Sikh Marine Recruits Lose Bid For Turbans and Unshorn Hair During Recruit Training

In Toor v. Berger, (D DC, Aug. 24, 2022), the D.C. federal district court refused to grant a preliminary injunction to three Sikh Marine recruits who wanted to prevent enforcement of the Marine's uniform and grooming policies during recruit training while their case continues to be litigated. Sikh religious beliefs require plaintiffs to maintain an unshorn beard and hair, wear a turban and wear other religious items. Plaintiffs contend that denying accommodation of their religious practices violates RFRA, the Free Exercise Clause and the Equal Protection Clause. The court held that even if plaintiffs have shown a likelihood of success on the merits and irreparable injury, the balance of equities and the overall public interest favor the military at this preliminary stage of proceedings. The court said in part:

The Marines have thus "credibly alleged" that "training in [the] manner" that would be required by the requested injunction will "pose a serious threat to national security" by disrupting defendant's well established method of transforming recruits through the discipline of uniformity.

Synagogue's Suit Over Zoning Denial Is Dismissed

In Chabad of Prospect, Inc. v. Louisville Metro Board of  Zoning Adjustment,(WD KY, Aug. 23, 2022), a Kentucky federal district court dismissed a suit brought against zoning officials by a synagogue that was denied a conditional use permit to use a home purchased by it for religious services. When the property was put up for sale, zoning rules allowed its use for religious purposes.  However, before plaintiff purchased the property the city removed that provision and required a conditional use permit. Plaintiff was unaware of the change. The court held that plaintiff's Sec. 1983 claim alleging 1st Amendment violations was barred by the statute of limitations. Additionally, it held that plaintiff failed to state a claim under RLUIPA, saying in part:

Chabad alleged only that it chose and purchased the property “specifically” to open a synagogue for the community given that there are “[v]ery few synagogues” in the area and having one in “Prospect is vital to its mission.”... It didn’t allege any delay, expense, and uncertainty due to the burden of the denial. And Chabad never alleged that alternatives are infeasible, nor any other facts that indicate a substantial burden.

The court also rejected a claim under RLUIPA's "equal terms" provision, saying in part:

Chabad hasn’t offered anything to rebut the prediction that a house of worship would be more likely to cause greater traffic problems than regular residential events, even if the religious services are currently smaller....

Finally, the court rejected plaintiffs' state law claims.

Court Gives Guidance On Assessing Whether Parents Had Sincerely Held Religious Belief Opposing Vaccination

In In the Interest of C.C., (GA Sup. Ct., Aug. 23, 2022), the Georgia Supreme Court gave guidance to a Juvenile Court on how to determine whether parents' objections to vaccinating their children (who were now in custody of the state) are based on a sincerely held religious belief. The court said in part:

Even if the Chandlers do not “observe a particular religion” or attend church consistently, and even if their objection to vaccination is partly secular, they may still be able to identify a religious belief that they sincerely hold and that would be violated by the vaccination of their children.... The juvenile court’s sincerity finding apparently rested at least in part on an assumption to the contrary; this prevents us from affirming this ruling....

In fairness to the juvenile court, the proper standard is not easily reducible to a simple formula; accordingly, we offer the following guidance.... Ultimately, the juvenile court must determine whether the Chandlers’ religious objection to the vaccination of their children is “truly held.” ... The court should “sh[y] away from attempting to gauge how central a sincerely held belief is to the believer’s religion.” And it must bear in mind that “a belief can be both secular and religious. The categories are not mutually exclusive.”...

The juvenile court can weigh various factors, including ... how long the Chandlers have asserted their professed religious belief, how much they know about it, and their reliance on “religious literature and teachings supporting the belief[.]” ... Whether the Chandlers have wavered in their actions related to vaccination “also appears to be relevant[.]”... But the juvenile court should also be cautious in affording more than a little weight to evidence that the Chandlers were inconsistent in visibly living out their religious beliefs; for example, the frequency of the family’s church attendance....

No State Action Involved In Barring Of Plaintiff From Moorish Science Temple

In Bey v. Sirius-El, (ED NY, Aug. 19, 2022), a New York federal district court dismissed a suit seeking damages, injunctive relief and criminal prosecution of defendants for barring plaintiff from attending the Brooklyn Moorish Science Temple in person. Plaintiff was barred because of the potential for a conflict between her and a "competing love interest" who has also been attending services. Plaintiff's free exercise claims were dismissed because she did no allege that any state action was involved.

Fire Department Chaplain Dismissed Because Of His Blog Posts Files Suit

An ordained Christian minister who has been a volunteer fire department chaplain in Austin, Texas filed suit in a Texas federal district court yesterday alleging that his free speech and free exercise rights were violated when the fire department terminated him as a chaplain because of his social media posts.  The complaint (full text) in Fox v. City of Austin, (WD TX, filed 8/18/2022), alleges in part:

Dr. Andrew K. Fox ... helped start Austin’s fire chaplaincy program and served as its lead chaplain—a volunteer position—for eight years. That abruptly changed when Dr. Fox posted something on his personal blog that Austin officials considered unacceptable: his religious belief that men and women are created biologically distinct and his view that men should not compete on women’s sports teams. After Austin officials demanded that Dr. Fox recant and apologize for expressing these beliefs and Dr. Fox refused, they terminated him....

Under the City’s standard, no one who openly holds historic Christian beliefs about the immutable differences between men and women can serve as a chaplain or in any other fire department position.... When the government can needlessly punish people for professing views outside of work on matters of ongoing public debate, that chills everyone’s speech and discourages democratic participation.

ADF issued a press release announcing the lawsuit.

Maine's COVID Vaccine Mandate, Without Religious Exemption, Is Upheld

 In Lowe v. Mills, (D ME, Aug. 18, 2022), a Maine federal district court rejected challenges by seven healthcare workers to Maine's COVID vaccination requirement for healthcare workers. No religious exemption is available; medical exemptions are available. The court rejected plaintiffs Title VII religious discrimination claim, saying in part:

[I]f the Hospital Defendants had granted the sole accommodation sought by the Plaintiffs, it would result in an undue hardship by subjecting the Hospital Defendants to the imposition of a fine and the “immediat[e] suspension of a license.”

The court also rejected plaintiffs' 1st Amendment Free Exercise claims, saying in part:

In the context of the COVID-19 vaccine mandate, the medical exemption is rightly viewed as an essential facet of the vaccine’s core purpose of protecting the health of patients and healthcare workers, including those who, for bona fide medical reasons, cannot be safely vaccinated. In addition, the vaccine mandate places an equal burden on all secular beliefs unrelated to protecting public health—for example, philosophical or politically-based objections to state-mandated vaccination requirements—to the same extent that it burdens religious beliefs. Thus, the medical exemption available as to all mandatory vaccines required by Maine law does not reflect a value judgment unfairly favoring secular interests over religious interests. As an integral part of the vaccine requirement itself, the medical exemption for healthcare workers does not undermine the vaccine mandate’s general applicability.

Commission Recommends Changes In Australian State's Anti-Discrimination Laws

On Aug. 16, the Law Reform Commission of Western Australia sent to Parliament its 297-page Final Report on its Review of the Equal Opportunity Act 1984 (WA) (full text). The Report makes 163 recommendations for changes in Western Australia's anti-discrimination laws. In connection with the Act's ban on discrimination based on religious conviction, the Report's Recommendation 51 provides:

Religious conviction should be defined in the Act. It should be defined as:
• having a religious conviction, belief, opinion or affiliation;
• engaging in religious activity;
• appearance or dress required by, or symbolic of, the person’s religious conviction;
• the cultural heritage and distinctive spiritual practices, observances, beliefs and teachings of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples;
• engaging in the cultural heritage and distinctive spiritual practices, observances, beliefs and teachings of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples;
• not having a religious conviction, belief, opinion or affiliation; and
• not engaging in religious activity.

The word religious should not be defined.

The Report also makes recommendations relating to discrimination on the basis of gender identity, sex characteristics and sexual orientation. It makes extensive recommendations on religious exceptions to anti-discrimination rules.

Christian Schools Australia issued a press release criticizing the Report.

Court Reverses Sanctions Imposed On Church For Violating COVID Orders

In People v. Calvary Chapel, San Jose, (CA App., Aug. 15, 2022), a California state appellate court annulled contempt orders imposed by trial courts and reversed trial court imposition of monetary sanctions which resulted from a church's refusal to comply with state COVID public health orders. The order restricted the holding and conduct of public gatherings. The court said in part:

[W]e conclude that the temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions are facially unconstitutional pursuant to the recent guidance of the United States Supreme Court regarding the First Amendment’s protection of the free exercise of religion in the context of public health orders that impact religious practice (see, e.g., Tandon v. Newsom (2021) ....) As the underlying orders which Calvary Chapel violated are void and unenforceable, we will annul the orders of contempt in their entirety and reverse the orders to pay monetary sanctions.

Advocates for Faith & Freedom issued a press release announcing the decision and reporting that Santa Clara County is still attempting to enforce $2.8 million in fines imposed for violation of county health orders.

Suspension Of Attorney Did Not Violate Her Free Exercise Rights

In In re Kelly, (DE Sup. Ct., Aug. 10, 2022), the Delaware Supreme Court accepted the report of its Board on Professional Responsibility and involuntarily transferred a state bar member to disability inactive status. The attorney's incoherent court filings, many containing religious references, led to the proceedings to move respondent to inactive status.  Respondent claimed, among other things, that the proceedings violated her free exercise rights. The court said in part:

It is the unfocused, irrelevant, and incoherent nature of many of Kelly’s submissions that led to this proceeding, not her religious or political beliefs as she contends. Kelly’s references to her religious and political views throughout her submissions do not shield her from scrutiny concerning her competency to practice law.

9th Circuit: Prof Gets Qualified Immunity In Suit Challenging His Course Presentation Of Islam

In Sabra v. Maricopa County Community College District,(9th Cir., Aug. 10, 2022), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 decision held that a Community College professor is entitled to qualified immunity in a suit against him claiming that his online module on Islamic terrorism in a World Politics course violated plaintiffs' Establishment Clause and Free Exercise rights. Plaintiffs claimed the module's primary message was disapproval of Islam and that the end-of-module quiz forced a Muslim student to disavow his religion by choosing answers reflecting a radical interpretation of Islam. The majority held that there is no case law "clearly establishing" that defendants' actions violated the First Amendment. It also concluded that plaintiffs had abandoned their municipal liability claim against the College on appeal.

Judge VanDyke filed a concurring opinion saying in part that "The only thing clearly established about ... [Plaintiffs' free exercise] claim is that nothing about it is clearly established."

Judge Bress dissented, saying in part:

I would have met Sabra’s Free Exercise claim on the merits rather than rely on legally infirm alternative grounds for affirmance. Sabra’s allegations are troubling, concern matters of sincerely held religious conviction, and warrant further judicial inquiry.

9th Circuit Hears Oral Arguments In Suit By Fellowship Of Christian Athletes On High School Rules

On Tuesday, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments (video of full arguments) in Fellowship of Christian Athletes v. San Jose Unified School District Board of Education. In the case, a California federal district court upheld a high school's non-discrimination policy for recognized student groups that precluded Fellowship of Christian Athletes from requiring its leaders to agree with and live in accordance with the group's Christian beliefs. (See prior posting.)

Subsidized Housing Family Size Limit Did Not Violate Rights Of Orthodox Jewish Family

In Katz v. New York City Housing Preservation & Development, (SD NY, Aug. 8, 2022), a New York federal district court rejected Free Exercise and Affordable Housing Act claims brought by an Orthodox Jewish family whose applications for an affordable housing unit were denied  because their family size exceeded the apartments' maximum occupancy limit. Plaintiffs claim that their religious beliefs require them to have a large family.  As to the Free Exercise claim, the court said in part:

The Katzes do not claim that Defendants’ policies disfavor acts only religious in nature or that Defendants otherwise showed overt animus in denying their applications or later appeals. Nor do they claim that the maximum occupancy limit is not generally applicable. They thus ask the Court to apply rational-basis review to analyze the occupancy restrictions....

Here, the City has a legitimate state interest in preventing overcrowding in subsidized apartment units. And limiting a unit’s occupancy to two people per bedroom is rationally related to that legitimate interest by setting a numerical cap on each apartment....

Rejecting the Fair Housing Act claim, the court said in part:

Here, the Katzes have failed to plausibly allege that the policies have created a disproportionate effect on Orthodox Jews because they never allege that the occupancy limits have or will result in an underrepresentation of Orthodox Jews in affordable housing lotteries in New York City. That is because at no point does the Complaint compare Orthodox Jews applying for New York City affordable housing lotteries to similarly situated individuals.

French Constitutional Tribunal Upholds Regulation Of Religious Associations

France's Constitutional Council last month in Union of Diocesan Associations of France and others  (Conseil constitutionnel, July 22, 2022) upheld the constitutionality of several provisions of law governing religious institutions in France. It upheld the requirement that a religious organization must register with a government official in order to enjoy benefits available specifically to a religious association.  It found that this did not infringe freedom of association, and also concluded in part:

[The provisions] have neither the purpose nor the effect of carrying the recognition of a religion by the Republic or of hindering the free exercise of religion.... Accordingly, the contested provisions, which do not deprive the free exercise of worship of legal guarantees, do not infringe the principle of secularism.

The court also rejected an equal protection challenge to a provision limiting religious organizations to realizing no more than 50% of their revenues from apartment buildings they own. Finally it upheld provisions allowing the state to require a religious association to conform its stated purposes to its actual activities and requirements; for reporting of a religious association's places of worship; and, when requested, to provide a government official with financial information including amounts used for religious activities and amounts of foreign financing. However, the court cautioned:

While such obligations are necessary and suited to the objective pursued by the legislator, it will nevertheless be up to the regulatory power to ensure, by setting the specific methods for implementing these obligations, that the constitutional principles of freedom of action are respected.

The court issued a press release announcing the decision.  Law & Religion UK also reports on the decision.

Clergy Sue Challenging Florida's Abortion Restrictions

The Washington Post reports that in Florida, seven members of the clergy-- Christian, Jewish, Unitarian-Universalist and Buddhist-- have filed lawsuits contending that Florida's 15-week abortion ban violates their free exercise, free speech and Establishment Clause rights. Typical of the lawsuits is the complaint (full text) in Hafner v. State of Florida, (FL Cir. Ct., filed 8/1/2022), filed by a pastor of the United Church of Christ.  It alleges in part:

 59. The Act establishes as the law of the State of Florida, a particular and narrow religious view about abortion and when “life” begins. This view is contrary to the religious beliefs of Plaintiff and the UCC, which does not necessarily make a claim regarding when “life” begins, but instead, centers on the mother’s right to have a choice, oversee her own body, and make her own decisions.

60. The Act further provides for no exceptions for the psychological health of the mother or family, non-fatal fetal abnormalities, or victims of incest, rape, or trafficking, which are all circumstances in which the UCC would, amongst other circumstances, support a girl or woman’s decision to have an abortion before or after fifteen weeks....

65. Plaintiff’s beliefs are consistent with the UCC principles set forth above and, as a result, the Act substantially burdens the exercise of her religious faith because it hampers her ability to counsel congregants and speak freely on reproductive rights and issues and burdens her congregants’ ability to seek counsel from their religious leader.

Here is the complaint in a similar suit filed by three rabbis (Pomerantz v. State of Florida, (FL Cir. Ct., filed 8/1/2022).

UPDATE: Here is the complaint in Chotso v. State of Florida, (FL Cir. Ct., filed 8/1/2022), filed by a Buddhist Lama.

Kentucky Abortion Bans Violate State Constitution

In EMW Women's Surgical Center v. Cameron, (KY Cir. Ct., July 22, 2022), a Kentucky state trial court issued a temporary injunction against enforcement of two statutes restricting abortions-- a six-week fetal heartbeat ban, and a ban on almost all abortions triggered by the overruling of Roe v. Wade. Relying on provisions of the Kentucky state constitution, the court found that the Trigger Ban constituted an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority to the U.S. Supreme Court, and also concluded that the law is unconstitutionally vague. the court concluded that the six-week ban violates provisions of the Kentucky constitution protecting the right to privacy, equal protection and the prohibition on the establishment of religion and the protection of the free exercise of religion. The court said in part:

Defendants' witnesses ... argue that life begins at the very moment of fertilization and as such is entitled to full constitutional protection at that point. However, this is a distinctly Christian and Catholic belief. Other faiths hold a wide variety of views on when life begins and at what point a fetus should be recognized as an independent human being....

The General Assembly is not permitted to single out and endorse the doctrine of a favored faith for preferred treatment.... There is nothing in our laws or history that allows for such theocratic based policymaking.

AP reports on the decision.

UPDATE: A Kentucky appellate court lifted the injunction while the case is on appeal, and the Kentucky Supreme Court refused to reinstate the injunction but set the case for argument on Nov. 15. An ACLU press release reports on these developments.

San Francisco Permit Requirement For Park Church Services Enjoined

In Stewart v. City and County of San Francisco, California, (ND CA, June 22, 2022), a California federal district court issued a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of a provision in the San Francisco Park Code requiring a permit for any religious event held in a public park involving 50 or more persons. The court found the provision to be a content-based restriction that triggers strict scrutiny, and concluded that it violates free speech and free exercise protections. However the court upheld a provision requiring a permit for events utilizing sound amplification equipment. Plaintiffs hold their weekly church services in public parks.

Wire Fraud Indictment Did Not Violate RFRA

In United States v. Stevens, (SD FL, July 12, 2022), a Florida federal district court adopted the magistrate's lengthy opinion of (May 2, 2022) and refused to dismiss a money laundering and wire fraud indictment against a religious psychic. The fraud victim, Ilena Torruella, believed that she was cursed because she possessed millions of dollars of "dirty" family money. Defendant offered to break the curse by "cleansing" the money and showing God that the victim was not attached to it. According to the court:

The key point Defendant relies upon to seek dismissal of this indictment is that Stevens never expressly promised to return Torruella’s money and Torruella never directly asked whether it would be returned before turning over her funds to Stevens.... Without an express agreement or promise to return the money, Stevens concludes that Torruella received exactly what she bargained for. The money was cleansed when Torruella gave it away.

Defendant contends that the indictment infringes her free exercise rights under RFRA and the 1st Amendment. However the magistrate's opinion rejects that contention, saying in part:

[Stevens] does not allege that any religious belief or practice of hers requires her to convert other people’s money for her benefit on false pretenses.... She instead argues that in general terms her Roma beliefs are burdened by the prosecution of this case based on her inability to practice her spiritual healing practices without government intervention. But that is too attenuated under RFRA because there are plenty of alternatives for Stevens to practice her religion....

The court concluded:

The jury must, of course, determine that her conduct was carried out with fraudulent intent. Defendant may present a defense that she was simply pursuing her religious practices, which may be antithetical with criminal intent. If the jury finds her belief to be sincere, she may be acquitted. But that is a matter for trial, not for a motion to dismiss.

Volokh Conspiracy has additional excerpts from the decision.

ADA Does Not Justify Lower Priority For Employees With Religious, Rather Than Disability, Exemptions From Vaccine Mandate

In UnifySCC v. Cody, (ND CA, June 39, 2022), a California federal district court granted a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of one portion of a California county's complex policy on accommodating county employees who have exemptions from the county's COVID vaccine mandate. While upholding significant portions of the county's policy, the court found Free Exercise problems with one part of the arrangement. Exempt employees in high-risk job settings were placed on administrative leave, with the possibility of being transferred to a lower risk job setting. The county gave priority in obtaining a lower-risk position to those with medical and disability exemptions over those with religious exemptions, arguing that this was required by the Americans With Disabilities Act and comparable California regulations. However, the court said in part:

Even if federal or California disability law requires priority consideration of disabled applicants for open government positions, the County cannot grant that class of individuals priority consideration over those with religious exemptions in violation of the First Amendment....

The different reasons for an exemption do not affect the amount of risk the exempt employees pose to other employees or the populations the County serves. Accordingly, the Court finds that it is more likely than not that while the general Accommodations framework is facially and operationally neutral, the part of the framework that prioritizes employees in high-risk roles with secular exemptions over those with religious exemptions for consideration for vacant County positions is not neutral....

Supreme Court Denies Review In New York Vaccine Mandate Case

Last Thursday, the U.S. Supreme Court denied review in Dr. A v. Hochul, (Sup. Ct., certiorari denied 6/30/2022). This is another of the many cases that contend COVID vaccine mandates-- this time for New York healthcare workers-- with medical, but without religious, exemptions violate the Free Exercise clause. Justice Thomas, in an opinion joined by Justices Alito and Gorsuch, dissented from the denial of certiorari, saying in part:

[T]here remains considerable confusion over whether a mandate, like New York’s, that does not exempt religious conduct can ever be neutral and generally applicable if it exempts secular conduct that similarly frustrates the specific interest that the mandate serves. Three Courts of Appeals and one State Supreme Court agree that such requirements are not neutral or generally applicable and therefore trigger strict scrutiny. Meanwhile, the Second Circuit has joined three other Courts of Appeals refusing to apply strict scrutiny. This split is widespread, entrenched, and worth addressing.

This case is an obvious vehicle for resolving that conflict.

The Supreme Court last December, by the same 6-3 vote, had denied an injunction pending the Supreme Court's review of the certiorari petition. (See prior posting.)

Court Enforcement Of Divorce Agreement Involving Acceptance of "Gett" Creates No Free Exercise Problem

In Mishler v. Mishler, (TX App., June 30, 2022), a Texas state appellate court held that there is no state or federal free exercise problem with a divorce decree, based on the parties prior agreement, that certain property would be delivered by the husband to the wife only upon the wife's acceptance of a "Gett" (Jewish divorce document that the wife must accept in order for the divorce to be valid under Jewish religious law).