VA Doctor's Statement Did Not Violate Establishment Clause

In Rose v. Borsos, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 139466 (ED TN, Aug. 17. 2018), a Tennessee federal district court dismissed a claim by a VA hospital patient that a VA doctor violated the Establishment Clause when the doctor told the patient that "God would forgive [him] for committing suicide because of uncontrolled pain."

Amicus Briefs In Bladensburg Cross Cert Petitions Now Available

Links (via SCOTUS blog) are now available to the numerous amicus briefs (as well as briefs of the parties) in the certiorari petition in Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission v. American Humanist Association.  In the case, the 4th Circuit, in a 2-1 decision, held that the 40-foot high Bladensburg Cross that has stood for over 90 years as a World War I Veterans' Memorial, violates the Establishment Clause. (See prior posting). Links are also available to the largely overlapping set of briefs in the related cert. petition in American Legion v. American Humanist Association.

Suit Challenges City Council Opening Meetings With Lord's Prayer

The Freedom From Religion Foundation filed a lawsuit this week in a West Virginia federal district court to stop the Parkersburg, West Virginia City Council from regularly opening its meetings with the recitation of the Lord's Prayer.  The complaint (full text) in Cobranchi v. The City of Parkersburg, (D WV, filed 7/30/2018), seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, contending that the prayer practice violates plaintiffs' 1st and 14th Amendment rights. FFRF issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

9th Circuit: School Board Invocations Violate Establishment Clause

In Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc. v. Chino Valley Unified School District Board of Education, (9th Cir., July 25, 2018), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the district court that a California school board's prayer policy at board meetings violates the Establishment Clause. The court said in part:

The invocations to start the open portions of Board meetings are not within the legislative prayer tradition that allows certain types of prayer to open legislative sessions. This is not the sort of solemnizing and unifying prayer, directed at lawmakers themselves and conducted before an audience of mature adults free from coercive pressures to participate, that the legislative-prayer tradition contemplates.... Instead, these prayers typically take place before groups of schoolchildren whose attendance is not truly voluntary and whose relationship to school district officials, including the Board, is not one of full parity.....

Instead of the legislative-prayer analysis, we apply the three-pronged Establishment Clause test articulated in Lemon v. Kurtzman.... The Chino Valley Board’s prayer policy and practice fails the Lemon test and is therefore unconstitutional.

Los Angeles Times reports on the decision.

School's Mission Trip Fundraising Violated Establishment Clause

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

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

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

Boston Sued Over Refusal To Allow Christian Flag On Public Flag Pole

A suit was filed last week in Massachusetts federal district court against the city of Boston by Camp Constitution, a non-profit organization whose purposes include enhancing understanding of the United States' Judeo-Christian moral heritage.  The complaint (full text) in Shurtleff v. City of Boston, (D MA, filed 7/6/2018) alleges that it was refused use of a City Hall flagpole that is generally available to organizations to use in connection with cultural, historic or other events.  Camp Constitution sought to fly a Christian flag in connection with its planned event designed to recognize the contributions Boston’s Christian community to the city’s cultural diversity, intellectual capital and economic growth.  The city refused permission under an informal policy that allowed only "non-secular" flags to fly from the pole. The suit contends that this violate's plaintiffs' free speech and equal protection rights as well as the Establishment Clause under both the U.S. and Massachusetts constitutions. Liberty Counsel issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Cert. Filed In Bladensburg Cross Challenge

Yesterday a petition for certiorari (full text) was filed with the U.S. Supreme Court in American Legion v. American Humanist Association. In the case, the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 decision held that a 40-foot tall Latin Cross on government property created as a World War I Veterans' Memorial (Bladensburg Cross) violates the Establishment Clause.  (See prior posting.) En banc review was denied by a vote of 8-6. (See prior posting).  First Liberty Institute issued a press release announcing the filing of the cert. petition.

Trump's Travel Ban Upheld By Supreme Court; Establishment Clause Challenge Rejected

This morning in Trump v. Hawaii, (US Sup. Ct., June 26, 2018), the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the latest version of President Trump's travel ban, rejecting Establishment Clause challenges to the ban. Chief Justice Roberts' majority opinion, joined by Justices Kennedy, Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch, said in part:

The case before us differs in numerous respects from the conventional Establishment Clause claim. Unlike the typical suit involving religious displays or school prayer, plaintiffs seek to invalidate a national security directive regulating the entry of aliens abroad. Their claim accordingly raises a number of delicate issues regarding the scope of the constitutional right and the manner of proof. The Proclamation, moreover, is facially neutral toward religion. Plaintiffs therefore ask the Court to probe the sincerity of the stated justifications for the policy by reference to extrinsic statements—many of which were made before the President took the oath of office. These various aspects of plaintiffs’ challenge inform our standard of review....

Nonetheless, although foreign nationals seeking admission have no constitutional right to entry, this Court has engaged in a circumscribed judicial inquiry when the denial of a visa allegedly burdens the constitutional rights of a U. S. citizen....

For our purposes today we assume that we may look behind the face of the Proclamation to the extent of applying rational basis review.... As a result, we may consider plaintiffs’ extrinsic evidence, but will uphold the policy so long as it can reasonably be understood to result from a justification independent of unconstitutional grounds....

The Proclamation is expressly premised on legitimate purposes: preventing entry of nationals who cannot be adequately vetted and inducing other nations to improve their practices. The text says nothing about religion. Plaintiffs and the dissent nonetheless emphasize that five of the seven nations currently included in the Proclamation have Muslim-majority populations. Yet that fact alone does not support an inference of religious hostility, given that the policy covers just 8% of the world’s Muslim population and is limited to countries that were previously designated by Congress or prior administrations as posing national security risks.

The majority also used its opinion to formally reject the long-discredited Korematsu case that in 1944 upheld the internment of Japanese Americans.

Justices Kennedy and Thomas each filed a separate concurring opinion. Justice Breyer filed a dissenting opinion joined by Justice Kagan. Justice Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justice Ginsburg, saying in part:

The United States of America is a Nation built upon the promise of religious liberty. Our Founders honored that core promise by embedding the principle of religious neutrality in the First Amendment. The Court’s decision today fails to safeguard that fundamental principle. It leaves undisturbed a policy first advertised openly and unequivocally as a “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States” because the policy now masquerades behind a façade of national-security concerns. But this repackaging does little to cleanse Presidential Proclamation No. 9645 of the appearance of discrimination that the President’s words have created. Based on the evidence in the record, a reasonable observer would conclude that the Proclamation was motivated by anti-Muslim animus. That alone suffices to show that plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their Establishment Clause claim. The majority holds otherwise by ignoring the facts, misconstruing our legal precedent, and turning a blind eye to the pain and suffering the Proclamation inflicts upon countless families and individuals, many of whom are United States citizens. Because that troubling result runs contrary to the Constitution and our precedent, I dissent. 

City Violated Establishment Clause By Acquiring Cross Site As Park Land

In Lions Club of Albany, California v. City of Albany, (ND CA, June 15, 2018), a California federal district court held that a city violated the Establishment Clause by acquiring for a public park a 1.1 acre parcel of land that includes a large cross. Originally the cross was on private property, and the Lion's Club held an easement to maintain the 20-foot high cross and to illuminate it each Christmas and Easter.  The city acquired the 1.1 acres along with adjacent land in exchange for approving a high rise project nearby. The court said in part:

While the City portrays itself as a victim of the easement, the fact is that the City must bear responsibility. To repeat, the City could have rejected the deal, burdened as it was by the easement. The First Amendment ran against the City, not the private parties. Once the City accepted title and began converting the land into a public park, it then could have solved its Establishment Clause problem by condemning the easement (and paying its value) under its power of eminent domain, selling off, if feasible, a subdivided parcel containing the cross to a private party (and keeping the rest for a park), or by possibly imposing zoning restrictions against all religious displays on public land.

Suit Over School's Curriculum on Islam Survives Motion To Dismiss On Pleadings

Hilsenrath v. School District of the Chathams, (D NJ, June 13, 2018), involves a disagreement between a school board and a parent over whether the curriculum in the middle school World Cultures and Geography course unconstitutionally promotes or endorses Islam. According to the court:

plaintiff alleges, C.H. has been exposed to two videos and a worksheet that contain materials that members of the Islamic faith use to express religious beliefs or proselytize others.’ The Complaint begins with a quotation from those materials: “May God help us all find the true faith, Islam. Ameen.” This is captioned as the Chatham school authorities’ “call for the conversion of 7th grade students.” Such materials, the Complaint alleges, have a primary purpose of promoting and advancing the Islamic religion. The Complaint also alleges that the curriculum gives insufficient attention to the Christian and Jewish religions.

The school board responded that:

The videos on Islam ... occupied a small part of the school year. They were part of a curriculum that covered many cultures and religions and would have been understood in that context.

The court refused to dismiss the complaint at the pleading stage, concluding:

However valid, or not, the defendants’ arguments may turn out to be, they furnish no basis for dismissal of the complaint. The information about the totality of the curriculum, for example, does not appear on the face of the complaint. And the sensitive balancing required by Lemon cannot be performed on the basis of mere allegations. Such considerations are simply premature.

Veteran Has Standing to Challenge Therapist Bill As Establishment Clause Violation

In Copas v. Haslam, (MD TN, May 25, 2018), a Tennessee federal district court held that a gay Army veteran, who also holds a degree in counseling, has standing to bring an Establishment Clause challenge to a Tennessee law that permits therapists to refuse to serve LGBT clients when doing so would violate the therapist's religious beliefs. Plaintiff suffers from PTSD and Chronic Adjustment disorder, and has sought therapy in the past. The court held that plaintiff's claim that he has been marginalized and "made to feel ostracized and
unworthy as a non-adherent to the religiously-based, anti-LGBT preference" in the law is a sufficiently concrete injury to grant standing.  It also held that he has been sufficiently personally injured by the law to satisfy Article III standing requirements for his Establishment Clause claim.  The court however dismissed several equal protection claims made by plaintiff.

6th and 7th Circuits Reject Challenge To "In God We Trust" On Currency

The U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 decision rejected claims by a group of plaintiffs-- atheists, humanists and one Jewish plaintiff-- that statutes requiring placing of the national motto, In God We Trust, on currency violates RFRA, as well as protections of free speech, free exercise and equal protection.  In Doe v. Congress of the United States, (6th Cir., May 29, 2018), the majority said in part:

Plaintiffs’ allegations indicate that at least some legislators who voted to enact the currency statutes intended to promote a Christian monotheistic message. However, intent to promote one religion is not necessarily intent to suppress another; Plaintiffs’ allegations do not show a specific governmental intent to infringe upon, restrict, or suppress other religious beliefs. Plaintiffs argue that the currency statutes nonetheless effect suppression of Atheist beliefs by requiring the Government to constantly spread speech that is akin to “Atheists Are Wrong.” But the incidental effect of suppression is permissible under the Free Exercise Clause absent restrictive intent: The laws must have been “enacted because of, not merely in spite of their suppression.”

Judge Moore, dissenting in part, contended that:

All but four of the plaintiffs have sufficiently pleaded factual allegations demonstrating that the inscription substantially burdens their religion and have thus pleaded a plausible violation of RFRA....

[T]he thirty-nine plaintiffs who allege that they are required to utilize coins and cash on a regular basis have sufficiently alleged that they face an untenable choice between violating their religious beliefs or being excluded “from full participation in the economic life of the Nation,”

In Mayle v. United States, (7th Cir., May 31, 2018), the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals held that neither the Establishment clause nor RFRA, nor the free speech clause, is violated by the printing the national motto, "In God We Trust", on currency, saying in part:

The inclusion of the motto on currency is similar to other ways in which secular symbols give a nod to the nation’s religious heritage.

In rejecting the claim of plaintiff Kenneth Mayle, an adherent of non-theistic Satanism, the court said in part:

Mayle argues that having the motto printed on currency forces him to choose between using cash, a necessary part of life, and violating his sincerely held religious beliefs. Using the currency makes him feel “guilt, shame and above all else fear,” and those feelings, he contends, qualify as a substantial burden. He likens himself to a fundamentalist Christian baker who would be forced to endorse gay marriage—a practice that violates his religious beliefs—by selling a couple a wedding cake. This term the Supreme Court is considering that baker’s case.... No matter how that case is decided, however, no reasonable person would believe that using currency has religious significance....  [B]ecause using money is not a religious exercise, and the motto has secular as well as religious significance, Mayle has not plausibly alleged that the motto’s placement on currency increases the burden on practicing Satanism.... Mayle’s feelings are not insignificant, but the burden he experiences is not substantial.

City Violated Establishment Clause By Sponsoring Prayer Vigil

In Rojas v. City of Ocala, (MD FL, May 24, 2018), a Florida federal district court held that the City of Ocala, Florida and its police chief violated the Establishment Clause when they organized and promoted a prayer vigil in response to a shooting spree plaguing the city.  The vigil resulted from attempts to involve the faith community in encouraging witnesses to cooperate in investigation of the shootings. the court, however, held that the mayor was not liable merely for failing to intervene to prevent the vigil. Ocala Star Banner reports on the decision.

11th Circuit Hears Arguments In Challenge To Cross In City Park

On Wednesday, the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments in  Kondrat'yev v. City of Pensacola, Florida.  (Audio of full oral arguments).  In the case, a reluctant Florida federal district court judge held that a 34-foot concrete Latin Cross that has stood in a city park for decades violates the Establishment Clause. (See prior posting.)  Pensacola News Journal reports on the oral arguments.

Church Testimony To Liquor Board Did Not Violate Establishment Clause

In Clarke v. Goodson, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 74419 (MD AL, May 1, 2018), and Alabama federal magistrate judge recommended dismissing an Establishment Clause challenge to Pike County, Alabama's denial to plaintiffs of a license for the sale of beer and wine at their restaurant.  Plaintiffs contended that it was a violation of the Establishment Clause for the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board to allow officials of a nearby church to testify in opposition to granting of the license.

[T]he law is settled that the "protect[ion] of churches and schools from disruption associated with liquor serving establishments" is a valid secular purpose.... Moreover, ... the Defendants' conduct would arguably have violated the Establishment Clause, if the Defendants had refused to allow citizens to speak in opposition to the Plaintiff's application on the basis of those individuals' affiliation with the church.

Unusual Brief Filed In Appeal of Parsonage Allowance Case

As previously reported, last October in Gaylor v. Mnuchin a Wisconsin federal district court held that the parsonage allowance provision in Sec. 107(2) of the Internal Revenue Code violates the Establishment Clause.  The case has been appealed to the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals.  Yesterday an unusual amicus brief (full text) was filed by ADF on behalf of 8,899 Christian pastors from all 50 states.  The brief's 12-pages of legal arguments in favor of the constitutionality of the exemption are followed by a 200-page list of the pastors and churches on whose behalf the brief was filed.

Court Refuses To Dismiss Challenge To Town's Settlement Agreement On Mosque Construction

In Quick v. Township of Bernards, (D NJ, April 30, 2018), a New Jersey federal district court denied defendant's motion to dismiss a lawsuit challenging a settlement agreement entered by the Township of Bernards to settle a dispute over construction of a mosque in the Township.  Under the settlement agreement, a new Planning Board hearing on permitting construction of the mosque was to be held.  One of the stipulations, however, was that at the hearing "No commentary regarding Islam or Muslims will be permitted." (See prior posting).  Plaintiffs contend that this is an unconstitutional suppression of speech based on its content and viewpoint, is a prior restraint on speech, denies plaintiffs procedural due process, violates the Establishment Clause by favoring Islam over other religions, and violates the 1st Amendment's petition clause. New Jersey Law Journal reports on the decision.

Supreme Court Will Hear Oral Arguments In Travel Ban Case Today

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments this morning in Trump v. Hawaii, a challenge to the legality of the most recent version of President Trump's controversial "travel ban."  As explained by this argument preview from SCOTUSblog, as well as this New York Times preview, one of the major questions that the Court will face is whether Donald Trump's anti-Muslim statements  during his campaign for office, and his Tweets while in office, should be considered in deciding whether his later executive action violates the Establishment Clause. SCOTUS blog's case page has links to the numerous briefs filed in the case, as well as to commentary and other primary source documents.  I will post a link to the transcript of the oral argument when it becomes available later today.

In Michigan, Battle Over Appropriations For State Mandates On Private Schools, Continues

Detroit News yesterday reported on developments in Michigan in the battle over legislative appropriations to fund state mandates imposed on private and religious schools-- requirements such as fire drills and criminal background checks.  Last year, the state Court of Claims issued a preliminary injunction barring payment of the $2.5 million that the legislature had appropriated.  The Court's decision was based on Michigan's Blaine Amendment (inserted in the state constitution in 1970) that bars public funds for "any private, denominational or other nonpublic, pre-elementary, elementary, or secondary school". (See prior posting.)  On March 12, Immaculate Heart of Mary Catholic school in Grand Rapids, along with parents and state legislators, filed a counter-suit in the Court of Claims contending that the Blaine Amendment violates the free exercise, free speech and equal protection clauses of the federal constitution.  According to the Detroit News:

The Grand Rapids school’s lawsuit argues the state’s so-called Blaine Amendment was developed in a furor of “anti-Catholic sentiment” and should be disregarded in the debate over the $2.5 million state allocation for non-public schools.

The enjoined funding has been included by the legislature, over the opposition of Gov. Rick Snyder, in the proposed 2019 budget.

Challenge To Teaching Islam In History Curriculum Is Rejected

In Wood v. Arnold, (D MD, March 26, 2018), a Maryland federal district court dismissed a lawsuit by a high school graduate and her father complaining (1) that the school violated the Establishment Clause by teaching Islam in its World History course; (2) violated the student's free speech rights by requiring her to "confess" the Shahada; and (3) engaged in retaliation and suppression of speech in banning the student's father from school grounds after he expressed opposition to the school's curriculum. Summarizing its holding, the court said:

the First Amendment does not afford the right to build impenetrable silos, completely separating adherents of one religion from ever learning of beliefs contrary to their own, Nor, in this Court's view, does it prohibit a high school teacher from leading a purely academic study of a religion that may differ from the religious beliefs of some of his students.

Plaintiffs' Establishment Clause argument centered on a statement made by the World History teacher that "most Muslims faith is stronger than the average Christian". The court rejected plaintiffs'argument that the statement should be taken in isolation from the remainder of the curriculum, but concluded that even taken alone the statement, in the context it was made, did not violate the Establishment Clause.

Rejecting plaintiffs' compelled speech argument, the court held that requiring students to fill in the blanks in a quiz on the Shahda was merely aimed at fostering an understanding of the significance of the statements to Muslims.

Finally the court rejected the father's complaint about his exclusion from school grounds, finding that the father's statements on Facebook suggested that he was planning to cause disruption at the school.