025) alleges that this violates the 1st and 14th Amendment, saying in part:

69. The Clerk defendants violate the Establishment Clause by interpreting and applying Va. Code Ann. §§20-23 and 20-26 to categorically deny ULC Monastery ministers the authority to solemnized marriages as religious officiants, solely because they were ordained by and are in regular communion with the ULC Monastery and not another approved religious society. This conduct impermissibly prefers certain denominations over others.....

77. Many of plaintiff ULC ministers ... choose to exercise their religion by officiating marriage ceremonies.... The Clerk Defendants' interpretation an application of Va. Code Ann. §§20-23 and 20-26 ... accordingly places an impermissible burden on Plaintiffs' religious practice in violation of the Free Exercise Clause....

84. ... The Equal Protection Clause prohibits intentional discrimination against similarly situated individuals and prohibits state action that burdens fundamental rights, including religious freedom.  Discrimination based on religious affiliation must survive strict scrutiny....

91. Defendants' actual and threatened enforcement of Va. Code Ann. §§20-23, 20-26 and 20-28 against ULC Monastery and its ministers burdens speech based on its content and viewpoint, and is accordingly subject to strict scrutiny....

Augusta Free Press reports on the lawsuit. 

[Thanks to Dusty Hoesly for the lead.] 

Supreme Court Splits 4-4 In Oklahoma Charter School Case

In Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board v. Drummond and the companion case of St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School v. Drummond, (Sup. Ct. May 22, 2025), the U.S. Supreme court today in a brief order affirmed by an equally divided court the judgment of the Oklahoma Supreme Court. At issue in the cases was whether Oklahoma can authorize and fund a religiously-sponsored charter school. In the cases, the Oklahoma Supreme Court held that the state Charter School Board's authorization of a Catholic-sponsored publicly-funded charter school violates Oklahoma statutes, the Oklahoma Constitution and the First Amendment's Establishment Clause. The U.S. Supreme Court's Order indicates that today's tie vote, which comes only three weeks after oral arguments in the case, resulted from Justice Barrett's recusing herself from the case. While Justice Barrett gave no reason for recusing herself, earlier media reports suggest it was because of her close friendship with Notre Dame law professor Nicole Stelle Garnett who was an early legal adviser to the school and is a faculty fellow with Notre Dame's Religious Liberty Clinic which represents St. Isidore. Bloomberg reports on today's Supreme Court decision.

Jewish Teacher Claims Anti-Israel Position of Teachers' Union Violates His 1st Amendment Rights

Suit was filed this week in an Oregon federal district court against the Portland school system and the Portland teacher's union by a Jewish teacher who was born in Israel who contends that his First Amendment rights are violated by forcing him to be part of a bargaining unit represented by a union that promotes anti-Israel, pro-Palestinian positions and by the school becoming a one-sided forum for anti-Israel rhetoric. He also claims a hostile working environment has been created. Even though plaintiff chose not to become a dues-paying member of the teacher's union, under Oregon law the union remained his collective bargaining representative.  The complaint (full text) in Doe v. Portland Association of Teachers, (D OR, filed 5/19/2025) alleges in part:

63. [Palestinian] flags and other symbols were in common spaces such as hallways, the library, as well as shared classrooms. The placement was intentional so as to appear to be an expression of the community and school rather than any individual staff person.

64. These symbols ... cause severe emotional distress to Plaintiff because of his experiences growing up in Israel, including personal exposure to acts of terrorism committed to destroy the State of Israel, and because of his deeply held religious beliefs....

97. When Plaintiff reached out to PAT for support, PAT assigned him a union representative who publicly shared anti-Zionist views on social media, thus the Plaintiff did not receive fair or unbiased representation from PAT....

121. Oregon’s statutory requirement of exclusive representation, placing the Plaintiff in a bargaining unit exclusively represented by PAT, violates the Plaintiff’s free association by forcing him to associate with expression with which he disagrees, and which betrays his deeply held religious and moral beliefs....

127. Oregon’s exclusive representation laws compel Plaintiff ... to tacitly affirm beliefs that violate his deeply held religious beliefs and personal convictions as a condition of employment....

140. ... [C]urricula put forward in the District’s classrooms purports to define aspects of Plaintiff’s faith, which includes the belief in a Jewish homeland, in ways that are inconsistent with his beliefs, but that are consistent with the religious teachings of other faiths, including the beliefs of some Muslims.

141. The District allows displays of overtly anti-Israel messaging, including maps that fail to display the nation of Israel....

144. By these actions, the District prefers and promotes religious views and practices in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment,,,,

The Oregonian reports on the lawsuit.

Former Justice David Souter Dies; Described As Champion of Church-State Separation

The U.S. Supreme Court announced yesterday that former Justice David Souter died on May 8 at his home in New Hampshire. Souter served on the Court from 1990 until his retirement in 2009. In a press release mourning his death, Americans United described Souter as a champion of church-state separation. The press release summarizes eight Supreme Court cases involving church-state issues in which Souter wrote dissenting, concurring or majority opinions.

3rd Circuit: Class Videos on Islam Did Not Violate Establishment Clause

In Hilsenrath v. School District. of the Chathams, (3rd Cir., May 5, 2025), the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals held that videos about Islam shown in a 7th grade World Cultures and Geography class did not violate the Establishment Clause.  The court focused on the Supreme Court's new "historical practices and understandings" test in Establishment Clause cases.  The court said in part:

This kind of historical inquiry “requires serious work. And that work is especially challenging here because “free public education was virtually nonexistent at the time the Constitution was adopted." But “[h]istorical tradition can be established by analogical reasoning,”...

... [The] videos were presented in an academic rather than devotional context, they do “not come close to crossing any line” separating permissible curricular materials from impermissible proselytization....

... [E]ven assuming the Establishment Clause requires equal treatment in primary and secondary school curricula, the record does not show favoritism here. Besides Islam, C.H. and his classmates were introduced to Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, and Hinduism. And the World Cultures and Geography course represented only a sampling of the expansive world religions curriculum offered at the School District of the Chathams....

...So assuming the Establishment Clause required the Board to treat religions equally, the record shows that it satisfied that requirement here....

Judge Phipps filed a concurring opinion, saying in part:

This Establishment Clause challenge comes at a time when the “one-size-fits-all test” from Lemon v. Kurtzman ..., has been emphatically rejected, and there is no longer any lurking constitutional mandate of secularism in governmental affairs....

Thus, with the lifting of the constitutional mandate of secularism, teaching about religious matters in a public school does not violate the Establishment Clause. For that reason, the instructional materials about Islamic beliefs, practices, and modes of worship do not offend that constitutional provision....

Supreme Court Today Hears Arguments on Funding of Religious Charter Schools

The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments this morning in Oklahoma Charter School Board v. Drummond, consolidated for oral argument with St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School v. Drummond which stemmed from a separate petition for review filed by an intervenor in the same case. In the cases, the Oklahoma Supreme Court held that the state Charter School Board's authorization of a Catholic-sponsored publicly-funded charter school violates Oklahoma statutes, the Oklahoma Constitution and the First Amendment's Establishment Clause. The petitions for review contend that exclusion of religious schools from the state's charter school program violates the 1st Amendment's free exercise clause despite Establishment Clause concerns, and that religious instruction by a state-funded charter school does not constitute state action. The SCOTUSblog case pages for the two cases, with links to the petitions, briefs, amicus briefs and commentary are here and here.

Oral arguments, which begin at 10:00 AM will be live-streamed at this page. A transcript and audio recording of the arguments will become available later today here.  NEA Today reports on the upcoming oral arguments.

UPDATE: A transcript and audio of today's oral arguments are now available here. The Hill has a lengthy report on the arguments.

Kentucky Legislature Orders Return of 10 Commandments Monument to State Capitol Grounds

Kentucky House Joint Resolution 15 (full text) became law without the Governor's signature on March 27.  The Resolution orders a "return for permanent display on the New State Capitol grounds the granite Ten Commandments monument given to the Commonwealth of Kentucky in 1971 by the Fraternal Order of Eagles." In 2002, the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, rejecting a 2000 legislative resolution, held that placing of the monument back on statehouse grounds after it had been moved in a construction project would violate the Establishment Clause. The state's new Resolution states in part:

the legal precedent under which the 2000 joint legislative resolution’s mandate to return the monument to the New State Capitol grounds near the floral clock was enjoined, has been abandoned by the United States Supreme Court, and is no longer good law....

Christian Post reports on the Resolution.

Justice Department in Policy Change Files Amicus Brief Supporting Religious Charter School

 As previously reported, the U.S. Supreme Court has granted certiorari in Oklahoma Virtual Charter School Board v. Drummond and the related case of St. Isidore of Seville Virtual Charter School v. Drummond. In the cases, the Oklahoma Supreme Court held that the state Charter School Board's authorization of a Catholic-sponsored publicly-funded charter school violates Oklahoma statutes, the Oklahoma Constitution and the First Amendment's Establishment Clause. Last week (March 12), the U.S. Acting Solicitor General filed an amicus brief (full text) urging reversal of the Oklahoma Supreme Court. The brief says in part:

... [T]he Free Exercise Clause applies and prohibits Oklahoma from excluding St. Isidore based on its religious observance. 

The United States previously advanced a different view of a charter school’s relationship with a State in Charter Day School, Inc. v. Peltier, 143 S. Ct. 2657 (2023), after this Court called for the views of the Solicitor General regarding whether a charter school’s adoption and enforcement of a student dress code was state action that could potentially violate the Constitution.  The United States contended (Br. 9-14) that the charter school was engaged in state action because it performed an educational function that was traditionally exclusively reserved to the State.  

After the recent change in Administration, the United States has concluded that charter schools do not perform functions exclusively reserved to the State.  More broadly, the state-action inquiry on which the United States focused in Peltier has obvious application to cases asking whether a school violates the Constitution in taking a specific action.  Where, as here, the question is whether a school lacks constitutional protections due to its governmental character, the key consideration is whether the school is itself a governmental entity, created and controlled by the State.  A charter school like St. Isidore does not meet those criteria.

9th Circuit: Profs Lack Standing to Challenge Addition of Caste Discrimination to University's Anti-Discrimination Policy

In Kumar v. Koester, (9th Cir., March 12, 2023), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held that two Hindu California State University college professors lack standing to challenge the addition of "caste" as a protected class under the university's anti-discrimination and harassment policy. Plaintiffs claim that this addition falsely attributes a caste system to Hinduism. The court said in part:

Appellants allege that the Policy’s inclusion of “caste” stigmatized their religion and caused them to self-censor certain religious practices, like celebrating holidays and discussing religious texts....

The complaint ... alleges that the Policy violates the Religious Clauses of the First Amendment by defining the Hindu religion as including a caste system, and in doing so, “ascrib[es] an oppressive and discriminatory caste system to the entire Hindu religion.”...  

Appellants failed to show that they intend to engage in any religious practice that could reasonably constitute caste discrimination or harassment such that the Policy would be enforced against them....

... How can Appellants be injured by a policy prohibiting conduct that they have no intention to engage in?...

... Appellants have alleged no injury to their ability to exercise their religion.  Rather, their claims only indicate that they are offended by an alleged association of the caste system with Hinduism.  This is the exact “moral, ideological, or policy objection to a particular government action” that the injury in fact requirement is meant to “screen[] out.”...

... [T]he district court made a factual finding that the Policy had no hostility toward religion.  It based that finding on (1) the fact that the Policy does not mention Hinduism; (2) dictionary definitions show “caste” is “readily defined without reference to Hinduism” 

... If the Policy does not stigmatize Hinduism, Appellants have no spiritual injury.  And if there is no injury, there is no standing....  Appellants’ Establishment Clause claim fails for lack of Article III standing....

[Thanks to Dusty Hoesly for the lead.]

Court Refuses to Enjoin Colorado's Reporting Requirements for Health Care Sharing Ministries

In Alliance of Health Care Sharing Ministries v. Conway, (D CO, Jan. 13, 2025), a Colorado federal district court refused to issue a preliminary injunction to prevent enforcement of Colorado's reporting requirement for health care sharing plans, most of which are religiously affiliated. The court said in part:

The Alliance has not made a showing—strong or otherwise—that it is likely to succeed on the merits of any of its claims.  First, the Alliance has not demonstrated that the Reporting Law is not neutral or generally applicable, or that it is not rationally related to a legitimate government interest.  Accordingly, the Alliance has not shown that it is likely to succeed on the merits of its free exercise claim.  Second, generally applicable administrative and recordkeeping regulations like the Reporting Law do not violate the Establishment Clause.  The Alliance is therefore unlikely to succeed on the merits of its Establishment Clause claim.  Third, the Alliance has not shown that the Reporting Law’s requirement that the Alliance’s members disclose certain third-party vendors poses any risk of chilling the Alliance’s members’ First Amendment associational rights.  Thus, the Alliance’s challenge to the Reporting Law on freedom-of-association grounds is unlikely to succeed.  Fourth and finally, the Alliance has not shown that the Reporting Law—in compelling the Alliance’s members divulge their marketing materials and to report factually accurate operations data—violates the Alliance’s members’ free speech rights.  The Alliance therefore has not shown that it is likely to succeed on the merits of its free speech claim.

In a motion filed Jan. 28 (full text), plaintiff seeks an injunction pending appeal.

Supreme Court Grants Cert. In Oklahoma Publicly-Funded Catholic Charter School Case

The U.S. Supreme Court yesterday granted review in Oklahoma Virtual Charter School Board v. Drummond, (Docket No. 24-394, certiorari granted 1/24/2025) (Certiorari petition.)  It also granted review in St. Isidore of Seville Virtual Charter School v. Drummond, (Docket No. 24-396, certiorari granted 1/24/2025), which was a separate petition filed by and Intervenor in the same case. (Order List.) The petitions were consolidated for oral argument. In the cases, the Oklahoma Supreme Court held that the state Charter School Board's authorization of a Catholic-sponsored publicly-funded charter school violates Oklahoma statutes, the Oklahoma Constitution and the First Amendment's Establishment Clause. (See prior posting.) The petitions for review contend that exclusion of religious schools from the state's charter school program violates the 1st Amendment's free exercise clause despite Establishment Clause concerns, and that religious instruction by a state-funded charter school does not constitute state action. Links to filings in the cases and other materials can be found at the SCOTUSblog case pages here and here. Politico and NBC News report on the Court's action.

9th Circuit: Hindu Out-of-Stater Lacks Standing to Challenge Ban on Caste Discrimination

In Bagal v. Sawant, (9th Cir., Jan. 21, 2025), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held that a practicing Hindu who lives in North Carolina lacks standing to challenge a Seattle, Washington Anti-Caste Discrimination Ordinance. The court said in part:

Appellant argues that the Ordinance violates the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses of the First Amendment and the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment....

Appellant speculates that the Ordinance could be enforced against him on a future visit to Seattle for ordering a vegetarian meal or wearing a religious marker called a Mauli thread on his wrist.  But these activities are not prohibited by the Ordinance, and Appellant fails to demonstrate that engaging in them would subject him to a credible threat of prosecution....

Appellant argues that the Ordinance creates stigma toward the Hindu religion, which amounts to disapproval of Hinduism over other religions and causes Appellant to refrain from certain Hindu practices.... Appellant has offered no plausible connection between his decision to refrain from engaging in certain Hindu practices in North Carolina and a Seattle Ordinance that prohibits none of those activities....

Appellant has also not demonstrated that he has a geographical connection to the Ordinance sufficient for standing for an Establishment Clause claim.