Supreme Court Upholds Football Coach's Prayer Rights; Repudiates the "Lemon Test"

 In Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, (Sup. Ct., June 27, 2022), the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, held that a school district violated the First Amendment's Free Speech and Free Exercise clauses by disciplining a football coach for visibly praying at midfield immediately after football games. Justice Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion. In discussing whether the school district could regulate Coach Kennedy's speech because Kennedy was a government employee, Justice Gorsuch said in part:

[W]hat matters is whether Mr. Kennedy offered his prayers while acting within the scope of his duties as a coach. And taken together, both the substance of Mr. Kennedy’s speech and the circumstances surrounding it point to the conclusion that he did not.

In reaching its contrary conclusion, the Ninth Circuit stressed that, as a coach, Mr. Kennedy served as a role model “clothed with the mantle of one who imparts knowledge and wisdom.”... Teachers and coaches often serve as vital role models. But this argument commits the error of positing an “excessively broad job descriptio[n]” by treating everything teachers and coaches say in the workplace as government speech subject to government control.... On this understanding, a school could fire a Muslim teacher for wearing a headscarf in the classroom or prohibit a Christian aide from praying quietly over her lunch in the cafeteria. Likewise, this argument ignores the District Court’s conclusion (and the District’s concession) that Mr. Kennedy’s actual job description left time for a private moment after the game to call home, check a text, socialize, or engage in any manner of secular activities.... That Mr. Kennedy chose to use the same time to pray does not transform his speech into government speech To hold differently would be to treat religious expression as second-class speech and eviscerate this Court’s repeated promise that teachers do not “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.”.... 

Justice Gorsuch also found it clear that Coach Kennedy seeks to engage in a sincerely motivated religious exercise. The more difficult question was whether the school district could bar this because of Establishment Clause concerns. In deciding that it could not, the Court repudiated the Lemon test which had been relied upon by the lower courts in deciding the case. Justice Gorsuch said in part:

It is true that this Court and others often refer to the “Establishment Clause,” the “Free Exercise Clause,” and the “Free Speech Clause” as separate units. But the three Clauses appear in the same sentence of the same Amendment.... A natural reading of that sentence would seem to suggest the Clauses have “complementary” purposes, not warring ones where one Clause is always sure to prevail over the others....

To defend its approach, the District relied on Lemon and its progeny....

What the District and the Ninth Circuit overlooked, however, is that the “shortcomings” associated with this “ambitiou[s],” abstract, and ahistorical approach to the Establishment Clause became so “apparent” that this Court long ago abandoned Lemon and its endorsement test offshoot.... This Court has since made plain, too, that the Establishment Clause does not include anything like a “modified heckler’s veto, in which . . . religious activity can be proscribed” based on “‘perceptions’” or “‘discomfort.’” ...

In place of Lemon and the endorsement test, this Court has instructed that the Establishment Clause must be interpreted by “‘reference to historical practices and understandings.’” Town of Greece, 572 U. S., at 576.... “‘[T]he line’” that courts and governments “must draw between the permissible and the impermissible” has to “‘accor[d] with history and faithfully reflec[t] the understanding of the Founding Fathers.’”... An analysis focused on original meaning and history, this Court has stressed, has long represented the rule rather than some “‘exception’” within the “Court’s Establishment Clause jurisprudence.”

Justice Gorsuch then focused on the alternative argument that students were being coerced to pray. He said in part:

No doubt, too, coercion along these lines was among the foremost hallmarks of religious establishments the framers sought to prohibit when they adopted the First Amendment. Members of this Court have sometimes disagreed on what exactly qualifies as impermissible coercion in light of the original meaning of the Establishment Clause..... But in this case Mr. Kennedy’s private religious exercise did not come close to crossing any line one might imagine separating protected private expression from impermissible government coercion....

Naturally, Mr. Kennedy’s proposal to pray quietly by himself on the field would have meant some people would have seen his religious exercise. Those close at hand might have heard him too. But learning how to tolerate speech or prayer of all kinds is “part of learning how to live in a pluralistic society,” a trait of character essential to “a tolerant citizenry.”

Justice Thomas filed a brief concurring opinion, saying in part:

[W]e have held that “the First Amendment protects public employee speech only when it falls within the core of First Amendment protection— speech on matters of public concern.”... It remains an open question, however, if a similar analysis can or should apply to free-exercise claims in light of the “history” and “tradition” of the Free Exercise Clause...

Justice Alito filed a brief concurring opinion, saying in part:

The Court does not decide what standard applies to such expression under the Free Speech Clause but holds only that retaliation for this expression cannot be justified based on any of the standards discussed. On that understanding, I join the opinion in full.

Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justices Breyer and Kagan, filed a dissenting opinion, saying in part:

Official-led prayer strikes at the core of our constitutional protections for the religious liberty of students and their parents, as embodied in both the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.

The Court now charts a different path, yet again paying almost exclusive attention to the Free Exercise Clause’s protection for individual religious exercise while giving short shrift to the Establishment Clause’s prohibition on state establishment of religion....

Properly understood, this case is not about the limits on an individual’s ability to engage in private prayer at work. This case is about whether a school district is required to allow one of its employees to incorporate a public, communicative display of the employee’s personal religious beliefs into a school event, where that display is recognizable as part of a longstanding practice of the employee ministering religion to students as the public watched. A school district is not required to permit such conduct; in fact, the Establishment Clause prohibits it from doing so....

The Court now goes much further, overruling Lemon entirely and in all contexts. It is wrong to do so....

The Free Exercise Clause and Establishment Clause are equally integral in protecting religious freedom in our society. The first serves as “a promise from our government,” while the second erects a “backstop that disables our government from breaking it” and “start[ing] us down the path to the past, when [the right to free exercise] was routinely abridged.” ...

Today, the Court once again weakens the backstop. It elevates one individual’s interest in personal religious exercise, in the exact time and place of that individual’s choosing, over society’s interest in protecting the separation between church and state, eroding the protections for religious liberty for all. Today’s decision is particularly misguided because it elevates the religious rights of a school official, who voluntarily accepted public employment and the limits that public employment entails, over those of his students, who are required to attend school and who this Court has long recognized are particularly vulnerable and deserving of protection. In doing so, the Court sets us further down a perilous path in forcing States to entangle themselves with religion, with all of our rights hanging in the balance. As much as the Court protests otherwise, today’s decision is no victory for religious liberty.

CNN reports on the decision.

9th Circuit: Oak Flat Land Exchange Did Not Substantially Burden Apache Religious Exercise

In Apache Stronghold v. United States, (9th Cir., June 24, 2022), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision, held that a proposed federal government land exchange in Arizona with a mining company will not substantially burden Apache religious exercise in violation of RFRA. Nor will it violate the 1st Amendment because the Land Exchange Provision is a neutral and generally applicable law. The majority said in part:

Under RFRA, the government imposes a substantial burden on religion in two—and only two—circumstances: when the government “force[s individuals] to choose between following the tenets of their religion and receiving a governmental benefit” and when the government “coerce[s individuals] to act contrary to their religious beliefs by the threat of civil or criminal sanctions.” ... Here, the government will do neither by transferring Oak Flat to Resolution Copper.... The Department of Agriculture will simply transfer ownership of a plot of government land to Resolution Copper. The Land Exchange’s “incidental effects” on the religious exercise of Apache Stronghold’s members, as significant as they may be to the Apache, “may make it more difficult [for them] to practice [their religion] but [will] have no tendency to coerce [the Apache] into acting contrary to their religious beliefs.” ... Hence, under RFRA the Land Exchange imposes no substantial burden and RFRA thus does not limit the government’s ability to complete the Land Exchange. 

This is true even if the Land Exchange makes worship on Oak Flat “impossible.” 

Judge Berzon dissented, saying in part:

The majority applies an overly restrictive test for identifying a “substantial burden” on religious exercise under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.... The majority’s flawed test leads to an absurd result: blocking Apaches’ access to and eventually destroying a sacred site where they have performed religious ceremonies for centuries does not substantially burden their religious exercise. The majority offers both a doctrinal and a practical basis for its unduly narrow definition of “substantial burden.” Both are incorrect.

The majority opinion includes a lengthy response to the dissent. Reuters reports on the decision.

Supreme Court Says Maine Cannot Exclude Sectarian Schools From Its Tuition Reimbursement Program

In Carson v. Makin, (Sup. Ct., June 21, 2022), in a 6-3 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court held that Maine's program that pays tuition (up to a statutory limit) to out-of-district public or private high schools for students whose districts do not operate a high school, but which requires participating schools to be nonsectarian, violates the Free Exercise Clause. The majority opinion by Chief Justice Roberts says in part:

The State pays tuition for certain students at private schools— so long as the schools are not religious. That is discrimination against religion. A State’s antiestablishment interest does not justify enactments that exclude some members of the community from an otherwise generally available public benefit because of their religious exercise....

Maine’s “nonsectarian” requirement for its otherwise generally available tuition assistance payments violates the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. Regardless of how the benefit and restriction are described, the program operates to identify and exclude otherwise eligible schools on the basis of their religious exercise.

Justice Breyer, joined by Justice Kagan and for the most part by Justice Sotomayor, filed a dissenting opinion which says in part:

Nothing in our Free Exercise Clause cases compels Maine to give tuition aid to private schools that will use the funds to provide a religious education.... [T]his Court’s decisions in Trinity Lutheran and Espinoza prohibit States from denying aid to religious schools solely because of a school’s religious status—that is, its affiliation with or control by a religious organization.... But we have never said that the Free Exercise Clause prohibits States from withholding funds because of the religious use to which the money will be put....

Maine’s decision not to fund such schools falls squarely within the play in the joints between those two Clauses. Maine has promised all children within the State the right to receive a free public education. In fulfilling this promise, Maine endeavors to provide children the religiously neutral education required in public school systems.... The Religion Clauses give Maine the ability, and flexibility, to make this choice. 

Justice Sotomayor also filed a dissenting opinion which says in part:

This Court continues to dismantle the wall of separation between church and state that the Framers fought to build.... 

If a State cannot offer subsidies to its citizens without being required to fund religious exercise, any State that values its historic antiestablishment interests more than this Court does will have to curtail the support it offers to its citizens.

CNN reports on the decision.

Meat Processor Is Not State Actor In Requiring COVID Vaccination of Employees

In Reed v. Tyson Foods, Inc., (WD TN, June 14, 2022), a Tennessee federal district court dismissed plaintiffs' claims that their rights under RFRA and free exercise clause were violated when their employer required them to be vaccinated against COVID.  The court held that plaintiffs were not state actors, even though the President had invoked the Defense Production Act and instructed meat and poultry procession plants to continue operations.  The court said in part:

Plaintiffs contend that Defendant acted as an “agent of the government … by imposing strict worker vaccination rules to (in the estimation of the federal government), in order to preserve the integrity of the national food supply.”... However, no facts are pled that would enable the Court to find a sufficient nexus between Defendant’s vaccine policy and the involvement of the Government. The mere fact that Defendant relied on OSHA and CDC guidance in formulating its vaccine policy does not make Defendant an “agent of the government.” Nor does the fact that Defendant is subject to the federal government’s COVID-19 guidance for meat and poultry plants convert Defendant into a government actor.

The court also dismissed several other, but not all, of plaintiffs' additional claims.

Synagogue Sues In Challenge To Florida's Restrictive Abortion Law

Suit was filed last week in a Florida state trial court by a Palm Beach County synagogue challenging Florida's recently enacted 15-week abortion ban. The complaint (full text) in Generation to Generation, Inc. v. Florida, (FL Cir. Ct., filed 6/10/2022) contends that the law violates the free exercise, establishment, right to privacy, due process and equal protection provisions of the Florida Constitution.  The complaint alleges in part:

40. Some women, such as the members, congregants, supporters of Plaintiff L’Dor Va-Dor and their families have an abortion because it is required by their religious faith.  For Jews, all life is precious and thus the decision to bring new life into the world is not taken lightly or determined by state fiat.  In Jewish law, abortion is required if necessary to protect the health, mental or physical well-being of the woman, or for many other reasons not permitted under the Act.  As such, the Act prohibits Jewish women from practicing their faith free of government intrusion and thus violates their privacy rights and religious freedom.....

71. The Jewish people have often borne the brunt of the horrors that occur when the power of Christianity has merged with the power of the state.  The result has been Inquisitions, Crusades, ghettoes and pogroms for the Jews and the eventual loss of freedom for everyone else.... 

72.  The architects of the Act have taken a first step towards the dismantling of that wall and returning the state of Florida and our nation back to a time when the merger of Christianity and government produced genocide, slavery, misogyny, and the denial of equal rights and in many cases, any rights at all to those who did not share the gender, race or religion of those in power.

Jews for a Secular Democracy issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

11th Circuit: Jail's Procedure For Passover Participation Is Upheld

In Dorman v. Chaplain's Office BSO, (11th Cir., June 10, 2022), the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the procedures used by the Broward County, Florida jail that required inmates to register 45 days in advance in order to participate in Passover services and meals.  The court said in part:

First, the 45-day registration requirement did not constitute a substantial burden on Mr. Dorman’s exercise of his Jewish faith under the RLUIPA, and therefore it also did not violate the First Amendment’s more lenient reasonableness standard. Second, the electronic posting of the 45-day registration requirement on the Jail’s computer kiosk, which he and other inmates used to communicate with Jail staff, provided adequate notice of the registration requirement to satisfy due process.

Challenges To New Jersey's Assisted Suicide Act Are Rejected

In Petro v. Platkin, (NJ App., June 10, 2022), a New Jersey state appellate court dismissed constitutional challenges to New Jersey's Medical Aid in Dying for the Terminally Ill Act.  It held the plaintiffs-- a terminally ill resident, a physician and a pharmacist-- lack standing because their participation in the procedures permitted by the Act are completely voluntary.  The court also rejected claims that the statute violates the "single object" requirement of the state constitution or state constitutional provisions on the right to enjoy and defend life. It also rejected 1st Amendment free exercise claims, finding that the statute is a neutral law of general applicability.

Free Exercise Challenge To New Mexico COVID Orders Moves Ahead

McKinley v. Grisham, (D NM, June 7, 2022), involves various challenges to Executive Orders and Public Health Orders issued by New Mexico officials in response to the COVID pandemic. While most of the challenges were dismissed, the court allowed plaintiffs to move ahead with their free exercise challenge to restrictions on in-person gatherings at houses of worship. The court said in part:

Some New Mexico public health orders treated comparable secular activities more favorably than religious exercise. For example, the April 11, 2020, public health order allowed essential businesses 20% occupancy capacity but prohibited mass gatherings in a church, synagogue, mosque or other place of worship....

Taking the allegations as true, it is plausible that the Plaintiffs state a freedom of religion claim. Therefore, whether the public health orders survive strict scrutiny is a factual inquiry that cannot be resolved on this Motion. For the above reasons, Plaintiffs alleged a plausible freedom of religion claim, and this Count cannot be dismissed at this stage.

9th Circuit OK's Refusal To House Muslim Inmate Only With Co-Religionists

 In Al Saud v. Days, (9th Cir., June 8, 2022), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected claims under RLUIPA and the 1st Amendment brought by a Muslim inmate who sought to be housed only with other Muslim inmates. He contends he is currently unable to pray five times per day as required by his religion because inmates with whom he is now housed harass him when he prays. The court summarized the holding in part as follows:

Al Saud’s RLUIPA claim failed because denying his request to be housed only with Muslims was the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling governmental interest. The panel concluded that the outcome of this case was largely controlled by Walker v. Beard, 789 F.3d 1125 (9th Cir. 2015), which held that a prison could deny a prisoner’s religious accommodation when he sought to be housed with only white people. Because both race and religion are suspect classes, the likelihood that equal protection liability would flow from housing prisoners based on religion was substantially identical to the likelihood of liability for housing prisoners based on race and, therefore, was sufficient to serve as a compelling interest.

High School Rules Barring Religious Requirements For Christian Student Organization Leaders Is Upheld

In Fellowship of Christian Athletes v. San Jose Unified School District Board of Education, (ND CA, June 1, 2022), 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. In rejecting challenges to the policy, the court said in part:

[P]olicies meant “to ensure that the school’s resources are open to all interested students without regard to special protected classifications” are similar to the antidiscrimination laws intended to ensure equal access that the Supreme Court has concluded are viewpoint and content neutral.... The fact that the Policy allows clubs to set “non-discriminatory criteria” but not criteria based on religion, sexual orientation, or other protected classifications does not mean the Policy aims at the suppression of speech....

Plaintiffs have not shown that the Policy, as written, clearly violates their right to free exercise of their religion. The District’s Policy applies to all ASB student clubs. It does not “impose special disabilities” on Plaintiffs or other religious groups, but instead affects those groups in ways incidental to the general application of the Policy....

COVID Testing Requirement Survives Free Exercise Challenge

In Villareal v. Rocky Knoll Health Care Center, (ED WI, June 1, 2022), a Wisconsin federal district court refused to allow a nurse who objected on religious grounds to a COVID testing requirement of a county-run nursing center to file an amended complaint.  The nurse's employment had been terminated her for refusing to comply with the center's testing policy. The court said in part:

Rocky Knoll’s COVID-19 testing policy is neutral. It does not refer to a religious practice.... Nor is its purpose to suppress “religion or religious conduct.”...

It is also generally applicable: Rocky Knoll’s policy does not prohibit religious conduct while permitting other conduct that may undermine its interest in preventing the spread of COVID-19 in its facility and ensuring the safety of its residents and employees....

The court also held that plaintiff cannot recover damages or obtain injunctive relief in federal court for a claim under the right of conscience provisions of the Wisconsin constitution.

Certiorari Denied In Church's Challenge To Colorado COVID Restrictions

The U.S. Supreme Court today denied review in Community Baptist Church v. Polis, (Docket No. 21-1328, certiorari denied 5/31/2022). (Order List). In the case, the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a district court's denial of a preliminary injunction in a free exercise challenge by two churches and one of their pastors to COVID restrictions imposed by the state of Colorado.  It similarly affirmed the dismissal of a challenge to the federal government's award of COVID relief aid to the state. (See prior posting.)

6th Circuit En Banc Dismisses Mask Mandate Challenge As Moot

In Resurrection School v. Hertel, (6 Cir., May 25, 2022), an en banc panel of the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals held by a vote of 13-1-3 that a free exercise challenge to Michigan's COVID mask mandate for school children is moot. The mandate is no longer in effect. The suit was brought by a private religious school and two parents of school children. One judge concluded that the preliminary injunction appeal moot, but the proceedings for a declaratory judgment and permanent injunction are not. The majority said in part:

For all the reasons recited above—the changed circumstances since the State first imposed its mask mandate, the substantially developed caselaw, the lack of gamesmanship on the State’s part—we see no reasonable possibility that the State will impose a new mask mandate with roughly the same exceptions as the one originally at issue here. This claim is moot—indeed palpably so.

Judge Bush in a 31-page dissent joined by two other judges said in part:

[T]he majority’s decision to declare the entire case against MDHHS moot—rather than simply deciding the preliminary-injunction appeal—has stripped us of a valuable opportunity to clarify the law of our circuit. What the majority should have done, instead, is rule solely on the interlocutory order before us.

Fox2 Detroit reports on the decision.

University's Vaccine Mandate Did Not Violate Free Exercise Rights Of Students

In America's Frontline Doctors v. Wilcox, (CD CA, May 5, 2022), a California federal district court dismissed the associational plaintiff for lack of standing and rejected individual plaintiffs' free exercise challenge (as well as their other challenges) to the University of California Riverside's COVID vaccine mandate. The court said in part:

Plaintiffs contend that Defendants' enforcement of the Policy violates their right to free exercise of religion. The SAC alleges that Defendants "coerc[e] students to make an unnatural choice...either quickly injecting themselves...[with a COVID-19 vaccine] ... or ...disclosing under duress their religious beliefs to Defendants' religious exemption approval panels."... They also contend that Defendants "prejudicially segregate religious people in order to subject them to...testing."... Plaintiffs have religious exemptions from the Policy. Even so, Plaintiffs contend that testing and masks "substantially interfere with students' religious practices of prayer, speech, and deed."...

The Policy is a neutral and generally applicable. It applies to all students, professors, and staff at the University of California and seeks to protect public health and safety. Defendants offer exemptions for religious beliefs, medical reasons, and disability.... The Policy's exemptions pass constitutional muster.... Plaintiffs allege that they requested religious exemptions under "duress" but fail to explain how their decisions to voluntarily submit a one-page exemption form were executed under "duress." Plaintiffs also fail to describe how masks and testing interfere with the students' religious practices of prayer, speech, and deed. Plaintiffs are only required to mask while indoors—a restriction that also applied to vaccinated students at the time the SAC was filed. Presumably Plaintiffs would be indoors to attend class, so it is unclear how the Policy interferes with religious practices.

Louisiana Supreme Court Quashes Charges Against Pastor Who Violated COVID Orders

In State of Louisiana v. Spell (Parish of East Baton Rouge), (LA Sup. Ct., May 13, 2022), the Louisiana Supreme Court quashed bills of information that had been issued against a pastor, charging him with violating the governor's COVID orders early in the pandemic.  The Orders limited gatherings and imposed stay-at-home mandates. The pastor continued to lead in-person worship services in violation of the Orders. The majority said in part:

Orders 30 and 33 contain exemptions allowing certain secular activities to proceed as normal without limiting the number of people permitted in a single space at the same time. In many of those gatherings, the risk of spreading the virus appears no  less prevalent than at a comparable gathering in a church. At the very least, the state offered no evidence proving otherwise. The executive orders grant preferential treatment only to secular conduct. This disparate treatment “strike[s] at the very heart of the First Amendment’s guarantee of religious liberty.”

Chief Justice Weimer, joined by Justice Griffin, dissented, saying in part:

In the absence of an evidentiary record, the majority opinion takes the position that if any exceptions whatsoever were carved out from the orders, then strict scrutiny is warranted, and it was the State’s burden to establish that the orders were narrowly tailored. However, this position ignores the circumstances under which the orders were issued and, instead, holds the emergency orders to a standard of scrutiny that has thus far only been applied by the Supreme Court at a much later stage in the pandemic and at a time with much greater evidentiary knowledge

Justice Crichton filed a concurring opinion.  KAKE News reports on the decision, [Thanks to Steven H. Sholk for the lead.]

Plaintiff Lacks Standing To Challenge No-Fault Divorce Law Under 1st Amendment

 In King v. State of New York, (2d Cir., May 9, 2022), the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals held that plaintiff lacked standing to challenge New York's no-fault divorce law on free exercise or Establishment Clause grounds. The court said in part:

Ms. King alleges that this law and the resulting divorce violated her Free Exercise and Establishment Clause rights by requiring her to become divorced despite her religious belief in marriage until death..... Because Ms. King alleges only the termination of a civil contract, she has not plausibly alleged that the civil judgment of divorce entered against her “sever[ed] the holy marriage covenant made before God,” ... or “chang[ed] her status under . . . the laws of God”....

Satanic Temple Wants Its Flag To Be Raised At Boston City Hall

In the wake of the Supreme Court's decision earlier this week in Shurtleff v. City of Boston holding that Boston should have allowed Camp Constitution to  briefly fly a Christian flag on a flag pole outside city hall, The Satanic Temple has asked Boston for similar treatment.  AP reports:

The Salem-based group tweeted a request filed Tuesday with the city property management department to raise a flag marking “Satanic Appreciation Week” from July 23-29....

Lucien Greaves, the organization’s co-founder, said in an email Wednesday that the group wants to show that religious liberty must mean respect for “all forms” of religious practice and religious opinion.

Adventist School Sues Over Refusal Of Tournament To Accommodate Its Sabbath Observance

Suit was filed this week in an Alabama federal district court against the Alabama High School Athletic Association (AHSAA) by the Seventh Day Adventist Oakwood Academy that was forced to forfeit its further participation in this year's high school basketball championship tournament because the AHSAA refused to move the time of its game three hours later to permit the school to play without violating its Sabbath. The complaint (full text) in South Central Conference of Seventh Day Adventists v. Alabama High School Athletic Association, (MD AL, filed 5/3/2022), contends that the refusal to accommodate its religious exercise violated the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses of the 1st Amendment. Al.com reports on the lawsuit.

Asatru Inmate Loses RLUIPA and Equal Protection Challenges

In Watkinson v. Alaska Department of Corrections, (9th Cir., May 2, 2022), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held that Alaska did not violate the rights of a prisoner who was a practitioner of Asatru when it prevented him from using firewood purchased through the Prison Welfare Fund (PWF) for religious purposes, and when it did not allow use of the Prison Welfare Fund for inmates to pool funds to purchase juice and honey in bulk. The court said in part:

RLUIPA does not require a state to facilitate or subsidize the exercise of religion or pay for devotional accessories.... ADOC policies do not deny Plaintiff access to any item necessary for his religious ceremonies, and Plaintiff may procure all necessary items without access to the PWF. Defendants’ policies thus did not substantially burden the exercise of Plaintiff’s religious practice...

The court also rejected plaintiff's 1st Amendment claim.  In addition it rejected his Equal Protection claim, even though prison authorities allowed a Native American cultural group to use PWF-purchased firewood at the prison sweat lodge. According to the court:

The prison director testified that the groups are not similarly situated because the sweat lodge is a cultural rather than a religious activity.

Free Exercise Challenge To Washington Vaccine Mandate Is Dismissed

 In Wise v. Inslee, (ED WA, April 27, 2022), a Washington federal district court dismissed various challenges to Washington state's vaccine mandate for certain state employees, including free exercise, Title VII religious discrimination, and Establishment Clause claims. The court said in part:

... [T]he State clearly has a legitimate government interest in preventing the spread of COVID-19, an interest that has been endorsed by the Ninth Circuit.... Additionally, the Proclamation is rationally related to that interest because it is based on overwhelming evidence that the vaccines are safe and effective, and increasing vaccination rates among those employees who come into regular contact with vulnerable populations is a rational action to reduce the spread of COVID-19. Accordingly, the Proclamation easily survives federal constitutional scrutiny....