Suit By Mosque Over Zoning Denials Can Move Ahead

In Adam Community Center v. City of Troy, (ED MI, Sept. 28., 2022), a Michigan federal district court refused to dismiss RLUIPA and constitutional claims against the city of Troy, Michigan. Plaintiff alleged wrongful denial of necessary zoning variances so plaintiff could use its property for Muslim religious services and classes. The court said in part:

Plaintiff has identified pieces of circumstantial evidence that may lead a fact-finder to conclude Troy acted with discriminatory animus towards Muslims. Thus, a question of fact on this claim exists and summary judgment is denied....

[T]here exists a question of fact for trial as to whether ZO § 6.21 was actually applied in a neutral manner or whether it was applied for the purpose of excluding Muslim assemblies from Troy...

The record contains ample evidence to support Adam’s contention that Troy’s stated reasons for denying Adam’s variance application were pretextual and intended to prevent Adam from opening a mosque in the City. Thus, a factfinder could conclude that Adam’s constitutional rights were violated.

The court previously concluded that the city had violated the equal terms and substantial burden provisions of RLUIPA, and now ordered a hearing on damages for those violations. Detroit News reports on the decision.

School Gets Declaratory Relief Stating That It Should Have Receive State Bus Transportation

In St. Augustine School v. Underly, (ED WI, Sept. 19, 2022), a Wisconsin federal district court, deciding a case on remand from the 7th Circuit, issued a declaratory judgment that state school officials violated Wisconsin law by failing to furnish bus transportation to students attending St. Augustine. At issue was whether St. Augustine School was affiliated with the same denomination as another nearby Catholic school so that only one of the schools would be entitled to bus transportation. The district court said that under the terms of the remand, it could not grant relief on plaintiff's constitutional claims. However, because another appeal was likely, the court did express its opinion on those claims, saying in part:

because the rule as applied by the defendants did not cut St. Augustine off from benefits “for no other reason” than that it was a religious school,... the defendants’ denial of benefits did not violate the Free Exercise Clause.

11th Circuit: Muslim Prison Chaplain Loses Suit Over Exclusions From Execution Chamber

In Maisonet v. Commissioner, Alabama Department of Corrections, (11th Cir., Sept. 16, 2022), the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of a suit by a Muslim volunteer Chaplain who claimed that his free exercise rights were infringed when he was prevented from being in the execution chamber when two inmates to whom he ministered were executed. The court held that the chaplain lacked standing to obtain declaratory or injunctive relief because he did not identified any death row inmate whose execution he will be unable to attend in the future. Alabama now allows chaplains in the execution chamber. The court concluded that the chaplain did have standing to pursue his claim for damages in the cases of the two inmates whose executions he was unable to attend previously. However qualified immunity shields defendants from liability.

Yeshiva University Suspends All Student Organization Activities Rather Than Recognize LGBTQ Organization

As previously reported, the U.S. Supreme Court last week in Yeshiva University v. YU Pride Alliance ordered Yeshiva University to first seek relief through appeals in state courts before asking the U.S. Supreme Court to stay a state trial court order requiring it to recognize an LGBTQ student group. Now, as reported by CNN, the University on Friday announced that it would put all undergraduate club activities on hold while it "takes steps to follow the roadmap provided by the US Supreme Court..."

UPDATE: Religion News Service reports:

A Jewish LGBTQ organization [JQY] announced Tuesday (Sept. 20) that it will step in to provide funding for all student clubs at Yeshiva University after school officials suspended all undergraduate student groups rather than recognize an LGBTQ campus group, the YU Pride Alliance.

UPDATE 2: In a statement (full text) issued Sept. 21, YU Pride Alliance announced that it would agree to a stay of the order requiring the University to recognize it while the litigation continues because it does not want YU to punish fellow-students. As reported by The Commentator, the University welcomed the response, saying it offers an opportunity for continuing discussions.

Supreme Court Vacates Stay of Injunction Against Yeshiva University, Sending Case Back To State Courts

The U.S. Supreme court yesterday in Yeshiva University v. YU Pride Alliance, (Sup. Ct., Sept. 14, 2022), vacated the stay issued on Sept. 9 by Justice Sotomayor of a New York state trial court's injunction that required Yeshiva University to officially recognize as a student organization an LGBTQ group, YU Pride Alliance. In a 5-4 vote, the Court issued the following opinion directing the University to first seek expedited review and interim relief from New York trial courts.  Here is the full opinion [paragraph breaks added]:

The application (22A184) for stay pending appeal of a permanent injunction entered by the New York trial court, presented to Justice Sotomayor and by her referred to the Court, is denied without prejudice to applicants again seeking relief from this Court if, upon properly seeking expedited review and interim relief from the New York courts, applicants receive neither. The order heretofore entered by Justice Sotomayor is vacated.

Applicants Yeshiva University and its president seek emergency relief from a non-final order of the New York trial court requiring the University to treat an LGBTQ student group similarly to other student groups in its student club recognition process. The application is denied because it appears that applicants have at least two further avenues for expedited or interim state court relief. First, applicants may ask the New York courts to expedite consideration of the merits of their appeal. Applicants do not assert, nor does the Appellate Division docket reveal, that they have ever requested such relief. Second, applicants may file with the Appellate Division a corrected motion for permission to appeal that court’s denial of a stay to the New York Court of Appeals, as the Appellate Division clerk’s office directed applicants to do on August 25. Applicants may also ask the Appellate Division to expedite consideration of that motion.

If applicants seek and receive neither expedited review nor interim relief from the New York courts, they may return to this Court.

Justice Alito, with whom Justice Thomas, Justice Gorsuch, and Justice Barrett join, dissent.

NY Jewish Week reports on the decision. [Thanks to Rabbi Michael Simon for the lead.]

UPDATE: Here is the full text of Justice Alito's dissent. He said in part:

At least four of us are likely to vote to grant certiorari if Yeshiva’s First Amendment arguments are rejected on appeal, and Yeshiva would likely win if its case came before us. A State’s imposition of its own mandatory interpretation of scripture is a shocking development that calls out for review. The Free Exercise Clause protects the ability of religious schools to educate in accordance with their faith.

Mask Mandate Did Not Violate Free Exercise Rights

 In Bush v. Fantasia, (D MA, Sept. 12, 2022), a Massachusetts federal district court dismissed claims that a COVID mask mandate imposed by a town Board of Health and a public library violated plaintiffs free exercise rights. Plaintiffs claimed that they "have sincerely held religious beliefs that proscribe our wearing face masks and/or submitting to coerced medical devices/products such as face masks." The court said in part:

Plaintiffs do not identify a religious practice or explain the coercive effect the mask mandates had on that practice. A mere vague allegation that mask mandates violate their religion is not enough to survive even the most a generous pleading standard....

Even assuming arguendo that Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged a burden on their exercise of religion, their claims would still fall. The mask mandates were facially neutral and generally applicable, i.e., they did not single out, or make any reference to, a religion or any religious practice and applied equally to all....

The court also rejected equal protection, due process and a number of other challenges. 

Certiorari Petition Filed Again In Bakery's Refusal To Design Wedding Cake For Same-Sex Marriage

Last week, a petition for certiorari (full text) was filed with the U.S. Supreme Court in Klein v. Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries, (Sup. Ct., filed 9/7/2022). This is the second time the case has worked its way up to the Supreme Court. (See prior posting.) At issue is a finding by the state Bureau of Labor and Industries that Sweetcakes bakery violated the state's public accommodation law when it refused on religious grounds to design and create a wedding cake for a same-sex wedding. In January, the state court of appeals remanded the case to the Bureau of Labor and Industries for it to determine a remedy after finding that the Bureau's first determination of damages was tainted by non-neutrality. (See prior posting.) In August, the Bureau imposed damages of $30,000. First Liberty has additional background.

Justice Sotomayor Stays NY Order Requiring Yeshiva University To Recognize LGBTQ Group

In Yeshiva University v. YU Pride Alliance, (Sup. Ct., Sept. 9, 2022),  U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor today issued an order staying a New York trial court's injunction that required Yeshiva University to officially recognize as a student organization an LGBTQ group, YU Pride Alliance. The New York trial court held that applying the public accommodation provisions of the New York City Human Rights Law to Yeshiva does not violate its First Amendment free exercise or free speech rights. (See prior posting.) Justice Sotomayor granted the University's Emergency Application for a Stay Pending Appellate Review without referring the petition to the full Court. However she wrote that her stay was granted "pending further order of the undersigned or of the Court." CNN reports on developments.

11th Circuit: No Liability For Withdrawing Permission For Religious Group To Use After School Classrooms

In Chabad Chayil, Inc. v. School Board of Miami-Dade County, Florida, (11th Cir., Sept. 8, 2022), the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district Court' dismissal of free exercise, equal protection and due process claims brought by a Jewish organization that ran a popular after-school Hebrew program for more than ten years using public school classrooms. In 2019, after a complaint and investigation of whether Chabad complied with the rules for use of school facilities without paying a fee, the Miami-Dade County superintendent withdrew permission for Chabad use of school classrooms. Chabad sued. The court held that plaintiff had not shown the elements necessary to assert liability against either the school board or the Inspector General's office that investigated complaints against Chabad.

9th Circuit Upholds Washington's Ban On Conversion Therapy

In Tingley v. Ferguson, (9th Cir., Sept. 6, 2022), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected free speech, free exercise and vagueness challenges to Washington state's ban on practicing conversion therapy on minors.  The court said in part:

Washington’s licensing scheme for health care providers, which disciplines them for practicing conversion therapy on minors, does not violate the First or Fourteenth Amendments. States do not lose the power to regulate the safety of medical treatments performed under the authority of a state license merely because those treatments are implemented through speech rather than through scalpel....

SB 5722 is a neutral law targeted at preventing the harms associated with conversion therapy, and not at the religious exercise of those who wish to practice this type of therapy on minors.

 Judge Bennett concurred in part.  Courthouse News Service reported on the decision.

Eminent Domain Violated Rights of Chabad

In Chabad Lubavitch of the Beaches, Inc. v. Incorporated Village of  Atlantic Beach, (ED NY, Sept. 6, 2022), a New York federal district court granted a preliminary injunction, concluding that an attempt to acquire the property of a Jewish religious group by eminent domain likely violated the group's 1st Amendment free exercise rights. Chabad acquired the property in order to build a center on it. Eminent domain proceedings were initiated shortly after Chabad held a Menorah lighting ceremony on the property. The court explained:

[T]he Village’s acquisition decision was made in a manner intolerant of Chabad’s members’ religious beliefs and which would restrict Chabad’s practices because of its religious nature. Thus, the Village’s acquisition decision was targeted and not done neutrally, thereby requiring the Court to apply strict scrutiny in deciding whether that decision is constitutionally permissible. 

... The Village never inquired from the Property’s prior owner whether he was interested in selling the Property ... notwithstanding it being adjacent to and/or in very close proximity to Village-owned and controlled properties and it having sat vacant for three years, with a prominent “For Sale” sign having been erected in front of the Property for the last two of those three years.... Instead, for vague reasons, not strongly supported by direct evidence ... the Village’s apparent urgency to acquire the Properties intensified during the same time when Chabad purchased the Property....

Further, the several anti-Semitic comments posted to the FB Group page after the January 10 open meeting, i.e., community member comments, add to the suspicion caused by the timing of events and call into question the Village’s stated motivation for acquiring the Property by eminent domain....  [O]ne of the Village Trustees, was an administrator/monitor of the FB Group; thus, it is difficult not to conclude that at least one member of the Village Board was aware of several strong opponents to Chabad’s presence in the Village, based upon impermissible religious animus.

California Assisted Suicide Law Violates Free Speech rights Of Objecting Doctors

In Christian Medical & Dental Association v. Bonta, (CD CA, Sept. 2, 2022), a California federal district court held likely unconstitutional a provision in the California End of Life Option Act which requires doctors who refuse on conscience, moral or ethical grounds to participate in procedures set out by the act to nevertheless document in a patient's record the date of the patient's request for an aid-in-dying drug. This notation serves as one of two required requests by a patient before the patient may obtain the drug. The court rejected the argument that this violates the free exercise rights of medical providers who object on religious grounds, saying in part:

The court recognizes that Plaintiffs have sincerely held religious beliefs, and that compliance with the documentation requirements contained in Section 443.14(e)(2) infringes on the free exercise of their religion. However, under clearly established doctrine in Smith, Lukumi, and Fulton, strict scrutiny does not apply to a neutral and generally applicable law, like the Act here.

The court also rejected equal protection and due process challenges. However, the court did conclude that plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their free speech challenges to the requirement, saying in part:

[T]he documentation requirement imposed by the Act “plainly alters the content” of non-participating health care providers’ speech.... The ultimate outcome of this requirement is that non-participating providers are compelled to participate in the Act through this documentation requirement, despite their objections to assisted suicide.

The court issued a preliminary injunction barring state enforcement of the requirement against objecting health care providers. ADF issued a press release announcing the decision.

District Court: Public Accommodation Law Violates Wedding Photographer's Free Speech Rights

In Chelsey Nelson Photography, LLC v. Louisville/ Jefferson County, (WD KY, Aug. 30, 2022), a Kentucky federal district court held that Louisville's public accommodation ordinance violates the free speech rights of a Christian wedding photographer who has moral and religious objections to same-sex marriages. The court said in part:

Courts across the country have addressed whether bakers, florists, website designers, and other creative professionals must either provide their services for weddings that violate their beliefs or else abstain entirely from the wedding business. And those courts’ disagreement on whether this amounts to prohibited discrimination or protected dissent is what the U.S. Supreme Court has set out to resolve during its upcoming term....

This is a real conflict between nondiscrimination and speech that cannot be wished away: compelling access for all necessarily clashes with the liberty of some. The City contends that Nelson’s speech demeans same-sex couples, while Nelson says the City’s Ordinance demeans her speech....

The First Amendment’s protections for religious exercise ... are unlikely to help those in Nelson’s position: at least as currently construed, that aspect of the Constitution does not shield people whose sincerely held religious beliefs conflict with generally applicable laws....

But the government’s authority over public accommodations does not extend to “abridging the freedom of speech.”...

So although Louisville may require restaurants and hotels and stores to provide services regardless of the proprietors’ views or their customers’ legal status, the government may not force singers or writers or photographers to articulate messages they don’t support.

The court also concluded that the ordinance violates the Kentucky Religious Freedom Restoration Act. [Thanks to Thomas Rutledge for the lead.]

Religious Discrimination Claims Against Child Protective Services Meet Procedural Hurdles

In Gautreaux v. Masters, (WD TX, Aug. 29, 2022), a Texas federal magistrate judge recommended that the court dismiss some or all of the free exercise and due process claims brought by foster parents who were accused by the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (DFPS) of child abuse. The opinion describes plaintiffs' allegations:

[DFPS] asked the couple to identify their religion during the application process, and they identified themselves as practicing members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latterday Saints.... Gautreaux alleges that DFPS demonstrated "hostility toward the Gautreauxes' religion" at their initial interview, while their follow-up interview "exclusively concerned the Gautreauxes' religious practices and beliefs."...

... DFPS informed Gautreaux that the department had found there was "reason to believe" she had committed the alleged abuse, resulting in Gautreaux being placed on the DFPS central registry "as a child abuser." ... Gautreaux alleges that DFPS's decision was motivated by religious "animus" and that there was no evidence of abuse to support the finding....

Gautreaux alleges that she is unable to practice her religion as a result of her placement on the DFPS central registry. Specifically, Gautreaux alleges that she cannot participate in her "calling" - an assignment made by Church leaders - which is to "teach singing to children in her local church."

In a lengthy opinion, the Magistrate Judge recommended either that all the claims be dismissed under the Younger abstention doctrine, or alternatively that most of plaintiffs' free exercise claims be dismissed because of 11th Amendment sovereign immunity. Under the alternative recommendation, the court could move ahead on  claims challenging DFPS's policies of considering religious beliefs and practices as a concern in abuse investigations and its disregarding of inconsistent court rulings.

7th Circuit: Plaintiffs Failed To Show Facts Supporting Free Exercise Objections To COVID Vaccine Mandate

In Lukaszczyk v. Cook County, (7th Cir., Aug. 29, 2022), the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, ruling on three separate district court cases, refused to order preliminary injunctions against local and state COVID vaccine mandates.  The court said in part:

The plaintiffs argue the mandates violate their constitutional rights to substantive due process, procedural due process, and the free exercise of religion. They also contend the mandates violate Illinois state law. Although the plaintiffs could have presented some forceful legal arguments, they have failed to develop factual records to support their claims. Because the plaintiffs have not shown a likelihood of success on the merits, we affirm the decisions of the district judges....

Discussing plaintiffs' Free Exercise claims, the court said in part: 

[I]f these assertions have merit, there is no record evidence to support them. The plaintiffs should have gathered facts and created a record detailing any wrongful denials of requests for religious exemptions. Instead, they made a facial challenge, which ignored the text of the policy’s religious exemption and the status of the plaintiffs’ exemption requests. This does not show a violation of their right to freely exercise their religions.

9th Circuit: High School Must Recognize Fellowship of Christian Athletes

In Fellowship of Christian Athletes v. San Jose Unified School District Board of Education, (9th Cir., Aug. 29. 2022), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision, ordered reinstatement of the Fellowship of Christian Athletes as an official student club at San Jose high schools.  The majority said in part:

This case pits two competing values that we cherish as a nation: the principle of non-discrimination on the one hand, and the First Amendment’s protection of free exercise of religion and free speech on the other hand.

The Fellowship of Christian Athletes (FCA) requires students serving in leadership roles to abide by a Statement of Faith, which includes the belief that sexual relations should be limited within the context of a marriage between a man and a woman. The San Jose Unified School District ... revoked FCA’s status as an official student club at its high schools, claiming that FCA’s religious pledge requirement violates the School District’s non-discrimination policy.

... Under the First Amendment, our government must be scrupulously neutral when it comes to religion: It cannot treat religious groups worse than comparable secular ones. But the School District did just that.

The School District engaged in selective enforcement of its own non-discrimination policy, penalizing FCA while looking the other way with other student groups. For example, the School District blessed student clubs whose constitutions limited membership based on gender identity or ethnicity, despite the school’s policies barring such restricted membership. The government cannot set double standards to the detriment of religious groups only.

Judge Lee filed a concurring opinion, saying in part:

One schoolteacher called the Fellowship of Christian Athletes’ (FCA) beliefs “bullshit” and sought to ban it from campus. Another described evangelical Christians as “charlatans” who perpetuate “darkness” and “ignorance.”...

This is not, to put it mildly, neutral treatment of religion. More than a whiff, a stench of animus against the students’ religious beliefs pervades the Pioneer High School campus. I write separately to highlight the depth of that animus and explain why it is yet another reason why the School District violated the Free Exercise Clause.

Judge Christen dissented, saying in part:

My colleagues are correct that the competing values at issue in this case are cherished by our nation and enshrined in our Constitution. The plaintiffs will surely have their day in court for their claims of past harm. Once they do, the court will have to consider both the plaintiffs’ rights and the rights of those they would exclude. Notably, the majority offers no limiting principle to the permission it grants allowing one club to discriminate. In the meantime, we are not free to contort our standing jurisprudence in order to prematurely reach the merits and we ought not do so in a case of this magnitude before the record has been developed and tested.

NYC Vaccine Mandate Upheld

In Kane v. DeBlasio, (SD NY, Aug. 26, 2022), a New York federal district court rejected a challenge by New York City teachers, administrators and staff to New York City's public employee COVID vaccine mandate. They claimed the mandate violates their 1st and 14th amendment rights.  Discussing plaintiffs' free exercise claim, the court said in part:

The Second Circuit has already found that “[t]he Vaccine Mandate, in all its iterations, is neutral and generally applicable.”...

Ignoring the fact that the pandemic has claimed the lives of more than a million people in the United States, plaintiffs take the bold position that the Mandate has the “express purpose of inflicting special disability against minority religious viewpoints,” ... rather than its obvious and explicit goals to ... “potentially save lives, protect public health, and promote public safety.”...

Plaintiffs’ arguments that the Vaccine Mandate is not generally applicable again rely on arguments that the Second Circuit already rejected. 

Christian Healthcare Organization Sues Over Michigan Non-Discrimination Law

Suit was filed yesterday in a Michigan federal district court by a faith-based healthcare organization contending that Michigan's employment discrimination law violates its free exercise, free speech and due process rights. The 73-page complaint (full text) in Christian Healthcare Centers, Inc. v. Nessel, (WD MI, filed 8/29/2022), contends in part:

Under the guise of stopping discrimination, the law discriminates against religious organizations, requiring them to forfeit their religious character and hire people who do not share their faith. That same law also forces Christian Healthcare to prescribe cross-sex hormones and refer to patients in communications and medical records according to their stated gender identity, rather than their biological sex. All of this violates Christian Healthcare’s religious convictions. In effect, the law requires Christian Healthcare to check its religious faith at the clinic door—the very faith that motivates the clinic to open its doors to help those in need....

290. Michigan’s laws do not contain a religious exemption for religious entities like Christian Healthcare.

291. Michigan’s Employment Clause allows employers to apply to the Commission for an exemption on the basis that religion is a bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ) reasonably necessary to the normal operation of the business or enterprise. MCL 37.2208; MDCR Rule 37.25(1)....

297. Because Christian Healthcare requires all employees to affirm and live in accordance with its Religious Statements, which prohibit same-sex relationships and expressing a transgender identity, it would need a BFOQ exemption from discrimination on the basis sexual orientation, gender identity, and religion for every one of its employees.

ADF issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Yeshiva University Asks Supreme Court For Stay While State Court Ruling On Recognizing LGBTQ Group Is Appealed

Yesterday, an emergency Application for a Stay Pending Appellate Review (full text) was filed in Yeshiva University v. YU Pride Alliance, (Sup. Ct., filed 8/29/2022). In the case,  a New York state trial court held that New York City's public accommodation law requires Yeshiva University to officially recognize as a student organization an LGBTQ group, YU Pride Alliance. (See prior posting.) State appellate courts refused to stay the ruling. The petition contends that Yeshiva University is likely to succeed on its contention that forcing it to recognize the group violates the University's free exercise rights and the principles of church autonomy. The filing asks that alternatively it be treated as a petition for certiorari. Becket issued a press release announcing the filing of the Application.

California Must Allow Churches To Opt Out Of Abortion Coverage In Their Health Care Plans

In Foothill Church v. Watanabe, (ED CA, Aug. 25, 2022), a California federal district court held that the California Department of Managed Health Care (DMHC) should have taken steps so that objecting churches could be exempt from the Department's requirement that health insurance policies cover abortion services. DMHC argued that only health care plans are subject to its regulation, so exemptions will be granted only to plans, not to employers. Subjecting plaintiffs' Free Exercise claim to strict scrutiny because the DMHC rule is subject to a system of individual exemptions and thus is not "generally applicable," the court said in part:

[T]he court assumes without deciding that the Director’s understanding of the scope of her regulatory authority, that she is limited to regulating health plans, is correct. Nonetheless, nothing in the statutory text explicitly precludes her from fielding requests for exemptions from religious claimants. Likewise, nothing appears to preclude the Director from directing the religious claimant’s plan to submit a revised evidence of coverage document comporting with the religious claimant’s belief to the DMHC for approval. The Director’s authority to give orders to a plan does not foreclose the authority to consider requests for those orders from others. In the end, the Director is still regulating the plan.

... The Director’s denial of the Churches’ request for exceptions to accommodate their religious beliefs, based solely on the fact that those requests did not originate with a plan, was not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling interest.

ADF issued a press release announcing the decision.