9th Circuit Reverses Dismissal of Inmate's Complaint Over Exclusion of NOI Texts

In Jones v. Shinn, (9th Cir., Dec.14, 2022), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held that the district court should not have dismissed an inmate's claim that his rights under RLUIPA were violated when prison authorities denied him access to four texts by Elijah Muhammad. The court said in part:

[T]he district court erred in characterizing the religious exercise at issue as whether Jones was denied all Nation of Islam texts rather than whether the exclusion of the specific texts constitutes a substantial burden on his exercise of religion.... 

And because Jones provided evidence that all texts by Elijah Muhammad are “essential religious texts needed to practice the Islamic faith in accordance with the Nation of Islam,” he raised a triable dispute as to whether the exclusion of the texts constitutes a substantial burden on his exercise of religion.

However, the court affirmed the dismissal of plaintiff's 1st Amendment free exercise claims, because defendants showed the exclusion was reasonably related to a legitimate penological interest.

Teacher Sues Over School's Policy on Transgender Students

Suit was filed this week in an Ohio federal district court by a middle school teacher who resigned after refusing on religious grounds to comply with the school's policy regarding transgender students.  The school required teachers to address students by their preferred names and pronouns. The complaint (full text) in Geraghty v. Jackson Local School District Board of Education, (ND OH, filed 12/12/20222), alleges in part:

2. The Constitution guarantees a freedom of thought that includes a freedom to differ.... 

3. The Constitution protects this freedom to differ, in part, by prohibiting the government from adopting and enforcing a set of approved views on these matters in America’s public schools.... 

4. Defendants have abandoned this guiding light and adopted one particular view on this subject: that a person’s subjective identity determines whether a person is male or female, not a person’s sex. Compounding their unlawful adoption of an orthodoxy in this area, they have created and implemented a Policy requiring teachers, including Plaintiff Vivian Geraghty, to mouth her own support of Defendants’ views by forcing her, as a condition of keeping her job as a public school teacher, to participate in the “social transition” of children in her class.

5. Ms. Geraghty has a different view of this fundamental matter, informed by her scientific understanding and her Christian faith....

7. Because no interest justifies the state’s treatment of Ms. Geraghty—indeed, the very nature of free speech, free exercise of religion, and freedom from state-enforced orthodoxy on fundamental matters condemns the state’s attempt to purge contrary views from its schools—she brings this Complaint for injunctive, declaratory, and compensatory relief.

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

Canadian Court Says School Demonstration of Indigenous Rituals Did Not Violate Religious Freedom

In Servatius v. Alberni School District No. 70, (BC CA, Dec. 12, 2022), the Court of Appeal for the Canadian province of British Columbia held that a public elementary school did not violate the religious freedom rights of an evangelical Protestant mother when her daughters' classes were made to view a demonstration of indigenous cultural practices. A Nuu-chah-nulth elder demonstrated a smudging ceremony and at a later time a hoop dancer performed at a school assembly and said a prayer during his performance. The appeals court agreed with the trial judge's conclusion that there was no violation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms because the children merely viewed, and did not participate in the smudging or the prayer. The court said: "religious freedom is not compromised when students are taught about other beliefs." CTV News reports on the decision.

9th Circuit: Native American Student's Suit Over Wearing Eagle Feather at Graduation Should Move Ahead

 In Waln v. Dysart School District, (9th Cir., Dec. 9, 2022), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held that a free speech and free exercise suit against an Arizona school district should not have been dismissed by the district court.  The school district refused to allow a Native American student to wear an eagle feather in her cap during graduation ceremonies. Wearing the eagle feather, which had been blessed and is considered a sacred object, was a religious practice. Sustaining plaintiff's Free Exercise claim, a majority of the court said in part:

Plaintiff has carried her burden, at the motion-to-dismiss stage, to show that the District’s policy [prohibiting decoration of graduation caps] is not generally applicable because it was enforced in a selective manner.

The court also held that plaintiff should be able to move ahead on her free speech claim, saying in part:

Here, the complaint plausibly alleges that the District enforced its facially neutral policy in a selective way.

The majority rejected the school district's contention that it had a compelling interest in complying with the Establishment Clause. 

Judge Baker filed an opinion dissenting in part, contending that plaintiff had not adequately alleged that the school district selectively enforced its policy against decorating graduation caps. However, he believed that the district court erred in not permitting plaintiff to amend her complaint to provide more factual content.

Catholic Parish Sues Michigan Over Expansion of Its Civil Rights Act

Suit was filed this week in a Michigan federal district court by a Catholic parish which operates an elementary school claiming that the Michigan Supreme Court's interpretation of the state's anti-discrimination law violates the parish's First Amendment rights.  The complaint (full text) in St. Joseph Parish St. Johns v. Nessel, (WD MI, filed 12/5/2022), alleges in part:

5. In a series of actions culminating in a Michigan Supreme Court decision from July 2022, the Michigan Attorney General, the Michigan Department of Civil Rights, and the Michigan Civil Rights Commission ... reinterpreted the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act (“ELCRA”) such that provisions which previously prohibited conduct based only on biological sex now also apply to distinctions made based on sexual orientation and gender identity....

10. As a result, Michigan’s new understanding of “sex” discrimination deems it unlawful for St. Joseph’s to follow the 2,000-year-old teachings of the Catholic Church, including its teaching that marriage is a lifelong commitment between one man and one woman, that sexual relations are limited to marriage, and that human beings are created as either male or female....

11. Michigan’s reinterpretation poses an imminent threat to St. Joseph. St. Joseph needs to hire new employees and to publicize its job openings. St. Joseph’s advertisements would note, as they have in the past, that applicants must be “practicing Catholic[s] with the ability to infuse Catholic faith and teaching throughout the curriculum.”... 

12. St. Joseph is also reviewing applications for new families seeking to send their children to its school. And families at St. Joseph Catholic School enter a “Family – School Agreement.” This agreement requires, among other things, that parents and students agree “to live their lives in a way that supports, rather than opposes, the mission of our school and our faith beliefs.”

13. Also at stake is St. Joseph’s ability to rent its facilities—like its gymnasium and soccer fields—and whether it can carry out its parish activities open to all, like attending Mass, without being held liable as a public accommodation....

15. St. Joseph’s religious decisions regarding how to advance its mission and ministry are protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Michigan cannot force the Catholic Church to compromise its religious character simply as a function of its doors being open to all.

Becket has a case page with more details on the case.

Court Rejects Religious Challenges to COVID Mask Requirements

 In Joseph v. Becerra, (WD WI, Nov. 29, 2022), a Wisconsin federal district court rejected a pro se plaintiff's claims that VA and Postal Service COVID masking requirements violated his free exercise and Establishment Clause rights as well as various other rights. The court said in part:

Joseph refuses to wear a mask, which he views as a medical device and religious symbol. A Christian, Joseph claims to practice his faith in part by “taking a stance against what he sees and understands to be evil or unlawful,” such as the masking requirements.... Specifically, Joseph alleges that the masking requirements violate several of the tenets of his faith and promotes “Collectivism” over his individual rights. By promulgating a masking policy, Joseph further alleges that the federal government is seeking to establish “a nameless and covert religion/religious order” that “is a type of scientism ... discriminatory and divisive in nature and in practice.”...

[P]laintiff’s Establishment Clause claim is not only based on a Bivens claim not yet recognized by the Supreme Court, but also on the “faulty premise” that “scienticsm” is a religion. .... Admittedly, the governing case law does not precisely define the contours of what constitutes “religion,” but “courts are well-equipped to weed out spurious Establishment Clause ‘religions’ on grounds of common sense.”...

[E]ven if wearing a mask has substantially impaired plaintiff’s ability to exercise his faith while receiving in-person medical treatment, working, traveling in public spaces, or attending public events, rules that have only an “incidental effect of burdening a religious practice” will pass muster under the Free Exercise Clause provided they are applied neutrally and generally applicable.

7th Circuit: Law on Disposal of Fetal Remains Does Not Violate 1st Amendment

In Doe v. Rokita, (7th Cir., Nov. 28, 2022), the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected 1st Amendment challenges to an Indiana statute that requires abortion providers to dispose of fetal remains either by burial or by cremation. The suit was brought both by two women who raise free exercise claims and by two physicians who oppose the requirement that they inform patients of the law's provisions. The court said in part:

[N]either of the two plaintiffs who has had an abortion contends that a third party’s cremation or burial of fetal remains would cause her to violate any religious principle indirectly. What these two plaintiffs contend is that cremation or burial implies a view—the personhood of an unborn fetus—that they do not hold. They maintain that only human beings are cremated or buried. This is questionable. Dogs, cats, and other pets may be cremated or buried, sometimes as a result of legal requirements not to put animals’ bodies in the garbage,,,,. Indiana’s statute about fetal remains therefore need not imply anything about the appropriate characterization of a fetus. At all events, a moral objection to one potential implication of the way medical providers handle fetal remains is some distance from a contention that the state compels any woman to violate her own religious tenets....

As for the requirement that physicians and other providers tell patients about the statutory options: no one contends that the required notice is false or misleading....

The norm that units of government may require physicians (and other professionals) to provide accurate information to their clients long predates Casey and has not been disturbed since...

Suit Claims School's Restroom Policy Burdens Muslim and Christian Religious Beliefs

Suit was filed this week in an Ohio federal district court challenging a school district's rule change that allows transgender students to use restrooms and locker rooms that conform to their gender identity.  Plaintiffs, who identify as Muslims and Christians, claim, among other contentions, that the new rules violate their free exercise and equal protection rights, their parental rights and Title IX.  The complaint (full text) in Doe No. 1 v. Bethel Local School District Board of Educaton, (SD OH, filed 11/22/2022), alleges in part:

67. The [Muslim] Plaintiffs ... sincerely believe that Allah makes men and women in the womb as distinct and separate genders. Allah desires modesty and separateness between the sexes. Satan attempts to entice humans to change and disobey what Allah has created and desires, and believers are to stay true to Allah’s creation and commands....

68. Muslim parents are responsible for raising their children in the faith including its morals and values....  This is a fundamental part of the parents’ exercise of their own faith. The Board is imposing a substantial burden on the free exercise of that faith by placing the children in intimate facilities with members of the opposite biological sex....

79. [Seven of the] Plaintiffs ... are all active members of the Christian community.

80. For thousands of years, Judeo-Christianity has taught that their identity as people comes from God, who made human beings in his image—male and female. See, e.g., Genesis 1:26-28; Matthew 19:4-6. Therefore, a human being’s dignity comes from the image of God himself. And God’s fashioning of a human being as a man or woman at birth is a fundamental part of that dignity. One cannot impose on that dignity without transgressing the fundamental core of a Christian.

Fox News reports on the lawsuit.

Football Coach Sues After Being Fired for Religious Refusal of Covid Vaccine

Suit was filed last week by the former head football coach for Washington State University who was fired after refusing on religious grounds to comply with the state's Covid vaccine mandate for state employees. The Athletic Department refused to grant him a religious accommodation, questioning the sincerity of his religious objections as well as the University's ability to accommodate his objections. The complaint (full text) in Rolovich v. Washington State University, (WA Super. Ct., filed 11/14/2022), alleges that the coach's firing amounts to religious discrimination in violation of state and federal law and infringement of plaintiff's free exercise and due process rights. Campus Reform reports on the lawsuit.

Maryland County's Election Process for Student School Board Member Survives Free Exercise Challenge

 In Kim v. Board of Education of Howard County, (D MD, Nov. 18, 2022), a Maryland federal district court rejected both equal protection and free exercise challenges to the manner in which the student member of the 8-member Howard County School Board is selected. In an elaborate process, the final step in the selection of the student member is a vote by public school students in grades 6 to 11. In rejecting the free exercise claim, the court said in part:

Plaintiffs argue that the Student Member selection process violates the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause because it bars certain students from voting for the Student Member “solely because they attend a religious school or are homeschooled for religious reasons.”... This claim will be dismissed because Plaintiffs have not plausibly alleged that the Student Member statute burdens religion—and even if it did, the law is neutral and generally applicable.

The court also rejected equal protection claims that the process violated the one-person one-vote mandate and uniformity rules.

Cross On Park Land Must Remain While State Court Reconsiders Its Eminent Domain Ruling

 In Lions Club of Albany, California v. City of Albany, (ND CA, Nov. 17, 2022), a California federal district court clarified its 2018 ruling in which it held that the city of Albany violated the Establishment Clause by acquiring for a public park a 1.1 acre parcel of land that includes a large cross. Originally the cross was on private property, and the Lion's Club held an easement to maintain the 20-foot high cross and to illuminate it each Christmas and Easter. In its earlier ruling the court said that the city could cure its Establishment Clause problem in one of several ways, one of which was by taking the Lion's Club easement by eminent domain. (See prior posting.) In May 2022, the city began state court eminent domain proceedings.  The state court permitted the city to take prejudgment possession of the Lion's Club easement and take down the cross and store it in a safe place. The Lion's Club than filed the present federal court action seeking a preliminary injunction, contending that its free speech and free exercise rights were being violated. The court said in part:

The City wants to keep the park and remove the cross, not sell the land. Further, as revealed at our hearing, there is and has been no current offer by the Lions Club to purchase a parcel that includes the cross. These considerations are relevant in weighing hardships and, as explained above, the question of provisional relief is wholly in the hands of the [state court] Judge Chatterjee. He is free to rule either way without offending any order or dictum by this court. 

At our hearing, however, it also developed that the City cannot say with any certainty whether it can put the cross back up after its provisional removal, should the City ultimately lose the eminent domain jury trial.... Thus, as the Court sees things, this is not just a decision merely pending litigation, but rather practically, once the cross is down, it is down for good. This raises a serious exercise of religion problem and in considering this issue, Judge Chatterjee’s ruling appears to have been based on a misunderstanding of this Court’s prior ruling. Therefore, until such time as Judge Chatterjee can reassess the motion for prejudgment possession, taking into consideration the correct understanding of the June 2018 Order, removal of the cross is ENJOINED.

9th Circuit: Religious School's Challenge to Covid Restrictions Is Moot

In Horizon Christian School v. Brown, (9th Cir., Nov. 17, 2022), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held that the free exercise and parental rights challenges to the Oregon governor's previous Covid restrictions on in-person school classes is moot. The claim for nominal damages does not prevent mootness because the suit against the governor in her official capacity is barred by the 11th Amendment. The court denied leave to amend plaintiffs' complaint because defendant had qualified immunity.  Judge O'Scannlain filed a concurring opinion saying that if there were not qualified immunity, he would hold that the governor's order impinged a fundamental constitutional right.

5th Circuit: District Court's Order on Religious Rights in Execution Chamber Was Too Broad

In Barbee v. Collier, (5th Cir., Nov. 11, 2022), the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals vacated and remanded for further proceedings an injunction issued by a Texas federal district court that barred the execution of convicted murderer Stephen Barbee until the Texas Department of Criminal Justice publishes a clear policy on inmates' religious rights in the execution chamber. Barbee wants his spiritual advisor to pray aloud with him and hold his hand. (See prior posting.) The 5th Circuit said in part:

While a written policy may be desirable ..., the available remedy for Barbee’s RLUIPA violation “is an injunction ordering the accommodation,” ... As it stands, the preliminary injunction ordering the Defendants to enact a written policy on religious accommodation that would apply to all executions is overbroad and must be vacated. The district court may instead consider what relief specific to Barbee is consistent with Ramirez and is appropriate in this case.

On Monday, Barbee filed with U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito an Application for a Stay of Execution (full text) and a Petition for Certiorari (full text). Yesterday, the state filed a Brief in Opposition to Barbee's filings (full text). Barbee's execution is currently scheduled for 6:00 pm Central Time today.  Courthouse News Service reports on these developments.

UPDATE: On Wednesday, Nov. 16, the U.S. Supreme Court denied Barbee's application for a stay of execution and his petition for certiorari. (Full text of Order.). Courthouse News Service reports.

Claims Against Social Worker Who Questioned Foster Parents' Religion Is Dismissed

 In Sarmiento v. Marquez, (ND CA, Nov. 10, 2022), a California federal district court dismissed religious discrimination and retaliation claims against county social work personnel who attempted, ultimately unsuccessfully, to remove a foster child from plaintiffs' care. The court explained:

Plaintiffs contend that, as they were proceeding toward adoption of the child in their care, County social worker Luz Sanclemente asked Sarmiento whether she “[believed] in God,” and whether she “[believed] in Jesus Christ.” ... Plaintiffs allege that defendants thereafter sought to remove the child from their care in “retaliation for not appearing to be Christians.”

However, the court concluded:

Sanclemente’s query into plaintiffs’ beliefs ... did not at all “coerce [them] into acting contrary to their religious beliefs or exert substantial pressure on [plaintiffs] to modify [their] behavior and to violate [their] beliefs.” ... Plaintiffs do not identify any action they took differently based on Sanclemente’s questioning. Plaintiffs do not represent that Sanclemente offered a quid pro quo, such as continued custody of the child in exchange for plaintiffs’ conversion to Christianity....

A First Amendment claim for retaliation requires a “substantial causal relationship” between a plaintiff’s “constitutionally protected activity” and “adverse [government] action . . . that would chill a person of ordinary firmness from continuing to engage in the protected activity.”,,,

Here, the [complaint] only speculates that there was a relationship between (1) plaintiffs’ response to Sanclemente that they are not Christians and (2) defendants’ actions to remove the child from plaintiffs’ care....

Texas Prisons Must Adopt Formal Policy on Religious Rights in Execution Chamber

In Barbee v. Collier, (SD TX, Nov. 3, 2022), an inmate whose execution had been scheduled sought a court order from a Texas federal district requiring Texas to allow his spiritual advisor to be present with him in the execution chamber, to pray audibly with him and have physical contact with him, holding his hand, to confer a blessing on him. The Director of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice filed a series of affidavits assuring the court that these requests would be granted and moved dismiss the lawsuit as moot. The court, however, was unconvinced, saying in part:

In Ramirez [v.  Collier], the Supreme Court encouraged States to "adopt clear rules" and "streamlined procedures" that would protect an inmate's religious rights in the execution chamber.... TDCJ has not responded by enacting any formal policy guaranteeing religious expression in the execution chamber. Instead, TDCJ has left in place an official execution protocol that contains provisions describing the presence, approval process, and vetting requirements for spiritual advisors. Hence, the 2021 protocol is silent as to what a spiritual advisor may do, if anything, inside the execution chamber.,,, 

TDCJ has apparently left the question of what a spiritual advisor may do to the discretion of prison officials.... Until quite recently, TDCJ officials interpreted the silence in the official protocol to prohibit any physical touch or audible prayer in the execution chamber. Now, TDCJ would have the Court accept their latest pronouncement that the same provisions may be read to allow physical contact and audible prayer.... TDCJ officials have initiated a practice of allowing physical contact and audible prayer when the requests are sufficiently timely and permit security checks.

However, the defendants have not specifically formalized in a policy or otherwise described what the basis is for it unwritten practice....

[TDJC] has been encouraged by the highest court in the land to develop a policy that can be reviewed.  The stubbornness of TDCJ to enact a policy that removes all discretion, except in critical instances, militates against extending the lesser burden to TDCJ.

The court entered a Preliminary Injunction that provides:

Texas [TDCJ] may proceed with the execution of Stephen Barbee on November 16, 2022, only after it publishes a clear policy that has been approved by its governing policy body that (1) protects an inmate's religious rights in the execution chamber and (2) sets out any exceptions to that policy, further describing with precision what those exceptions are or may be.

2nd Circuit Remands Challenge to Emergency Ban of Unvaccinated Children from Public Places

In M.A. v Rockland County Department of Health, (2d Cir., Nov. 9, 2022), the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals sent back to the trial court a free exercise challenge to Rockland County, New York's Emergency Declaration barring children who were not vaccinated against measles from places of public assembly.  Children with medical exemptions were exempt from the ban. The court said in part:

Because there are factual issues relevant to whether the Emergency Declaration was neutral and generally applicable, the district court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Defendants on Plaintiffs’ claim that the Emergency Declaration violated their rights under the Free Exercise Clause. While a reasonable juror could conclude that [County Executive] Day’s statements evinced religious animus, rendering the Declaration not neutral, a reasonable juror could also conclude the opposite. Similarly, there are disputes of fact regarding whether the Declaration, in practice, primarily affected children of religious objectors or whether there was a sizable population of children who were unvaccinated for a variety of non-medical and non-religious reasons. There are also disputes as to whether the County’s purpose in issuing the Declaration was to stop the spread of measles or to encourage vaccination. Given these fact-intensive issues, the district court’s grant of summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ Free Exercise Claim was erroneous.

Judge Park filed a concurring opinion, saying in part:

In the spring of 2019, Rockland County quarantined children who were unvaccinated for measles for religious reasons— prohibiting them from entering any public place—but not children who were unvaccinated with medical exemptions. County officials did not even try to hide their reasons for engaging in this “religious gerrymander[ing],” which served to isolate, target, and burden Plaintiffs’ religious practices.... To them, Plaintiffs were “anti-vaxxers” who were “loud, very vocal, [and] also very ignorant.”...

European Court: Human Rights Convention Violated When French Authorities Failed to Assure Respect for Foster Child's Birth Religion

In Loste v. France, (ECHR, Nov. 3, 2022) (full text in French) (Press Release summary in English), the European Court of Human Rights in a Chamber judgment held that France's child welfare service violated Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights when it failed to assure that a Jehovah's Witness foster family was respecting the Muslim beliefs of its foster child's birth family. The Court's decision also dealt with a separate issue--French authorities' failure to protect the foster child from sexual abuse by her foster father. Law & Religion UK has more on the decision.

Suit Challenges New York Ban on Firearms in Houses of Worship

Suit was filed this week in a New York federal district court challenging the constitutionality of New York's ban on carrying firearms in houses of worship. The complaint (full text) in His Tabernacle Family Church, Inc. v. Nigrelli, (WD NY, filed 11/3/2022) alleges that the ban violates the free exercise, Establishment Clause, Second Amendment, and equal protection rights of a church and its pastor.  The complaint says in part:

S51001 forbids Pastor Spencer and the Church’s members, under threat of criminal penalties, from exercising their religious conviction to carry firearms into the Church to protect themselves and other congregants.....

[S51101]  subjects houses of worship to disfavored treatment while treating comparable secular organizations, such as retail stores or restaurants, more favorably than those offering religious exercise....

A church’s authority over who may enter the sanctuary and under what circumstances lies at the very heart of “the general principle of church autonomy” protected by the Establishment Clause.....

First Liberty issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit. Last month, in another case, the same court issued a temporary restraining order barring enforcement of this statutory provision. (See prior posting.)

Emergency Injunction Against NYC City-Worker Vaccine Mandates Sought from Supreme Court

An Emergency Application for an Injunction Pending Appellate Review (full text) was filed with the U.S. Supreme Court yesterday in New Yorkers for Religious Liberty v. City of New York.  The petition seeks an injunction against enforcing New York City's Covid vaccine mandates for city workers against those with religious objections to the vaccine. Petitioners argue in part:

Because the City’s Mandates provide for individualized exemptions, play denominational favorites, grant the government substantial discretion, and treat religious objectors less favorably than secular (e.g., economic) objectors, the Mandates violate Applicants’ free-exercise rights.

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

Challenges To School COVID Mitigation Requirements Are Dismissed

 In Tracy v. Stephens, (D UT, Nov. 1, 2022), a Utah federal district court dismissed claims that plaintiffs' rights were violated by school district COVID orders requiring the wearing of masks and social distancing.  The court said in part:

Plaintiffs have not identified what speech or type of speech was suppressed, meaning the court cannot apply the correct test to determine whether a regulation of it was permissible.... Plaintiffs have also not pleaded facts allowing for a plausible inference that by declining to wear masks or face coverings, or to participate in social distancing or isolation measures, they were engaged in inherently expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment....

Plaintiffs assert the Free Exercise Clause is implicated because they “hold a deeply held religious belief against the covering of their faces as this would violate their religious conscience,” and that they have a “God-given right to refuse unwanted medical treatment.”... But the Amended Complaint does not contain sufficient facts for the court to engage in the required analysis. Plaintiffs neither sufficiently identify the religious practices targeted and suppressed by Defendants, nor the provision(s) of the regulation(s) used by Defendants to target these practices. But Plaintiffs do identify an exemption process that would seemingly have allowed them to avoid the regulations’ requirements....

The court also dismissed plaintiffs' freedom of association, due process, equal protection, 4th, 9th and 13th Amendment, Civil Rights Act, conspiracy and state constitutional claims.