Death-Qualifying Jurors Does Not Infringe Their Free Exercise Rights

In Jackson v. State of Alabama, (AL Ct. Crim. App., Sept. 20, 2019), an Alabama state appeals court in a 135-page opinion dealing with numerous challenges upheld appellant's death sentence.  In one portion of the opinion (pp. 34-40), the court, relying extensively on precedent from other federal district courts, concluded that death-qualifying prospective jurors does not violate the jurors' free exercise of religion.

Maryland's Conversion Therapy Ban Upheld

In Doyle v. Hogan, (D MD, Sept. 20, 2019), a Maryland federal district court dismissed free speech and free exercise of religion challenges to Maryland's ban on mental health professionals engaging in conversion therapy with minors. The court said in part:

Although § 1-212.1 regulates speech by prohibiting the use of language employed in the process of conducting conversion therapy on minor clients, it “does not prevent licensed therapists from expressing their views about conversion therapy to the public and to their [clients].” ... Most importantly, § 1-212.1 does not prohibit practitioners from engaging in any form of personal expression; they remain free to discuss, endorse, criticize, or recommend conversion therapy to their minor clients.... 

The Baltimore Sun, reporting on the decision, says the decision will be appealed.

Parent's Challenge To California's Boarding School Regulation Is Dismissed

In Teen Rescue v. Becerra, (ED CA, Sept. 19, 2019), a California federal district court dismissed a suit brought by the parent of a child attending River View Christian Academy, a Christian boarding school which is subject to the California Community Care Facilities Act.  The Act requires private alternative boarding schools to allow students full autonomy on maters of religion and sexual identity.  Seeking to represent all parents and guardians of students in the school, plaintiff alleges that subjecting the school to these requirement violates his religious free exercise and his parental rights. The court dismissed the complaint, saying in part:

Merely developing a plan to train RVCA staff in issues relating to the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender communities does not invade the First Amendment rights of RVCA parents....

Similarly, preventing a community care facility from attempting to change the sexual orientation of its students is not an invasion of the parents’ First Amendment rights. The First Amendment gives Williams the right to believe and profess whatever religion he desires. If sending his child to an exclusively faith-based educational institution is an important part of Williams’ faith, there is nothing in the CCFA that prevents him from doing so.... Williams is free to enroll his child at a CCFA-exempt religious boarding school....

[T]he only injuries alleged here were suffered by Teen Rescue, not the parents. Williams failed to identify a concrete and particularized injury in fact under the Free Exercise Clause. Thus, Williams and the other RVCA parents lack standing to bring a claim under the First Amendment.

Christian Student Group May Continue Suit Against University

In Intervarsity Christian Fellowship/ USA v. Board of Governors of Wayne State University, (ED MI, Sept. 20, 2019), a Michigan federal district court refused to dismiss a Christian student organization's free exercise, free speech and procedural due process claims against Wayne State University that refused to grant the group recognized student organization status. The University contended that the organization's requirements that its leaders profess the Christian faith violates the University's non-discrimination policy.  The court said in part:

[I]nsofar as religious organizations have a clear constitutional right to choose their own ministers without interference from the government, it is far from implausible that they may affirmatively assert a violation of such right in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Similarly, InterVarsity’s claim based on its right to internal autonomy in religious affairs may state a claim. The court will not dismiss the claims offered (novel though they may be) in Counts 1 and 2.

Counts 3 and 4 allege Free Exercise violations based on targeting of InterVarsity’s religious beliefs and Wayne State applying its policy in a way that it is not generally applicable.... There are more than enough factual allegations to cross the basic threshold of a valid claim. 

Detroit Free Press reports on the decision.

Evangelizing Students Sue Over Restrictive Park Rules

A lawsuit was filed yesterday in an Illinois federal district court by Wheaton College students who are members of the Chicago Evangelism Team. The suit challenges limitations on the areas in Millennium Park in which they can engage in open air evangelism and distribute literature. The complaint (full text) in Swart v. City of Chicago, (ND IL, filed 9/18/2019), contends that park rules improperly restrict speech and distribution of free literature in a traditional public forum, violating students' free speech and free exercise rights. Chicago Tribune reports on the lawsuit.

Arizona Supreme Court Backs Wedding Invitation Artists In Their Free Speech Claim

In Brush & Nib. v. City of Phoenix, (AZ Sup Ct., Sept. 16, 2019), the Arizona Supreme Court in a 4-3 decision held that Phoenix's public accommodation law cannot be applied to force owners of a wedding and event supply business to create custom wedding invitations for same-sex ceremonies when doing so violates their religious beliefs. The several opinions generated span 78 pages.  The majority opinion of Justice Gould, focusing largely on the compelled speech doctrine, said in part:

[Plaintiffs] have the right to refuse to express such messages under article 2, section 6 of the Arizona Constitution, as well as Arizona’s Free Exercise of Religion Act.... Our holding is limited to Plaintiffs’ creation of custom wedding invitations that are materially similar to those contained in the record.... We do not recognize a blanket exemption from the Ordinance for all of Plaintiffs’ business operations. Likewise, we do not, on jurisprudential grounds, reach the issue of whether Plaintiffs’ creation of other wedding products may be exempt from the Ordinance....

 Plaintiffs’ custom wedding invitations, and the creation of those invitations, constitute pure speech entitled to full First Amendment protection....

Here, Plaintiffs’ objection is based on neither a customer’s sexual orientation nor the sexual conduct that defines certain customers as a class. Plaintiffs will make custom artwork for any customers, regardless of their sexual orientation, but will not, regardless of the customer, make custom wedding invitations celebrating a same-sex marriage ceremony. Thus, although Plaintiffs’ refusal may ... primarily impact same sex couples, their decision is protected because it is not based on a customer’s sexual orientation.

Justice Bolick filed a concurring opinion. Three dissenting opinions were filed, one joined by all three dissenters. The primary dissent written by Justice Bales said in part:

Our constitutions and laws do not entitle a business to discriminate among customers based on its owners’ disapproval of certain groups, even if that disapproval is based on sincerely held religious beliefs. In holding otherwise, the majority implausibly characterizes a commercially prepared wedding invitation as “pure speech” on the part of the business selling the product and discounts the compelling public interest in preventing discrimination against disfavored customers by businesses and other public accommodations.

Arizona Republic reports on the decision.

Prof's Objections To Referring To Students By Preferred Gender Rejected

In Meriwether v. Trustees of Shawnee State University, (SD OH, Sept. 5, 2019), an Ohio federal magistrate judge recommended dismissing challenges brought by a faculty member against his university claiming that the school's nondiscrimination policy violates his 1st and 14th Amendment rights as well as his rights under the state constitution.  Shawnee State requires faculty to refer to students using pronouns that reflect the student's gender identity even when that is different that the gender assigned to the student at birth. Plaintiff alleges that he is an evangelical Christian with the religious belief that gender cannot be changed after the moment of conception. He contends that the University's policy forces him to communicate an ideological message regarding gender that conflicts with his beliefs. Among other things, the judge in a 63-page opinion, rejected plaintiff's compelled speech, viewpoint discrimination and free exercise claims. [Thanks to Glenn Katon for the lead.]

Doctor Sues Over Hospital's Limits On Providing Aid-In-Dying Medications

Last month, a doctor and her terminally ill patient filed a lawsuit in a Colorado state court against Centura Health's St. Anthony Hospital challenging its religion-based policy of refusing to allow its physicians to prescribe medication for patients under the state's End of Life Options Act, or to assist in qualifying a patient for use of aid-in-dying medication. The complaint (full text) in Mahoney v. Morris, (CO Dist. Ct., filed 8/21/2019), alleges that the hospital's policy goes beyond the opt-out permitted by the Colorado statute which only permits hospitals to bar their physicians from writing prescriptions for assisted-suicide medications that will be used on hospital premises.

Last week, Centura Health fired plaintiff Dr. Barbara Morris, and filed a petition to remove the case to federal court, contending that the hospital, sponsored by Catholic and Seventh Day Adventist ministries, cannot be barred from dismissing an employee who violates its policy.  The Notice of Removal (full text) in Mahoney v. Morris, (D CO, filed 8/30/19) alleges that the hospital's rights under the Free Exercise and Establishment clauses would be violated if it cannot discipline its doctors for acting in opposition to its religious doctrines. It also invokes 42 U.S. Code § 2000e–1, the exemption from Title VII for religious institutions. Kaiser Health News reports on these developments. [Thanks to Michael Peabody for the lead.]

NY Court Rejects Challenge To Vaccination Exemption Repeal

In F.F. on behalf of her minor children v. State of New York, (Albany Cty. Sup. Ct., Aug. 23, 2019), a New York state trial court judge rejected a class action challenge to recently enacted New York legislation that repeals the religious exemption to vaccination requirements for school children. The repeal was enacted in response to a measles outbreak earlier this year. The suit was brought by 55 families. The court refused to issue a preliminary injunction, finding that plaintiffs were unlikely to prevail on the merits of their free exercise, equal protection or compelled speech claims. The court concluded that the vaccination law was a neutral law of general applicability, and that the repeal was not action showing hostility to religious belief. The court concluded that plaintiffs did have a colorable argument that elevated scrutiny might be required under the hybrid rights theory, but that even if that is the case the state had a compelling interest in repealing the exemption:

Protecting public health, and children's health in particular, through attainment of threshold inoculation levels for community immunity from communicable diseases is unquestionably a compelling state interest....

Gothamist reports on the decision. (See prior related posting.)

8th Circuit Vindicates Wedding Videograhers' 1st Amendment Claims

In Telescope Media Group v. Lucero, (8th Cir., Aug. 23, 2019), the U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision, held that the 1st Amendment protects wedding videographers who refuse on religious grounds to produce videos of same-sex weddings. Minnesota contended that the refusal violates two provisions of Minnesota's Human Rights Act.  Judge Stras, writing for the majority, said in part:

Minnesota’s interpretation of the MHRA interferes with the Larsens’ speech in two overlapping ways. First, it compels the Larsens to speak favorably about same-sex marriage if they choose to speak favorably about opposite-sex marriage. Second, it operates as a content-based regulation of their speech....

Laws that compel speech or regulate it based on its content are subject to strict scrutiny....

... [R]egulating speech because it is discriminatory or offensive is not a compelling state interest, however hurtful the speech may be.

The majority also concluded that because the state's action burdens religiously motivated speech, the hybrid rights doctrine requires strict scrutiny. The majority remanded the case to the district court for it to decide whether the videographers are entitled to a preliminary injunction.

Judge Kelley dissenting, said in part:

 ... [T]he court tries to recharacterize Minnesota’s law as a content-based regulation of speech, asserting that it forces the Larsens to speak and to convey a message with which they disagree. Neither is true. The Larsens remain free to communicate any message they desire—about same-sex marriage or any other topic—or no message at all. What they cannot do is operate a public accommodation that serves customers of one sexual orientation but not others. And make no mistake, that is what today’s decision affords them license to do.

Reuters reports on the decision.

Court Temporarily Enjoins New Jersey's Assisted Suicide Law

Fox29 News reports that on Wednesday, a New Jersey state trial court judge issued a temporary restraining order preventing the state's Aid in Dying for the Terminally Ill Act from being enforced.  The bill took effect on Aug. 1. (Background).  The suit challenging the Act was brought by an Orthodox Jewish physician who says that the law is an affront to religious doctors.  Sec. 26-16-17(c) of the Act provides:

If a health care professional is unable or unwilling to carry out a patient's request under P.L.2019, c.59 (C.26:16-1 et al.), and the patient transfers the patient’s care to a new health care professional or health care facility, the prior health care professional shall transfer, upon request, a copy of the patient's relevant records to the new health care professional or health care facility.

The lawsuit alleges that this requirement to transfer records violates doctors' rights to practice medicine without breaching the fiduciary duties of their patients as well as doctors' rights "to freely practice their religions in which human life is sacred and must not be taken." A hearing in the case is set for October.

Suit Challenges Virginia Fair Housing Act Provision Barring Religious Language In Ads

Suit was filed in a Virginia state trial court yesterday challenging a provision in the state's Fair Housing Code which provides that advertisements using "words or symbols associated with a particular religion.... shall be prima facie evidence of an illegal preference under this chapter which shall not be overcome by a general disclaimer." The complaint (full text) in Carter v. Virginia Real Estate Board, (VA Cir. Ct., filed 8/14/2019) contends that realtor Hadassah Hubbard Carter's free exercise, free speech and due process rights were infringed when the Virginia Real Estate Board claimed that she had violated the Fair Housing Code by use of a religious phrase in her e-mail signature line, and a Biblical quotation and a recitation of her religious beliefs on her business website. ACLJ issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

State Has Compelling Interest In Licensing of Medical and Naturopathy Practice

In Jimenez v. Washington State Department of Health, (WA App., Aug. 5, 2019), a Washington state appellate court affirmed a finding by the health department that a marriage and family therapist engaged in the unlicensed practice of medicine and naturopathy. The court rejected Arely Jiminez's claim that the health department violated her free exercise rights protected by the U.S. and Washington state constitutions.  The court said in art:

Here, even assuming that the Department’s actions have infringed on Jimenez’s right to freedom of religion, the Department has a compelling public health and welfare interest in limiting the practice of medicine and naturopathy to individuals licensed by the Department. To the extent that Jimenez’s practice of Medicine without a Washington license burdened her exercise of religion, the Department’s interest in public health and safety justified any infringement of her constitutional rights.

Canadian Court Orders Reconsideration of Election Date That Conflicts With Jewish Holiday

In Aryeh-Bain v. Canada (Attorney General), (Canada Fed. Ct., July 23, 2019), a judge of Canada's Federal Court ordered Canada's Chief Electoral Officer to reconsider his decision that refused to reschedule the October 21 Canadian federal election that conflicts with the Jewish holiday of Shemini Atzeret.  According to the court:

If the election is held on Shemini Atzeret, Ms. Aryeh-Bain, who is a candidate for the Conservative Party in her riding, must refrain from voting and campaigning during that period. Similarly, Mr. Walfish and other Orthodox Jewish voters (estimated to be 75,000 nationwide) will be unable to vote on election day or otherwise be involved in the election on that day.

In addition to polling day being on Shemini Atzeret, two of the advanced polling days  conflict with either the Sabbath (October 12) or the festival of Sukkot (October 14), both of which are also Jewish holidays. The last day to obtain a special ballot (October 15) also falls on Sukkot.

The court held that administrative decision makers are required to balance rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms with statutory objectives when making administrative decisions. It went on:

The record does not indicate how or if the CEO “balanced” these considerations against the Charter values of Orthodox Jewish voters and candidates to ensure their rights to “meaningful participation” are respected.  The CEO’s efforts were focused on advance polling and special ballot options.  No consideration appears to have been given to recommending a date change.

Canadian Press reports on the decision.

Challenge To Attempted Search of Church Is Dismissed

In Aguilera v. City of Colorado Springs, (D CO, July 23, 2019), a Colorado federal district court dismissed a suit brought by plaintiff who leases two rooms to the Green Faith Ministry. The suit grew out of an attempt by city authorities to conduct an occupancy check of the building leased by the Ministry, apparently suspecting that it was a retail marijuana outlet. Authorities took photos of license plates, but never gained access to the building. The court held that plaintiff lacks standing to bring most of her claims:

Plaintiff complains that Defendants ... deterred others from entering the building... She alleges that Defendant Vargason attempted a warrantless entry of the Green Faith Ministry building.... She contends that the City of Colorado Springs is entangled financially with many Christian organizations and targeted Green Faith Ministry.... Plaintiff fails to allege how this conduct, directed to other individuals and to the Green Faith Ministry entity, harmed her.

The court went on to find a few actions that did impact plaintiff, including one of the defendants telling her "to Praise the Lord." The court concluded that this did not violate the Establishment Clause or plaintiff's free exercise rights.

9th Circuit Rejects Free Exercise Challenge To Tax Injunction Act

In Samaj v. County of Riverside, (9th Cir., July 15, 2019), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected petitioner's free exercise challenge to the federal Tax Injunction Act ("TIA"). The court said in part:

Samaj contends that by stripping the district court of its ability to entertain First Amendment challenges to state taxes, the TIA amounts to a law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. We disagree.... Although a more difficult question would be presented if Samaj were altogether precluded from suing to enjoin an allegedly unconstitutional tax, that is not the case here. The TIA only withdraws federal jurisdiction where the party has a “plain, speedy, and efficient remedy” under state law.

Suit Challenges Limits On Sharing Religious Message At Gay Pride Events

Suit was filed in a Tennessee federal district court last month challenging the manner in which the Special Events Policy of Johnson City (TN) is interpreted and applied. The complaint (full text) in Waldrop v. City of Johnson City, Tennessee, (ED TN, June 19, 2019) contends that the city's policy unconstitutionally prevents plaintiffs from sharing their Christian message during gay pride parades and events. It alleges:

123. As applied, the Policy unconstitutionally attempts to convert the City’s streets, sidewalks, and parks from traditional public fora into a nonpublic forum during Special Events conducted in the City. 

124. As applied, the Policy unconstitutionally limits Plaintiffs’ freedom of speech by forcing Plaintiffs to move out of a traditional public forum during Special Events....

133. Plaintiffs have a personal belief in the Biblical mandate to spread the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and Plaintiffs engage in activities, for the purpose of spreading the Gospel of Jesus Christ, that are prohibited by the Policy, as interpreted and enforced by Defendants.

WJHL News reports on the lawsuit.

Pastor Claims Retaliation For Ministering To Migrants

Rev. Kaji Douša, senior pastor of New York City's Park Avenue Christian Church, has filed suit against the federal government claiming that she has been targeted for ministering to migrants at the southern border and in Mexico.  The complaint (full text) in Dousa v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, (SD CA, filed 7/8/2019) alleges in part:

11. In New York, regional ICE officials tracked rallies and prayer vigils led by Pastor Dousa on a list that the officials compiled of so-called “Anti-Trump Protests.” These officials marked Pastor Dousa for surveillance because she prayed with and for immigrants, and because she generated publicity about the devastation that ICE’s enforcement activities rain on immigrants and their families.

12. Then, in January, Defendants detained Pastor Dousa as she attempted to re-enter this nation, her nation, after a day in Tijuana ministering to migrants and their advocates. Border agents interrogated Pastor Dousa about her pastoral work.... They revealed to Pastor Dousa that they had collected detailed information about her and her pastoral work. And they revoked the access she had previously been granted to expedited border crossing.

13. Pastor Dousa’s name is included in a secret government database of journalists, attorneys, immigrant-rights activists, and others targeted for their work with and for migrants....

Alleging violations of the First Amendment and RFRA, the complaint explains:

Defendants’ targeting of Pastor Dousa impedes her ministry, through and through. It burdens her ability to continue answering God’s call to minister to migrants and refugees, which cannot happen without confidence in  confidentiality.... Defendants’ targeting of Pastor Dousa has further forced her to take steps contrary to her faith and to forgo activities that her faith requires, including all but ending her ministry of pastoral care at the Southern Border....

Religion News Service reports on the lawsuit.

Pastor Sues City Council Over Censorship of His Invocation

A suit was filed in a Florida federal district court this week by a pastor whose invocation at a Jacksonville City Council meeting was cut off by the Council president who thought the invocation was too political.  The complaint (full text) in Gundy v. City of Jacksonville, (MD FL, filed 7/1/2019), alleges that Pastor Reginald Grundy's microphone was cut off 4 minutes into his invocation after he said:

Father, in the name of Jesus, we have a political climate right now that is dividing our community further and further apart because of pride and selfish ambitions. People are being intimidated, threatened, and bullied by an executive branch of our city government while cronyism and nepotism is being exercised in backrooms.

City Council President Aaron Bowman justified his action the next day on Twitter, saying:

I never envisioned a CM (council member) stooping so low to find a pastor that would agree to such a sacrilegious attack politicizing something as sacred as our invocation. It obviously was a last ditch effort to try and revive a failed term and campaign. Fortunately I control the microphone.

Grundy contends that Bowman's action violated his free speech and free exercise rights protected by the U.S. and Florida constitutions. News4JAX reports on the lawsuit.

Church Sues Over Cannabis Raid

Redheaded Blackbelt reported yesterday:

A church called Redwood Spiritual Healing Ministry filed a lawsuit Thursday, June 27 against the County of Humboldt and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) alleging violations of its 1st Amendment right to religious freedom as well as due process violations when a multiple agency task force destroyed cannabis as well as private property during the execution of a search warrant. The case further alleges that the County of Humboldt may have withheld relevant information from a judge by having CDFW file the Affidavit for the search warrant without informing the judge that the property in question may be a church under the law.

The full text of the complaint in Redwoods Spiritual Healing Ministry v. Humboldt County, California, (CA Super. Ct., filed 6/27/2019) embedded at the end of the news report on the lawsuit.