Church Preschool Challenges California's Anti-Discrimination Rules for Food Program Participants

Suit was filed earlier this month in a California federal district court by a Christian church and its preschool challenging the state's agreement form that was required for participants in the state's Child and Adult Food Care Program. The complaint (full text) in Church of Compassion v. Bonta, (SD CA, filed 3/10/2023), alleges in part:

The new 2022 CDSS PSA required the Church and Dayspring to certify that their management of the CACFP Food Program will be “operated in compliance with all applicable civil rights laws and will implement all applicable non-discrimination regulations....

Because of the Church’s orthodox religious beliefs regarding human sexuality, it was unable to comply with the PSA when it submitted its application for the 2022-2023 year. Specifically, Dayspring signed the PSA statement, but deleted the words “sexual orientation” and “gender identity.”

The complaint alleges that the requirement violates plaintiffs' Free Exercise, Free Speech and Establishment Clause rights. National Center for Law & Policy issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Christain School Sues Over "Poison Pill" Provisions That Exclude It from Maine's Tuition Payment Program

Suit was filed this week in a Maine federal district court by a Christian school challenging 2021 amendments to Maine's Human Rights Act that operate to exclude the school from participating in Maine's tuition payment program for students from districts without public high schools.  The motion for a preliminary injunction (full text) which was filed along with the complaint in Crosspoint Church v. Makin, (D ME, filed 3/27/2023), focuses on provisions in 5 MRSA §4602 that now require schools that participate in the tuition reimbursement program to comply with the sexual orientation and gender identity non-discrimination provisions. Religious schools that do not receive public funding are exempt from that provision. The law also now provides that "to the extent that an educational institution permits religious expression, it cannot discriminate between religions in so doing." Plaintiff characterizes these provisions as "poison pills" that prevent it from participating in the tuition payment program without violating its religious beliefs after the U.S. Supreme Court in Carson v. Makin upheld the right of sectarian schools to participate. Plaintiff seeks a preliminary injunction based on violations of the Free Exercise, Free Speech and Establishment Clauses. Washington Times reports on the lawsuit.

Moving of Confederate Monument Did Not Violate Plaintiffs' Religious Rights

In Edgerton v. City of St. Augustine, (MD FL, March 20, 2023), a Florida federal district court rejected plaintiffs' challenges to the city's moving a monument honoring Confederate Civil War veterans from City Park to a new location.  Among other things, the court rejected Establishment Clause and Free Exercise challenges, saying in part:

Plaintiffs allege that "the message [the monument] conveyed has changed over time[,] which demonstrates why the removal of it. . . appears hostile and offensive to those who use it for moments of respect, prayer, and remembrance of those long gone." ... Plaintiffs do not allege the City considered any of Plaintiffs' religious beliefs when it decided to remove and relocate the monument. Additionally, Plaintiffs provide no allegations of historical practices or understandings of similar instances of a city removing a monument, and such removal amounting to an Establishment Clause violation.

... Mr. Edgerton "expressed his religious beliefs by paying respect to the dead [soldiers] by praying at and protecting the 'empty tomb' of his 'Southern family[.]"... Mr. Ross alleges that he "had participated in prayer at the site" of the monument, but since it has been relocated, his ability to continue doing so is "nearly impossible."... Ms. Pacetti alleges that she "has freely exercised her right to Christian memorial expression of her deceased family member at the Plaza next to the [m]onument[.]"... Mr. Parham alleges that he "continued to visit the [m]onument after his father's death . . . exercising his religious memorial expressions.",,,

Accepting these allegations as true, Plaintiffs do not state a plausible violation of their Free Exercise rights. Plaintiffs can still exercise any and all of the beliefs they have alleged.... Plaintiffs do not allege facts that the City relocated the monument because of Plaintiffs' religious beliefs....

Good News Clubs Sue to Get Access for After School Programs

Suit was filed last week in a Rhode Island federal district court by the Good News Clubs contending that their 1st and 14th Amendment rights were violated when Providence, RI school officials blocked approval of their use of school facilities for after-school programs. The complaint (full text) in Child Evangelism Fellowship of Rhode Island, Inc. v. Providence Public School District, (D RI, filed 3/10/2023) alleges in part:

CEF Rhode Island and its proposed Good News Clubs are similarly situated to the other organizations the District allows to host their afterschool programs in District elementary schools because all the organizations provide teaching and activities to develop things like confidence, character, leadership, and life skills in their participants. CEF Rhode Island, however, offers its programming from a Christian religious viewpoint, while the other organizations offer their similar programming from a nonreligious viewpoint....

The increasingly burdensome requirements the District has imposed on CEF Rhode Island as conditions to access for its Good News Clubs are discriminatory and pretextual disguises for the District’s hostility towards CEF Rhode Island’s Christian identity, message, and viewpoint.

Liberty Counsel issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Latest Attempt to Prevent City from Removing Cross from Public Park Fails On Procedural Grounds

Lion's Club of Albany, California v. City of Albany, (ND CA, March 9, 2023), is the latest installment in the ongoing litigation over the removal of a 28-foot tall, illuminated Latin cross located in a park which the city has purchased. (See prior related posting.) The Lioin's Club has an easement allowing it access to the cross to maintain it. After a prior decision finding that the city violated the Establishment Clause when it purchased the park and left the cross standing, the city instituted eminent domain proceedings in state court to acquire the easement so it could remove the cross. The state trial court judge granted the city prejudgment possession of the easement so the city could take down the cross and store it in a safe place pending the outcome of the eminent domain proceedings. The Lion's Club asked the state court of appeals to stay the trial court's order. That petition was denied for technical reasons that could have been cured. Instead, the Lion's Club came back to federal court seeking a temporary restraining order to prohibit removal of the cross.  In this decision, the court denied that request invoking the Rooker-Feldman doctrine which requires a federal court to dismiss a case when the plaintiff is essentially attempting to appeal a state court decision through the lower federal courts rather than by filing appeals through state court channels.

Certiorari Denied in Challenge to Police Department Prayer Vigil

The U.S. Supreme Court today denied review in City of Ocala, Florida v. Rojas, (Docket No. 22-278, certiorari denied 3/6/2023) (Order List.) In the case the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals vacated and remanded a district court's Establishment Clause decision that had relied on the now-repudiated Lemon test. The district court had granted summary judgment to plaintiffs who challenged a prayer vigil co-sponsored by the Ocala police department held in response to a shooting spree that injured several children. (See prior posting.) Justices Gorsuch and Thomas filed separate opinions (full text). Justice Gorsuch, while agreeing with the denial of certiorari, contended that the district court should also reconsider the question of plaintiffs' standing as "offended observers," saying in part:

"... [M]ost every governmental action probably offends somebody. No doubt, too, that offense can be sincere, sometimes well taken, even wise. But recourse for disagreement and offense does not lie in federal litigation. Instead, in a society that holds among its most cherished ambitions mutual respect, tolerance, self-rule, and democratic responsibility, an ‘offended viewer’ may ‘avert his eyes’ or pursue a political solution."

Justice Thomas dissented from the denial of review, saying in part:

[W]e should have granted certiorari to review whether respondents had standing to bring their claims. Standing is an antecedent jurisdictional requirement that must be established before a court reaches the merits....

I have serious doubts about the legitimacy of the “offended observer” theory of standing applied below.

5th Circuit Rejects Pastor's Jurisdictional Theory of Religion Clauses

 In Spell v. Edwards, (5th Cir., Feb. 17, 2023), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a suit brought by a pastor and his church claiming that their First Amendment rights were violated by enforcement against them of COVID orders in the early months of the pandemic that barred their holding church services. The court said in part:

Pastor Spell explicitly waived the argument that defendants’ actions violated his constitutional rights under current free exercise jurisprudence....  Pastor Spell instead advanced an absolute, categorical theory of the Religion Clauses, arguing that church assembly is “beyond the jurisdiction of the government.”... He maintained that, under Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing Township, there is a “jurisdictional limit on intrusion by the state into the church.”  In so doing, he expressly waived other arguments.

Pastor Spell is the master of his case, and he cannot prevail on the theory he advances. Controlling precedent directly contradicts Pastor Spell’s jurisdictional theory of the Religion Clauses.

Unfiltered With Kiran reports on the decision.

Suit Says Sheriff's Office Pressures Employees to Join Favored Church

Suit was filed this week in a Washington federal district court by an ex-deputy sheriff who alleges that Chelan County (WA) Sheriff's Office employees pressured him to join the "'alt-right' militant" Grace City Church and to attend its 12-week marriage counseling program. The complaint (full text) in Shepard v. Chelan County, (ED WA, filed 2/14/2023), alleges in part:

Defendant Chelan County Sheriff's Department targeted law enforcement officers who are not Grace City Church members by disciplining, terminating, and denying advancement to them for alleged internal Chelan County Sheriff's Office policy violations by arbitrarily enforcing certain policies against those employees and officers for the same conduct they allow, promote, or engage in themselves.

The suit alleges violation of Title VII, the Washington Law Against Discrimination and the Establishment Clause. NCWLIFE reports on the lawsuit.

Church Can Move Ahead Against County in Suit on Covid Restrictions

 In Abiding Place Ministries v. Newsom, (SD CA, Feb. 14, 2023), a California federal district court allowed a church to move ahead with certain of its claims against San Diego County for enforcing Covid restrictions against public gatherings. The court held that the county's public health officer had qualified immunity against the damage claims because "there was no clear precedent in March or April 2020 that would have put every reasonable official on notice that promulgating orders restricting in person religious gatherings to slow the spread of the COVID-19 virus was clearly and definitively unconstitutional."

The court however allowed plaintiff to move ahead with Free Exercise, Freedom of Assembly, Establishment Clause, Free Speech and Equal Protection claims against the County. The court said in part:

The County threatened enforcement, penalties, and fines if Plaintiff did not comply with the County Order.... Plaintiff alleges this action by the County “forced the Church’s members to remain away from church against their will, under threat of punishment,,,,”  [T]he allegations of the FAC regarding the County’s alleged unconstitutional policy is sufficient overcome the County Defendants’ argument that it cannot be liable under Monell. Accordingly, the County Defendants’ motion to dismiss is DENIED on this ground.....

[The FAC] alleges the County’s Orders and Defendants’ enforcement “had the primary effect of inhibiting religious activity” and caused “excessive government entanglement with religion.” ... Plaintiff contends its religious services exempted from gatherings were treated differently than other public gatherings.... At this stage of the pleadings, the County Defendants’ motion to dismiss the second cause of action is DENIED....

Whatever level of scrutiny is applied, Plaintiff has alleged they were prohibited from engaging in protected speech and assembling in person for the purpose of worship while other gatherings promoting non-religious speech were permissible.... Taking those allegations as true, Plaintiff has plausibly alleged claims for violations of the First Amendment’s freedom of speech and freedom of assembly clauses....

Plaintiff contends Defendants “intentionally and arbitrarily categorized individuals and conduct as either ‘essential’ or ‘non-essential.’”... At the pleading stage, Plaintiff has alleged sufficient facts to state a claim for violation of the Equal Protection clause....

Suit By Clergy Challenges Missouri Abortion Bans

Suit was filed this week in a Missouri state trial court by 13 clergy from several Christian denominations, as well as from Unitarian Universalist and Jewish traditions challenging a series of Missouri abortion restrictions and bans as violating the state constitution's prohibition on favoring any religion and its protection of free exercise of religion.  The 83-page complaint (full text) in Blackmon v. State of Missouri, (MO Cir. Ct., filed 1/19/2023), alleges in part:

8. This open invocation of religion in enacting H.B. 126 marked a departure from earlier legislative efforts to restrict abortion, when the sponsors claimed that their intent was to protect Missouri women. The legislative debate over those provisions reveals that, as with H.B. 126, the true purpose and effect of these laws was to enshrine certain religious beliefs in law. In enacting S.B. 5, for example, legislators spoke repeatedly of their intent to protect “innocent life,” could point as justification for the law only to biased investigations by the Senate “Sanctity of Life” Committee, and ignored the testimony of clergy who warned that targeting providers to limit abortion access impermissibly imposed one religious view on everyone else....

10. Collectively, Plaintiffs, like other clergy and faith communities all across this State, have through their work providing care, counseling, teaching, and preaching, spent decades countering the false but all too common assertion that faith and abortion access are incompatible. Their beliefs and lived experiences stand in stark contrast to the religious dictates that the Total Abortion Ban, Gestational Age Bans, Reason Ban, 72-Hour Delay, Same-Physician Requirement, Medication Abortion Restrictions, and Concurrent Original Jurisdiction Provision (collectively, the “Challenged Provisions”) impose on all Missourians.

NPR reports on the lawsuit. 

4th Circuit: Muslim Inmate's Free Exercise Claim Rejected; Establishment Clause Claim Remanded

In Firewalker-Fields v. Lee, (4th Cir., Jan. 17, 2023), the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of a Muslim inmate's 1st Amendment Free Exercise claim. Plaintiff alleged that he did not have access in jail to Friday Islamic prayers. The court said in part:

Middle River had three rules in place that kept Firewalker-Fields from attending in-person Friday Prayer: no inmate led groups; no maximum-security prisoners allowed in any in-person groups; and prisoner services and classes by volunteer or donation only. Those rules are reasonably related to justifiable prison goals and therefore do not offend the Free Exercise Clause....

... [E]ach of Middle River’s policies is reasonably related to the legitimate penological purposes of security and resource-allocation; despite the jail’s policies, Firewalker-Fields still had other ways to practice his religion, even if they were not perfect; Firewalker-Fields’s preferred solutions would have impaired the jail’s safety and its efficient operation; and Firewalker-Fields failed to propose easy and obvious alternative policies that would have solved those issues while allowing more room for his religious practice. Taken together, this shows that each challenged policy is reasonably related to legitimate penological goals and are justifiable under Turner.

The court also vacated and remanded plaintiff's Establishment Clause challenge to the jail's broadcast of Christian services every Sunday on televisions throughout the facility.  Noting the Supreme Court's recent repudiation of the Lemon test and adoption of a test based on historical practice and understanding, the court said in part:

The district court should have the initial responsibility of working through Firewalker-Fields’s Establishment Clause challenge under Kennedy.

Title IX Religious Exemption Survives Constitutional Challenge

In Hunter v. United States Department of Education, (D OR, Jan. 12, 2023), an Oregon federal district court dismissed a suit brought by students who have attended a religious college or university challenging the application of the religious exemption in Title IX in a manner that allows religious colleges and universities to discriminate against LGBTQ students. Rejecting plaintiffs' equal protection claim, the court said in part:

Plaintiffs have not alleged how the religious exemption fails intermediate scrutiny. Defendants point out that the Ninth Circuit has recognized “that free exercise of religion and conscience is undoubtedly, fundamentally important.”... Exempting religiously controlled educational institutions from Title IX—and only to the extent that a particular application of Title IX would not be consistent with a specific tenet of the controlling religious organization, see 20 U.S.C. § 1681(a)(3)—is substantially related to the government’s objective of accommodating religious exercise.

The court rejected plaintiffs' Establishment Clause challenge applying the Lemon test. The court also rejected various other constitutional challenges to the exemption.

Creche Displays in State Capitols Are Widespread This Year

According to the Thomas More Society, nativity scenes are being displayed in most state Capitol buildings this year.  The organization's press release says in part:

Celebrations of the Savior’s birth are scheduled with 43 State Capitol Nativity Scenes across America this Christmas. The Thomas More Society and the American Nativity Scene are helping a growing number of private citizen groups across the nation to display Biblical manger scenes on government property this Christmas. State Capitols in Alaska, New York, Utah, and Virginia are scheduled to feature the traditional display of the Holy Family with Baby Jesus in the manger for the first time this year....

 “Many erroneously assume that government entities are prohibited from allowing a religious display,” explained Thomas More Society Vice President and Senior Counsel Thomas Olp. “The law is clear. Government entities may erect and maintain celebrations of the Christmas holiday – or allow citizens to do so on government property, including nativity scenes, as long as a crèche’s sole purpose is not to promote its religious content, and it is placed in context with other symbols of the season as part of an effort to celebrate the public Christmas holiday through traditional symbols. We pray that the nativity scenes of the Christmas season will help to foster a sense of unity and peace on earth.”

Tom Brejcha, Thomas More Society President and Chief Counsel, echoes the importance of displaying the nativity scenes, especially in times of social or political controversy. He stated, “The Christmas message highlights the inherent dignity of each and every human being.”

American Nativity Scene's website lists which state capitols feature creche displays, and which do not. It also contends that in addition to their religious significance, Nativity Scenes convey many secular messages:

These manger scenes are celebrations of birth, new life, and renewal and hope bound up with succeeding generations.  As well, they celebrate the beauty of the family, of mother, father and child.  That the shepherds attended the event with their animals bespeaks the natural bonds that unite all men and women, within the larger human community, and together with all other living beings, our fellow creatures. 

Suit Charges Selective Granting of Religious Exemptions From COVID Vaccine Mandate

A class action lawsuit was filed in a Virginia federal district court this week alleging that the University of Virgina Health System violated free exercise and establishment clause provisions of the federal and state constitutions as well as equal protection rights in the manner in which it administered applications from employees for religious exemptions from its COVID vaccine mandate. The complaint (full text) (memo in support of motion for preliminary injunction) in Phillips v. Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia, (WD VA, filed 12/14/2022), alleges in part:

2. When UVA Health mandated that employees receive a COVID-19 vaccine, it knew that it was required to accommodate religious beliefs. But it wanted to minimize accommodations, and it believed that most objections were false political beliefs from members of the political right. 

3. So UVA Health drew up a list of churches that its human-resources personnel believed had official doctrines prohibiting vaccination. It then automatically exempted members of these religions from receiving the vaccine. As to employees who were members of other faiths, UVA Health automatically dismissed their religious objections to the COVID-19 vaccine as insincere, as non-religious in nature, as based on “misinformation,” or as a misinterpretation of the objector’s own religious beliefs....

5. The result was blatant—and blatantly unconstitutional—religious discrimination....

The complaint goes on to allege that UVA categorically dismissed as misinformation objections based on the relation of fetal cell lines to the vaccines. [Thanks to Samuel Diehl for the lead.]

Suit Challenging School's Scheduling of Revival As An Assembly May Move Ahead

In Mays v. Cabell County Board of Education, (SD WV, Dec. 13, 2022), a West Virginia federal district court refused to dismiss a suit against a school, its principal and a substitute teacher for scheduling and hosting an evangelical Christian revival as an assembly in the school auditorium during homeroom period in violation of the Establishment Clause.  The court said in part:

At the very least, the allegations against Principal Gleason and Mr. Jones are that they organized and scheduled a revival that was initiated and sponsored by adults, not students. The revival also was given preferential treatment as it was scheduled during a time and in a location that was unavailable to other groups who wanted to bring in outside speakers. Moreover, Mr. Jones’ entire class and another class were taken to the revival without being told what it was, and Mr. Jones would not let S.F. leave once he was there.... 

Here, Principal Gleason and Mr. Jones encourage the Court to simply accept their version of events and conclude that the Nik Walker Ministries was sponsored by the FCA, and the FCA was allowed to hold an assembly during non-instructional time pursuant to a neutral policy in a limited public forum. Mr. Jones also states he did not require the students in his classroom to attend the revival. However, as this Court previously expressed, the Amended Complaint directly contradicts Defendants’ narrative, creating factual issues that should be explored through discovery, not resolved on a motion to dismiss.

WOWKTV reports on the decision.

Oklahoma Attorney General's Opinion Says Ban on Sectarian Charter Schools Is Unconstitutional

 In Attorney General Opinion 2022-7, (Dec. 1, 2022), Oklahoma Attorney General John M. O'Connor concluded that the ban in Oklahoma law on publicly funded charter schools being sectarian or religiously affiliated is unconstitutional. He said in part:

You ask what effect, if any, the Trinity Lutheran, Espinoza, and Carson decisions have on the validity of the non-sectarian restrictions found in Section 3-136(A)(2) of the Oklahoma Charter School Act. That passage states as follows:

A charter school shall be nonsectarian in its programs, admission policies, employment practices, and all other operations. A sponsor may not authorize a charter school or program that is affiliated with a nonpublic sectarian school or religious institution....

We believe, based on the First Amendment and the Trinity Lutheran, Espinoza, and Carson line of decisions, that the U.S. Supreme Court would likely hold these restrictions unconstitutional....

It is important to emphasize, however, that to the extent that neutral and generally applicable limitations may be found elsewhere in the Act, those limitations can likely be applied to religious charter schools, so long as they are truly neutral and applied equally to all charter schools alike.... The constitutional problem is singling out religion, not necessarily the provisions found elsewhere regulating various aspects of charter schools.

The Oklahoman reports on the Attorney General's Opinion.

En Banc rehearing Denied in Challenge to Courtroom Invocations

In Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc. v. Mack, (5th Cir., Dec. 2, 2022), the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals by a vote of 12-3 denied an en banc rehearing in a case decided by a 3-judge panel in September. (See prior posting.) The panel held that a program devised by a Texas Justice of the Peace under which his court sessions are opened with a prayer from a volunteer chaplain does not violate the Establishment Clause.  Judge Higginson, joined by Judge Graves, filed an opinion dissenting from the denial of an en banc rehearing. They said in part:

None of the history cited by our court contemplates a judicial command “to stand and bow” for prayer, much less under threat of retaliation. At best, our court digs up “scattered evidence” that some nineteenth- and twentieth-century courts started with a prayer. Along with other evidence that prayers have been said and God invoked in courtrooms, our court thinks this is enough to prove that “courtroom prayer is consistent with a broader tradition of public, government-sponsored prayer.” I agree with the dissenting panel opinion that this history is too thin to justify that conclusion, but I would add that our court’s answer is pitched at the wrong level of generality....  [T]he question is whether “history shows that the specific practice is permitted,” not whether a general practice is permitted.

Court Rejects Religious Challenges to COVID Mask Requirements

 In Joseph v. Becerra, (WD WI, Nov. 29, 2022), a Wisconsin federal district court rejected a pro se plaintiff's claims that VA and Postal Service COVID masking requirements violated his free exercise and Establishment Clause rights as well as various other rights. The court said in part:

Joseph refuses to wear a mask, which he views as a medical device and religious symbol. A Christian, Joseph claims to practice his faith in part by “taking a stance against what he sees and understands to be evil or unlawful,” such as the masking requirements.... Specifically, Joseph alleges that the masking requirements violate several of the tenets of his faith and promotes “Collectivism” over his individual rights. By promulgating a masking policy, Joseph further alleges that the federal government is seeking to establish “a nameless and covert religion/religious order” that “is a type of scientism ... discriminatory and divisive in nature and in practice.”...

[P]laintiff’s Establishment Clause claim is not only based on a Bivens claim not yet recognized by the Supreme Court, but also on the “faulty premise” that “scienticsm” is a religion. .... Admittedly, the governing case law does not precisely define the contours of what constitutes “religion,” but “courts are well-equipped to weed out spurious Establishment Clause ‘religions’ on grounds of common sense.”...

[E]ven if wearing a mask has substantially impaired plaintiff’s ability to exercise his faith while receiving in-person medical treatment, working, traveling in public spaces, or attending public events, rules that have only an “incidental effect of burdening a religious practice” will pass muster under the Free Exercise Clause provided they are applied neutrally and generally applicable.

Court Upholds NY Law Banning Bars from Opening on New Year's When It Falls on Sunday

In Eris Evolution, LLC v. Bradley, (ED NY, Nov. 8, 2022), a New York federal district court rejected an Establishment Clause challenge to a provision in New York's liquor laws that allows bars to apply for permits to stay open all night on New Year's except when New Year's falls on a Sunday. The court concluded that the U.S. Supreme Court's 1961 decision in McGowan v. Maryland upholding Sunday closing laws forecloses plaintiff's claim.  The court said in part:

McGowan holds that a law with a secular purpose does not violate the Establishment Clause; it does not hold that providing a uniform day of rest is the only such purpose. Indeed, the Supreme Court enumerated the exceedingly broad categories of “health, safety, recreation and general well-being.” ... The only available legislative history states that the law at issue was amended in 1950 “to protect the health of the people.”...

Eris must do more than show that the law is irrational; it must also show that its real purpose is to advance a particular religion or religion in general. This it has failed to do.

Suit Challenges New York Ban on Firearms in Houses of Worship

Suit was filed this week in a New York federal district court challenging the constitutionality of New York's ban on carrying firearms in houses of worship. The complaint (full text) in His Tabernacle Family Church, Inc. v. Nigrelli, (WD NY, filed 11/3/2022) alleges that the ban violates the free exercise, Establishment Clause, Second Amendment, and equal protection rights of a church and its pastor.  The complaint says in part:

S51001 forbids Pastor Spencer and the Church’s members, under threat of criminal penalties, from exercising their religious conviction to carry firearms into the Church to protect themselves and other congregants.....

[S51101]  subjects houses of worship to disfavored treatment while treating comparable secular organizations, such as retail stores or restaurants, more favorably than those offering religious exercise....

A church’s authority over who may enter the sanctuary and under what circumstances lies at the very heart of “the general principle of church autonomy” protected by the Establishment Clause.....

First Liberty issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit. Last month, in another case, the same court issued a temporary restraining order barring enforcement of this statutory provision. (See prior posting.)