Anti-Mask Protesters Arrested At Religious Protest Assembly Sue

As reported by KREM News, three individuals who were arrested in September 2020 by Moscow, Idaho police for not wearing masks or social distancing at a protest have sued in an Idaho federal district court.  The complaint (full text) in Rench v. City of Moscow, (D ID, filed 3/24/2021) says that the arrests took place at a religious assembly organized by Christ Church "to sing praise to their God in a 'Psalm Sing' in front of the Moscow City Hall to protest the mask mandate in the Amended Public Health Emergency Order...." Plaintiffs contend that the arrests violated their free speech and free exercise rights, and say that the Public Health Order by its terms excluded constitutionally protected speech, assembly and religious activity.

Removing Roadside Cross Did Not Violate Father's 1st Amendment Rights

In Kelly v. Montana Department of Transportation, (D MT, March 23, 2021), a Montana federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendations, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55046 (D MT, March 9, 2021). The magistrate recommended dismissing 1st Amendment objections to the removal of a "spiritual cross" that plaintiff had erected along side of a highway in memory of his stepson.  Rejecting free speech claims, the magistrate held that "a spiritual cross erected on public land adjacent to a highway constitutes government speech." Rejecting free exercise claims, the magistrate said in part:

Kelly does not allege that the Defendants prohibited him from freely exercising his religious beliefs though private speech. Kelly alleges that the Defendants removed a spiritual cross that he had erected on public land.... [T]he spiritual cross constituted government speech. Kelly has therefore failed to state a cognizable claim under the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause.

Court Dismisses Challenge To Book Used In High School Literature Curriculum

In Coble v. Lake Norman Charter School, (WD NC, Mrch 23, 2021), a North Carolina federal district court dismissed 1st Amendment challenges to a high school's use in its literature curriculum of the award-winning book The Poet X by Elizabeth Acevedo. Plaintiffs, parents of a high school student (JHC), claim that the book is hostile to religion and disparages Catholicism. Rejecting plaintiffs' Establishment Clause argument, the court said in part:

The problem with the Cobles’ claim is that, without any factual allegations of how LNC uses The Poet X in the classroom, the Court has no ability to determine whether that specific use conveys an endorsement or disapproval of religion. The content of the book itself is not sufficient to prove a violation of the second Lemon prong even if the book’s content is disparaging toward a particular faith....

Rejecting a free exercise challenge, the court said in part:

In the present case, the Cobles claim that the potential exposure of their son to The Poet X violates the Free Exercise Clause because it violates JHC’s religious beliefs. But this claim ignores the fact that JHC was not required to read The Poet X. Rather, LNC offered an alternative to the book.... LNC’s offer of an alternative text tends to establish that LNC has done nothing to burden JHC’s religious practices.

New York's Repeal Of Religious Exemption From Vaccination Requirement Is Upheld

In F.F. v. State of New York, (App. Div., March 18, 2021), a New York state appellate court rejected parents' constitutional challenges to New York's repeal of the religious exemption from mandatory vaccination for school children. The court upheld the repeal, finding that it was a neutral law of general applicability prompted by the measles outbreak, even though the repeal eliminated a religious exemption. The court said in part:

[W]e do not find that the timing of the repeal reveals political or ideological motivation; rather, the record reflects that the repeal simply worked its way through the basic legislative process and was motivated by a prescient public health concern....

[W]e reject plaintiffs' claims that, based upon statements by some of the legislators, the repeal was motivated by religious animus. Significantly, the 11 statements alleged to suggest religious hostility were attributed to only five of the over 200 legislators in office at any given time.... More importantly, many of the statements do not demonstrate religious animus, as plaintiffs suggest, but instead display a concern that there were individuals who abused the religious exemption to evade the vaccination requirement based upon non-religious beliefs.... The repeal relieves public school officials from the challenge of distinguishing sincere expressions of religious beliefs from those that may be fabricated.

California COVID Restrictions On Singing At Worship Services Upheld

In Calvary Chapel of Ukiahv. Newsom, (ED CA, March 10, 2021), a California federal district court refused to issue a preliminary injunction against California's COVID-19 restriction on indoor singing and chanting during worship services. The court rejected plaintiffs' free exercise, free speech, equal protection and Establishment Clause claims. The court said in part:

[T]he State has now issued protocols allowing those who serve as performers during church services, presumably including choir members or soloists, to sing indoors subject to masking and distancing. Under these newest rules, the State argues, “worship services are treated more favorably than the entertainment industry.” ... To the extent one might question whether churches were being treated equivalently to the entertainment industry, that doubt appears to have been eliminated beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Satanic Temple Member Sues Over Texas Abortion Requirements

The Satanic Temple and one of its members filed suit last month in a Texas federal district court challenging Texas' requirement that a woman have a sonogram prior to an abortion.  The complaint (full text) in The Satanic Temple, Inc. v. Texas Department of State Health Services, (SD TX, filed 2/12/2021), alleges that the individual plaintiff wishes to engage in The Satanic Temple's Abortion Ritual, explaining:

46. TST developed the Satanic Abortion Ritual to help its membership cast off guilt, shame, and mental discomfort that the member may be experiencing in connection with their election to abort the pregnancy....

47. The Ritual also confirms the member’s choice and wards off effects of unjust persecution....

48. Here, the unjust persecution is an improper effort of the State (the “outside world”) to infringe on the decision-making of a member about her own health decision (the “inside world.”)...

102. Texas places barriers between Ms. Doe (and TST’s similarly situated members) and this religious speech and conduct by first requiring she undergo a medically unnecessary operation, requiring she reject the “opportunity” to see the results of the imaging, requiring she listen to the narrative of and results of the imaging, and requiring she wait.

Plaintiffs claim that the regulations violate their free exercise, substantive due process and equal protection rights. Christian Headlines reports on the lawsuit.

8th Circuit Upholds Missouri Immunization Opt-Out Form

In B.W.C. v. Williams, (8th Cir., March 5, 2021), the U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected free speech, free exercise, equal protection and hybrid rights challenges by parents and their children to the form they must file in Missouri to obtain a religious exemption from vaccination requirements. The form, which the parent must sign, contains a paragraph urging parents to immunize their child. The court said in part:

Form 11 states the government’s position, separated from the religious opt-out. Unlike a student required to recite the Pledge or a motorist required to display the state’s motto, there is no confusion here: it is the government’s message to parents considering Form 11....

Form 11 does not require the plaintiffs to engage in conduct against their religious beliefs. Plaintiffs object to the process of producing vaccines or introducing vaccines into their children’s bodies.... [S]ubmission of Form 11 does not increase the number of vaccines produced or force their children to get immunized....

Form 11 does not target religious believers or violate their right to equal protection. The defendants do not treat the plaintiffs differently than any other parent requesting an exemption from immunization: they were all required to submit a DHSS form to their school.

Courthouse News Service reports on the decision.

Virginia Trial Court Rejects Religious Challenge To COVID-19 Restrictions On Churches

In Young v. Northam, 2021 Va. Cir. LEXIS 35 (VA Cir. Ct., Feb. 27, 2021), a Virginia state trial court refused to enjoin the Governor's most recent COVID-19 restrictions on churches. Finding that plaintiffs have not overcome the exception for health and safety in the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, the court said in part:

The Petitioners religious beliefs are genuine and sincere, but Executive Order # 72 does not prohibit assembly, the taking of communion, singing, praying nor restrict capacity in churches. St. Matthew states that "For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them." Matthew 18:20.

There are no capacity limits in Executive Order # 72 and non-religious gatherings have stricter requirements regardless of occurring indoors or outdoors. (12). Section (E) of the statute certainly contemplated that some temporary restrictions may be necessary in emergency situations.

The next issue, consistent with the statute, is whether the least restrictive means have been employed to further the compelling governmental interest. Executive Order # 72 exempts religious services from the otherwise-universal temporary gathering restrictions. The order indicates that individuals may be seated wherever and with whomever they want with appropriate physical distancing.

This court recognizes an honest distinction between an appropriate political debate that reflects rational disagreement with the Respondent's order and a judicial ruling that such order is unconstitutional. Therefore, the court holds that the Petitioners are not entitled to injunctive relief under the statute.

The court also rejected a 1st Amendment free exercise challenge. 

School's Refusal To Allow Modified Graduation Cap Upheld

In Waln v. Dysart School District, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38345 (D AZ, Feb. 28, 2021), an Arizona federal district court rejected free exercise, free speech and equal protection challenges to a school district's refusal to allow a graduating senior to wear a decorated cap at graduation ceremonies.  The student was a member of the Sioux tribe and for cultural and religious reasons wanted to wear a beaded cap adorned with an eagle feather. The school district allowed Native American students to wear in their hair, or as a necklace or jewelry, but did not permit altered commencement caps. The court said in part:

[A]dopting an appearance of neutrality with regard to religion or cultural viewpoints, and the avoidance of controversy, have been deemed reasonable bases for subject-matter limitations, such as limitations on religious expression, on a student's free speech rights.... In this matter, all expressive speech, including but not limited to religious speech, was prohibited by the dress code blanketly prohibiting the augmentation of graduation caps, and the restriction was reasonable and related to the purpose of the forum. And, most notably, the prohibition of any adornment of any kind on a student's graduation cap during the commencement ceremonies was content-neutral.

New York's No-Fault Divorce Law Did Not Infringe Wife's Religious Freedom

In King v. New York, (ND NY, Feb. 26, 2021), a New York federal district court rejected a wife's contention that New York's no-fault divorce law violates the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses by infringing her Christian religious belief that marriage is permanent and cannot be dissolved by the state. The court said in part:

... [A] finding that H. King must remain married against his will because of L. King’s religious convictions would defy all logic and reason, and create a much larger Establishment Clause issue than the one L. King argues exists today....

Moreover, ... there is no constitutional injury here for the independent reason that the divorce that gave rise to this litigation only dissolved L. King’s and H. King’s legal marriage recognized by the State of New York; the divorce did not affect the status of their “religious marriage.”

Required Measles Inoculation Upheld

In W.D. v. Rockland County, (SD NY, Feb. 22, 2021), a New York federal district court dismissed free exercise, equal protection and due process challenges to an order of the Rockland County Department of Health requiring children between 6 months and 18 years of age to be vaccinated against measles in order to enter any place of public assembly, including for educational or religious purposes. The order did not apply to children with medical exemptions, but did apply to those with religious exemptions. Rejecting plaintiffs' free exercise challenge, the court said in part:

Here, the Emergency Declaration is subject to rational basis review because it is both facially neutral and generally applicable.... Under rational basis review, Defendants have demonstrated that the Declaration served the legitimate government purpose of protecting the County’s community from the measles outbreak.... Moreover, even if strict scrutiny applied, the Emergency Declaration satisfies that standard as well. 

Cert Filed In Case On Curricular Treatment of Hinduism

A petition for certiorari (full text) was filed this week in the U.S. Supreme Court in California Parents for the Equalization of Educational Materials v. Torlakson,(cert. filed 2/16/2021). In the case,  the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal of a suit claiming that California's History-Social Science Standards and Framework incorrectly describe Hinduism and treat it negatively in relation to the treatment of other religions. (See prior posting.) The cert petition frames the question presented as:

Whether the Free Exercise Clause permits the government to single out a religion for disfavored treatment so long as it does not “substantially burden” religious exercise.

[Thanks to Glenn Katon for the lead.]

Suit Challenges Disqualification of Ministers Ordained Online As Marriage Officiants

Suit was filed yesterday in a Pennsylvania federal district court seeking to declare unconstitutional the position taken by the Bucks County, Pennsylvania clerk of courts that ministers who were ordained online may not solemnize marriages under Pennsylvania law. Apparently the county takes the position that those ordained online are not clergy of a "regularly established church or congregation", as required by 23 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 1503. The complaint (full text) in Universal Life Church Monastery Storehouse v. Bobrin, (ED PA, filed 2/16/2021), alleges that this interpretation violates the Free Exercise, Establishment and Equal Protection Clauses, saying in part:

... Defendant has used the powers of her office to discourage ULC Monastery ministers from exercising rights afforded to ministers of other religions. Defendant’s apparent policy of discrimination unconstitutionally prefers certain religions or religious denominations over others and burdens ULC Monastery’s and its ministers’ free exercise of religion. To the extent Defendant is correct that 23 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 1503 bars ULC Monastery ministers from solemnizing marriages while granting that benefit to ministers of other religious denominations, the statute is unconstitutional.

Universal Life Church issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Exchange of Apache Sacred Land Does Not Violate RFRA or Free Exercise Clause

 In Apache Stronghold v. United States, (D AZ, Feb. 12, 2021), an Arizona federal district court refused to issue a preliminary injunction to prevent a land exchange between the federal government and two foreign mining companies known as Resolution Copper. The land to be conveyed to Resolution Copper contains a sacred Apache ceremonial ground know as Oak Flat. In addition to rejecting treaty claims, the court concluded that plaintiff has not shown a likelihood of prevailing on its claims under the Free Exercise clause and RFRA, saying in part:

Plaintiff has not been deprived a government benefit, nor has it been coerced into violating their religious beliefs. The Court does not dispute, nor can it, that the Government's mining plans ... will have a devastating effect on the Apache people's religious practices.... However, Oak Flat does not provide the type of "benefit" required under RFRA jurisprudence....

The Southeast Arizona Land Exchange and Conservation Act is facially neutral, and Plaintiff has provided no evidence of any discriminatory intent behind its passage....

Apache Stronghold issued a press release announcing the decision.

11th Circuit: Anti-Abortion Protesters Challenge To Permit Requirements Rejected

In Henderson v. McMurray, (11th Cir., Feb. 9, 2021), the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed free speech, free exercise and due process challenges to Huntsville, Alabama's application of its permit requirements to activities of James and Carol Henderson, two anti-abortion protesters. When abortion rights counter-protesters drowned out the sidewalk counseling and prayers of the Hendersons, the Hendersons resorted to using amplification devices. This triggered the need for them to obtain a permit under Huntsville's municipal code. In dismissing the Hendersons' various challenges, the court concluded that they failed to plead facts showing that they did not have ample alternative channels of communication or that the limits on noise in their permit were a pretext for viewpoint discrimination. The court also held that the noise limits in the permit were not unconstitutionally vague and that the free exercise claim does not trigger strict scrutiny.

Factional Dispute In Church Dismissed

 In New Covenant Church, Inc. v. Futch, (SD GA, February 5, 2021), a Georgia federal district court dismissed on qualified immunity, as well as other, grounds a dispute described by the court as follows:

This case arises from two feuding family factions which both lay claim to a small church in Brunswick, Georgia, one faction’s exclusion of the other from the church for a period of time, and several Brunswick police officers’ role in that exclusion....

Plaintiffs allege that Defendants [police officers] ... violated Plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights to free exercise of religion ... by: allowing nonmembers of New Covenant to seize and lock it down for ten weeks; threatening to arrest New Covenant members who entered the property; preventing New Covenant members from worshipping; and permitting the Armstrong sisters and others to steal New Covenant’s property. ...

The court found that the officers did not violate a clearly established constitutional right, saying in part:

Defendants ... did not “regulate religious beliefs,” but instead “impose[d] restrictions affecting religious conduct” by allowing the church to be locked up.... The second threshold test is also satisfied; the facts show that Defendants’ actions were not “aimed at impeding religion,” but were instead aimed at maintaining the peace while the parties settled a bitterly contested property dispute.

The court also dismissed due process, 4th Amendment and false imprisonment claims.

Supreme Court Enjoins, Pending Appeal, California's Total Ban On Indoor Worship Services

Yesterday, in another decision on the Court's so-called "shadow docket", the U.S. Supreme Court in South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom, (US Sup. Ct., Feb. 5, 2021), enjoined while a petition for certiorari is pending a portion of California's restrictions on indoor worship services. Last month, the 9th Circuit upheld the restrictions. Now the Supreme Court temporarily enjoined enforcement of the state's total ban on indoor worship services in areas of the highest COVID-19 infection ("Tier I"). However it refused to enjoin the state's 25% capacity limits on worship services in Tier I, and refused to enjoin its ban on singing and chanting during services. The Court, in its unsigned order, added:

This order is without prejudice to the applicants presenting new evidence to the District Court that the State is not applying the percentage capacity limitations or the prohibition on singing and chanting in a generally applicable manner.

Chief Justice Roberts filed a brief concurring statement, saying in part:

[F]ederal courts owe significant deference to politically accountable officials with the “background, competence, and expertise to assess public health.”... At the same time, the State’s present determination—that the maximum number of adherents who can safely worship in the most cavernous cathedral is zero—appears to reflect not expertise or discretion, but instead insufficient appreciation or consideration of the interests at stake.

Justice Barrett, joined by Justice Kavanaugh, filed a brief concurring opinion. 

Justices Thomas, Gorsuch and Alito would also have enjoined the capacity limits and the ban on singing and chanting. However Justice Alito would have postponed the injunction on capacity limits for 30 days to give the state an opportunity to show that these limits are narrowly drawn to reduce COVID spread to the same extent as limits on other essential activities. Justice Gorsuch, joined by Justices Thomas and Alito, filed an opinion explaining their position, saying in part:

Since the arrival of COVID–19, California has openly imposed more stringent regulations on religious institutions than on many businesses....

Of course we are not scientists, but neither may we abandon the field when government officials with experts in tow seek to infringe a constitutionally protected liberty. The whole point of strict scrutiny is to test the government’s assertions, and our precedents make plain that it has always been a demanding and rarely satisfied standard....

Drafting narrowly tailored regulations can be difficult. But if Hollywood may host a studio audience or film a singing competition while not a single soul may enter California’s churches, synagogues, and mosques, something has gone seriously awry.

Justice Kagan, joined by Justices Breyer and Sotomayor, dissented, saying in part:

California’s response to the COVID pandemic satisfies that neutrality rule by regulating worship services the same as other activities “where large groups of people [come together] in close proximity for extended periods of time.”... The restricted activities include attending a worship service or political meeting; going to a lecture, movie, play, or concert; and frequenting a restaurant, winery, or bar. So the activities are both religious and secular—and many of the secular gatherings, too, are constitutionally protected....

The Court has decided that the State must exempt worship services from the strictest aspect of its regulation of public gatherings. No one can know, from the Court’s 19-line order, exactly why: Is it that the Court does not believe the science, or does it think even the best science must give way? In any event, the result is clear: The State may not treat worship services like activities found to pose a comparable COVID risk, such as political meetings or lectures. Instead, the State must treat this one communal gathering like activities thought to pose a much lesser COVID risk, such as running in and out of a hardware store. In thus ordering the State to change its public health policy, the Court forgets what a neutrality rule demands. The Court insists on treating unlike cases, not like ones, equivalently.

Vox reports on the decision, with particular attention to Justice Barrett's opinion-- her first signed opinion since joining the Court.

Sanctuary Leaders Sue Over Targeting and Excessive Fines

Suit was filed last month in D.C. federal district court by advocacy groups and individuals who are leaders in the sanctuary movement claiming that ICE and the Department of Homeland Security have targeted the individual defendants with exorbitant fines because they have taken sanctuary in houses of worship. The complaint (full text) in Austin Sanctuary Network v. Gaynor, (D DC, filed 1/19/2021), alleges that these actions violate the 1st and 8th Amendments as well as RFRA. The complaint alleges in part:

The sanctuary movement reignited in the 2000s through a network of over 800 Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Sikh, Baha’i, and Buddhist houses of worship that opened their doors to immigrants at risk of deportation, amidst a steady rise in anti-immigrant rhetoric and the criminalization, detention, and deportation of immigrants....

Individual Plaintiffs’ religious beliefs are deeply intertwined with the sanctuary movement. For them, taking sanctuary and participating in the sanctuary movement are religious acts....

Center for Constitutional Rights issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

9th Circuit Again Upholds Some of California's Restrictions On Indoor Worship; Enjoins Others

In Harvest Rock Church v. Newsom, (9th Cir., Jan. 25, 2021), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, relying on the South Bay decision handed down by a different 9th Circuit panel three days earlier (see prior posting) enjoined California from enforcing its COVID-19 related 100- and 200-person limits at places of indoor worship. It however upheld the total ban on indoor worship services in higher risk areas. Judge O'Scannlain concurred specially, criticizing the South Bay decision and arguing that the total ban on indoor worship should also be enjoined. Orange County Register reports on the decision.

Supreme Court GVRs Chaplain-In-Execution-Chamber Case

Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a dispute over execution procedures, granted review, vacated the judgment below and remanded the case in Gutierrez v. Saenz (Docket No. 19-8695, GVR 1/25/2021). (Order List.) The case challenges Texas' exclusion of chaplains from the execution chamber.  In June, 2020, a day before appellant's scheduled execution, the Supreme Court granted a stay of execution pending its decision on whether to grant review. (See prior posting.) As part of that order, the Supreme Court instructed the district court to  promptly determine whether serious security problems would result if a prisoner facing execution is permitted to choose the spiritual adviser the prisoner wishes to have in his immediate presence during the execution. Apparently the Texas federal district court made additional findings of fact in Nov. 2020. Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari and vacated the 5th Circuit's earlier rejection of the trial court's stay of execution. Yesterday's Supreme Court Order went on to provide:

The case is remanded to the Court of Appeals with instructions to remand the case to the District Court for further and prompt consideration of the merits of petitioner’s underlying claims regarding the presence of a spiritual advisor in the execution chamber in light of the District Court’s November 24, 2020 findings of fact. Although this Court’s stay of execution shall terminate upon the sending down of the judgment of this Court, the disposition of the petition for a writ of certiorari is without prejudice to a renewed application regarding a stay of execution should petitioner’s execution be rescheduled before resolution of his claims regarding the presence of a spiritual advisor in the execution chamber.

Austin American-Statesman reports on the decision.