Court OK's Police Department's Rejection of Religious-Themed Flags and Uniform Patches

In Sangervasi v. City of San Jose, (ND CA, May 22, 2023), a California federal district court dismissed a suit by a police officer William Sangervasi who challenged the police department's refusal to adopt his proposed patch and flag designs. The court explained:

In August 2019, as part of the region’s celebration of Silicon Valley Pride Month, Chief Garcia raised a rainbow-themed LGBTQ pride flag in place of the City of San Jose flag on the flagpole outside SJPD headquarters....

On July 28, 2020, Chief Garcia issued official SJPD Memorandum #2020-33, introducing a rainbow-themed LGBTQ pride shoulder patch for the SJPD uniform.... 

On November 11, 2020, Mr. Sangervasi sent a memorandum to Chief Garcia titled, “Desecration of The Uniform by Memorandum #2020-33.” ... Mr. Sangervasi’s memorandum “detailed his intent to forever protect and defend the sacrosanct neutral and impartial visual appearance of The American Uniform” by submitting various “free speech patch and flag designs” that he wanted the SJPD to adopt.... Mr. Sangervasi proposed patch designs featuring phrases and images such as “natural hetero-sexual pride,” what appears to be Christian rosary beads encircling the traditional SJPD crest, and an image of the Christian archangel Saint Michael.... He proposed flag designs featuring phrases and images including, for example, “father + mother = girls + boys,” “white lives matter,” and the confederate battle flag.... Two days later... Mr. Sangervasi was placed on indefinite administrative leave.... On December 11, 2020, Mr. Sangervasi received a letter from Acting Chief Dave Knopf denying Mr. Sangervasi’s demand that the SJPD adopt Mr. Sangervasi’s patch and flag designs.

The court, rejecting plaintiff's free exercise, free speech and equal protection claims, held:

Mr. Sangervasi does not allege any burden on his sincere religious practice pursuant to a policy that is not neutral or generally applicable. Rather, he complains that, if the SJPD authorizes specialty uniform patches to be worn on a voluntary basis, it must allow him to wear religion-themed patches of his own design.... These allegations fail to state a claim for relief because the City has not created a public forum in which Mr. Sangervasi has a right to express any views, let alone those views that may be grounded in religious practice or belief. In the absence of such a forum and as discussed above, the SJPD’s patch designs amount to government speech and do not burden Mr. Sangervasi’s religious practice.

Suit Challenges High School-College Dual Enrollment Plan Exclusion of Some Religious Colleges

Suit was filed yesterday in a Minnesota federal district court challenging a Minnesota statute that excludes certain religious colleges from participating in the state's Postsecondary Enrollment Options (PSEO) program. The program allows students to earn college credits free of charge at public or private colleges while still in high school. An amendment to the PSEO law which will take effect on July 1 bars colleges from participating in the program if the school requires a faith statement from high schoolers or if any part of the admission decision is based on a high schooler's religious beliefs or affiliations.  The complaint (full text) in Loe v. Walz, (D MN, filed 5/24/2023), alleges that the new law variously violates the free exercise, free speech, Establishment Clause and equal protection rights of religious families and religious colleges. The complaint alleges in part:

172. The amendment requires Plaintiffs Crown [College] and [University of] Northwestern to choose between maintaining their religious identities and receiving an otherwise available benefit for which they have been eligible for decades. 

173. It likewise forces the Loe family and the Erickson family to either forgo receipt of an otherwise-available benefit or forgo their right to seek an education in accordance with their religious beliefs.

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

Parents Charge That Elementary School Pride Stories Violate Their Free Exercise Rights

Muslim and Christian parents filed suit yesterday in a Maryland federal district court challenging the Montgomery County School Board's policy that introduces their pre-K and elementary school students to various "Pride Storybooks." The parents are seeking the right to opt their children out of family life and human sexuality instruction, including reading of the Storybooks. The complaint (full text) in Mahmoud v. McKnight, (D MD, 5/24/2023), alleges that requiring their children to listen to the Storybooks violates the parents free exercise and free speech rights, as well as their right to control their children's education.  The complaint alleges in part:

222. The School Board’s policy to mandate the Pride Storybooks to discourage a biological understanding of human sexuality is not neutral toward religion, in part because it assumes that traditional religious views regarding family life and sexuality as supported by sound science and common sense are hurtful, hateful, or bigoted.

223. This burdens the Parents’ freedom to form their children on a matter of core religious exercise and parenting: how to understand who they are.

224. It also burdens the Student Plaintiff’s freedom to receive an education in an environment free from religious discrimination....

254. Far from guaranteeing a fair and objective discussion of religious perspectives, the School Board’s Pride Storybooks and corresponding “resource guide” preclude religious viewpoints on the topics of sexual orientation and gender identity—because of their viewpoint. That is unconstitutional.

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

Counselor Sues After Being Fired for Speaking About School's Gender Support Plan

Suit was filed yesterday in an Indiana federal district court by a school counselor who was fired for speaking with a reporter about her school's Gender Support Plan policy which involves using a gender transitioning student's preferred name and pronouns, sometimes without informing the student's parents. The school claimed that some of the counselor's statements to the reporter were false. The complaint (full text) in McCord v. South Madison Community School Corporation, (SD IN, filed 5/18/2023), alleges that the firing violated the counselor's free speech rights. It also alleged that the school district violated plaintiff's right to free exercise of religion, in violation of the 1st Amendment and of Indiana's Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The complaint alleges in part:

420. ... Mrs. McCord has sincerely held religious beliefs that require her not to participate in the Gender Support Plan policy; socially transitioning students and hiding social transitions from parents would violate those beliefs.

421. If South Madison had not taken adverse employment action against Mrs. McCord in retaliation for exercising her constitutional rights, she could not comply and would not intend to comply with the Gender Support Plan policy’s requirements regarding socially transitioning students and parental notification.

422. South Madison has failed to act in a neutral manner toward Mrs. McCord’s religious beliefs but has instead acted with hostility towards those beliefs.

423. Among other things, its employee, Mr. Taylor, acting pursuant to South Madison’s policies and practices, instructed Mrs. McCord to leave her religious beliefs out of her job as a school counselor.

424. Additionally, South Madison has targeted Mrs. McCord for her religious beliefs by granting accommodations allowing other employees who have not asserted Mrs. McCord’s religious beliefs not to comply with the Gender Support Plan policy, while refusing to grant one to Mrs. McCord.

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

European Court: Finland May Require Jehovah's Witnesses to Obtain Consent Before Taking Notes on Those They Visit

In Jehovah's Witnesses v. Finland, (ECHR, May 9, 2023), the European Court of Human Rights held that Finland's data collection regulations did not infringe the religious freedom protected by Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights of Jehovah's Witnesses who proselytized door-to-door.  At issue was notes taken by Jehovah's Witnesses in the course of their door-to-door preaching identifying those who did not wish to be visited again, and those who are deaf or spoke a foreign language so Witnesses who knew sign language or the relevant foreign language could visit in the future. Finland's Data Protection Ombudsman had held that this personal data could not be collected without the explicit consent of the person in question. Upholding that determination, the court said in part:

The relevant order had been based on the Personal Data Act in force at the time of the proceedings. That law was formulated with sufficient precision and aimed to protect the rights and freedoms of others. The Supreme Administrative Court had taken into account the fact that individuals whose personal data had been collected were entitled to trust that their data were not collected without their knowledge and consent. They also had a legitimate expectation, guaranteed by law, that they would have access to the data and, if necessary, the right to require that the data be corrected or deleted. Ensuring the rights of data subjects therefore inspired confidence rather than distrust in the applicant community’s activities. The consent requirement and the fact that it did not interfere with the core areas of the applicant community’s freedom of religion or freedom of expression had thus been proportionate.

Courthouse News Service reports on the decision.

Teachers Sue Over School District's Policy on Transgender Students

Suit was filed last month in a California federal district court by two middle school teachers who claim that their school district's policy on dealing with transgender students violates their free speech and free exercise rights, as well as the rights of parents.  The complaint (full text) in Mirabelli v. Olson, (SD CA, filed 4/27/2023), alleges in part:

According to EUSD’s policies, all elementary and middle school teachers must unhesitatingly accept a child’s assertion of a transgender or gender diverse identity, and must “begin to treat the student immediately” according to their asserted gender identity. “There’s no requirement for parent or caretaker agreement or even for knowledge.”... There is absolutely no room for discussion, polite disagreement, or even questioning whether the child is sincere or acting on a whim. 

... Once a child’s social transitioning has begun, EUSD elementary and middle school teachers must ensure that parents do not find out. EUSD’s policies state that “revealing a student’s transgender status to individuals who do not have a legitimate need for the information, without the student’s consent” is prohibited, and “parents or caretakers” are, according to EUSD, individuals who “do not have a legitimate need for the information,” irrespective of the age of the student or the specific facts of the situation....

Faced with EUSD’s immoral policies deceiving parents, both Mrs. Mirabelli and Mrs. West sought an accommodation that would allow them to act in the best interests of the children in their care—as required by their moral and religious convictions....

Mrs. Mirabelli’s and Mrs. West’s request was flatly denied.

The two plaintiffs devised a "joint statement of faith" for purposes of the lawsuit, even though they come from different religious traditions. One is Roman Catholic and the other a "devout Christian."  They alleged:

Plaintiffs’ faith teaches that God immutably creates each person as male or female; these two distinct, complementary sexes reflect the image of God; and rejection of one’s biological sex is a rejection of the image of God within that person.

... Plaintiffs also believe that they cannot affirm as true those ideas and concepts that they believe are not true, nor can they aid and abet the deception of others. Doing so, they believe, would violate biblical commands against dishonesty and lying.

Fox News reports on the lawsuit.

Sign Permit Did Not Infringe 1st Amendment Rights of Anti-Abortion Protester

In Roswell v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, (D MD, April 28, 2023), a Maryland federal district court denied a preliminary injunction to plaintiff who challenged the requirement that he obtain a permit in order to place A-frame signs outside a Planned Parenthood Clinic as part of his anti-abortion protest. Rejecting plaintiff's free speech claim, the court concluded that the permit ordinance is content neutral, is narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest, and that there are ample alternatives for plaintiff to communicate his message. Rejecting plaintiff's free exercise claim, the court said in part:

Here, the challenged ordinances are unconcerned with religious exercise; they neither prohibit nor compel religious conduct. Importantly, Plaintiff has made no allegation that either the Police or Zoning ordinance was enacted for the purpose of suppressing religious expression. Further, as discussed, Plaintiff has been freely engaging in protest activity outside of the Planned Parenthood. Plaintiff contends that “his religious conviction compels him to use every effort available to dissuade women” from obtaining abortions, and he has continued to freely express his religious beliefs in front of the facility, merely without the use of A-frame signs. 

Suit Seeks Historic Preservation Funds for Churches

Two historic churches have filed suit in a New Jersey federal district court challenging Morris County's exclusion of properties currently used for religious purposes from receiving Historic Preservation funds from the county. Plaintiffs contend that recent U.S. Supreme Court cases invalidate an earlier state Supreme Court decision barring churches from participation in such funding programs. The complaint (full text) in Mendham Methodist Church v. Morris County, New Jersey, (D NJ, filed 4/28/2023), alleges in part:

In 2018 ... the New Jersey Supreme Court concluded that the Religious Aid Clause of the New Jersey Constitution bars state and local governments from providing grants to preserve the architecture of historic churches. Freedom From Religion Found. v. Morris Cnty. Bd. of Chosen Freeholders ...

This is unconstitutional discrimination on the basis of religion: States and local governments that choose to provide a generally available public benefit—such as historic preservation grants—cannot exclude an otherwise-qualified applicant solely because the applicant happens to be a house of worship. See Carson v. Makin, 142 S. Ct. 1987, 1996 (2022).... ;Espinoza v. Mont. Dep’t of Revenue...., 140 S. Ct. 2246, 2262 (2020)....

First Liberty Institute issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Fire Fighter Can Move Ahead with Free Speech and Free Exercise Claims

In Misjuns v. Lynchburg Fire Department, (WD VA, April 20, 2023), a Virginia federal district court held that a fire department captain who was denied training necessary for promotion, and who was ultimately investigated and terminated from his position, had adequately alleged free speech and free exercise violations. One of plaintiff's contentions was that adverse action was taken against him because of a religious anti-transgender posting on one of his Facebook pages. According to the court:

Plaintiff posted a meme ,,, which stated: “In the beginning, God created Adam & Eve. Adam could never be a Madam. Eve could never become Steve. Anyone who tells you otherwise defies the one true God.”...

Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged ... that Defendants’ retaliatory actions against him were due to religious beliefs, not just political beliefs.

Lynchburg News & Advance reports on the court's decision.

Mississippi Must Grant Religious Exemptions To School Vaccination Requirements

 In Bosarge v. Edney, (SD MS, April 18, 2023), a Mississippi federal district court issued a preliminary injunction requiring Mississippi's State Health Officer, as well as school officials named as defendants, to provide religious exemptions from the state's mandatory vaccination requirements for school children. The court said in part:

The face of the statute allows for medical exemptions but affords no exemption for religious beliefs, and the Complaint alleges that this constitutes “an unconstitutional value judgment that secular (i.e., medical) motivations for opting out of compulsory immunization are permitted, but that religious motivations are not.”....

The Attorney General’s argument is essentially that the Compulsory Vaccination Law does not violate the Free Exercise Clause because the [Mississippi Religious Freedom Restoration Act] MRFRA saves it.... Taking this argument to its logical conclusion as to Plaintiffs’ facial challenge, no Mississippi statute could ever violate the Free Exercise Clause on its face because the more general, non-specific MRFRA applies to all State laws and operates to cure any law that would otherwise be deemed to violate the Free Exercise Clause.... However, at least in this case, the Court is not persuaded that the MRFRA can be read in this fashion with respect to Plaintiffs’ facial challenge.

RNS reports on the decision.

Colorado Bars Abortion Pill Reversal; Suit Challenges New Law

Yesterday, Colorado Governor Jared Polis signed into law SB23-190 (full text). The new law makes it a deceptive trade practice to advertise that a clinic offers abortions, referrals for abortions or emergency contraceptives when it does not offer these services.  It also provides that it is unprofessional conduct for a healthcare provider to prescribe or administer medication abortion reversal, unless by Oct. 1 the state medical, pharmacy and nursing boards all have in effect rules finding that it is a generally accepted standard of practice to engage in medication abortion reversal.

On the same day the bill was signed, an anti-abortion Catholic healthcare clinic filed suit in a Colorado federal district court challenging the new law's provisions on medication abortion reversal as violating its 1st and 14th Amendment rights. The complaint (full text) in Bella Health and Wellness v. Weiser, (D CO, filed 4/14/2023), alleges that the law violates its Free Exercise rights because it is neither neutral nor generally applicable, saying in part:

[A]bortion pill reversal is nothing more than supplemental progesterone. And there are a multitude of off-label uses of progesterone, which has been widely prescribed to women—including pregnant women—for more than 50 years.

... Yet SB 23-190 makes no attempt to regulate—much less outright prohibit— the off-label use of progesterone in any other circumstance. That omission renders SB 23-190 not generally applicable.

The complaint also alleges that the law violates their free speech rights and patients' right to medical treatment.  According to Becket Law, the district court quickly granted Bella Health temporary emergency relief and set a hearing on a preliminary injunction while litigation proceeds for April 24. CPR News reports on the lawsuit.

Dismissal Recommended in Healthcare Worker's Claim for Religious Exemption from Vaccine Mandate

In Bolonchuk v. Cherry Creek Nursing Center/ Nexion Health, (D CO, April 12, 2023), a Colorado federal magistrate judge recommended dismissing a suit by a former nursing home healthcare employee whose 18-year long employment was terminated after she refused on religious grounds to comply with her employer's Covid vaccine mandate for healthcare workers. A state regulation required the vaccine mandate. The court rejected plaintiff's 1st Amendment claim because defendant was not alleged to be a state actor.  It also rejected her claim that Title VII required a religious accommodation, saying in part:

Defendant would have had to violate a state law (i.e., the regulation mandate) in order to accommodate Plaintiff, clearly establishing an undue hardship.

185 Methodist Churches in Georgia Sue Parent Body Seeking Disaffiliation

 At the end of last month, 185 Methodist congregations in Georgia filed suit in a Georgia state trial court against their parent body and its officials.  The congregations are attempting to disaffiliate from the North Georgia Conference of the United Methodist Church pursuant to a provision (❡2553) added to the Church's Book of Discipline in 2019.  The provision, which applies to disaffiliations completed by the end of 2023, allows disaffiliating congregations to keep their real and personal property.  The complaint (full text) in Carrollton First United Methodist Church, Inc. v. Trustees of the North Georgia Conference of the United Methodist Church, Inc., (GA Superior Ct., filed 3/30/2023), alleges in part that: 

Defendants have conspired to "run out the clock" on Plaintiffs ability to utilize ❡2553 by a combination of ultra vires actions, fraudulent misrepresentations, and promises which they have failed to keep so that, unless this court intervenes, Plaintiffs cannot and indeed will not be allowed to fulfill the legislated requirements of ❡2553 in time to meet the sunset date of 12/31/23.

The complaint also alleges that the parent body is no longer allowing disaffiliating churches a credit for their share of a $23 million pension plan reserve fund.

In introductory paragraphs, the complaint contends:

This case can be resolved in accordance with secular Georgia law ... without interfering with the separation of church and state.... Defendants cannot be heard to contest this point, as Defendants have availed themselves of the same principles recently in a substantially similar context in this very court....

UM News, reporting on the lawsuit, says in part:

The lawsuit ... involves more than a quarter of the North Georgia Conference’s nearly 700 congregations. 

It’s also the most congregations that have banded together in a single lawsuit since the denomination began undergoing a slow-motion separation after decades of intensifying debate over LGBTQ inclusion.

Catholic Media Group Can Move Ahead with Free Speech and Assembly Claims

In St. Michael's Media, Inc. v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, (D MD, March 31, 2023), a Maryland federal district court in an 80-page opinion allowed a conservative media organization that often criticizes the current leadership of the Catholic Church to move ahead with free speech and freedom of assembly claims against the city of Baltimore and the management of a city-owned concert venue.  The claims grew out of the cancellation of a contract for plaintiff to hold a conference and prayer rally to coincide with the Fall General Assembly of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. The court said in part:

St. Michael’s sufficiently alleges viewpoint-based discrimination.... St. Michael’s alleges that defendants cancelled the rally “specifically because they disapproved of the content and viewpoint of the speech that was expected to occur at the rally.”... St. Michael’s asserts that, when Voris spoke with Shea regarding the cancellation, “Shea told Mr. Voris that his office had received reports that St. Michael’s had ‘ties to the January 6 [2021] riot’ at the Capitol building in Washington, D.C.”.... As I acknowledged in granting the preliminary injunction ..., “invocation of the events of January 6, 2021, as horrifying as they were, cannot, without more, serve as a license for the City to dispense with its obligations under the First Amendment.”

The court however dismissed plaintiff's free exercise claim, saying in part:

[T]he Second Amended Complaint “does not raise any plausible suspicion”—even a slight suspicion—that plaintiff’s religious exercise was the “object” of the City’s decision to cancel the rally.

It also dismissed plaintiff's Establishment Clause claim, saying in part:

The only allegation in the SAC asserting City support for the USCCB is that “Shea unilaterally canceled St. Michael’s [sic] contract with SMG because the USCCB told him to.”...  [T]his still does not exhibit a religious preference. St. Michael’s bases this assertion on its belief that “Shea was told by USCCB members that the content of speech during St. Michael’s [sic] rally would be uncomfortable or offensive for the attendants of its Fall General Assembly to hear.”... Yet, the only religious element of the rally identified by St. Michael’s is praying the Rosary. There are no facts alleged to support the claim that defendants chose one religious group over another.

North Dakota Enacts A State RFRA

Last week, North Dakota Governor Dout Burgum signed House Bill No. 1136 (full text), North Dakota's version of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The new law provides in part:

... [A]state or local government entity may not:

a. Substantially burden a person's exercise of religion unless applying the burden to that person's exercise of religion in a particular situation is essential to further a compelling governmental interest and is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling government interest;

b. Treat religious conduct more restrictively than any secular conduct of reasonably comparable risk; or

c. Treat religious conduct more restrictively than any comparable secular conduct because of alleged economic need or benefit.

ADF issued a press release announcing the signing of the bill. [Thanks to Greg Chaufen for the lead.]

Muslim Corrections Officer Applicant Can Move Ahead With 1st Amendment and Title VII Claims

In Talukder v. State of New York, (SD NY, March 31, 2023), a New York federal district court allowed a Sunni Muslim applicant to the New York Department of Corrections Training Academy to move ahead with his 1st Amendment free exercise claim as well as his Title VII failure to accommodate and disparate treatment claims.  Plaintiff sought to wear a 3-inch beard for religious reasons, while the Academy was unwilling to permit any beard longer than one-eighth of an inch. Finding a free exercise violation was adequately alleged, the court said in part:

DOCCS allows numerous uniformed staff to grow beards for secular reasons, while simultaneously denying trainees the same accommodation on religious grounds....

The justification that Defendants proffer for the ban—that “all trainees must pass a respirator fit test and applicable respirator training to become certified correctional officers,” ...—raises a fact-intensive inquiry that fails to justify dismissal at this stage. The Complaint raises a plausible inference that a policy requiring all trainees to be clean-shaven or wear facial hair no longer than 1/8 of an inch in order to pass a respiratory fit-test is not narrowly tailored to advance the goal of preparing trainees to become corrections officers—particularly given that many of those officers will never have to wear a respirator at all....

Maker of Religious-Themed Military Dog Tags Can Move Ahead with 1st Amendment Claims Against DoD

In Shields of Strength v. U.S. Department of Defense, (ED TX, March 31, 2023), a Texas federal district court allowed a company that manufactures military personnel "dog tags" to move ahead with certain of its 1st Amendment claims against the military that sought to prevent the company from producing dog tags with Biblical or other religious references near symbols or phrases that the military had registered for trademark protection. DoD regulations provide:

DoD marks may not be licensed for any purpose intended to promote ideological movements, sociopolitical change, religious beliefs (including non-belief), specific interpretations of morality, or legislative/statutory change.

 The court said in part:

If the military does not have meaningful conditions and controls on the licensing of its trademarks, the military may be deemed to have opened a limited public forum for private expression using those marks.... If a public forum were opened, disallowing views that promote religious beliefs would seem a prima facie case of unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination. So defendants’ motion to dismiss the viewpoint-discrimination claims ... is denied....

For purposes of the religious-exercise claims ... the court assumes that any marks not licensed for use on Shields’ dog tags are valid trademarks, used in a way likely to confuse consumers, without a defense to liability (other than religious-exercise rights). The question under Counts 2 and 8 is whether the military’s failure to license that usage violates the Free Exercise Clause or RFRA. 

The answer turns on the same categorization called for by the free-speech challenge.... If the military’s grants of trademark licenses are government speech, then any burden from the military’s licensing choice is justified by the compelling governmental interest that animates trademark law generally and, specifically, a trademark owner’s liberty to decide and control its own vision of a mark’s reputation....

On the other hand, if the military’s program here is so unrestrictive that the military has surrendered any licensing voice—making its licensing program a limited public forum for private speech using the marks—that deficiency also negates the compelling public interest for denying Shields’ ability to use the marks.... 

However, the court refused to issue a preliminary injunction because it found no substantial likelihood of success on the claims.

Church Preschool Challenges California's Anti-Discrimination Rules for Food Program Participants

Suit was filed earlier this month in a California federal district court by a Christian church and its preschool challenging the state's agreement form that was required for participants in the state's Child and Adult Food Care Program. The complaint (full text) in Church of Compassion v. Bonta, (SD CA, filed 3/10/2023), alleges in part:

The new 2022 CDSS PSA required the Church and Dayspring to certify that their management of the CACFP Food Program will be “operated in compliance with all applicable civil rights laws and will implement all applicable non-discrimination regulations....

Because of the Church’s orthodox religious beliefs regarding human sexuality, it was unable to comply with the PSA when it submitted its application for the 2022-2023 year. Specifically, Dayspring signed the PSA statement, but deleted the words “sexual orientation” and “gender identity.”

The complaint alleges that the requirement violates plaintiffs' Free Exercise, Free Speech and Establishment Clause rights. National Center for Law & Policy issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Christain School Sues Over "Poison Pill" Provisions That Exclude It from Maine's Tuition Payment Program

Suit was filed this week in a Maine federal district court by a Christian school challenging 2021 amendments to Maine's Human Rights Act that operate to exclude the school from participating in Maine's tuition payment program for students from districts without public high schools.  The motion for a preliminary injunction (full text) which was filed along with the complaint in Crosspoint Church v. Makin, (D ME, filed 3/27/2023), focuses on provisions in 5 MRSA §4602 that now require schools that participate in the tuition reimbursement program to comply with the sexual orientation and gender identity non-discrimination provisions. Religious schools that do not receive public funding are exempt from that provision. The law also now provides that "to the extent that an educational institution permits religious expression, it cannot discriminate between religions in so doing." Plaintiff characterizes these provisions as "poison pills" that prevent it from participating in the tuition payment program without violating its religious beliefs after the U.S. Supreme Court in Carson v. Makin upheld the right of sectarian schools to participate. Plaintiff seeks a preliminary injunction based on violations of the Free Exercise, Free Speech and Establishment Clauses. Washington Times reports on the lawsuit.

Immigration Officials Violated Pastor's Free Exercise Rights

In Dousa v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, (SD CA, March 21, 2023), a California federal district court held that U.S. immigration officials violated the free exercise rights of Kaji Dousa, a pastor at New York City's Park Avenue Christian Church. Dousa worked extensively with immigrants in Mexico and at the southern border.  The court concluded that her rights were violated when in December 2018 a U.S. Customs and Border Patrol official e-mailed the Mexican government urging it to deny the pastor entry into Mexico and to send her back to the United States. Dousa performed religious marriage ceremonies for immigrant couples with children entering the United States who were in common-law marriages. This made it more likely that they would not be subject to family separation in the U.S. The court said in part:

While the United States undoubtedly has a compelling state interest in protecting the border, Oliveri’s admission that the email was “[l]iterally, creative writing . . . [w]ithout any basis” indicates that there exists no substantial state interest in requesting that Mexican authorities deny entry to Dousa. And, as evidenced by the United States’ other investigative efforts, there exist more “narrowly tailored” approaches to achieve border security. Dousa therefore has established that the CBP violated her Free Exercise rights by restricting her ability to minister to migrants in Mexico.

The court however rejected Dousa's claim that the investigation of her activities violated her free exercise rights. The court ordered:

... Defendants SHALL COMMUNICATE in writing to appropriate Mexican immigration authorities that their request in Oliveri’s December 10, 2018 email is fully and immediately rescinded and revoked as to Dousa.

[Thanks to Heather Kimmel for the lead.]