More Context Needed In Student's Suit Over Right To Wear Shirt With Anti-Gay Bible Verse

In B.A.P. v. Overton County Board of Education, (MD TN, April 27, 2022), a Tennessee federal district court refused to dismiss a suit challenging on free exercise and free speech grounds a school's disciplining of a student who refused to take off a shirt that read: "homosexuality is a sin - 1 Corinthians 6:9-10." The court said in part:

 "[T]o justify prohibition of a particular expression of opinion" under Tinker, a school must show that it acted out of '"more than a mere desire to avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that always accompany an unpopular viewpoint,' but rather, 'that the school authorities had reason to anticipate that the [student’s expression] would substantially interfere with the work of the school or would impinge upon the rights of other students.'"...

Here, an adequate analysis of B.A.P.’s First Amendment claims ... requires a more developed record than is available on a motion to dismiss. ....

Plaintiffs allege that Henson removed B.A.P. from class due to the message on her shirt, Melton did not allow her to return to class because of this message, and both Melton and Henson told B.A.P. she could not wear the shirt to school going forward. The Amended Complaint does not, however, supply specific facts and context about Livingston Academy and the surrounding community at the time Melton and Henson took these actions. Without this context, the Court cannot determine whether Melton and Henson reasonably forecasted that the message on B.A.P.’s shirt would cause substantial disruption or interference with the rights of other students. Accordingly, B.A.P.’s First Amendment claims against Melton and Henson will not be dismissed for failure to state a claim.

Parents Sue Over School's Nondisclosure Of Children's Gender Identity Issues

Suit was filed in a Massachusetts federal district court earlier this month by four parents challenging a school policy to not notify parents of their child’s gender nonconformity or transgender status unless the child consents. The complaint in Foote v. Ludlow School Committee, (D MA, filed 4/12/2022), (full text) alleges that the policy violates parental rights of all the plaintiffs, as well as the free exercise rights of certain of the plaintiffs. It alleges in part:

158. Plaintiffs have sincerely held religious beliefs that all people are to be treated with respect and compassion, and that respect and compassion do not include misrepresenting an individual’s natural created identity as either a male or a female.

159. Plaintiffs have sincerely held religious beliefs that individuals are to speak the truth, including speaking the truth regarding matters of sexual identity as a male or female.

160. Defendants’ actions in excluding Plaintiffs Feliciano and Salmeron from decision making regarding their children’s sexual and gender identity target the Plaintiffs’ beliefs regarding the created order, human nature, sexuality, gender, ethics, and morality which constitute central components of their sincerely held religious beliefs.

Christian Post reports on the lawsuit.

CLS Members Sue University Of Idaho Over No-Contact Orders

Three members of the Christian Legal Society at the University of Idaho filed suit against University administrators on Monday contending that the University's Title IX Policy and Conduct and Discipline Policies, facially and as applied to them violate their free speech, free exercise and due process rights.  The complaint (full text) in Perlot v. Green, (D ID, filed 4/25/2022) alleges that the University's Office of Civil Rights and Investigations issued "no contact" orders against the three students barring the from having contact with another student with whom they had had a discussion about Christian views on sexuality and marriage. ADF issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Company Is Not "State Actor" When It Complies With Federal Vaccine Mandate

In Ciraci v. J. M. Smucker Co., (ND OH, April 20, 2022), an Ohio federal district court dismissed a suit by employees of a food manufacturer who claim that their 1st Amendment free exercise rights were infringed when their employer denied them religious exemptions and required them to comply with the Presidential Executive Order mandating COVID vaccinations for employees of federal contractors. The court said in part:

For Plaintiffs to succeed on their Free Exercise Clause ... claim, they need to establish first that Smucker is a state actor.... 

A private entity is not subject to constitutional constraints except in a few limited circumstances, for example: (1) “when the private entity performs a traditional, exclusive public function;” (2) “when the government compels the private entity to take a particular action;” (3) “when the government acts jointly with the private entity.”...

Here, Plaintiffs allege that Defendant is a federal actor because it acted pursuant to “policies, practices, customs, and procedures created, adopted, and enforced under color of federal law.” Without more facts, this allegation is conclusory and does not plead enough facts to place it in any of the exceptions listed above.

Arizona Passes New Protections For Religious Organizations

The Arizona legislature this week gave final passage to HB 2507 (full text) which is primarily aimed at preventing state and local governments from closing down religious organizations in future states of emergency.  However it also includes this broader provision:

State government or any private person who sues under or attempts to enforce a law, rule or regulation that is adopted by the state or a political subdivision of this state may not take any discriminatory action against a religious organization on the basis that the organization ... engages in the exercise of religion as protected under the First Amendment....

AZ Mirror reports on the bill.

$400,000 Settlement In Favor Of Prof Who Refused To Recognize Student's Gender Transition

After the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in 2021 held that Shawnee State University violated the free speech and free exercise rights of a philosophy professor when the school insisted that Professor Nick Meriwether address a transgender student by her preferred gender pronoun, a settlement has been reached in the case. According to a press release from ADF, the university agreed to pay $400,000 in damages plus attorneys' fees. Also, according to the press release:

As part of the settlement, the university has agreed that Meriwether has the right to choose when to use, or avoid using, titles or pronouns when referring to or addressing students. Significantly, the university agreed Meriwether will never be mandated to use pronouns, including if a student requests pronouns that conflict with his or her biological sex.

A stipulation of voluntary dismissal was filed yesterday in Meriwether v. Trustees of Shawnee State University, (SD OH filed 4/14/2022).

Plaintiff's Ban From Space Center Upheld

In Duvall v. United States Space and Rocket Center, (ND AL, April 11, 2022) an Alabama federal district court dismissed claims that plaintiff's free exercise, free speech and freedom of assembly rights were violated when he was banned from the Space Center's property. The ban was imposed after plaintiff was trying at the Center "to bust open Seal No. 7 of the Holy Bible.”

Ban On Prayer Over PA System At High School Playoffs Did Not Violate 1st Amendment

In Cambridge Christian School, Inc. v. Florida High School Athletic Association, Inc., (MD FL, March 31, 2022), in a case on remand from the 11th Circuit, a Florida federal district court held that the Florida High School Athletic Association did not violate the 1st Amendment rights of a Christian school when it refused to allow it to broadcast a pre-game prayer over the PA system at a state championship playoff against another Christian school. The court said in part:

This case is not about whether two Christian schools may pray together at a football game....  [P]layers and coaches from both teams, along with some officials, met at the 50-yard line of the Citrus Bowl to pray together before the game and again on the sidelines after the game.... But they were not permitted to deliver their prayer over the PA system during the pregame....

Addressing plaintiff's free speech claims, the court said in part:

[P]regame speech over the PA system at the championship finals football game hosted by the FHSAA at a state-owned venue is government speech....

Even if some of the speech conducted over the PA system at the 2015 2A State Championship Final football game could be classified as private speech, the FHSAA’s viewpoint neutral regulation of the speech in the nonpublic forum was not unconstitutional....

Here, no one else was permitted to speak over the PA system during the pregame except the announcer, and pursuant to a predetermined script, which did not include speech and viewpoints of other groups, organizations, or religions....

Also, rejecting free exercise claims, the court said in part: 

On the facts of this case, the Court concludes that communal pregame prayer over the PA system is a preference of CCS’s, not a deeply rooted tradition that rises to the level of a sincerely held belief.

Supreme Court Stays District Court's Ban On Navy Applying Vaccine Mandate To SEALs With Religious Objections

Yesterday in Austin v. U.S. Navy Seals 1-26, (Sup.Ct., March 25, 2022), in a case on its shadow docket, the U.S. Supreme Court by a vote of 6-3 stayed a Texas district court's order that barred the Navy from considering the COVID vaccination status of 35 service members in making deployment, assignment and operational decisions. The service members all have religious objections to the vaccines. The Court's stay remains in effect while appeals to the 5th Circuit and, subsequently if necessary, to the Supreme Court are pending. The stay was granted through an unsigned one-paragraph order.  However, Justice Kavanaugh filed a concurring opinion, saying in part:

[T]he District Court, while no doubt well-intentioned, in effect inserted itself into the Navy’s chain of command, overriding military commanders’ professional military judgments. The Court relied on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act... But even accepting that RFRA applies in this particular military context, RFRA does not justify judicial intrusion into military affairs in this case. That is because the Navy has an extraordinarily compelling interest in maintaining strategic and operational control over the assignment and deployment of all Special Warfare personnel—including control over decisions about military readiness. And no less restrictive means would satisfy that interest in this context.

Justice Thomas dissented without opinion.  Justice Alito, joined by Justice Gorsuch, filed a dissenting opinion, which concluded that the Navy had not satisfied the requirements of RFRA or the 1st Amendment.  However, the opinion would grant limited relief to the Navy while appeals are pending.  The opinion said in part:

While I am not sure that the Navy is entitled to any relief at this stage, I am also wary, as was the District Court, about judicial interference with sensitive military decision making. Granting a substantial measure of deference to the Navy, I would limit the [district court's] order to the selection of the Special Warfare service members who are sent on missions where there is a special need to minimize the risk that the illness of a member due to COVID–19 might jeopardize the success of the mission or the safety of the team members.

NBC News reports on the decision. [Thanks to Joshua Sarnoff via Religionlaw for the lead.]

Suit Says Border Agents Questioned Muslims About Their Religious Practices

Suit was filed yesterday in a California federal district court by three Muslim Americans who claim that they were asked religiously intrusive questions by U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents upon their return from international travel. Among the questions were: “How often do you pray?” “Do you attend mosque?” “Which mosque do you attend?” “Are you Sunni or Shi’a?”  The complaint (full text) in Kariye v. Mayorkas, (CD CA, filed 3/24/2022), contends in part:

Religious questioning such as this violates the U.S. Constitution. It furthers no valid—let alone compelling—government interest, and it is an affront to the First Amendment freedoms of religion and association. Moreover, because Defendants specifically target Muslim Americans for such questioning, they also violate the First and Fifth Amendments’ protections against unequal treatment on the basis of religion. Just as border officers may not single out Christian Americans to ask what denomination they are, which church they attend, and how regularly they pray, singling out Muslim Americans for similar questions is unconstitutional....

 This practice also violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

 Wall Street Journal reports on the lawsuit.

No RLUIPA Or Free Exercise Violation In Denying Sewer Service To Proposed Church Building

In Canaan Christian Church v. Montgomery County Maryland, (4th Cir., March 22, 2022), the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals held that Montgomery County did not violate a church's rights under RLUIPA or the 1st Amendment when it refused to extend public sewer lines to properties on which the church proposed to construct a new larger building for its congregation. The land use and water plans covering the properties provided that no public sewer service would be permitted (except for public health requirements). The church's purchase contracts for the properties were contingent on the county's approval of sewer service. The court said in part:

Because Appellants were well aware of the difficulties in development of the Property when they entered into the contract to purchase the Property, they could not have a reasonable expectation of religious land use. Further, the land use restrictions are rationally related to the government’s interest in protecting the region’s watershed.

A concurring opinion by Judge Richardson took issue with some of the analysis in the majority opinion.

DC Minor Consent Law Violates Parents' Free Exercise Rights

In Booth v. Bowser, (D DC, March 18, 2022), a D.C. federal district court granted a preliminary injunction on free exercise grounds against the Minor Consent for Vaccinations Act Amendment of 2020 which allows minors who are at least 11 years old to consent to vaccinations without parental approval. The court concluded that the Act burdens religious practice, explaining:

If a minor’s parent has filed a religious exemption for the child and the child elects to get a vaccine anyway, a healthcare provider must leave blank part 3 of the Certificate. Id. Part 3 is the child’s immunization record. This serves to obfuscate the child’s vaccination from his parents. But the MCA does not require providers to leave blank part 3 of the Certificate for students whose parents filed a medical exemption.

Washington Post reports on the decision.

Churches Can Move Ahead On Damage Claims Against County For Its COVID Orders

In Calvary Chapel San Jose v. Cody, (ND CA, March 18, 2022), two churches and their pastors sued the state of California and Santa Clara County over their COVID orders. As explained by the court:

Beginning in March 2020, both the State and the County issued emergency orders that instituted capacity limits for certain types of facilities, restricted the practice of certain activities (including singing and chanting), and required individuals to wear masks in many situations....

[Plaintiffs alleged] that the emergency orders imposed harsher restrictions on churches than on other institutions. When Calvary Chapel admittedly defied those orders, Plaintiffs allege that the County sent threatening letters to the church’s bank and levied against it millions of dollars in fines for the violations. Plaintiffs bring nine claims, alleging violations of their First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights under the Federal Constitution, violations of the California Constitution, and a violation of California’s Bane Act.

The court granted the state of California's motion to dismiss, finding that plaintiffs' claims for injunctive and declaratory relief are moot, and that any claim for damages is barred by the 11th Amendment. However damage claims against the county were allowed to move forward. The court concluded that plaintiffs had adequately plead free exercise, freedom of assembly, equal protection, and excessive fines claims.

Anti-Abortion Protesters Can Move Ahead With Challenge To COVID Order

 In Global Impact Ministries, Inc. v. City of Greenspboro, (MD NC, March 16, 2022), a North Carolina federal district court allowed plaintiffs who were anti-abortion protesters, to move ahead with their free speech, freedom of association, equal protection, due process and 4th Amendment claims.  Plaintiffs allege that the city's COVID stat-at-home order was enforced to bar them from walking, praying, and counseling outside of an abortion clinic while others who were not praying or engaging in religious speech were allowed to walk in the area. The court did dismiss plaintiffs' free exercise claim, finding that the COVID order was neutral and generally applicable.

Kansas Teacher Sues Over Requirement To Use Students' Preferred Pronouns

 CNN reported last week on a lawsuit filed by a Fort Riley, Kansas middle school teacher who was disciplined for refusing to call a transgender student by the student's preferred name and pronouns. The complaint alleges in part:

Any policy that requires Ms. Ricard to refer to a student by a gendered, non-binary, or plural pronoun (e.g., he/him, she/her, they/them, zhe/zher, etc.) or salutation (Mr., Miss, Ms.) or other gendered language that is different from the student's biological sex actively violates Ms. Ricard's religious beliefs.

Alaska Supreme Court Upholds Award Of Vaccination Decision-Making To Father Over Mother's Religious Objections

 In Lady Donna Dutchess v. Dutch, (AK, March 9, 2022), the Alaska Supreme Court upheld a trial court's decision awarding sole authority to make decisions regarding vaccinations to a divorced father. The mother objected to all vaccinations for the children on religious grounds. The mother contended that this violated her free exercise rights under the state and federal constitutions. Rejecting that argument, the Alaska Supreme Court said in part:

We are not convinced that heightened scrutiny necessarily applies to child custody determinations allocating decision-making authority between parents, nor did the parties brief this issue. We note that several other state courts have concluded that strict scrutiny does not apply to a custody determination between parents with divergent religious convictions.... [A] court’s application of custody statutes in a manner exhibiting “a preference for the religious over the less religious” would essentially place “government on the side of organized religion, a non-secular result that the establishment clause is designed to prevent.” ...[T]he superior court here properly considered how the mother’s desire not to vaccinate the children was contrary to the recommendation of the children’s pediatrician and counter to their best interests.

Even if we were to apply heightened scrutiny ... , the superior court’s ruling would withstand review. The Statehas “an undeniably compelling interest in protecting the health of minors.”

Another Suit Seeks Religious Exemptions From Military's Vaccine Mandate

Yet another group of military personnel have filed suit challenging the military's COVID vaccine mandate.  As in a number of other cases, plaintiffs complain that while regulations allow religious exemptions, almost all applications for them are denied.  The complaint (full text) in Roth v. Austin, (D NE, filed 3/8/2022), was filed by 36 Air Force and Air National Guard members who allege that their rights under RFRA and the First Amendment have been infringed. WOWT reports on the lawsuit.

Suit Challenges DC's Remaining Mask Mandate For Catholic Schools

In Mayor's Order 2022-029 (Feb. 14, 2022), the District of Columbia lifted its COVID mask mandate for various business and recreation venues, and houses of worship, but continued the mandate for a number of facilities including "Public, public charter, private, parochial, and independent schools."  On Monday, suit was filed in the D.C. federal district court by parents of Catholic school students alleging that keeping the mask mandate on Catholic schools violates RFRA and the First Amendment. The complaint (full text) in Dugan v. Bowser, (D DC, filed 3/7/2022) alleges in part:

Defendants’ mandate requiring the children to wear masks in their Catholic school classrooms—while allowing children and adults to not wear masks nearly everywhere else—is arbitrary, unscientific, and irrational. Under Defendants’ policy, a child could sit for hours at the Wizards game at the crowded Capitol One Arena without wearing a mask, but she must cover her face for seven hours a day, the moment she steps into her Catholic school building....

In addition to unconstitutionally burdening Catholic schools and treating them unequally, Defendants’ prolonged mask mandate has had substantially detrimental effects on—and is continuing to significantly impede—the Parents’ children’s Catholic formation and education.

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

UPDATE: On March 11, ADF announced that the lawsuit has been voluntarily dismissed after D.C. revoked the mask mandate.  (Plaintiff's Notice of Voluntary Dismissal).

Christian Student Sues His High School For Bullying and Harassment

 Suit was filed last week in a Florida federal district court by a Christian high school student against his public charter school alleging bullying and harassment by students, reinforced by the school, because he regularly brought a Bible to school and read it during his free time.  The complaint (full text) in Ortiz v. Mater Academy, Inc., (SD FL, filed 2/28/2022) summarizes the allegations as follows:

Nicholas Ortiz, a 14-year-old freshman, was discriminated and retaliated against by his high school, Mater Academy, because he is a Christian. Nicholas repeatedly made the school aware of a pattern of pervasive bullying by his fellow students, bullying that was reinforced by the words and actions of the school. Yet the school did not just sweep Nicholas's bullying claims under the rug-- failing to report them as required under the law-- they retaliated against Nicholas for reporting the harassment.... The school validated the despicable false rumors about Nicholas being broadcast on social media, [and] denied Nicholas due process....

The 57-page complaint sets out in detail the instances of bullying and harassment, including fellow-students ripping pages from his Bible. Numerous social media postings are reproduced in the complaint. The complaint alleges 1st and 14th Amendment violations as well as various state law claims. Christian Headlines reports on the lawsuit.

Code Enforcement Against Buddhist Temple Did Not Violate Free Exercise Clause Or RLUIPA

In Temple of 1001 Buddhas v. City of Fremont, (ND CA, March 4, 2022), a California federal district court dismissed a suit by a Miaolan Lee who lives on property owned by the Temple of 1001 Buddhas challenging the city's enforcement of the state's building, electrical and plumbing codes. Among others, the court dismissed plaintiff's free exercise and RLUIPA claims, saying in part:

Although the code enforcement does not permit her to use (for any purpose) the three buildings that are in severe noncompliance, Lee can exercise her religion elsewhere on her property. The code enforcement does not at all “coerce [her] into acting contrary to [her] religious beliefs or exert substantial pressure on [her] to modify his behavior and to violate [her] beliefs.” ...

Lee argues that the City violated RLUIPA when West “instruct[ed] Plaintiff Lee that she could only pray on the property in the main house or in the dome Meditation Hall and nowhere else on the Real Property.” ... Lee contends that this act was “an implementation of a land use regulation.”... [T]he Court now concludes that Lee does not state a claim on this basis because Lee does not plausibly allege that this remark constituted the “application of a zoning or landmarking law” within the meaning of RLUIPA.