Texas AG Opinion OK's Courtroom Chaplains

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton yesterday issued Attorney General Opinion No. KP-0109 (Aug. 15, 2016), responding to three Establishment Clause concerns.  The Opinion first concludes:

Courts do not violate the Establishment Clause by opening court proceedings with a statement such as, "God save the State of Texas and this Honorable Court."

It then moves to questions about the more controversial practice of a Texas justice of the peace who is also the county coroner.  As previously reported the judge created a volunteer chaplaincy program to help grieving family, friends and witnesses at death scenes to which the coroner is called.  To recognize these volunteer chaplains, they are also invited to give a brief prayer to open justice of the peace court proceedings. The state's Commission on Judicial Conduct had urged an end to these practices.  However, yesterday's AG opinion concluded that each of these practices is constitutional. A press release from First Liberty Institute discusses the AG opinion.

Settlement Reached In Suit Over Sheriff's Religious Use of Department's Facebook Page

A settlement agreement has been reached in American Atheists, Inc. v. Watson, a suit alleging that Bradley County, Tennessee Sheriff Eric Watson used the sheriff department's Facebook page to promote the sheriff's Christian religious beliefs. (See prior posting.)  According to an American Atheists press release yesterday, under the settlement the county will pay $15,000 in damages to American Atheists and the local plaintiffs as well as $26,000 in attorney’s fees.  Also under the settlement, the Sheriff’s Department  will create a new, information-only, Facebook page that will not be used to "promote or further any religion, religious organization, religious event or religious belief." The original Facebook page has already been deactivated.  Sheriff Watson will be allowed to maintain a clearly marked personal Facebook page reflecting his personal opinions.

Satanic Temple Challenge To Missouri Abortion Restrictions Dismissed On Standing Grounds

Last month in Satanic Temple v. Nixon. (ED MO, July 15, 2016), a Missouri federal district court dismissed for lack of standing a suit by the Satanic Temple and one of its members challenging on free exercise and establishment clause grounds Missouri's disclosure and waiting period requirements for women seeking an abortion.  Missouri requires the abortion provider to deliver to a woman seeking an abortion a pamphlet that states in part: "The life of each human being begins at conception. Abortion will terminate the life of a separate, unique, living human being"  The Missouri law also requires a 72 hour waiting period and the opportunity to view an ultrasound, Plaintiffs alleged that these requirements are inconsistent with beliefs of the Satanic Temple and are medically unnecessary.  The court concluded: "Plaintiff Doe is not now pregnant, there is no guaranty that she will become pregnant in the future, and that if she does, she will seek an abortion,,,," Last week in Verdict, Prof. Marci Hamilton commented on the decision. In January a Missouri state court dismissed a similar challenge brought under RFRA. (See prior posting.)

Kansas City Sued Over Tourism Grant To Baptist Convention

A lawsuit was filed last week by the American Atheists challenging a grant that had been approved by the Kansas City, Missouri City Council to support the National Baptist Convention that will be hosted in Kansas City in September.  According to the complaint (full text) in American Atheists, Inc. v. City of Kansas City, Missouri, (WD MO, filed 7/22/2016), a grant of $65,000 from the city's Neighborhood Tourist Development Fund was to fund shuttle bus transportation for convention delegates from their hotels to convention site. The complaint alleges that the grant violates the Establishment Clause and equal protection clause of the federal Constitution as well as the "no aid" clause of the Missouri Constitution. Plaintiffs also filed a motion (full text) for a preliminary injunction. An American Atheist press release announced the lawsuit. Reuters reports on the suit.

Church Directional Sign On Public Property Did Not Violate Establishment Clause

In Tearpock-Martini v. Shickshinny Borough, (MD PA, July 22, 2016), a Pennsylvania federal district court dismissed an Establishment Clause challenge to the action of a borough council that voted to permit a sign on a public property pointing the way to a local Baptist church.  Plaintiff whose property was near the sign was a member of council as well, but voted against the action. Borough employees helped install the sign which read: "Bible Baptist Church Welcomes You!".  The sign included a cross and a Bible and a directional arrow with the words "one block". Finding that the sign is a "religious display," the court concluded nevertheless:

A reasonable observer familiar with the history and context of the display would not perceive the sign as a government endorsement of religion.

(See prior related posting.)

Plaintiffs Lack Standing To Challenge Florida Chabad Center

In Gagliardi v. City of Boca Raton, (SD FL, July 21, 2016), a Florida federal district court dismissed on standing grounds a challenge by residents and taxpayers of Boca Raton to zoning changes by the city that permitted a Chabad (Hasidic Jewish) group to construct a religious center.  Plaintiffs, who identified themselves as Christians, claim that the city's actions violated the Establishment clause, the equal protection and due process clauses, and the Florida Constitution.  Dismissing the complaint, with leave to file an amended complaint, the court said in part:

Plaintiffs fail to allege any injury at all, let alone one that is concrete and particularized. The closest they come to asserting an injury is when they allege that the building is “injurious to residents in the area including” Plaintiffs.... This allegation is insufficient because it merely states in conclusory fashion that the building is “injurious” without specifying how it causes injury...

Rejecting plaintiff's claim of taxpayer standing, the court said in part:

The only expenditure they identify is the payment of salaries to City employees who allegedly “provided favorable treatment to one religious group.”... “Nearly all governmental activities are conducted or overseen by employees whose salaries are funded by tax dollars. To confer taxpayer standing on such a basis would allow any municipal taxpayer to challenge virtually any governmental action at anytime...."

Palm Beach Sun Sentinel reports on the decision.

1st Circuit: No Qualified Immunity In Establishment Clause Suit Against Puerto Rico Police Officials

In Marrero-Mendez v. Calixto-Rodriguez, (1st Cir., July 19, 2016), the U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with a Puerto Rico federal district court that Puerto Rico police officials could not claim qualified immunity in a suit against them challenging opening of police formation meetings with Christian prayer. When plaintiff, an open atheist, complained to his commander about the prayers, the commander told him to stand aside, and shouted to the police formation that plaintiff was standing apart because "he doesn't believe in what we believe in." When plaintiff filed an administrative complaint, he was reassigned to duties that effectively demoted him.  The court concluded:

However complex the nuances of the Establishment Clause doctrine may be for cases without the direct coercion present in this case, a reasonable officer in March 2012 would have known that appellants' conduct amounted to direct and tangible coercion, a paradigmatic example of an impermissible establishment of religion.

Federal District Court Strikes Down Mississippi's Anti-LGBT Conscience Protection Law

In Barber v. Bryant, (SD MS, June 30, 2016), a Mississippi federal district court in a stinging 60-page opinion, issued a preliminary injunction against enforcement of Mississippi House Bill 1523, the Protecting Freedom of Conscience from Government Discrimination Act.  The new law protects a wide variety of conduct, or refusals to provide goods and service, based on a religious or moral belief that: (1) marriage is a union of one man and one woman; (2) sexual relations should be reserved to heterosexual marriage; and (3) gender is an immutable characteristic determined by anatomy and genetics at the time of birth.  The court concluded that the law, which would have gone into effect today, violates both the Establishment Clause and the Equal Protection Clause. Summarizing the history of the bill, the court said:

In physics, every action has its equal and opposite reaction. In politics, every action has its predictable overreaction..... Obergefell has led to HB 1523.

The court summarized its conclusions:

HB 1523 grants special rights to citizens who hold one of three “sincerely held religious beliefs or moral convictions” reflecting disapproval of lesbian, gay, transgender, and unmarried persons.... That violates both the guarantee of religious neutrality and the promise of equal protection of the laws.

The Establishment Clause is violated because persons who hold contrary religious beliefs are unprotected – the State has put its thumb on the scale to favor some religious beliefs over others. Showing such favor tells “nonadherents that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community, and . . . adherents that they are insiders, favored members of the political community.” ... And the Equal Protection Clause is violated by HB 1523’s authorization of arbitrary discrimination against lesbian, gay, transgender, and unmarried persons....

Responding to the state's argument that the law "is justified by a compelling government interest in accommodating the free exercise of religion," the court said that the state had "not identified 'even a single instance' in which Obergefell has led to a free exercise problem in Mississippi." The court added:

In this case, moreover, it is difficult to see the compelling government interest in favoring three enumerated religious beliefs over others....  It is not within our tradition to respect one clerk’s religious objection to issuing a same-sex marriage license, but refuse another clerk’s religious objection to issuing a marriage license to a formerly-divorced person. The government is not in a position to referee the validity of Leviticus 18:22 (“Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.”) versus Leviticus 21:14 (“A widow, or a divorced woman, or profane, or an harlot, these shall he not take.”).

BuzzFeed and the Washington Post have additional coverage of the opinion.

Another "Church Plan" Lawsuit Filed

This week, another lawsuit was filed challenging the right of a religiously-affiliated hospital to rely on the "church plan" exemption from ERISA for its pension plan.  The complaint (full text) in Butler v. Holy Cross Hospital, (ND IL, filed 6/26/2016), alleges that HCH's pension plan violated a number of provisions in ERISA.  When HCH terminated it plan, it was underfunded by $31 million. The complaint alleges in part:

the HCH Plan is not a church plan because HCH is not a church. In fact, even if the law permitted certain non-church entities to establish church plans, the HCH Plan does not meet the various other requirements of a church plan. And if the HCH Plan did meet all the statutory requirements for church plan status, the statute would then be, to the extent, and as applied to HCH, an unconstitutional accommodation under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

Supreme Court Denies Review In Two Cases of Interest

The U.S. Supreme Court today denied certiorari in two cases of interest (Order List):

Chabad-Lubavitch of Michigan v. Schuchman, (Docket No. 15-1005, cert. denied 5/23/2016). In the case, the Michigan Supreme Court found that the statute of limitations had run in a dispute between Chabad-Lubavitch of Michigan and a local Chabad organization over ownership of a Chabad center. (See prior posting.)

Sunrise Children's Services v. Glisson, (Docket No. 15-1021, cert. denied 5/23/2016).  In the case decided below under the name Pedreira v. Sunrise Children's Services, Inc., the 6th Circuit essentially reopened a long-running Establishment Clause dispute over Kentucky state funding  of treatment for abused and neglected children in facilities operated by Sunrise Children's Services, a Baptist organization. (See prior posting.) The cert. petition (full text) focuses on standing questions.

Suit Claims Sheriff Used Official Facebook Page To Proselytize

American Atheists announced Friday that it has filed suit against Bradley County, Tennessee Sheriff Eric Watson for using the sheriff department's Facebook page to promote the sheriff's Christian religious beliefs.  The complaint (full text) in American Atheists, Inc. v. Watson, (ED TN, filed 5/6/2016), alleges that the sheriff posted an Easter message and other messages that proselytized and deleted or blocked visitor comments on Facebook that were critical of the sheriff or his religion or policies.

Suit Challenges Cross At Site of Historic Spanish Mission

The Freedom From Religion Foundation this week filed suit in a California federal district court challenging the constitutionality of a 14-foot tall granite Latin cross in Santa Clara's Memorial Cross Park.  The complaint (full text) in Freedom From Religion Foundation v. City of Santa Clara, (ND CA, filed 4/20/2016), says that the cross was donated and placed on city-owned property in 1953 by the Lion's Club to mark the site of the second Spanish Catholic mission established in the city in 1777. The site continues to be maintained by the city. Plaintiff claims that the city's actions violate the Establishment Clause of the federal and state constitutions as well as the "no aid" clause of California's constitution.  FFRF issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit and containing a photo of the disputed marker.

10th Circuit: Challenge To Kansas School Science Standards Dismissed on Standing Grounds

In COPE v. Kansas State Board of Education, (10th Cir., April 19, 2016), the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed on standing grounds an Establishment Clause challenge to Kansas' curriculum standards for science instruction in grades K-12.  Plaintiffs claimed that the State Board’s adoption of the Standards communicated a religious message, and their implementation will result in anti-religious instruction.  The court said in part:

[T]he Standards do not condemn any or all religions and do not target religious believers for disfavored treatment. And COPE offers only threadbare assertions that the Standards intend to promote a non-religious worldview. Thus, COPE’s allegations regarding adoption amount to psychological consequences produced by observation of conduct with which it disagrees.... This injury does not suffice....

Tennessee Governor Vetoes Bill Making Bible The State's Official Book

Yesterday Tennessee Governor Bill Haslam vetoed House Bill 615  that would have made the Holy Bible Tennessee's official book. In his veto message (full text), Haslam cited a state attorney general's opinion finding that the bill was unconstitutional, and added:

In addition to the constitutional issues with the bill, my personal feeling is that this bill trivializes the Bible, which I believe is a sacred text.  If we believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God, then we shouldn't be recognizing it only as a book of historical and economic significance.  If we are recognizing the Bible as a sacred text, then we are violating the Constitution....

According to The Tennessean,  legislative sponsors plan to seek a veto override which, in Tennessee, only requires a majority vote in both chambers of the legislature. [Thanks to Tom Rutledge for the lead.]

Court Says Cross on County Seal Is Unconstitutional

In Davies v. Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, (CD CA, April 6, 2016), a California federal district court granted a permanent injunction requiring removal of a cross from the Los Angeles County Seal.  Under threat of a lawsuit in 2004, the County redesigned its Seal replacing a cross that was on it with a depiction of the San Gabriel Mission. Subsequently the San Gabriel Mission added a cross on its building and the County Board voted to add the cross to the Mission's depiction on the Seal. The district court held that the addition of the cross violates both the Establishment Clause and the California Constitution's No Aid clause. Los Angeles Times reports on the decision.

Bible Colleges Lose Challenge To State Regulation

In Illinois Bible Colleges Association v. Anderson, (ND IL, March 28, 2916), an Illinois federal district court rejected constitutional challenges by a group of Bible Colleges to three Illinois statutes that regulate institutions of higher education in the state.  The statutes generally require approval by the state Board of Higher Education to operate a degree-granting college or grant degrees or certificates of completion.  Plaintiffs argued, among other things, that the statutes "subordinate the Church’s responsibility to God in deciding how to properly educate students in religious teaching" and "unconstitutionally restrict... their ability to accurately describe the nature of the Bible Colleges’ curricula by regulating the use of the terms 'Bachelor’s,' 'Master’s,' or 'Doctorate' degrees." The court rejected plaintiffs' establishment clause, free exercise, speech, association and equal protection challenges to the statutes and dismissed the complaint.

Suit Challenges Cross Decals On Sheriff's Office Patrol Cars

The Freedom From Religion Foundation filed suit yesterday against a Texas sheriff who placed 8-inch tall Latin cross decals on six county law enforcement vehicles.  The complaint (full text) in Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc. v. Brewster County, Texas, (WD TX, filed 3/2/2016), says that Sheriff Ronny Dodson placed the decals on patrol vehicles because he "wanted God’s protection over his deputies."  The suit contends that this violates the First Amendment's Establishment Clause as well as Art. I, Sec. 6 of the Texas Constitution.  FFRF issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Texas Lt. Gov. Seeks To Dispute Judicial Conduct Commission On Chaplaincy Program

In a press release yesterday, Texas Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick announced that he has requested a formal opinion from state attorney general Ken Paxton on the constitutionality of a volunteer Justice Court Chaplaincy Program created by Montgomery County Justice of the Peace Wayne Mack.  (Full text of request for AG Opinion and Brief in Support.)  Mack, who is also the County Coroner, created the chaplaincy program to help grieving family, friends and witnesses at death scenes to which the coroner is called.  To recognize these volunteer chaplains, Mack also invites them to give a brief prayer to open his justice of the peace court proceedings.  A complaint was filed against Mack with the State Commission on Judicial Conduct. The Complaint was eventually dismissed, but the Commission urged Mack to end the chaplaincy program and to modify the opening prayer ceremony. Patrick hopes that an Attorney General's Opinion will clarify that the programs are constitutionally permissible.

Suit Over Religious Themed Donor Plaque Dismissed After School Removes All Plaques

Last year, Michael Lucas, an alumnus of the Colorado School of Mines, filed suit against the school after it rejected the text he chose for a donor plaque. The school's fundraising campaign for a new Athletic Complex allowed donors to purchase a personalized plate to be placed in the new football locker room. However the school rejected Lucas' proposed inscription "Colossians 3:23 & Micah 5:9." (See prior posting.) According to an ADF press release, Lucas yesterday moved to voluntarily dismiss the suit because the school has now removed all donor nameplates from the locker room. In a letter to donors (full text), the school's President said:

The purpose of the football locker fundraising program ... was to solicit donations and honor Mines' student athletes.... Unfortunately, an individual who participated in this fundraising program mistakenly viewed our new football locker room as a public space for free expression.

The letter invited donors to transfer their gifts to a new program that would replace their old plaque with a new one containing specified identifying information on the person the donor wished to honor.  No free text quotes are allowed.

Court Says Ark Encounter Cannot Be Excluded From Kentucky Tax Incentives

In Ark Encounter, LLC v. Parkinson, (ED KY, Jan. 26, 2016), a Kentucky federal district court, in a 71-page opinion, held that Kentucky improperly excluded a Noah's Ark complex from participating in tax incentives provided by the state's Tourism Development Act. The court summarized the facts and its holding as follows:

Rising on what was once farmland near the community of Williamstown, Kentucky, is what purports to be an exact replica of the ark that figures prominently in the Old Testament story of a great flood that covered the earth. The modern-day Noah that is constructing the replica hopes that its almost $100 million investment will produce a successful tourist attraction.  At first, the Kentucky Tourism Cabinet, with the same hope, approved tax incentives for the project. But then, representatives of the Commonwealth, concerned that the project was going to “advance religion,” reversed course; the reason: providing the tax incentives would be contrary to the First Amendment protection from the state establishment of religion.

So, in essence, the question presented here is this: if a tourist attraction, even one that as described here “advances religion,” meets the neutral criteria for tax incentives offered by the Commonwealth of Kentucky, can the Commonwealth still deny the incentive for Establishment Clause reasons? This opinion is long but the answer to that question is short -- no. 

At the heart of the court's lengthy opinion was the following:

The Commonwealth has forced  [Ark Encounter] to choose between expressing its religious views on its own property at the theme park and receiving the tax rebate under the KTDA. Although Defendants are correct that “the mere non-funding of private secular and religious . . . programs does not burden a person’s religion or the free exercise thereof,” ..., in this case the Commonwealth is funding the private secular programs while discriminating against the religious one because of its religiosity, which is a violation of the Free Exercise Clause.

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

UPDATE: Kentucky Gov. Matt Bevin's office said on Jan. 27 that it will not appeal the court's decision. (Cincinnati Enquirer).