Statute of Limitations Not Tolled on Navy Chaplains' Claims

In In re: Naval Chaplaincy, (D DC, Aug. 23, 2023), the D.C. federal district court held that plaintiffs have not shown that the running of the statute of limitations on their free exercise claims should be tolled because of fraudulent concealment. In the case, which has been in litigation for nearly 25 years, non-liturgical Protestant chaplains alleged discrimination against them by selection boards that control promotions and early retirements of Navy chaplains. (See prior posting.)

1st Amendment Requires Exemption from Anti-Bias Law for Business That Discriminates Against Same-Sex Weddings

In Country Mill Farms, LLC v. City of East Lansing, (ED MI, Aug. 21, 2023), a Michigan federal district court held that the city of East Lansing violated the Free Exercise rights of Country Mill Farms and its owner when the city refused to invite Country Mill to be a vendor at East Lansing's Farmer's Market.  The refusal was based on Country Mill's violation of the city's anti-discrimination ordinance in another part of Country Mill's business.  Country Mill rents out a portion of its farm property for weddings, but for religious reason will not rent it out for same-sex weddings. The court held that the discrimination ban was not generally applicable because of exemptions in the anti-discrimination ordinance that would allow the city to do business with firms that discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. The court concluded in part:

In light of the nondiscretionary and the discretionary exemptions in the ordinance, the City has not demonstrated a compelling interest in excluding Plaintiffs from the Farmer’s Market. The City’s nondiscrimination ordinance tolerates the same discrimination in other situations.

[Thanks to Eugene Volokh via Religionlaw for the lead.]

Catholic Schools Sue Over Rules for Inclusion in Colorado's Universal Preschool Funding

Suit was filed this week in a Colorado federal district court by the Catholic Archdiocese of Denver and two Catholic schools challenging the restrictions imposed on participation in Colorado's universal preschool funding program. The complaint (full text) in St. Mary Catholic Parish in Littleton v. Roy, (D CO, filed 8/16/2023) alleges that plaintiffs' free exercise and free speech rights were infringed by conditions that did not allow giving preference to Catholic families. Rules did allow preference for members of the church's congregation, but not for a broader religious preference. The complaint also alleged that the program's non-discrimination requirements prevent Catholic schools from requiring teachers. administrators and staff to abide by Catholic teachings on marriage, gender and sexuality; from considering whether a student or family has identified as LGBTQ; and from assigning dress requirements, pronoun usage and restroom use on the basis of biological sex. Becket issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Challenge To Maine's Elimination of Religious Exemption To School Vaccination Mandate May Move Ahead

Fox v. Makin, (D ME, Aug. 16, 2023), is a challenge to the Maine legislature's removal of religious exemptions from the state's school vaccination requirements.  Plaintiffs' son was denied a religious exemption by the principal and vice-principal of the son's school at the direction of the state commissioner of education. In the case, a Maine federal district court allowed plaintiffs to move ahead with their claims for injunctive and declaratory relief against the Commissioner, principal and vice-principal. The court held that plaintiffs' free exercise claim was subject to strict scrutiny, finding that the vaccination law lacked general applicability. The court said in part:

Maine continues to permit multiple non-religious exemptions, including a 90-day grace period for non-religious students, a medical exemption, and the IEP sunset provision, all of which arguably undermine its student health and safety interests while restricting religious exemptions that may pose comparable risks....

The Court finds it plausible that section 6355 is not narrowly tailored to advance Maine’s interests.

The court also found that defendants had qualified immunity from damage claims, saying in part:

... [I]t was not clearly established during the period alleged in the Amended Complaint that failing to permit a religious exemption to mandatory school vaccination (while providing others certain non-religious exemptions) violates religious objectors’ constitutional rights. Thus, even if the Court were to assume – without deciding – that section 6355 is unconstitutional, it would be “unfair to subject” the Commissioner and the individual School Defendants “to money damages for picking the losing side of the controversy” by complying with section 6355....

Injuring Police Chief's Reputation At His Church Was Not Free Exercise Violation

In Chesley v. City of Mesquite,(D NV, Aug. 14, 2023), a Nevada federal district court dismissed a suit brought by Joseph Chesley, Mesquite's former police chief, against the city, its former city manager and others for spreading rumors that Chesley had inappropriate sexual relations with women (including underage women), that he had embezzled money from a local business and improperly approved police overtime. Among others, the rumors were spread to members of Chesley's church.  As one of his claims, Chesley alleged that his free exercise rights were violated because the rumors and the city's inaction in stopping the rumors from spreading destroyed his reputation at his place of worship and impaired his ability to take part in worship at his church. In dismissing this claim, the court said in part:

Under circumstances such as these, where “the government action is neither regulatory, proscriptive, or compulsory” the question is whether the challenged government action “substantially burdens a religious practice and either is not justified by a substantial state interest or is not narrowly tailored to achieve that interest.” ... Chesley has not pled any substantial burdening of his Free Exercise Rights. The harms he alleges—a “destroyed” reputation at his church, and consummate discomfort worshipping there—are subjective, and the Ninth Circuit is clear that “a subjective chilling effect on free exercise rights is not sufficient to constitute a substantial burden.”...

6th Circuit: Kentucky Governor Had Qualified Immunity For Covid School-Closing Order

 In Pleasant View Baptist Church v. Beshear, (6th Cir., Aug. 14, 2023), the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals held that Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear had qualified immunity in a suit challenging his Covid order temporarily barring in-person classes at public and private schools. The suit was brought by a group of churches, private religious schools and parents alleging that the 2020 Covid order violated their free exercise rights (as well as parental rights to send their children to religious schools and  their right to freedom of association). Plaintiffs' request for declaratory relief became moot when the orders were lifted. However, their claims for monetary damages did not. Affirming the district court's finding of qualified immunity, the appeals court said in part:

Neither this court’s nor the Supreme Court’s precedent clearly established that temporarily closing in-person learning at all elementary and secondary schools would violate the Free Exercise Clause when Governor Beshear issued EO 2020-969 on November 18, 2020. As the Governor points out, Plaintiffs have not provided this court with any cases denying a government official qualified immunity for their immediate public-health response to the COVID-19 pandemic.... Because the Governor issued EO 2020-969 in the midst of a vibrant debate on this constitutional issue, he is thus entitled to a qualified-immunity defense. Accordingly, because Plaintiffs cannot demonstrate that a clearly established right existed at the time Governor Beshear issued EO 2020-969....

Judge Murphy filed a concurring opinion.

Hawaii County's Denial of Permit to Temple Did Not Meet Strict Scrutiny Test

In Spirit of Aloha Temple v. County of Maui, (D HI, Aug. 11, 2023), in a case that has been in litigation for more than seven years, a Hawaii federal district court entered partial summary judgment for plaintiffs on one issue in the case. It held that the state had not met the strict scrutiny test on plaintiffs RLUIPA, free exercise and equal protection challenges to the denial of a special use permit to allow Spirit of Aloha Temple to use agriculturally-zoned land for a church and several other church-operated facilities including a wedding venue site. The court concluded that the denial was neither narrowly tailored nor the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling governmental interest. However, a number of other issues remain to be decided before determining whether there were statutory or constitutional violations. There remains the question of whether denial of the special use permit imposed a substantial burden on the Temple. According to the court, for purposes of RLUIPA that, in turn, depends on whether plaintiffs had a reasonable expectation of being able to build a religious institution on the land when they acquired it. For plaintiffs' federal and state free exercise claims, plaintiffs must show that their operation of the property was rooted in religious belief and that the county had an intent to discriminate. The court went on to hold that the RLUIPA non-discrimination (as opposed to its "substantial burden") provisions do not turn on strict-scrutiny review, but instead on whether there was religious discrimination.  When the regulation is neutral, that requires showing an intent to discriminate.

Suit By Christian Ministry Says Quebec Wrongly Cancelled Its Use of Convention Center

In Canada, suit was filed last week in a Quebec trial court by the Christian organization Harvest Ministries International challenging the province's cancellation of the organization's contract reserving the Quebec City Convention Centre for its Faith, Fire and Freedom Rally.  According to the Motion to Institute Proceedings (full text) in Harvest Ministries International v. Proulx, (Quebec Dist. Ct., filed 8/2/2023), the reservation was cancelled because Harvest Ministries anti-abortion views contradict Quebec's fundamental principles, even though the Rally itself was not an anti-abortion event.  The suit alleges that the cancellation violates Harvest Ministries' freedom of religion, expression and assembly and its right equality protected by Quebec's Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It seeks damages of $212,000. The Justice Centre For Constitutional Freedoms issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Challenges To School's Transgender Bathroom Policy Dismissed

In Doe No. 1 v. Bethel Local School District Board of Education, (SD OH, Aug. 7, 2023), an Ohio federal district court, in a 52-page opinion, dismissed a wide-ranging group of challenges-- including due process, equal protection and free exercise challenges-- to a school board policy allowing students to use school bathrooms corresponding to their gender identity. The court said in part:

All Plaintiffs claim that the School District is “providing communal intimate facilities for transgender students in accordance with their believed core identity while denying the Muslim and Christian families communal intimate facilities in accordance with their believed core identity.”...

Parents have a right to make the initial choice about where their child attends school.... But inventing a constitutional right to strike down a state school’s choices about curriculum and school operations would impermissibly extend that right and, in our pluralistic society, require State schools to cater to inconsistent obligations from parents who may have different moral objections about how a school operates.... The substantive protections in the Due Process Clause do not extend so far....

The Muslim and Christian Plaintiffs—parents and students alike—allege that the School District’s actions have burdened the exercise of their religion.... Namely, both student groups have sincerely held religious beliefs that prevent them from sharing bathrooms with the opposite gender and receiving instruction about LGBTQ+ beliefs.... In exposing the Muslim and Christian Student Plaintiffs to the prospect that they will encounter a transgender individual in the bathroom, the School District has allegedly indirectly burdened the exercise of their faith because they have caused them to refrain from using the bathroom.... As to the Muslim and Christian Parent Plaintiffs, they allege that the School District’s actions are denying them “the ability to exercise their good-faith religious beliefs in raising their children in [their] faith.”... 

... [T]he School District’s policy ... is neutral and generally applicable. As a reminder, the School District announced that it would allow students to use the bathroom that corresponded with their gender identity..... This is (1) facially neutral because it makes no reference, overt or implied, to religion or religious conduct; and (2) generally applicable because it restricts religious and nonreligious conduct equally—every student gets to use the bathroom that corresponds with their gender identity.....

Moreover, Plaintiffs’ complaint does not hint of any plausible fact that suggests the School District is using this policy to suppress religious beliefs, as the School District’s actions make no mention of, and do not reference, religion whatsoever....

Because the bathroom policy is generally applicable, it is subject only to rational basis review. 

Cincinnati Enquirer reports on the decision.

Application For Tax Exemption Does Not Violate Organization's Free Exercise Rights

In Children of the Kingdon v. Central Appraisal District of Taylor County, (TX App, Aug. 3, 2023), a Texas state appeals court affirmed a $32,000 property tax assessment against a religious organization that had not filed an application for a tax exemption. Responding to the organization's free exercise claim, the court said in part:

[W]e construe Appellants’ ... argument to be that the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment protects their religious belief to not enter into written agreements with the government; thus, they would not be required to file an application for a property tax exemption in order to not be held liable for the payment of property taxes....

Here, Appellant asserts that the requirement that one must file an application for a property tax exemption violates their rights guaranteed by the Free Exercise Clause, because it is their religious belief to be governed separately from secularism and thus not enter into any agreement or accept any privilege from secular governments. We disagree with Appellants assertion and hold that this requirement does not violate their First Amendment rights. 

First, the exemption application requirement is neutral. It is not specifically directed at or to a religious practice; instead, the requirement is a means of protecting the equality and uniformity of the property tax scheme as guaranteed by the Texas constitution. Second, the requirement is generally applicable....

Court Upholds Accreditation Requirement For Religious University

In Wisdom Ministries, Inc. v. Garrett,(ND OK, Aug. 1, 2023), an Oklahoma federal district court rejected a constitutional challenge to a cease and desist order issued by the Oklahoma State Regents.  The Regents insisted that Wisdom University, an Oklahoma-based online university operated by Wisdom Ministries, obtain proper accreditation before it issues degrees. The court held that the requirement does not violate the university's free expression, free exercise, Establishment Clause, freedom of association or equal protection rights, saying in part:

The issue raised by plaintiff has nothing to do with governmental restriction of content or subject matter being taught at Wisdom University but, instead, the state is applying a facially neutral regulation that ... falls with the power of the state to regulate business conduct....

Consumer protection is a legitimate state interest, and there is an equal need to protect students attending a secular or religious institution from paying for a degree program that does not meet certain minimal objective standards. The statute does not impose any higher burden on religious schools to obtain accreditation and such institutions are free to obtain accreditation from an agency specializing on accreditation for religious schools. Nothing about the accreditation requirement suggests that the state is favoring secular institutions or acting with hostility to religious institutions, and plaintiff has not shown that enforcement of the accreditation requirement of § 4103 violates the Free Exercise Clause as applied to religious colleges or universities....

Plaintiff’s allegations do not support a plausible claim that enforcement of the accreditation requirement of § 4103 will violate plaintiff’s rights under the Establishment Clause. Plaintiff makes a series of conclusory allegations that obtaining proper accreditation will involve the Regents in plaintiff’s religious affairs, but these allegations are speculative at best. Defendants have taken the position that Wisdom Ministries is free to operate a school or university without obtaining the accreditation required by § 4103, as long as Wisdom Ministries does not purport to offer a degree.

Suit Challenges Illinois Deceptive Practices Law Aimed At Anti-Abortion Pregnancy Centers

Suit was filed last week in an Illinois federal district court challenging Illinois SB 1909 which prohibits limited purpose pregnancy centers from using misrepresentations or concealment to interfere with a person's access to abortion or emergency contraception. The 55-page complaint (full text) in National Institute of Family & Life Advocates v. Raoul, (ND IL, filed 7/27/2023), attacks the legislation on free expression, free exercise, and various 14th Amendment grounds. The complaint alleges in part:

... [S]peaking common pro-life views as part of a pregnancy help ministry, or failing to speak the State’s pro-abortion views on hotly disputed issues, is illegal under state law, on pain of crippling fines, injunctions,  and attorney fees. Meanwhile, abortion facilities (as well as expressly exempted licensed healthcare providers and hospitals) remain free to engage in their own controversial speech about abortion, as they wish.

Thomas More Society issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit. 

Conscience Clause in Health Insurance Mandate Does Not Violate Church's Free Exercise

In Cedar Park Assembly of God of Kirkland, Washington v. Kreidler, (WD WA, July 25, 2023), a Washington federal district court dismissed a free exercise challenge by a church to a Washington law requiring all health insurance plans that provide maternity coverage to also provide substantially equivalent abortion coverage. Under the law, employers with religious or moral objections to specific services do not have to purchase coverage for those services, but enrollees must still be able to access coverage for the services. The court said in part:

None of the State’s arguments seem to fully address the crux of Cedar Park’s facilitation complaint: that its employees would not have access to covered abortion services absent Cedar Park’s post-SB 6219 plan. This fact is undisputed and undoubtedly true. Because of SB 6219, Cedar Park’s employees gained coverage for abortion services under their employer-sponsored health insurance plan that they would not otherwise have. Even if the “facilitation” is somewhat minimal, SB 6219 requires Cedar Park to facilitate access to covered abortion services contrary to Cedar Park’s religious beliefs....

Because the Court concludes that SB 6219 is neutral and generally applicable, the law is valid if it is rationally related to a legitimate governmental purpose....

The Washington legislature identified multiple legitimate governmental purposes for enacting SB 6219, including promoting gender equity, promoting economic success of women, improving women’s health, and protecting privacy.

Hindu Profs May Move Ahead with Some Challenges To "Caste" In Anti-Discrimination Policy

In Kumar v. Koester, (CD CA, July 25, 2023), a California federal district court dismissed for lack of standing plaintiffs' free exercise and equal protection challenges to California State University's inclusion of the term "caste" in its Interim Non-discrimination Policy. However, the court concluded that plaintiffs-- South-Asian, Hindu CSU professors-- may move ahead with their Establishment Clause and vagueness claims. 

Plaintiffs object to the University's policy that treats "caste" as a social and religious hierarchy created by the Hindu religion. They contend that caste is no part of Hinduism and that its inclusion in the University policy promotes racial and religious stereotypes and subjects plaintiffs' Hindu religious beliefs to public ridicule. The court dismissed plaintiffs' equal protection challenges because "abstract stigmatic injuries" are not sufficient to create standing.  Insofar as plaintiffs argue that the Policy provides insufficient protection to non-Asian victims of caste discrimination, plaintiffs allege no injury to themselves. As to plaintiffs' free exercise challenges, the court said in part:

Plaintiffs emphatically denounce the caste system and reject the notion that it is part of their religion. Thus, the Policy does not threaten any of Plaintiffs' rights to practice their religion.

As to plaintiffs' Establishment Clause claims, the court said in part:

To evaluate the merits of an Establishment Clause claim, a court must reference historical practices and understandings.... A government practice that unevenly impacts religion may nevertheless be constitutional if it is supported by history and tradition.... Defendant contends that inclusion of the term "caste" is supported by a long history and tradition of disallowing racial discrimination in schools. While Defendant is correct that there is a long history of preventing racial discrimination in education, Defendant has not adequately demonstrated that there is a history or tradition of incorporating words with religious connotations to curb racial discrimination. Therefore, Defendant has failed to demonstrate that implicating Hinduism through the Policy's inclusion of the term "caste" is supported by history and tradition.

[Thanks to Glenn Katon for the lead.]

Court Upholds Procedure for Obtaining Immigrant Religious Worker Classification

In Society of the Divine Word v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services, (ND IL, July 20, 2023), an Illinois federal district court rejected RFRA, free exercise, Establishment Clause and equal protection challenges brought by more than a dozen religious institutions to the way in which federal law treats foreign-born ministers and international religious workers who the institutions seek to employ.  Current federal law does not allow them to file their application for a "green card" until after their employer has obtained a special immigrant religious worker classification for them. This is different than the rules for employees of secular organizations who may file for a green card concurrently with their employer's filing. The court said in part:

Plaintiffs counter that § 245.2(a)(2)(i)(B) violates the RFRA because their decisions regarding “when and where religious workers may be put into religious service” are protected by the First Amendment. They argue that § 245.2(a)(2)(i)(B) places “extreme and sometimes insurmountable burdens” on their ability to staff their religious missions. These burdens include processing delays, resource expenditure to follow up on and seek expedited adjudication of petitions, and lapses in employment authorization....

The court agrees with plaintiffs that § 245.2(a)(2)(i)(B) is still capable of substantially burdening their religious exercise even if they can use other employment-based immigration categories to hire their foreign-born religious workers. That being said, the court disagrees with plaintiffs that they have demonstrated that these alleged burdens (time, planning, and cost) have a substantial impact on their ability to determine when and where to hire and fire the religious ministers of their choice. Instead, § 245.2(a)(2)(i)(B) requires employers to plan the timing of employment decisions based on immigration status, and potentially limits the pool of qualified applicants that plaintiffs can choose from if they fail to plan accordingly. Limiting the pool of available employees based on immigration status is not the same as interfering with a religious organization’s hiring decision by pressuring them to hire or fire a particular employee, as in Hosanna Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC, 565 U.S. 171 (2012)...

Plaintiffs’ next argument is that § 245.2(a)(2)(i)(B) violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses because it discriminates against them on the basis of religion....

... [T]his court concludes that § 245.2(a)(2)(i)(B) is not based on religion; it is based on the demonstrated risk of fraud in the special immigrant religious worker program, which is not subject to other requirements that might avoid fraud in other employment-based categories. 

Court Rejects Muslim Americans' Challenge to Their Treatment at U.S. Borders

In Kariye v. Mayorkas, (CD CA, July 19, 2023), a California federal district court dismissed claims by three Muslim plaintiffs that their rights have been violated by ongoing religious questioning of Muslim Americans at ports of entry. The court rejected plaintiffs' Establishment Clause challenge, saying in part:

In light of the case law holding that the government has plenary authority at the border and that maintaining border security is a compelling government interest, the court finds that "reference to historical practices and understandings" weighs against finding an Establishment Clause violation based on religious questioning at the border.... Plaintiffs' allegations to the contrary—that American history and tradition protect religious belief—do not sufficiently address historical practices and understandings at the border.

Rejecting plaintiffs' Free Exercise claim, the court said in part:

[T]he ongoing harms alleged by Plaintiffs here—their modifications to religious practices during international travel— ... can ... be categorized as subjective chilling effects insufficient to constitute a substantial burden under the Free Exercise Clause....

... Plaintiffs have not plausibly alleged they were deprived of a government benefit or coerced to act contrary to their religious beliefs...

... Plaintiffs' allegations support the conclusion that the questioning alleged in this case would be a narrowly tailored means of achieving the compelling government interest of maintaining border security.

The court also rejected plaintiffs' freedom of association, retaliation, equal protection and RFRA claims.

Parochial School Students Sue For Equal Access to District Extracurricular Activities

Suit was filed last week in a Pennsylvania federal district court on behalf of two parochial school students and their parents challenging a school district policy that allowed home school and charter school students to participate in the district's extracurricular and co-curricular activities but does not allow private and parochial school students the same right. The complaint (full text) in Religious Rights Foundation of Pa v. State College Area School District, (MD PA, filed 7/10/2023), contends that exclusion of religious parochial schools violates plaintiff's free exercise and equal protection rights. Penn Live reports on the lawsuit..

School District's Preferred Name Policy Upheld

In Willey v. Sweetwater County School District No. 1 Board of Trustees, (D WY, June 30, 2023), a Wyoming federal district court, in a 56-page opinion, upheld, over parental objections, most of a school district's policy requiring school district personnel to use a student's preferred/ chosen name or pronoun in verbal, written, and electronic communications. However, the court issued a preliminary injunction barring the school district from (absent a reasonable concern of harm or abuse) precluding teachers from responding to a parent's inquiry, or lying to parents. The court then largely rejected a challenge by a teacher who had religious objections to the policy.  It said that "it is hard to imagine why a public employee's free exercise rights would warrant more protection than their free speech rights." It went on to say that, as to free speech, the policy only compels the teacher to speak pursuant to her official duties and does not restrict her speech as a citizen on matters of public concern.

Court Says Dobbs Decision Does Not Undercut Freedom of Access To Clinic Entrances Act

In United States v. Gallagher, (MD TN, July 3, 2023), a Tennessee federal district court became the first court to rule on whether the Supreme Court's Dobbs decision affects the constitutionality of the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances ("FACE") Act.  In the case, eleven co-defendants sought dismissal of their indictments for violating FACE. They first argued that since Dobbs held abortion is not entitled to heightened protection under the 14th Amendment, Congress' reliance in enacting the law on its 14th Amendment Section 5 enforcement powers is undercut. The court responded in part:

While the question of how section 5 applies to the FACE Act may be of some abstract or academic interest, however, it is of limited practical importance, given that section 5 is only one of two powers on which Congress relied in enacting the FACE Act, the other of which—the power to regulate interstate commerce—was not at issue in Dobbs.

Later in its opinion, the court rejected defendants' argument that Dobbs effectively created a carveout of abortion services from commerce clause coverage. It also rejected defendants' argument that they could not be prosecuted under 18 USC §241 for conspiring to prevent the exercise of a federal right. The court said "§ 241 does not require that the right in question be constitutional, only that it be federal. FACE is, of course, a federal statute...."

The court also rejected defendants' argument that the government is engaged in impermissible selective enforcement because it has not brought enough prosecutions under the FACE Act against individuals who have interfered in the operation of anti-abortion “crisis pregnancy centers.”

It went on to reject defendants' free speech arguments, saying in part:

Nor is the FACE Act being applied in an unconstitutional manner to these particular defendants based on their viewpoints or participation in First Amendment-protected activities, as would be required for a so-called “vindictive prosecution” defense. “...

Because there is no actual evidence of any such improper motive, the defendants engage in a sleight of hand, whereby they have treated any statement by the Department of Justice indicating a desire to safeguard access to abortion as evidence of a desire to punish these defendants for Dobbs. The defendants, though, are not the center of the moral or political universe. A desire to safeguard access to abortion is a desire to safeguard access to abortion—not an affront directed at them. More importantly, safeguarding access to abortion is, particularly under Dobbs, an entirely appropriate thing for legislatures and executives to do, if that is the course they choose. Indeed, it is harder to imagine a more fulsome endorsement of the elected branches’ power to set abortion policy than Dobbs...

Moving to defendants' Free Exercise/ RFRA claims, the court said in part:

The boundaries of the Free Exercise Clause are a topic of much disagreement.... The defendants’ argument, however, goes to something much more fundamental. Although the defendants go to great lengths to make this issue more complicated than it is, they ultimately ask a straightforward question: Does the Free Exercise Clause grant individuals who are acting out of religious motivations freedom to commit actions that otherwise would be crimes against the person or property of others through physical invasion, intimidation, or threat? The answer is similarly straightforward: No, it does not....

The defendants argued that RFRA requires that the state have a compelling interest to substantially burden religious exercise, and that after Dobbs there cannot be a compelling interest in protecting access to abortion. The court responded in part:

... [T]he Supreme Court has never held that a “compelling interest” depends upon something being considered a fundamental right. They are different constitutional concepts, performing different jurisprudential functions.

Court Strongly Criticizes Performance of Counsel for The Satanic Temple

In March 2021, The Satanic Temple and one of its members filed suit in a Texas federal district court challenging Texas' requirement that a woman have a sonogram prior to an abortion. The complaint alleged that in light of the Satanic Temple's Satanic Abortion Ritual, the Texas requirement violated plaintiffs' free exercise, substantive due process and equal protection rights. (See prior posting.) After the U.S. Supreme Court's Dobbs decision, The Satanic Temple filed a Third Amended Complaint.  In The Satanic Temple, Inc. v. Young, (SD TX, July 3, 2023), the Texas district court then dismissed the suit for lack of standing and on sovereign immunity grounds.  The court added:

Without any supporting detail, Plaintiffs assert two causes of action under the First Amendment, one being a claim swirling together the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses, and the other pertaining to the Establishment Clause. Young argues that these claims are so inadequately pleaded as to deprive her of fair notice as to what exactly this suit is about in the wake of Dobbs....

The court also refused to grant plaintiffs leave to replead their claims.  In doing so, the court set out an unusually strong criticism of the performance of plaintiffs' counsel, saying in part:

Given the detail of the prior complaints and these substantial changes in the law, the deficiencies in the operative complaint are no doubt intentional. And indeed, the filing of a willfully deficient amended complaint is of a piece with the mulish litigation conduct by counsel for Plaintiffs, Attorney Matt Kezhaya, in this and other actions representing The Satanic Temple. Recently considered in this regard was whether to revoke his permission to proceed pro hac vice in light of sanctions entered against him in other federal courts after his appearance here. For example, [in one of those cases:]

He ... filed a second motion for TRO containing negligible legal analysis, with six pages of the main analysis dedicated to presentation of what’s purported to be a five-act play.....

Litigation of constitutional claims is a serious matter. Such issues deserve serious attention from counsel desiring to be taken seriously. As it turns out, Plaintiffs might have been better served by proceeding pro se, as applicable standards would dictate that their filings would be “liberally construed” and “held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.”...

And any repleading at this stage would manifest undue prejudice to a range of current and former Defendants who still have little clue as to the exact nature of the claims brought in this case. The Court is also of the firm belief that any further attempt at repleading would be futile, given that Attorney Kezhaya’s filings become more conclusory, reductive, and intemperate over time, in line with his performative and obstinate conduct to date.