NY City Council Member Loses Claim This His Expulsion Was Because Of Hostility To His Christian Anti-LGBT Views

In King v. City of New York, (SD NY, Jan. 14, 2022), a New York federal district court rejected a group of 1st and 14th Amendment, as well as state law, challenges by former New York City Council member Andy King to his expulsion from City Council.  He was removed from Council because of alleged ethical misconduct. However King claims that the true motivation of the Council members who voted to expel him was their dissatisfaction with his routine opposition to pro-LGBT issues stemming from his Christian beliefs that sex between members of the same sex is a sin. The court rejected both his free speech and free exercise claims.  Discussing King's free exercise claims, the court said in part:

In support of his Free Exercise claim, King relies on the same factual allegations as those that buttress his Free Speech claim-- namely, Defendants' hostility toward his political views on LGBT issues. But these allegations do not raise the plausible inference that Defendants acted out of hostility against King on the basis of his Christian faith.

Challenge to Louisiana COVID Worship Restrictions Dismissed As Moot

In Spell v. Edwards, (MD LA, Jan. 12, 2022), a Louisiana federal district court, on remand from the 5th Circuit, again dismissed a challenge to a now expired COVID Order limiting the size of religious gatherings. The court explained:

On July 6, 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit vacated this Court’s November 10 dismissal order, and remanded with instructions to reconsider Plaintiffs’ First Amendment Free Exercise Clause claim in light of new guidance from the U.S. Supreme Court, specifically, Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo, ... South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom, ... and Tandon v. Newsom....

Now, with the benefit of the Supreme Court’s guidance, the Court reaches the same result as before: Plaintiffs’ consolidated actions will, again, be dismissed. In short, the Supreme Court’s most recent jurisprudence cannot save Plaintiffs’ claims for injunctive relief because the challenged restrictions have expired on their own terms and there is no indication whatsoever that crowd-size limits on indoor assembly will be reinstated. Thus, an injunction is a moot point. Further, Plaintiffs’ demand for damages fails because there is not now, and never has been, a “clearly established” right to unrestricted religious assembly.... Thus, Defendants are shielded from liability by qualified immunity.

RNS reports on the decision.

Connecticut Elimination Of Religious Exemption From School Vaccination Requirement Is Upheld

 In We the Patriots USA, Inc. v. Connecticut Office of Early Childhood Development, (D CT, Jan. 11, 2022), a Connecticut federal district court upheld a Connecticut statute that eliminates the religious exemption from the state requirement for vaccinations for school children. Medical exemptions remain in the statute, and students with previous religious exemptions are allowed to retain them. The court summarized its conclusions in part as follows:

Count One, alleging a violation of the Free Exercise Clause, is dismissed because mandatory vaccination as a condition to school enrollment does not violate the Free Exercise Clause. However, even if P.A. 21-6 was not foreclosed by Supreme Court and Second Circuit precedent, it is constitutional because it is a neutral law of general applicability which is rationally related to a legitimate state purpose.

CT Insider reports on the decision.

6th Circuit Tells District Court To Reconsider Injunction Denial Against School Mask Order

In Resurrection School v. Hertel, (6th Cir., Jan, 12, 2022), the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals vacated a Michigan federal district court's denial of a preliminary injunction against Ingham County, Michigan's COVID order requiring elementary school students, including those in religious schools, to wear masks in the classroom. It sent the case back to the district court for it to reconsider  the question of whether parents of religious school students are entitled to an injunction pending appeal. The court based its order on the fact that the district court relied on a 6th Circuit decision that was subsequently vacated by an en banc order.

Rhode Island Vaccine Mandate For Health Care Workers Upheld

In Dr. T v. Alexander-Scott, (D RI, Jan. 7, 2022), a Rhode Island federal district court refused to issue a preliminary injunction in a free exercise challenge to a Rhode Island Department of Health regulation requiring all health care workers to be vaccinated against COVID.  The Regulation contains a narrow medical exemption, but no religious exemption. The court (which had previously denied a temporary restraining order) concluded that the regulation is both neutral and generally applicable. The court said in part:

The Regulation’s medical exemption serves the state’s principal purpose of protecting public health. A failure to exempt the limited number of individuals whose health a vaccine may jeopardize would be counterproductive to that goal to the extent of illogicality. There is no suggestion of a discriminatory bias against religion.

The court also concluded that since the regulation is silent as to religious exemptions, it does not preclude compliance with the reasonable accommodation requirements of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Hebrew Israelite Student Seeks $4M In Damages For Coach's Punishment That Violated His Religious Dietary Requirements

Suit was filed yesterday in an Ohio federal district court by a Hebrew-Israelite high school football team member who was told to eat a pepperoni pizza as discipline for missing a mandatory weight class. When the student objected that eating pork was a violation of his religious beliefs, he was allowed to remove the pepperoni, but still was forced to eat the pizza with pork residue on it. The complaint (full text) in K.W. (Junior) v. Canton City School District, (ND OH, filed 12/29/2021) alleges 1st and 14th Amendment, as well as other, claims saying in part:

All Defendants were fully aware of Junior’s religious beliefs; however, Defendants established practices and implemented actions that were antisemitic and/or in direct violation of Plaintiffs’sincere religious beliefs. therefore violating 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand compensatory damages of $3,000,000.00 and punitive damages of $1,000,000.00.... [as well as] injunctive relief....

Other dollar amounts are sought for other causes of action set out in the complaint.  WKYC News reports on the lawsuit.

Christian Organizations Ask Supreme Court To Stay OSHA Private-Employer Vaccine Mandate

Last Friday, in a 2-1 decision in In re: MCP No. 165, Occupational Safety & Health Admin. Rule on COVID-19 Vaccination and Testing, (6th Cir., Dec. 17, 2021), the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals dissolved a stay of OSHA's Emergency Temporary Standard that calls for employers of of 100 or more persons to require either COVID vaccination of employees or weekly testing (and masks) for unvaccinated workers. Challenges in some three dozen cases had been consolidated in the 6th Circuit which then had authority to modify or dissolve the prior stay issued by the 5th Circuit. 

Among the consolidated cases was one brought by a number of Christian schools, colleges and organizations that were subject to the rule. They quickly filed an Emergency Application with the U.S. Supreme Court asking for a stay pending appeal of the 6th Circuit's decision. The Application (full text) in Southern Baptist Theological Seminary v. OSHA, (Sup. Ct., filed 12/17/2021) argues:

OSHA lacks jurisdiction to regulate religious non-profit institutions, because they are not “employers” under the OSH Act.

It goes on to contend that the OSHA rule also violates Applicants' religious freedom rights under RFRA and the 1st Amendment, saying in part:

OSHA “commandeers” Religious Institutions “to compel [their] employees” to comply with the mandate.... To ensure compliance, Religious Institutions must probe their ministers’ and employees’ intimate and personal medical decisions that often implicate their religious beliefs. This is precisely the “secular control or manipulation” that the First Amendment prohibits.... In addition, the mandate violates the First Amendment by setting the “terms and conditions of employment” to work for Religious Institutions ... and interfering with their ability to “select[] ... the individuals who play certain key roles”....

Religious Institutions exercise their faith by providing seminary training, providing Catholic and Christian education, engaging in nonprofit ministries, and operating for-profit businesses according to Christian values. The Mandate will force Religious Institutions to take faculty out of classrooms, and staff out of operating these organizations and businesses—for testing on a weekly basis or for non-compliance—which will significantly disrupt Religious Institutions’ mission, including for-profit businesses’ operations and exercise.... This burden is substantial—not mere inconvenience—because Religious Institutions’ employees are not fungible.

ADF issued a press release announcing the filing of the Emergency Application. SCOTUblog discusses the filing.

A second Emergency Application was filed by a different group of Christian organizations.  The Application (full text) in Word of God Fellowship, Inc. v. OSHA, (Sup. Ct., filed 12/19/2021) contends in part:

... [T]he violation of the Ministries’ religious faiths is not cured by the provisions of the ETS and Title VII that provide them with discretion to grant religious accommodations to their employees.... The Ministries cannot put their employees to the test by requiring them to seek religious accommodations for the government-imposed vaccine mandate.... In other words, even asking their employees to make a decision of religious conscience about the vaccine mandate causes the Ministries to engage in what they believe is sin. Moreover, the mask requirement for unvaccinated employees also burdens the Ministries’ religious beliefs, because they believe that OSHA’s requirement that they mask unvaccinated employees would forcibly identify those who are unvaccinated and cause division within their organizations.... The Ministries believe they have a Biblical duty to promote unity within their organizations.

Axios reports on this filing.

Military Sued After It Withdraws Permission For Selling Religious-Themed Replica Dog Tags

Suit was filed this week against the Department of Defense in a Texas federal district court by a company that creates military-themed replica "dog tags" featuring Army, Marine and Airforce emblems. The emblems are used under trademark licenses from the military services. The company's replica tags-- which are often worn by members of the military and their families-- also feature Biblical verses or religiously inspired phrases. After receiving a complaint from an advocacy organization, the trademark licensing offices of the military services informed the company that it may no longer produce or sell trademark-licensed products that feature religious content. The complaint (full text) in Shields of Strength v. U.S. Department of Defense, (ED TX, filed 12/14/2021) alleges that DoD's actions violate plaintiff's rights under RFRA, the Free Exercise and Establishment clauses as well as its free speech rights. First Liberty issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Court Denies Motion Under RFRA And 1st Amendment To Dismiss Indictments

In United States v. Morales, (SD CA, Dec. 13, 2021), a California federal district court denied a motion to dismiss indictments against three defendants who claimed that the indictments violated their rights under RFRA and the Free Exercise Clause. Among the charges were that defendants induced Imperial Valley Ministry participants to surrender SNAP benefits to the Ministries and that they dispatched IVM participants to panhandle. The court said in part:

The Court finds too attenuated a link between the Government’s prosecution of Defendants for forced labor, document servitude, and benefits fraud and Defendants’ purported religious activities of evangelizing, fundraising, donating to the church, and general operation of IVM programs for there to be a substantial burden, as there remain viable alternative avenues for Defendants to conduct their specified religious activities....

Denial Of Religious Exemptions To Vaccine Mandate Violated Free Exercise Rights

In Grantonz v. Earley, (ND OH, Dec. 10, 2021), an Ohio federal district court issued a temporary restraining order preventing the Cleveland Municipal Court from enforcing its COVID vaccine mandate against two employees (a bailiff and a court reporter) who sought, but were denied, religious exemptions. The court said in part:

Where the Cleveland Municipal Court Order compels Plaintiffs to choose between following their religious beliefs or forfeiting their jobs, it significantly burdens their free exercise of religion and is not neutral. Further, by setting up a mechanism for exemptions which are granted at Defendants’ discretion and without an opportunity for appeal, AO 2021-05 is not generally applicable....

The Cleveland Municipal Court’s Administrative Order AO 2021-05 does not pass the test of strict scrutiny. Defendants have not articulated compelling reasons for denial of religious exemptions. In the October 2, 2021 letters to Plaintiffs, in fact, Defendants provided no reasons whatsoever. A policy, such as the one before this Court, that infringes the free exercise of religion, that does not serve interests of the highest order and is not narrowly tailored to achieve those interests cannot survive strict scrutiny. 

School District Sued For Favoring Christian Cultural and Speech Activities

Suit was filed this week in a California federal district court alleging that a California school district has given preference to Christian cultural and speech activities over those of other religions, including Judaism. The complaint (full text) in Lyons v. Carmel Unified School District, (ND CA, filed 12/7/2021), particularly focuses on the refusal by Carmel River School to allow the display of an inflatable menorah at a widely-promoted after-school holiday celebration which will include the decoration and lighting of a Christmas tree and Christmas-themed holiday songs. The complaint alleges that the school has violated the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses as well as free speech and equal protection provisions. Courthouse News Service reports on the lawsuit.

9th Circuit Lifts Injunction Against School District's Vaccine Mandate

On Nov. 28, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals enjoined, pending appeal, the San Diego school district's COVID vaccine mandate because it denied religious exemptions while allowing a deferral option for pregnant students. (See prior posting.) Subsequently the school district removed the deferral option for pregnant students. So in John Doe v. San Diego Unified School District, (9th Cir., Dec. 4, 2021), the court, in a 2-1 decision, held:

Given the removal of the “per se” deferral option for pregnant students, the injunction issued in the November 28, 2021 order has terminated under its own terms.

The majority rejected the claim that medical exemptions, temporary exemptions for students who are homeless, in migrant status or foster care, or in military families, and special provisions for students with Individualized Education Programs, but the absence of religious exemptions, undermine the general applicability of the vaccine mandate.

Judge Ikuta dissented, arguing that these secular exemptions mean that the mandate is not generally applicable and thus must be evaluated under the strict scrutiny standard, saying in part:

These religious and secular activities pose identical risks to the government’s asserted interest in ensuring the “safest environment possible for all students and employees,” because both result in the presence of unvaccinated students in the classroom, who could spread COVID-19 to other students and employees.

Plaintiff's attorney has said that emergency relief will be sought from the U.S. Supreme Court.

UPDATE: Here is plaintiffs' Petition for emergency relief from the Supreme Court, asking for an injunction or stay pending appeal.

Cert. Filed In Suit By Parolee Against Christian Homeless Shelter Director

A petition for certiorari (full text) was filed yesterday with the U.S. Supreme Court in Carmack v. Janny, (cert. filed 12/3/2021). In the case, 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 against his parole officer and the director of a Christian homeless shelter. To stay out of jail, plaintiff was required to stay at the shelter and participate in its religious programming. (See prior posting.) The petition for review frames the question presented as:

Whether the employee of a private, religious nonprofit may be held liable, as a state actor, for making pro bono housing and social services at the nonprofit’s facility contingent on participation in religious programming.

ADF issued a press release discussing the case.

Oklahoma AG Sues To Invalidate Biden's Vaccine Mandate For Federal Employees

Oklahoma's Attorney General and its Governor, along with 16 Oklahoma Air National Guard members, have sued to invalidate President Biden's Executive Order requiring COVID-19 vaccination for all federal employees. The complaint (full text) in State of Oklahoma v. Biden, (WD OK, filed 12/2/2021), contends that the mandate violates various provisions of the Constitution and federal law, including the Free Exercise Clause:

The vaccine mandate is undermining the sincerely held religious beliefs of Oklahoma residents and at least some individual Plaintiffs. This mandate is not a law of  general applicability because it contains exemptions that almost certainly will be unavailable to some individual Plaintiffs. Specifically, although EO 14043 does not even discuss religious exemptions, the SFWTF says only that a religious exemption might apply.... It adds: “Determining whether an exception is legally required will include consideration of factors such as the basis for the claim; the nature of the employee’s job responsibilities; and the reasonably foreseeable effects on the agency’s operations, including protecting other agency employees and the public from COVID-19.” Id. This non-committal and uncertain language gives Plaintiffs no assurance whatsoever.

The Oklahoma Attorney General issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Suits In Delaware Seek Bans On Future Emergency Orders Affecting Worship Activities

Two similar lawsuits were filed yesterday in a Delaware state trial court seeking to prevent any future pandemic or other emergency declarations from placing limits on gatherings for religious worship.  The complaints in Hines v. Carney, (DE Ch., filed 12/1/2021) (full text) and Landow v. Carney, (DE Ch., filed 12/1/2021) (full text), citing state and federal constitutional protections, seek injunctions to prohibit

(1) any shutdown Order prohibiting Sunday or weekday assembly for religious worship or setting any attendance limit of 10 or more on the number of persons permitted to worship; (2) any shutdown or subsequent Orders preventing or directing how speech, preaching and teaching from the pulpit is to occur; (3) any shutdown or subsequent Orders prohibiting speech through singing in worship of God, individually or as a group; (4) any shutdown or subsequent Orders prohibiting assembly of worshipers based on age or any other personal characteristics such as health, wealth, race, gender, or other physical or emotional characteristic; (5) any Orders prohibiting Baptism or directing how the ritual is to be conducted; (6) any Orders prohibiting the Lord’s Supper or directing how the ritual is to be conducted; and (7) expressing preferences or favoritism for the practices of one religion over another.

WDEL News reports on the lawsuits.

Vaccine Mandate For Chicago City Employees Upheld

In Troogstad v. City of Chicago, (ND IL, Nov. 24, 2021), an Illinois federal district court refused to grant a temporary restraining order to city employees who were challenging the state and city mandatory COVID vaccination policy.  Among plaintiffs' various challenges was a free exercise claim, to which the court said in part:

To be clear, if a particular employee is denied a religious exemption, she may challenge that denial, based on the particular facts of her case, as a violation of her free exercise rights. But no Plaintiffs have been denied a religious exemption on grounds other than failing to adequately articulate their individual circumstances, as the City Vaccination Policy requires....

The court also rejected plaintiffs' claims that the vaccination mandate violates the Illinois Healthcare Right of Conscience Act, saying in part:

Plaintiffs might well be correct, if the City Vaccination Policy did not contain any avenue for religious exemptions.

But the City Vaccination Policy does provide a detailed religious exemption process that protects anyone who holds sincere religious objections to being vaccinated.

Court Upholds Testing Requirement For Employees Granted Religious Exemption From Vaccination

In Federoff v. Geisinger Clinic, (MD PA, No. 23, 2021), a Pennsylvania federal district court refused to issue a preliminary injunction in a suit by 100 clinic employees who had been granted religious exemptions from the COVID vaccine mandate so long as they submit to tests twice per week. The employees sue seeking to eliminate the testing requirement or, alternatively, to require vaccinated employees as well to submit to testing. The court, in rejecting plaintiffs' constitutional and statutory claims, said in part:

First, they assert constitutional claims against a private entity without so much as a paragraph describing how Geisinger could be considered a state actor....

Second, while the Geisinger Employees are in the right area code in alleging that Geisinger violated their rights under federal and state antidiscrimination law ... their allegations fail to touch on these statutes’ most basic requirements. To make out a prima facie case of religious discrimination, the Geisinger Employees must tell the Court what their religious belief is. They have not done so....

[Also] the antidiscrimination statutes require that employees first file their complaint with either the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission or the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The Geisinger Employees have not done so..... 

[T]he Employees also fail to show that they would suffer irreparable harm...

Court Defers Ruling On Military's Actions On Religious Exemption Requests From Vaccine Mandate

In Seal I v. Biden, (MD FL, Nov. 22, 2021), a Florida federal district court, after a lengthy discussion of free exercise protection under the 1st Amendment and RFRA, deferred until at least Jan. 7, 2022, ruling on a motion for a preliminary injunction sought by service members seeking religious exemptions from the federal government's COVID vaccine mandate for members of the military. According to the court:

[P]laintiffs claim the regulations — governing in each respective branch the availability of a religious exemption from the COVID vaccine and purporting to comply with the demands of RFRA — in reality disguise an unlawful and pervasive policy of the Secretary of Defense and each branch of the armed forces to deny individual consideration of each claim for a religious exemption, to instead “deny them all,” and to punish, possibly by discharge, without exemption and without accommodation, those who assert a sincere religious objection and accordingly refuse the vaccine....

[T]he data produced by the defendants show that more than 16,643 requests for a religious exemption pend. The military has granted no exemptions but has denied hundreds. This disparity, although susceptible to a benign explanation is, as well, susceptible to an explanation actionable and remediable under RFRA.

The court ordered each branch of the armed forces, beginning Jan. 7, 2022, to file bi-weekly reports on the number of exemption requests and the number granted, as well as on the number of service members court martialed after the denial of a religious exemption. Liberty Counsel issued a press release announcing the decision.

School's Vaccine Mandate Without Religious Exemptions Upheld

In Doe v. San Diego Unified School District, (SD CA, Nov. 18, 2021), a California federal district court denied a temporary restraining order in a suit by a high school student and her parents objecting to the school district's COVID vaccine mandate which did not provide for religious exemptions. The court held that the scope of the injunction sought by plaintiff created standing issues, but regardless of that:

In light of the overwhelming weight of authority upholding vaccination requirements in response to free exercise challenges, the Court finds that Plaintiffs are not likely to succeed on the merits of their claim.

Thomas More Society has more background on the case.

Magistrate Recommends Dismissing Religious Objections To School's Teaching Transgender Understanding

In Jones v. Boulder Valley School District RE-2, (D CO, Oct. 4, 2021), a Colorado federal magistrate judge recommended dismissing a suit by parents of three elementary school students who contended that their free exercise and equal protection rights, as well as their parental rights to control the upbringing of their children, were violated when the school instituted a program to teach tolerance and understanding of transgender individuals that conflicted with the parents religious beliefs.

Plaintiffs ... emphasize that all they want is proper advance notice and the ability to opt-out of transgender programming as provided for by Colorado law....  The problem is that the federal constitution does not mandate advance notice or the ability to opt out of particular classes or programs, and especially not from particular classroom discussions. The federal constitution protects religious children and families by ensuring that a state cannot punish them if they choose to educate their children outside the public system, whether at home or at areligious school. But the federal constitution gives parents no First Amendment or due process right to direct to what is taught in the schools based on their own personal religious beliefs, nor does the federal constitution mandate the right to a religious "opt-out" option from particular classes or specific programming. From the federal constitutional perspective ..., it is up to the local school district to decide what is taught and at what age....

A Notice of Settlement was filed with the court on Nov. 15, and the case was terminated.