Religious Objections To Medical College's COVID Vaccination Requirement Upheld

In Magliulo v. Edward Via College of Osteopathic Medicine, ((WD LA, Aug. 17, 2021), a Louisiana federal district court issued a temporary restraining order barring a medical college from conditioning plaintiff students' enrollment on their receiving a COVID-19 vaccination. The students had requested an exemption from the college's requirements for religious reasons-- they believed the vaccine was derived from aborted fetal tissue. The college would grant the exemption only if the objecting students complied with extensive restrictions. The court held that Louisiana statutes allow students to assert religious or philosophical objections to the vaccine requirement. It also concluded that the refusal to exempt religious objectors violates the free exercise clause of the Louisiana constitution and the Louisiana Preservation of Religious Freedom Act.  The Louisiana Attorney General had backed the students' position in the case, and the AG's Office issued a press release discussing the decision.

Court Sorts Out Standing Issues And Substantive Challenges To Vermont Town Tuition Program

In Valente v. French, (D VT, Aug. 16, 2021), students and their parents sued various school agencies and districts challenging their policy of refusing to pay tuition to religious schools under Vermont's Town Tuition Program. Under that program, school districts that do not operate their own high schools pay tuition for students to attend other schools. However, sectarian schools are excluded unless there are adequate safeguards against the use of the tuition funds for religious worship. The court held that plaintiffs have standing to sue various state agencies, having alleged that they have not taken appropriate steps to prevent school districts from discriminating against religion in the Town Tuition Program. However the court found no standing to sue supervisory unions made up of local school boards which have no responsibility for the tuition payments.

The court went on to hold that plaintiffs have adequately alleged an equal protection claim and (except for one plaintiff) a free exercise claim against the state defendants, but have not adequately alleged an Establishment Clause or substantive due process claim. Eleventh Amendment defenses were also rejected.

In a companion case, A.H. v. French, (D VT, Aug. 16, 2021), students, parents and the Catholic Diocese sue challenging the refusal to allow Rice Memorial High School, a Catholic high school, to participate in the Town Tuition Program. The court held that the parents have standing to sue the state Agency of Education and its secretary, saying that plaintiffs allege these defendants set policy and directed school districts to exclude religious schools and their students. It also rejected 11th Amendment defenses by the head of the Agency. However the court held that the Diocese of Burlington lacks standing to assert the interests of parents who wish to send their children to Rice.

New Hampshire Enacts Law To Protect Churches In Future Emergencies

On Tuesday, New Hampshire Governor Chris Sununu signed HB542, the New Hampshire Religious Liberty Act (full text). The law provides in part:

[D]uring a state of emergency, the state government shall permit a religious organization to continue operating and to engage in religious services to the same or greater extent that other organizations or businesses that provide essential services that are necessary and vital to the health and welfare of the public are permitted to operate.

Under the statute, the state may still require religious organizations to comply with neutral health, safety, or occupancy requirements, but must meet a strict scrutiny test if the requirement imposes a substantial burden on a religious service.

AP reports on the new law, which takes effect in 60 days.

10th Circuit: Muslim Inmate Can Move Ahead On Claim That He Was Forced To Shave Beard

In Ashaheed v. Currington, (10th Cir., Aug. 10, 2021), the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a Colorado federal district court's dismissal of a Muslim inmate's free exercise and equal protection claims. The Colorado corrections center requires inmates to shave their beards at intake but provides an exemption for inmates who wear beards for religious reasons. Plaintiff says he repeatedly asserted this exemption, but that Defendant-- motivated by anti-Muslim animus-- forced him to shave.

The court rejected Defendant's qualified immunity defense, saying: "The constitutional violation alleged here was clear beyond debate." The court concluded in part:

Sergeant Currington’s refusal to follow the Center’s beard-shaving policy and grant Mr. Ashaheed a religious exemption, when he previously accommodated the religious needs of non-Muslims under the Center’s personal-effects policy, shows that he burdened Mr. Ashaheed’s religion in a discriminatory and nonneutral manner.

10th Circuit: Jail Chaplain Succeeds On Qualified Immunity Grounds In Suit Over Religious Diet

In Ralston v. Cannon, (10th Cir., Aug. 9, 2021), the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals held that a suit by a Messianic Jewish inmate should be dismissed on qualified immunity grounds. The suit challenged jail Chaplain Hosea Cannon's denial of plaintiff's request for a kosher diet. The court said in part:

When Mr. Cannon denied the kosher diet request, it was not clearly established that his conduct violated the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. More specifically, the law was not clearly established that, even if Mr. Cannon did not act with a discriminatory purpose, his denial of a kosher diet could effect a violation of Mr. Ralston’s free-exercise rights.

10th Circuit: Parolee May Move Ahead In Suit Challenging His Placement In Christian Housing

In Janny v. Gamez, (10th Cir., Aug. 6, 2021), the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals held that a parolee, who is an atheist, should be able to move ahead with his Free Exercise and Establishment Clause claims growing out of a requirement that in order to stay out of jail he stay at a Christian homeless shelter and participate in its religious programming.  The court said in part:

[W]hile the Lemon test remains a central framework for Establishment Clause challenges, it is certainly not the exclusive one.... And claims of religious coercion, like the one presented here, are among those that Lemon is ill suited to resolve. Lee [v. Weisman] teaches that a simpler, common-sense test should apply to such allegations: whether the government “coerce[d] anyone to support or participate in religion or its exercise.” ...

Mr. Janny argues that Officer Gamez’s written parole directive to abide by the Mission’s “house rules as established,”... shows the State required him to participate in the Mission’s religious programming.... These facts establish a genuine dispute as to whether the State, through Officer Gamez, acted not just to place Mr. Janny in the Mission, but to place him specifically into the Christian-based Program....

The record [also] allows Mr. Janny to reach the jury on his claim that Officer Gamez burdened his right to free exercise by allegedly presenting him with the coercive choice of obeying the Program’s religious rules or returning to jail.

The court also rejected defendants' qualified immunity defenses. 

Judge Carson dissented in part, contending that the director of the Mission should not be liable as a state actor.

ACLU issued a press release announcing the decision.

Protective Order Did Not Violate Ex-Husband's Free Exercise Rights

 In Kaur v. Singh, (PA Super., Aug. 2, 2021), a Pennsylvania appellate court upheld a Protection From Abuse Order that excludes plaintiff's former husband from attending the Nazareth Temple on Sundays when his former wife is present. The court said in part:

[T]he Final PFA Order did not substantially burden Appellant’s right to practice his religion....The Order did not ban Appellant from practicing his religion, nor compel him to perform actions against his religion. Appellant can attend services at several other temples in the area on Sunday, attend services at Nazareth Temple every day but Sunday, and attend services at Nazareth Temple on Sunday if Ms. Kaur is not present. As the trial court explained, “[t]he record established that all of the Sikh temples in the area have essentially the same services”....

Additionally ... [s]ince Appellant’s purpose of attending the services at Nazareth Temple is to harass Ms. Kaur as opposed to practicing his religion, the Order arguably does not impact Appellant’s ability to practice his religion at all.

Free Exercise Challenges To Illinois COVID Orders Dismissed As Moot

In Elim Romanian Pentecostal Church v. Pritzker, (ND IL, July 26, 2021), an Illinois federal district court dismissed as moot religious freedom challenges by two churches to Illinois Governor Jay Pritzker's now-expired emergency COVID-19 orders. The court said in part:

[I]t is absolutely clear that the alleged wrongful behavior— restrictions on religion due to the COVID-19 pandemic— are not reasonably expected to recur.

Food Ordinance Does Not Violate Rights Of Christians Distributing Sandwiches

In Redlich v. City of St. Louis, (ED MO, July 22, 2021), a Missouri federal magistrate judge dismissed a suit by two officers of the New Life Evangelical Center who, as part of their religious obligation, conduct outreach to the homeless.  They seek an injunction to prevent enforcement of a city ordinance that bans the distribution of “potentially hazardous foods” to the public without a temporary food permit. Plaintiffs were cited for distributing bologna sandwiches without a permit. The court rejected free exercise, free speech, freedom of association, equal protection and other challenges by plaintiffs, saying in part:

Plaintiffs have not established that the Ordinance constitutes a substantial burden on their free exercise rights. Assuming that food sharing is a central tenet of Plaintiffs’ religious beliefs, the evidence does not show that enforcement of the Ordinance prohibits Plaintiffs’ meaningful ability to adhere to their faith or denies Plaintiffs reasonable opportunities to engage in fundamental religious activities....

Plaintiffs show that the Ordinance certainly limits their ability to express their message in distributing sandwiches, but admit there is nothing about bologna sandwiches specifically that inherently expresses their religion. The facts show that in the alternative to obtaining a charitable feeding permit, Plaintiffs can and have distributed other types of food, bottled water, clothes, literature, and offered community and prayer without providing food subject to the Ordinance...

The record supports that the City enacted the Ordinance to adopt the National Food Code for public health and safety reasons, not to curtail a religious message. Thus, the Ordinance and its Amendment are content neutral and generally applicable....

6th Circuit Hears Arguments On Masking Requirement For K-5 Religious Schools

Yesterday, the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments (audio of full arguments) in Resurrection School v. Hertel. In the case, a Michigan federal district court refused to issue a preliminary injunction sought by parents of Catholic school children to eliminate the COVID face covering requirement for children attending K through Grade 5 at religious schools. Parents contend that the requirement interferes with the free exercise of the students' religion. (See prior posting.) Washington Post, reporting on appellants' arguments, said in part:

[A]ttorneys for Resurrection School in Lansing and two parents will tell the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit that Catholic doctrine holds that every person is made in God’s image.

“Unfortunately, a mask shields our humanity,” the school argued in its lawsuit. “And because God created us in His image, we are masking that image.”

9th Circuit Hears Oral Arguments In Washington Insurance Coverage Mandate Challenge

On Friday, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments in Cedar Park Assembly of God v. Kreidler. (Video of full oral arguments.) In the case, a Washington federal district court refused to grant a preliminary injunction to a church that objects to Washington's SB 6219 which requires health insurance plans that cover maternity care to also cover abortions. A Washington federal district court had dismissed the suit on standing grounds. (See prior posting.) Washington Examiner reports on the oral arguments.

Cert. Denied In Religious Objection To Use of Social Security Number

The U.S. Supreme Court yesterday denied review in Ricks v. Idaho Contractors Board, (Docket No. 19-66, certiorari denied 6/28/2021). (Order List). In the case, an Idaho appeals court dismissed free exercise challenges to the state's requirement that an applicant for a contractor's license furnish his Social Security number.  Federal child support enforcement laws require states to collect Social Security numbers as part of applications for professional licenses if the state wishes to be eligible for certain federal grants.  George Ricks refused to furnish his Social Security number because of his religious belief that Social Security numbers are a form of the Biblical "mark of the beast." (See prior posting.) The Idaho Supreme Court denied a petition for review. Reuters reports on the case and the denial of certiorari, pointing out that the cert. petition asked the Supreme Court to overrule the Smith case.

Suit Challenges "In God We Trust" On Mississippi License Plates

Suit was filed yesterday in a Mississippi federal district court by atheist and secular humanist plaintiffs challenging the constitutionality of Mississippi including the state seal-- which carries the motto "In God We Trust" -- on its standard license plate. The complaint (full text) in Griggs v. Graham, (SD MI, filed 6/22/2021) alleges violations of both the free speech and free exercise clauses, saying in part:

The Standard Tag ... sends an ideological message endorsed by ... the State of Mississippi.... The Defendant enforces Mississippi statutes and maintains regulations, policies, practices, and customs that require a car owner to display license tags delivering the State of Mississippi’s chosen ideological message....

The statutes, rules, policies, practices, and customs enforced by Defendant ... are not neutral. Not only is “IN GOD WE TRUST” an expressly religious message, but the public statements of Mississippi officials ... demonstrate that hostility toward the Plaintiffs and other Mississippi car owners who lack religious beliefs was a motivation for selecting the current Standard Tag design.

WLOX reports on the lawsuit.

City's Use Permit Requirement Violated State Free Exercise Law

In  Henry v. City of Somerton, (D AZ, June 17, 2021), an Arizona federal district court held that an Arizona city violated the state's Free Exercise of Religion Act when, under a now-amended ordinance, it required a church to obtain a conditional use permit to use rented space for religious services. The court held in part:

The Court finds the unamended Ordinance’s CUP requirement treated the Iglesia on less than equal terms than nonreligious assemblies, such as fraternal organizations.

Because there is no genuine dispute of material facts, the Court will grant summary judgment on the FERA claim. ...

Various other claims against the city were dismissed, including plaintiffs' prior restraint claim:

... [W]ithout even having tried to apply for a CUP, any injury Plaintiffs claim that resulted from the CUP evaluation process is purely conjectural. Plaintiffs cannot claim they were deterred by the CUP evaluation process because, by all accounts, they have been conducting services uninterrupted since the Iglesia opened.

Baker Violated Public Accommodation Law In Refusing To Sell Gender Transition Cake

Scardina v. Masterpiece Cakeshop, Inc., (CO Dist. Ct., June 15, 2021), is the latest installment in lawsuits against the owner of a Lakewood, Colorado bakery who refuses to furnish cakes that violate his religious beliefs.  Here, a transgender woman sought to order a birthday cake with a pink interior and blue exterior to reflect her transition from male to female. According to the court:

Mr. Phillips ... claims his religious beliefs prevent him from creating a custom cake celebrating a transition from male to female because expressing that message—that such a transition is possible and should be celebrated—would violate his religious convictions.... He and his wife believe that God designed people male and female, that a person’s gender is biologically determined, and that gender does not change based on an individual’s perception or feelings.....  

The court concluded that defendants violated the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act, and that the law does not infringe defendants' free speech or free exercise rights:

Defendants denied Ms. Scardina goods and services because of her transgender status. Defendants admit that they were willing to make the requested cake until Ms. Scardina identified that she chose the colors to reflect and celebrate her identity as a transgender female....

The Court concludes that a reasonable observer of the requested cake would not attribute any message to Defendants and would not understand the cake to convey the message claimed by Defendants, i.e., endorsement of a gender transition. Therefore, Defendants have failed to carry their burden to show that providing the requested cake constituted any type of symbolic or expressive speech protected by the First Amendment.....

A press release from ADF says that the decision will be appealed.

Wisconsin COVID Order Closing Schools Violated Free Exercise Rights

In James v. Heinrich, (WI Sup. Ct., June 11, 2021), the Wisconsin Supreme Court in a 4-3 decision, held that under Wisconsin statutes, the local health officer had no authority to issue a COVID-19 Order that closed schools.  In addition, the majority held that such orders are unconstitutional under the Wisconsin state constitution, saying in part:

[T]hose portions of the Order restricting or prohibiting in-person instruction are unconstitutional because they violate a citizen's right to the free exercise of religion guaranteed in Article I, Section 18 of the Wisconsin Constitution....

Under Heinrich's Order, all schools in Dane County——including these private religious institutions——were required to cease all in-person instruction for students in grades 3-12 and instead provide a virtual learning environment. Consequently, all in-person religious practices interwoven with religious education at these schools——ones deemed essential to the Petitioners' exercise of their faith——were suspended by government decree.

Justice Hagedorn filed a concurring opinion. Justice Dallet, joined by Justices Bradley and Karofsy, dissented, disagreeing with the majority's statutory interpretation and contending the majority did not need to reach the constitutional question.

Suspension of Teacher Who Objected To Transgender Policy Is Enjoined

In Cross v. Louden County School Board, (VA Cir. Ct., June 8, 2021), a Virginia state trial court issued a temporary injunction ordering the Louden County School Board to reinstate a teacher who was suspended for speaking at a school board meeting in opposition to proposed policies that would require teacher to address students using pronouns that conform to their gender identity.  The Board was also ordered to remove its ban on plaintiff's accessing school grounds. The court concluded:

Plaintiff's speech and religious content are central to the determination made by Defendants to suspend Plaintiff's employment.

ADF issued a press release announcing the decision.

Catholic Group Challenges Zoning Refusal To Allow Building Of Chapel

Suit was filed this week in a Michigan federal district court challenging Genoa Township's refusal to allow a Catholic religious organization to develop and construct a 95-seat Chapel and prayer campus on land it acquired from the Diocese of Lansing in 2020. The Township has also demanded that all religious signage already on the property be removed. The complaint (full text) in Catholic Healthcare International, Inc. v. Genoa Charter Township, (ED MI, filed 6/2/2021), alleges that the Township's actions violate plaintiff's rights under RLUIPA, the Michigan Constitution and the First and 14th Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. American Freedom Law Center issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Suspended Teacher Who Opposed Policy On Transgender Students Sues

Suit was filed this week in a Virginia state trial court seeking a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to require the Loudon County School Board to reinstate Bryon Cross, a teacher who was suspended for comments he made at a public school board meeting. The Motion and Memorandum in Support (full text) in Cross v. Loudon County School Board, (VA Cir. Ct., filed 6/1/2021) contend that Cross' free speech and free exercise rights were violated when he was placed on administrative leave for opposing a proposed policy that would require teachers to address students using the student's preferred pronoun. At the school board meeting, Cross said in part:

I'm a teacher but I serve God first. And I will not affirm that a biological boy can be a girl and vice versa because it is against my religion. It's lying to a child. It's abuse to a child. And it's sinning against our God.

ADF issued a press release announcing the filing of the law suit.

Challenges To Alabama COVID-19 Orders Are Unsuccessful

In Case v. Ivey, MD AL, June 1, 2021), six plaintiffs brought a range of constitutional challenges to Alabama Governor Kay Ivey's COVID-19 Orders. In a 68-page opinion, the court dismissed all of them-- some on standing or mootness grounds, others on substantive or qualified immunity grounds. Among the claims, one plaintiff contended that the Orders denied her the right to attend the church of her choice. Two pastors claimed that the Orders resulted in the denial of their right to preach and conduct in-person services. The court concluded that defendants had qualified immunity as to the damage claims against them for violating the First Amendment's Free Exercise, Freedom of Assembly and Establishment Clauses because plaintiffs did not plausibly allege that defendants’ conduct violated law that was clearly established at the time of their actions.