5th Circuit: Courtroom Invocations Do Not Violate Establishment Clause

In Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc. v. Mack, (5th Cir., July 9, 2021), the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals granted a stay pending appeal of a Texas district court's declaratory judgment order which concluded that a a Justice of the Peace's program under which court sessions are opened with a prayer from a volunteer chaplain violates the Establishment Clause. (See prior posting.) Attendees may to step out of the courtroom before the ceremony if they wish. The appeals court held that official capacity claims under 42 USC §1983 are barred, and that FFRF's individual capacity claims are likely to fail. The court said in part:

The Supreme Court has held that our Nation’s history and tradition allow legislatures to use tax dollars to pay for chaplains who perform sectarian prayers before sessions. See Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783 (1983). If anything, Judge Mack’s chaplaincy program raises fewer questions under the Establishment Clause because it uses zero tax dollars and operates on a volunteer basis....

It’s true that Marsh and Town of Greece involved a legislature’s chaplains, not a justice of the peace’s chaplains. But it’s unclear why that matters, given the abundant history and tradition of courtroom prayer.

Washington Times reports on the decision.

Dismissal Of Suit Against Trump For Promoting Religion Affirmed By Delaware Supreme Court

In Kelly v. Trump,(DE Sup. Ct., July 7, 2021), the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal on standing grounds of two claims in a suit against then-President Donald Trump contending that he created the illusion of government sponsorship of religion, The court also affirmed the refusal to allow plaintiff to substitute President Biden as defendant because he allowed Executive Order 13798 to remain in effect.  According to the court:

[Plaintiff]  contends that the executive order “require[s] government organizations and agents to partner with churches to pay churches to perform government business for the government....  She states that the “churches create the illusion of charity while serving business greed” and that she “believe[s] people will be damned to hell for thinking business greed is charity.”...

Kelly’s claim is manifestly without merit. Contrary to her assertion, Executive Order 13798, on its face, does not prescribe any partnership between the government and any religious organization.

Social Work Applicant Moves Ahead On Religious Discrimination Claim

In Weiss v. City University of New York, (SD NY, filed 7/2/2021), a New York federal district court refused to dismiss certain of plaintiff's equal protection and Establishment Clause claims. Plaintiff alleged that she was denied admission to the University's social work program because officials weeded out Jews from a religious background, believing they are too conservative to be social workers.

Wisconsin Supreme Court Interprets Statute Limiting School Aid To One Area School Of Each Denomination

In St. Augustine School v. Taylor, (WI Sup. Ct., July 2, 2021), the Wisconsin Supreme Court answered a certified question from the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals on how to apply a state statute regarding transportation aid to parochial schools. Under Wis. Stat. §§ 121.51 and 121.54, private schools can receive funding for transporting children to school, but in each attendance area only one school affiliated with each religious denomination can get funding. At issue in this case is how a court is to determine whether two Catholic schools in the same area are affiliated with the same denomination.  The court concluded:

... [I]n determining whether schools are "affiliated with the same religious denomination" pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 121.51, the Superintendent is not limited to consideration of a school's corporate documents exclusively. In conducting a neutral and secular inquiry, the Superintendent may also consider the professions of the school with regard to the school's self-identification and affiliation, but the Superintendent may not conduct any investigation or surveillance with respect to the school's religious beliefs, practices, or teachings.

Justice Roggensack filed a concurring opinion arguing that whether both schools are "affiliated" with the Archdiocese of Milwaukee depends on whether there is a mutual organizational relationship between the schools and the Archdiocese.

Justice Hagedorn filed a concurring opinion, saying in part:

[A] "religious denomination" is an organizational entity, not a synonym for religious faith generally. Thus, when Wis. Stat. § 121.51(1) asks whether two schools are "affiliated with the same religious denomination," the question is not whether both schools share the same creed, but whether they are both affiliated with a particular kind of religious organization——a religious denomination.

Justice Bradley filed a dissenting opinion arguing that the provision denying benefits where two religious schools serve overlapping attendance areas is unconstitutional, saying in part:

On its face, § 121.51(1) denies a public benefit only to students attending religious schools in overlapping attendance areas. Private but secular schools located in overlapping attendance areas are not disqualified from receiving benefits on this basis. Denying an otherwise publicly available benefit on account of religious identity violates the First Amendment to the United States Constitution....

 Any governmental overriding of a religious school's profession of independence from the "religious denomination" of another school ... would "require us to rule that some religious adherents misunderstand their own religious beliefs. We think such an approach cannot be squared with the Constitution or with our precedents, and that it would cast the Judiciary in a role that [courts] were never intended to play."

Supreme Court Grants Cert. In Maine Case On Tuition Vouchers For Sectarian Schools

The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday granted review in Carson v. Makin, (Docket No. 20-1088, certiorari granted 7/2/2021). (Order List.) In the case, the U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Maine's statutory provisions that pay tuition to out-of-district public or private high schools for students whose districts do not operate a high school. However, to qualify to receive tuition assistance payments, a private school must be non-sectarian. Schools that provide religious instruction do not qualify. (See prior posting.) The SCOTUSblog case page has links to the briefs and other filings in the case.

Random COVID Screening In Parochial Schools Not An Establishment Clause Violation

In In re King v. Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York, (App. Div., June 24, 2021), a New York appellate court upheld randomized in-school Covid-19 screening tests for students in parochial and private schools. The court said in part:

We reject respondents' contention that section 912 must be construed as permitting only health screening tests which primarily benefit the child, so as to avoid running afoul of the Establishment Clause. Respondents do not explain how randomized in-school Covid-19 screening tests would have "a primary effect that advances religion," the touchstone of the Establishment Clause.

Cockfighting Ban Does Not Violate Establishment Clause

 In Hinds v. State of Texas,(TX App., June 24, 2021), a Texas state appellate court rejected petitioner's argument that the state's ban on cockfighting and on training animals for cockfighting violates the Establishment Clause. Petitioner, who was convicted of violating Texas Penal Code §42.105, according to the court, argued that:

paganism is a “nature worshiping religion” and that “animal rights laws are a clandestinely designed effort to institute laws respecting the establishment of the Pagan religion and animal worship.

Utah Supreme Court: Lemon Test Is No Longer Controlling

In Williams v. Kingdom Hall of Jehovah's Witnesses, Roy, Utah, (UT Sup. Ct., June 3, 2021), the Utah Supreme Court vacated the trial and appellate courts' dismissal of a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress against the Elders of a Jehovah's Witnesses church. At issue was the manner in which the Elders conducted an investigation of whether a 14-year old girl who was raped by a congregant was herself guilty of the sin of "porneia". The state Supreme Court said in part:

Although the conclusion reached by the district court and the court of appeals may ultimately prove to be the correct one, we note that in reaching that conclusion both courts relied on the excessive entanglement test established in Lemon. But ... Lemon has been overtaken by more recent Supreme Court cases.  Because the district court applied the excessive entanglement test from Lemon instead of the approach followed in these more recent cases, we vacate the district court‘s decision and remand for any additional proceedings necessary to adequately conduct the Supreme Court‘s current approach to the Establishment Clause.

... [T]he district court should focus on the particular issue at hand and look to history for guidance as to the correct application of the Establishment Clause.... [T]he court should identify ―an overarching set of principles and explain how those principles should be applied in this case.

Ogden Standard-Examiner reports on the decision. [Thanks to James Phillips for the lead.]

Challenges To Alabama COVID-19 Orders Are Unsuccessful

In Case v. Ivey, MD AL, June 1, 2021), six plaintiffs brought a range of constitutional challenges to Alabama Governor Kay Ivey's COVID-19 Orders. In a 68-page opinion, the court dismissed all of them-- some on standing or mootness grounds, others on substantive or qualified immunity grounds. Among the claims, one plaintiff contended that the Orders denied her the right to attend the church of her choice. Two pastors claimed that the Orders resulted in the denial of their right to preach and conduct in-person services. The court concluded that defendants had qualified immunity as to the damage claims against them for violating the First Amendment's Free Exercise, Freedom of Assembly and Establishment Clauses because plaintiffs did not plausibly allege that defendants’ conduct violated law that was clearly established at the time of their actions.

Suit Challenges County's Limiting Jail Chaplain Position to Those With Christian Beliefs

Suit was filed last week in a Maryland federal district court by a Muslim volunteer jail chaplain challenging the requirements imposed by Prince Georges County, Maryland on applicants for a paid jail chaplain position. The complaint (full text) in Bridges v. Prince Georges County, Maryland, (D MD, filed 5/27/2021), alleges that provisions of the county's agreement with Prison Ministry of America violate the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses:

Defendant PG County illegally required all applicants to sign a so-called “Statement of Applicant’s Christian Faith.”

... [The Statement] requires applicants to affirm that they “believe in one God, Creator and Lord of the Universe, the co-eternal Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit,” that “Jesus Christ, God’s Son, was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, lived a sinless life, [and] died a substitutionary atoning death on the cross,” and that “the Bible is God’s authoritative and inspired Word…without error in all its teachings, including creation, history, its own origins, and salvation.”

CAIR issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit. AP has additional background on the lawsuit.

Opening Of Court Sessions With Prayer Violates Establishment Clause

In Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc. v. Mack, (SD TX, May 21, 2021), a Texas federal district court held that a program devised by a Justice of the Peace under which his court sessions are opened with a prayer from a volunteer chaplain violates the Establishment Clause. The court concluded that attendees are impermissibly coerced into participating in religious ritual. It said in part:

The structure of the ceremony, combined with the defendant’s attendant statements about the ceremony’s purpose, is designed to give attendees “a sense of being in the presence of something . . . holy and sacred[.]” ... The Court is of the view that the defendant violates the Establishment Clause when, before a captured audience of litigants and their counsel, he presents himself as theopneustically-inspired, enabling him to advance, through the Chaplaincy Program, God’s “larger purpose.” Such a magnanimous goal flies in the face of historical tradition, and makes a mockery of both, religion and law.

FFRF issued a press release announcing the decision. First Liberty Institute which represents defendant says that it will appeal the decision to the 5th Circuit.

Suit Against Chicago Schools Over Transcendental Meditation Program Can Move Ahead In Part

In Separation of Hinduism from Our Schools v. Chicago Public Schools, (ND IL, May 21, 2021), plaintiffs challenged Chicago Public Schools' "Quiet Time" program which was led by a Transcendental Meditation instructor. They claim that the sessions contained elements of Hinduism in them. The court dismissed claims of some of the plaintiffs for lack of standing, and dismissed claims against the private foundation and the University of Chicago which helped implement the program. One of the plaintiffs, a former student who was required to participate in the program, was found to have standing to bring Establishment and Free Exercise clause claims as well as a claim under the Illinois Religious Freedom Restoration Act against the Chicago public schools. His father also had standing on 1st Amendment claims arising before his son's 18th birthday. The court said in part:

[E]ven if the Williamses were seeking only nominal damages, they would have standing to sue. In a case decided after the parties' briefs were submitted, the Supreme Court held that "a request for nominal damages satisfies the redressability element of standing where a plaintiff's claim is based on a completed violation of a legal right." Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski, 141 S. Ct. 792, 802 (2021).

Court Dismisses Challenge To Book Used In High School Literature Curriculum

In Coble v. Lake Norman Charter School, (WD NC, Mrch 23, 2021), a North Carolina federal district court dismissed 1st Amendment challenges to a high school's use in its literature curriculum of the award-winning book The Poet X by Elizabeth Acevedo. Plaintiffs, parents of a high school student (JHC), claim that the book is hostile to religion and disparages Catholicism. Rejecting plaintiffs' Establishment Clause argument, the court said in part:

The problem with the Cobles’ claim is that, without any factual allegations of how LNC uses The Poet X in the classroom, the Court has no ability to determine whether that specific use conveys an endorsement or disapproval of religion. The content of the book itself is not sufficient to prove a violation of the second Lemon prong even if the book’s content is disparaging toward a particular faith....

Rejecting a free exercise challenge, the court said in part:

In the present case, the Cobles claim that the potential exposure of their son to The Poet X violates the Free Exercise Clause because it violates JHC’s religious beliefs. But this claim ignores the fact that JHC was not required to read The Poet X. Rather, LNC offered an alternative to the book.... LNC’s offer of an alternative text tends to establish that LNC has done nothing to burden JHC’s religious practices.

9th Circuit: Football Coach's Past-Game Prayers Violate Establishment Clause

In Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, (9th Cir., March 18, 2021), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a Washington state school board's dismissal of a high school football coach who insisted on prominently praying at the 50-yard line immediately after football games. The long-running high-profile case was before the 9th Circuit for the second time. (See prior posting.) The court issued a Summary of its decision along with the opinion, saying in part:

The panel held that the record before it and binding Supreme Court precedent compelled the conclusion that the District would have violated the Establishment Clause by allowing Kennedy to engage in the religious activity he sought. Kennedy’s attempts to draw nationwide attention to his challenge to the District showed that he was not engaging in private prayer. Instead, he was engaging in public speech of an overtly religious nature while performing his job duties. The District tried to accommodate Kennedy, but that was spurned by Kennedy insisting that he be allowed to pray immediately after the conclusion of each game, potentially surrounded by students. The panel held that the district court correctly granted summary judgment to the District on Kennedy’s free speech and free exercise claims.

The panel held that Kennedy’s Title VII claims alleging failure to rehire, disparate treatment, failure to accommodate and retaliation also failed.

Judge Christen also issued a concurring opinion, joined by Judge Nelson. Friendly Atheist blog has more on the decision. [Thanks to Mel Kaufman for the lead.]

Court Rejects Claims of Discrimination Against Yemeni Family Members Of US Citizens

In Almakalani v. McAleenan, (ED NY, March 16, 2021), a New York federal district court rejected a number of challenges to alleged unreasonable delays by the federal government in adjudicating whether 86 family members of petitioners could lawfully immigrate from Yemen as family members of U.S. citizens. Special procedures were promulgated in 2012 for Yemeni family members because of the unreliability of documentation from Yemen. Plaintiffs alleged that the special procedures "are the result of a conspiracy between the Defendants—all members of former President Donald J. Trump’s administration, including former President Trump himself—to halt Yemeni Muslim immigration to the United States."  The court said in part:

Plaintiffs’ only specific factual allegations of animus or intentional discrimination evoke Islamophobic rhetoric in statements and actions attributable to former President Trump and his administration.... Those statements and actions do not specifically relate to the Yemen Guidance or the adjudication of Form I-130 petitions. Moreover, USCIS issued and implemented the Yemen Guidance in 2012, during the administration of former President Barack Obama and prior to any of the statements and actions that allegedly support Plaintiffs’ claims of discriminatory animus....

Plaintiffs claim that Defendants have violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment by subjecting Form I-130 petitions brought by and on behalf of Muslim individuals to higher burdens of proof than those petitions brought by or on behalf of non-Muslims....

To the extent that Form I-130 petitions on behalf of Yemeni beneficiaries are adjudicated differently than petitions on behalf of beneficiaries from other countries, Defendants have articulated a logical justification grounded in the unreliability of Yemen’s official processes for maintaining and issuing civil records. That justification is unrelated to matters of religious faith or affiliation, and it provides a rational explanation for the challenged policies and practices. Accordingly, Plaintiffs fail to state a claim under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

New York's No-Fault Divorce Law Did Not Infringe Wife's Religious Freedom

In King v. New York, (ND NY, Feb. 26, 2021), a New York federal district court rejected a wife's contention that New York's no-fault divorce law violates the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses by infringing her Christian religious belief that marriage is permanent and cannot be dissolved by the state. The court said in part:

... [A] finding that H. King must remain married against his will because of L. King’s religious convictions would defy all logic and reason, and create a much larger Establishment Clause issue than the one L. King argues exists today....

Moreover, ... there is no constitutional injury here for the independent reason that the divorce that gave rise to this litigation only dissolved L. King’s and H. King’s legal marriage recognized by the State of New York; the divorce did not affect the status of their “religious marriage.”

Suit Challenges Disqualification of Ministers Ordained Online As Marriage Officiants

Suit was filed yesterday in a Pennsylvania federal district court seeking to declare unconstitutional the position taken by the Bucks County, Pennsylvania clerk of courts that ministers who were ordained online may not solemnize marriages under Pennsylvania law. Apparently the county takes the position that those ordained online are not clergy of a "regularly established church or congregation", as required by 23 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 1503. The complaint (full text) in Universal Life Church Monastery Storehouse v. Bobrin, (ED PA, filed 2/16/2021), alleges that this interpretation violates the Free Exercise, Establishment and Equal Protection Clauses, saying in part:

... Defendant has used the powers of her office to discourage ULC Monastery ministers from exercising rights afforded to ministers of other religions. Defendant’s apparent policy of discrimination unconstitutionally prefers certain religions or religious denominations over others and burdens ULC Monastery’s and its ministers’ free exercise of religion. To the extent Defendant is correct that 23 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 1503 bars ULC Monastery ministers from solemnizing marriages while granting that benefit to ministers of other religious denominations, the statute is unconstitutional.

Universal Life Church issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Biden Re-Establishes White House Faith-Based Partnerships Office

Yesterday President Joseph Biden issued an Executive Order (full text) once again establishing a White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. The accompanying Fact Sheet says in part:

The Partnerships Office’s initial work will include collaborating with civil society to: address the COVID-19 pandemic and boost economic recovery; combat systemic racism; increase opportunity and mobility for historically disadvantaged communities; and strengthen pluralism. The office will also support agency partnerships that advance the United States Government’s diplomatic, international development, and humanitarian work around the world....

Fundamental to these goals is respecting our cherished guarantees of church-state separation and freedom for people of all faiths and none.... The Partnerships Office, for example, will not prefer one faith over another or favor religious over secular organizations. Instead, it will work with every willing partner to promote the common good, including those who have differences with the Administration.

According to the Fact Sheet, Melissa Rogers will serve as Executive Director of the Faith Based and Neighborhood Partnerships Office, and as Senior Director for Faith and Public Policy in the White House Domestic Policy Council. Josh Dickson will serve as the Office's Deputy Director.

Cert. Petition Filed In Maine's Tuition Reimbursement Controversy

A petition for certiorari (full text) was filed with the U.S. Supreme Court last Thursday in Carson v. Makin. In the case, the U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Maine's statutory provisions that pay tuition to out-of-district public or private high schools for students whose districts do not operate a high school. However, to qualify to receive tuition assistance payments, a private school must be non-sectarian. Religious high schools do not qualify. (See prior posting.) Institute of Justice issued a press release  announcing the filing of the lawsuit. [Thanks to Michael Bindas and Chris Freund for the lead.]

7th Circuit OK's Nativity Scene In Christmas Display

In Woodring v. Jackson County, Indiana, (7th Cir., Feb. 2, 2021), the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision, upheld the constitutionality of a nativity scene as part of a display on the county's historic courthouse lawn. The court said in part:

[W]e hold that the County’s nativity scene complies with the Establishment Clause. The district court thought itself bound by the “purpose” and “endorsement” tests that grew out of the Supreme Court’s decision in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971). We hold, however, that the Supreme Court’s recent decision in American Legion v. American Humanist Association, 139 S. Ct. 2067 (2019), requires us to use a different, more historical framework to gauge the constitutionality of the County’s nativity scene. Applying American Legion, we conclude that the County’s nativity scene is constitutional because it fits within a long national tradition of using the nativity scene in broader holiday displays to celebrate the origins of Christmas—a public holiday....

Judge Hamilton dissented, saying in part:

[T]he majority’s feints toward displacing the endorsement and purpose tests. I say “feints” because the majority ends up applying the American Legion “historical” test in a way that actually looks a lot like the endorsement test, properly understood, taking full account of the content, history, and larger context of the display. Neither this case nor American Legion should be understood as a revolution in Establishment Clause doctrine....

I disagree with the majority’s result because of the specific facts: the religious content dominates the county’s Christmas display here....

The facts and cases may be arrayed roughly along a spectrum ranging from stand-alone Nativity scenes to those that are small parts of much broader seasonal displays. There is not a sharp line. It’s not as simple as counting whether there are more shepherds and angels than elves and snowmen.... If the display is dominated by religious symbolism, with only minor or token secular symbols and symbols of other faiths, the message of endorsement calls for court intervention.

The Hill reports on the decision.