Citizen Lacks Standing To Challenge City's Annual Menorah Lighting

In Taylor v. City of Flagstaff, (D AZ, Oct. 9, 2019), an Arizona federal district court held that a citizen of Flagstaff, Arizona lacked standing to challenge the constitutionality of the city's annual Grand Menorah Lighting at City Hall.  The court said in part:

Although Plaintiff is a resident of Flagstaff..., Plaintiff did not allege that he has had direct contact with the Grand Menorah Lighting at City Hall, or any other religious ceremony purportedly held in City Hall. According to the Complaint, Plaintiff’s contact with the Grand Menorah Lighting at City Hall has, at most, been via newspaper articles reporting the “Flagstaff Hanukkah tradition.”.... While Plaintiff alleges that he has been “quite concerned” and “very disturbed” by the Grand Menorah Lighting at City Hall, ... —without more, the injury asserted by Plaintiff is too generalized and remote to confer standing....

The court concluded that the same test for standing applies to both plaintiff's Establishment Clause claim and his claim under the no-aid provision of the state constitution.

Pence To American Legion:VA Hospitals Will Not Be "Religion-Free Zones"

On Wednesday, Vice President Mike Pence addressed the American Legion's National Convention in Indianapolis (full text of remarks). Among the accomplishments of the Trump Administration which Pence reviewed in his 35-minute speech, was the following:

You might’ve heard even today that there’s a lawsuit to remove a Bible that was carried in World War II from a Missing Man Table at a VA hospital in New Hampshire.  There’s a lawsuit underway.  It’s really no surprise because, under the last administration, VA hospitals were removing Bibles and even banning Christmas carols in an effort to be politically correct.  But let me be clear: Under this administration, VA hospitals will not be religion-free zones.  (Applause.)

We will always respect the freedom of religion of every veteran of every faith.  And my message to the New Hampshire VA hospital is: The Bible stays.  (Applause.)

Pence ended his speech thanking veterans, alluding to language from Psalm 18 and Psalm 144 in doing so:

As the Psalmist wrote, you “trained your hands for war,” and we thank Him who gave you the grace “to advance against a troop” and come home safe to serve all of those who also serve.

3rd Circuit Upholds Pennsylvania Legislative Prayer Policy

In Fields v. Speaker of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives, (3d Cir., Aug. 23, 2019), the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of appeals, in a 2-1 decision, upheld the invocation policy of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives.  The state's legislative chamber invites guest chaplains to open sessions with prayer, but excludes non-theists.  It also posts a sign asking visitors to rise during the prayer.  Judge Ambro, writing for the majority said in part:

A group of nontheists have challenged the theists-only policy under the Establishment, Free Exercise, Free Speech, and Equal Protection Clauses of our Constitution. As to the Establishment Clause, we uphold the policy because only theistic prayer can satisfy the historical purpose of appealing for divine guidance in lawmaking, the basis for the Supreme Court taking as a given that prayer presumes a higher power. For the Free Exercise, Free Speech, and Equal Protection Clauses, we hold that legislative prayer is government speech not open to attack via those channels.

The nontheists also challenge as unconstitutionally coercive the requests to “please rise” for the prayer. We hold that the single incident involving pressure from a security guard is moot. As for the sign outside the House chamber and the Speaker’s introductory request that guests “please rise,” we hold that these are not coercive.

Judge Restrepo, dissenting as to the exclusion of non-theists, said in part:

[B]y virtue of the fact that the history and tradition of legislative prayer in this country is thus devoid of any history of purposeful exclusion of persons from serving as chaplains based on their religions or religious beliefs, the Pennsylvania House’s guest-chaplain policy—which purposefully excludes adherents of Plaintiffs’ religions and persons who hold Plaintiffs’ religious beliefs from serving as guest chaplains—does not fit “within the tradition long followed in Congress and the state legislatures” and therefore violates the Establishment Clause.

[Thanks to Adam Bonin for the lead.]

Texas Limit On Marriage Officiants Upheld

In Center for Inquiry, Inc. v. Warren, (ND TX, Aug. 16, 2019), a Texas federal district court rejected a number of constitutional challenges to a Texas law that limits those who can officiate at marriage ceremonies to clergy and specified government official. It does not allow other secular celebrants. The court, applying the Lemon test held that the law does not violate the Establishment Clause, saying in part:

The Statute does not discriminate among religions nor does it have the primary objective of favoring religion over nonreligion. At most, the Statute provides a benefit to religion that is indirect or incidental in light of the historical context of this Statute; however, this does not make the Statute unconstitutional.... The Statute still provides for civil, nonreligious ceremonies performed by judges, while also allowing those who wish to be married in a religious ceremony to do so.

The court also rejected an equal protection challenge, saying in part:

The Statute in this case rationally serves that purpose by limiting secular officiants to current and retired judges and by leaving it up to the religious organization—any religious organization—to determine who is authorized in accordance with its belief system to solemnize marriages. The fact that the Statute does not allow every secular individual trained to solemnize marriages to legally solemnize marriages in Texas does not make this statute unconstitutional. Instead, there is a rational basis for the Statute’s limitation based on both the historical practice of allowing judicial and religious officials to solemnize marriages, and because these individuals and their respective organizations can reasonably be expected to ensure the prerequisites to marriage are met and that the ceremony contains the necessary level of respect and solemnity without the need for significant involvement and oversight by the state.

3rd Circuit Upholds Cross On County Seal

In one of the first cases to rely on the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in June rejecting an Establishment Clause challenge to the 94-year old Bladensburg Cross, the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday rejected a challenge to a Latin cross on the 75-year old official seal of Lehigh County, Pennsylvania. In Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc. v. County of Lehigh, (3d Cir., Aug. 8, 2019), the 3rd Circuit said in part:

American Legion confirms that Lemon does not apply to “religious references or imagery in public monuments, symbols, mottos, displays, and ceremonies.”... Instead, informed by four considerations, the Court adopted “a strong presumption of constitutionality” for “established, religiously expressive monuments, symbols, and practices.”...

WFMZ News reports on the decision. [Thanks to Tom Rutledge for the lead.]

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.

5th Circuit Upholds Direct Supervision Requirement For Muslim Inmate Worship Services

In Brown v. Scott, (5th Cir., July 5, 2019), the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 decision (56 pages long) written by Judge Owen held that a 1977 consent decree allowing Muslim inmates to gather for worship without direct supervision should be vacated. While Muslim inmates had met with only indirect supervision from 1977 to 2012, that arrangement was terminated after a Jehovah's Witness inmate successfully sued arguing that the more favorable treatment of Muslim inmates violates the Establishment Clause. The termination of the special treatment for Muslim inmates, however, violated the earlier consent decree. This led prison officials to ask that the earlier decree be vacated under provisions of the Prison Litigation Reform Act that allow lifting of the injunction if it is no longer needed to correct an ongoing violation of rights.

Muslim inmates argued that requiring direct supervision of their services would impose a substantial burden in violation of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. The majority held, however, that it is not prison authorities that have imposed a substantial burden, but instead it is caused by a lack of Muslim volunteers from outside who will supervise services. The majority also rejected Free Exercise and Establishment Clause arguments.

The district court had concluded that Texas prison regulations favor Catholic, Jewish, Native American and Protestant inmates over Muslim inmates.  Judge Owen concluded that this does not create an Establishment Clause violation because in the prison context the more lenient Turner v. Safley test should be applied to Establishment Clause claims.

Judge King joined all of Judge Owen's opinion except for the Establishment Clause section. She held there was an Establishment Clause violation, but that the 1977 consent decree should be vacated nevertheless because it is broader than necessary to remedy the violation.

Judge Dennis in a separate opinion dissented as to the RLUIPA issue, and would not have reached the Establishment Clause or Free Exercise claims

VA Issues New Policies On Religious Literature and Symbols At VA Facilities

In a News Release issued Wednesday, the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs announced a new directive on Religious Symbols in VA Facilities and amendments to its directive on Spiritual and Pastoral Care in the Veterans Health Administration. According to the VA:

The new policies will:

• Allow the inclusion in appropriate circumstances of religious content in publicly accessible displays at VA facilities.
• Allow patients and their guests to request and be provided religious literature, symbols and sacred texts during visits to VA chapels and during their treatment at VA.
• Allow VA to accept donations of religious literature, cards and symbols at its facilities and distribute them to VA patrons under appropriate circumstances or to a patron who requests them.

The Hill reports on the policy changes. Earlier this year, suit was filed yesterday in New Hampshire federal district court against a VA Medical Center challenging a lobby display that includes a Bible. (See prior posting.)

Supreme Court GVR's Case On Cross In Public Park

Today the U.S. Supreme Court granted the petition for certiorari in Pensacola, Florida v. Kondrat'yev (Docket No. 18-351, GVR 6/28/2019) (Order List), summarily vacated the judgment and remanded the case to the 11th Circuit for further consideration in light of American Legion v. American Humanist Assn. decided earlier this month. (See prior posting.) In the remanded case, the 11th Circuit reluctantly ffirmed a Florida district court's Establishment Clause decision ordering Pensacola to remove a 34-foot Latin cross from a public park. (See prior posting.)

Supreme Court Allows Bladensburg Cross To Remain In Flurry of Opinions

The U.S. Supreme Court today, in a case generating seven separate opinions spanning 87 pages, rejected an Establishment Clause challenge to the 94-year old Bladensburg Cross that serves as a Veterans War Memorial on public land in Maryland.  In American Legion v. American Humanist Association, US Sup. Ct., June 20, 2019), Justice Alito delivered an opinion for the Court that was joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Breyer, Kagan and Kavanaugh. As summarized by the Court's syllabus, the majority held:

At least four considerations show that retaining established, religiously expressive monuments, symbols, and practices is quite different from erecting or adopting new ones. First, these cases often concern monuments, symbols, or practices that were first established long ago, and thus, identifying their original purpose or purposes may be especially difficult.... Second, as time goes by, the purposes associated with an established monument, symbol, or practice often multiply.... Even if the monument’s original purpose was infused with religion, the passage of time may obscure that sentiment and the monument may be retained for the sake of its historical significance or its place in a common cultural heritage. Third, the message of a monument, symbol, or practice may evolve.... Familiarity itself can become a reason for preservation. Fourth, when time’s passage imbues a religiously expressive monument, symbol, or practice with this kind of familiarity and historical significance, removing it may no longer appear neutral, especially to the local community. The passage of time thus gives rise to a strong presumption of constitutionality.

Another portion of Justice Alito's opinion was joined only by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Breyer and Kavanaugh. They explicitly rejected the notion that the Lemon test should be applied to all Establishment Clause challenges, saying that instead the Court has sometimes used other approaches.

Justice Breyer filed a separate concurrence joined by Justice Kagan, saying:

The case would be different, in my view, if there were evidence that the organizers had “deliberately disrespected” members of minority faiths or if the Cross had been erected only recently, rather than in the aftermath of World War I.... Nor do I understand the Court’s opinion today to adopt a “history and tradition test” that would permit any newly constructed religious memorial on public land.

Justice Kavanaugh wrote a concurring opinion in which he said that the majority was applying a "history and tradition" test.

Justice Kagan also filed a concurring opinion, explaining why the portions of Justice Alito's opinion which she did not join go too far in rejecting the Lemon test.

Justice Thomas filed an opinion concurring only in the judgment, and taking the position that the Establishment Clause applies only to the federal government and is not incorporated by the 14th Amendment to apply to the states. He went on to contend that even if the Establishment Clause does apply to the states, the Bladensburg Cross is constitutional.

Justice Gorsuch wrote a separate opinion concurring in the judgment, joined by Justice Thomas.  He argues that the American Humanist Association lacks standing, and rejects the "offended observer" theory of standing.

Justice Ginsburg, joined by Justice Sotomayor, wrote a 20-page dissent, saying in part:

As I see it, when a cross is displayed on public property, the government may be presumed to endorse its religious content....

The Commission urges in defense of its monument that the Latin cross “is not merely a reaffirmation of Christian beliefs”; rather, “when used in the context of a war memorial,” the cross becomes “a universal symbol of the sacrifices of those who fought and died.”... The Commission’s “[a]ttempts to secularize what is unquestionably a sacred [symbol] defy credibility and disserve people of faith.”

AP reports on the decision. SCOTUSblog has further analysis of the decision.

FFRF Foregoes Cert Petition In Challenge To Parsonage Allowance

In a press release last week, the Freedom From Religion Foundation explained why it had not sought Supreme Court review of the 7th Circuit's decision in Gaylor v. Mnuchin.  In the case, the circuit court rejected an Establishment Clause challenge to Internal Revenue Code Sec. 107(2) which excludes from taxable income housing allowances paid to members of the clergy. (See prior posting.)  FFRF said in part:

After “counting heads,” we concluded that any decision from the current court would put the kibosh on challenging the housing allowance for several generations.

We began this challenge years ago, when the composition of the Supreme Court was very different. We have (secular) faith that someday the Supreme Court composition will again favor the Establishment Clause and be willing to scrutinize this preferential code and declare it unconstitutional. By ending our challenge at this time, the Freedom From Religion Foundation is making it possible for another challenge to be taken in the future, and we hope to be part of that.

Cert. Filed In Challenge To School's Curriculum On the Muslim World

A petition for certiorari (full text) was filed with the U.S. Supreme Court this week in Wood v. Arnold, (cert. filed 5/13/2019).  In the case, the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected a high school student's Establishment Clause and compelled speech challenges to a classroom unit on The Muslim World.  One challenge was to the teacher's Power Point slide which included the statement that most Muslims' faith is stronger than that of the average Christian.  The other challenge was to the requirement on a work sheet for the student to fill in two words of the shahada. (See prior posting). Thomas More Law Center issued a press release announcing the filing of the petition for review.

Town Says It Will Keep Crosses On Courthouse

LifeSite News reported yesterday on the latest controversy over crosses on pubic property.  Freedom From Religion Foundation has complained to authorities over the four crosses on the courthouse in the small town of Coldspring, Texas. Last week, the County Commissioners Court voted unanimously to keep the crosses after a three-hour public comment period attended two-thirds of the town's 900 population. Now officials are illuminating the crosses at night to support the decision.

Suit Challenges Bible Display At VA Hospital

Suit was filed yesterday in New Hampshire federal district court against a VA Medical Center challenging a lobby display that includes a Bible.  As described by an AP report on the lawsuit:

The Bible was carried by a prisoner of war in World War II and became part of the Missing Man Table honoring missing veterans and POWs at the entranceway of the Manchester VA Medical Center. The Department of Veterans Affairs said Tuesday the table was sponsored by a veterans group called the Northeast POW/MIA Network.

The complaint (full text) in Chamberlain v. Montoya, (D NH, filed 5/7/2019), contends that the display violates the Establishment Clause, saying in part:

Here, the placement of the Christian Bible in a locked case on the POW/MIA table puts forth the Christian beliefs of some, at the expense of the beliefs of non-Christians.

Plaintiffs in the lawsuit are represented by the Military Religious Freedom Foundation. while the Northeast POW/MIA Network is represented by First Liberty Institute.

District Court Says Challenge To Trump's Alleged Muslim Travel Ban May Proceed

In International Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump, (D MD, May 2, 2019), a Maryland federal district court, in a case on remand from the U.S. Supreme Court and the 4th Circuit, refused to dismiss Establishment Clause, due process and equal protection challenges to President Trump's third travel ban Proclamation. The Supreme Court's remand was ordered in light of its rejection of an Establishment Clause challenge in a parallel case (Hawaii II). In its latest decision, the district court said, however:

Notably, at no point in Hawaii II did the Supreme Court state that its conclusion that the Proclamation would satisfy rational basis review, based on the record before it and in the context of a motion for a preliminary injunction, required dismissal of the Establishment Clause claim in either that case or the present case. Indeed, two Justices, including one in the majority, identified the possibility that constitutional claims would proceed.

Setting out it reasons for allowing the constitutional challenges to now move ahead, the district court said in part:

Plaintiffs have provided detailed allegations for why the Proclamation is not rationally related to its stated national security interests and is instead grounded in the illegitimate and unconstitutional purpose of disadvantaging Muslims.

First, the Complaints provide detailed allegations of statements by the President exhibiting religious animus toward Muslims and articulating a desire to ban Muslims from entering the United States, including his statement as a presidential candidate that he planned to institute "a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States" and numerous later statements reaffirming this position... 

Contrary to the Government's claim during the hearing on the Motion, Hawaii II does not instruct courts to disregard these statements or any public pronouncements of a President, nor does it hold that the subjective intent of the President and his advisors in formulating and issuing the Proclamation is irrelevant. Rather, the Supreme Court specifically stated that this evidence "may be considered," so long as the "authority of the Presidency itself' is given its due....

Court Refuses To Dismiss Suit To Allow Christian Flag Outside Boston City Hall

In Shurtleff v. City of Boston, (D MA, May 3, 2019), a Massachusetts federal district court refused to dismiss a suit brought to enjoin the City from denying permission to a religious organization to display a Christian flag on a flagpole outside City Hall for an event marking Constitution Day and Citizenship Day event. The flag pole flies the city's flag except when it is used by outside groups for a flag to mark a special event. The court held that there are factual issues to be determined on plaintiffs' free speech claims-- whether this involves "government speech," and whether the city has imposed a reasonable, viewpoint neutral regulation in a limited public forum. Also factual issues remain on plaintiffs' Establishment Clause and Equal Protection claims.

Enforcement of Mahr Provision In Islamic Marriage Contract Upheld

In Seifeddine v. Jaber, (MI App., April 16, 2019), a Michigan state appellate court rejected a challenge to a trial court's enforcement in a divorce action of the mahr provisions of an Islamic marriage certificate. The provision required the husband to pay $50,000 to his wife. According to the court:

[T]he trial court expressly and repeatedly stated that it was not applying religious principles or doctrines but was instead applying Michigan common law regarding contracts.... Plaintiff makes no argument challenging any particular element for establishing the existence of a contract. Nor does plaintiff cite any authority for his contention that a neutral principle of law must be derived from a statute rather than from Michigan common law when examining a religious document.

Discrimination Suit By Jewish Woman Denied Admission To Social Work Program Moves Ahead

In Weiss v. City University of New York, (SD NY, March 18, 2019), a New York federal district court allowed a Jewish woman to move ahead with several racial and religious discrimination claims against City University of New York and its trustees, as well as against several administrators, growing out of the denial of plaintiff's application for admission to the school's Master of Social Work program.  Faigy Weiss was raised in the Hasidic Satmar community in New York, with Yiddish as her first language.  She alleges that the Dean for Diversity and Compliance told her that the social work school "conducted the group admissions interviews to weed out conservatives, because Trumps and Cruzes can’t be social workers" and that "Jews from religious backgrounds are too conservative to be social workers." The court held that these allegations sufficiently state an equal protection claim for discrimination based on race and religion, a claim under Title VI, and an Establishment Clause claim.

Repeal of Ban On Use of Civic Center For Worship Services Moots Injunctive Relief, But Not Damages

In Redeemer Fellowship of Edisto Island v. Town of Edisto Beach, South Carolina, (D SC, March 18, 2019), a South Carolina federal district court held that a church's request for injunctive relief was moot. The church initially rented space in the town's Civic Center for its worship services.  Subsequently the town changed its rules to bar renting of space for use for religious services. The church sued, and the town rescinded the ban. The church failed to show that the town might reinstate the ban.  The court said in part:

Although the resolution moots Redeemer Fellowship’s request for injunctive relief, it does not moot the church’s request for damages or for declaratory relief. Redeemer Fellowship’s prayer for relief asks that the court declare that the Town engaged in content-based discrimination and violated the church’s rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments..... Redeemer Fellowship’s damages claim—the success of which depends on the court declaring that its constitutional rights were violated by the Town’s ban on religious worship services—survives this order. The court leaves it to the parties to determine whether or not Redeemer Fellowship did in fact suffer any damages by the Town’s prohibition of the church’s use of the Civic Center for their worship services from May 2018, when the church’s application for use of the Center was denied, until December 2018, when the Town rescinded the ban. 

Suit Challenging End of School Yoga Program Moves Ahead

AP reports that a Georgia federal district court judge refused Friday to dismiss an Establishment Clause suit against the Cobb County (GA) School District. The suit alleges the school district ended a yoga program and transferred an elementary school assistant principal in response to parents who objected to the yoga program as inconsistent with their Christian religious beliefs.  The suit brought by former Bullard Elementary School assistant principal Bonnie Cole will now move to trial.  AP reports in part:

During the 2014-2015 school year, Cole said she implemented breathing and stretching exercises based on yoga and meditation in classrooms as a way of reducing stress and encouraging relaxation....

According to the lawsuit, upset parents held a 2016 prayer rally for ‘‘Jesus to rid the school of Buddhism.’’

UPDATE: Here is the full text of the opinion and additional pleadings in Cole v. Cobb County School District (ND GA, March 19, 2019).