Student Statement Opposing Reproductive Rights Issue Must Be Read During School Announcements

 In Nielson v. Ann Arbor Public Schools, (ED MI, Nov. 4, 2022), a Michigan federal district court issued a temporary restraining order requiring a public high school to read an announcement from the school's Republican Club in opposition to the Reproductive Rights constitutional amendment on the Nov. 8 ballot.  The school contended that reading it would violate the Michigan Campaign Finance Act which bars the school from advocating for ballot issues.  However, the school was permitting students who favor the ballot proposal to take part in a walkout sponsored by the National Organization for Women.  The court said in part:

Plaintiffs have shown a likelihood of success on the merits of their First Amendment claim....

The Court finds that Defendants seek to silence Plaintiffs’ appropriate speech as to Proposal 3 by refusing to broadcast it with their morning announcements, while permitting students in favor of Proposal 3 to cut classes, and to demonstrate on school property in favor of Proposal 3.

Thomas More Law Center issued a press release announcing the decision (with links to pleadings in the case as well).

Challenges To School COVID Mitigation Requirements Are Dismissed

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

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

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

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

Suit Challenges Law Limiting Employer Right to Force Employees to Listen to Religious Presentations

 A number of business organizations filed suit yesterday in a Connecticut federal district court challenging on free speech grounds a Connecticut statute that protects employees from being made into captive audiences. The statute imposes liability on employers that discipline employees who refuse to attend employer-sponsored meetings or listen to employer communications whose primary purpose is to express the employer's views on religious or political matters. The complaint (full text) in Chamber of Commerce of the USA v. Bartolemo, (D CT, filed 11/1/2022), also contends that the state law is pre-empted by the National Labor Relations Act. Ct  Mirror reports on the lawsuit.

Student and Coach Sue After Being Disciplined for Criticizing Transgender Student's Use of Girl's Locker Room

Suit was filed last week in a Vermont federal district court by a 14-year old student and her father, a school soccer coach, contending that their free speech and due process rights were violated when the school disciplined them for remarks they made criticizing a transgender female's use of the girl's locker room. The daughter's remarks were made to friends in a French class.  The father made his remarks in a Facebook post.  The controversy escalated and was covered by a local TV station.  The complaint (full text) in Allen v. Millington, (D VT, filed 10/27/2022), alleges in part:

The First Amendment does not countenance this kind of government censorship, where a public school mandates that students and coaches refrain from expressing any view that offends its prescribed views....This case presents a textbook example of unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination, and Plaintiffs are entitled to all appropriate relief.

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

Prof Who Criticized Native American Grave Repatriation Laws Can Move Ahead with Retaliation Suit

In Weiss v. Perez, (ND CA, Oct. 19, 2022), a California federal district court allowed a tenured professor of physical anthropology at San Jose State University to move ahead against most of the defendants she named in a lawsuit alleging that the University has retaliated her against because of her opposition to repatriation of Native American remains.  In a book that Prof. Elizabeth Weiss co-authored that was published in 2020, she argued that the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act and the California Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act "undermine objective scientific inquiry and violate the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution by favoring religion over science." She expressed similar views in an op-ed and on Twitter.  Weiss claims that because of her speaking on this issue, the University has interfered with her research and limited her professional activities in a number of ways that have reduced her responsibilities and damaged her professional reputation. The Art Newspaper reports on the decision.

Certiorari Filed in Challenge to Arkansas Anti-BDS Law

 A petition for certiorari (full text) has been filed with the U.S. Supreme Court in Arkansas Times, LP v. Waldrip, (Sup. Ct., filed 10/20/2022). In the case, the U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals sitting en banc, in a 9-1 opinion, upheld against a free speech challenge Arkansas' law requiring public contracts to include a certification from the contractor that it will not boycott Israel. (See prior posting.) ACLU issued a press release announcing the filing of the petition for review.

State's Removal of 16-Year-Old Transgender Child from Parents' Home Did Not Violate Their Free Exercise Rights

In In re A.C. (Minor Child), (IN App., Oct. 21, 2022), an Indiana state appeals court upheld a trial court's order removing from the home a 16-year old transgender child who suffered from an untreated eating disorder and who was emotionally abused because of their parent's unwillingness to accept their transgender identity. The parents testified that they could not affirm their child's transgender identity or use the child's preferred pronouns because of their religious beliefs.  In rejecting the parents' Free Exercise claims, the court said in part:

[T]he Dispositional Order was based on Child’s medical and psychological needs and not on the Parents’ disagreement with Child’s transgender identity....

Even if the Parents were able to demonstrate that the Dispositional Order imposes a substantial burden on their religious freedom, their claim that Child’s continued removal from the home violates the Free Exercise Clause would fail....  [P]rotecting a child’s health and welfare is well recognized as a compelling interest justifying state action that is contrary to a parent’s religious beliefs.

The court also held that the trial court's order requiring the parents to refrain from discussing Child’s transgender identity during visitation does not violate the parents' free speech rights.

Baker With Religious Objections to Same-Sex Marriage Did Not Violate California's Civil Rights Law

In a tentative decision which becomes final in ten days unless objections are filed, a California state trial court has concluded that a bakery which refuses on religious grounds to furnish custom designed cakes for same-sex weddings and instead refers customers to another bakery for such items did not violate the Unruh Civil Rights Act. In Department of Fair Employment and Housing v. Cathy's Creations, Inc., (CA Super. Ct., Oct. 21, 2022), the court concluded that the state failed to prove intentional sexual orientation discrimination, saying in part:

Miller and Tastries do not design and do not offer to any person-- regardless of sexual orientation-- custom wedding cakes that "contradict God's sacrament of marriage between a man and a woman.

The court went on to hold that because California's Unruh Civil Rights Act is a neutral law of general applicability, the state did not violate defendant's free exercise rights. However, application of the Unruh Civil Rights Act here would violate defendants' free speech rights because it would compel expressive conduct based on content or viewpoint. Thomas More Society issued a press release announcing the decision.

European Court: Suspended Prison Sentence For Protest In Catholic Church Violated Rights Of Abortion Rights Activist

In Bourton v. France, (ECHR, Oct. 13, 2022) (full text of decision in French), the European Court of Human Rights in a Chamber Judgment held that a French court's imposition of a suspended one-month prison sentence on a 39-year feminist activist charged with "sexual exposure" violated her rights of freedom of expression under the European Convention on Human Rights. The French court had also ordered defendant to pay damages and costs totaling 3500 Euros.  According to the English language press release from the European Court:

On 20 December 2013 [Eloise Bouton] staged a protest in the church of La Madeleine in Paris, but not during mass, by standing in front of the high altar while exposing her breasts, revealing slogans daubed across her body, and pretending to carry out an abortion using raw beef liver as a prop. Her performance was brief and she left the church when so requested by the choirmaster. The protest received media coverage, about ten journalists having been present....

The purpose of the applicant’s mise en scène had been to convey, in a symbolic place of worship, a message relating to a public and societal debate on the positioning of the Catholic Church on a woman’s right to free disposal of her body, including the right to have an abortion.

In these circumstances, the [European] Court [of Human Rights] took the view that the applicant’s freedom of expression should have been afforded a sufficient level of protection since the content of her message related to a matter of public interest....

The Court reiterated that the imposition of a prison sentence for an offence in the area of political speech would be compatible with freedom of expression as guaranteed by Article 10 of the Convention only in exceptional circumstances, as, for example, in the case of hate speech or incitement to violence....

The Court found that the grounds given by the domestic courts had not been sufficient for it to consider that they had weighed up the interests at stake in an appropriate manner and in accordance with the criteria established in its case-law....

Christian Counselor Challenges City's Conversion Therapy Ban

Suit was filed yesterday in a Wisconsin federal district court challenging the city of La Crosse's ordinance that prohibits medical and mental health professionals from engaging in conversion therapy with anyone under 18 years of age. The complaint (full text) in Buchman v. City of La Crosse, (WD WI, filed 10/13/2022), alleges that the ban on counseling minors to change their sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression or behaviors violates free speech and free exercise rights of plaintiff, a licensed counselor who approaches counseling through "a Christ-centered lens". It also alleges that the ban is unconstitutionally vague and violates the Wisconsin Constitution's protection of the right of conscience. The complaint says in part:

The Ordinance thus interferes with Ms. Buchman’s ability to decide matters of faith and doctrine for herself and to then infuse her work with these religious beliefs. It attempts to dictate and influence Ms. Buchman’s resolution of those matters. It forces her to choose between her faith and government penalty.

Wisconsin Spotlight reports on the lawsuit.

Anti-Abortion Sidewalk Counselor Challenges Sign Permit Requirement

Suit was filed this week in a Maryland federal district court alleging that Baltimore's sign permit ordinance violates plaintiff's free speech and free exercise rights. The complaint (full text) in Roswell v. City of Baltimore, (D MD, filed 10/10/2022), seeks a preliminary injunction to prevent the city from requiring plaintiff to obtain permits in order to use A-frame signs when engaging in religiously-motivated sidewalk anti-abortion counseling at a Planned Parenthood facility. Thomas More Society issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

8th Circuit: City Food Ordinance Did Not Violate Pastor's Free Speech Rights

In Redlich v. City of St. Louis, (8th Cir., Oct. 12, 2022), the U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of a suit brought by a Christian pastor and his assistant challenging a city ordinance that required a permit to distribute potentially hazardous food. Plaintiffs had previously been cited for distributing bologna sandwiches to hungry people they encountered in St. Louis. They contended that as applied to them, the ordinance violated their free speech rights. The court held that even assuming plaintiffs' actions amounted to expressive conduct, the ordinance furthers a substantial governmental interest and is narrowly tailored to that interest. It said in part:

Appellants would be required to pay a $50 fee for the permit at least two days in advance of their food-sharing activities and notify the City of both the time and place where the food would be distributed. These provisions ensure that health inspectors have an opportunity to determine whether the temporary food establishment is complying with the Ordinance.

Courthouse News Service reports on the decision.

New York Yeshivas Sue Over Substantial Equivalency Guidelines

In New York, a group of yeshivas and two organizations have sued challenging the state Board of Regents recently adopted guidelines implementing NY Education Law §3204(2) which requires instruction in nonpublic schools to be at least "substantially equivalent" to that in public schools in the same city or district. The complaint (full text) in In re Parents for Educational and Religious Liberty in Schools, (Albany County Sup. Ct., filed 10/9/2022), alleges in part:

... [T]he New York State Education  Department... has spent the last half decade seeking to impose greater requirements and heightened oversight on these schools than are imposed on other schools in New York, whether public or private....

First, the New Regulations violate the New York State Administrative Procedures Act ... because the public comment process was a sham.... Here, NYSED received more than 300,000 comments in opposition to the proposed regulations but did not truly consider them and did not make any substantive revisions....

Second, the New Regulations violate SAPA by imposing on yeshivas obligations and restrictions not found in other schools. Only yeshivas ... will be prohibited from offering instruction ... in a student’s home language....

Third, the New Regulations create an impermissible de facto licensing requirement through the review and determination process....

The New Regulations frustrate the Petitioners’ constitutionally protected rights to the free exercise of religion and free speech, and violate their due process rights and right to equal protection. 

Hamodia reports on the lawsuit.

Physician Assistant Sues Hospital That Fired Her Over Treatment Of Transgender Patients

 A suit was filed on Tuesday in a Michigan federal district court by a woman who had worked as a physician assistant for 17 years, but was then fired for refusing, on religious grounds, to refer patients for gender transitioning drugs and procedures and to use pronouns that correspond to a patient's gender identity rather than their biological sex. In a claim denied by the fired employee, it was also claimed she altered template pronouns on medical records.  The complaint (full text) in Kloosterman v. Metropolitan Hospital, (WD MI, filed 10/11/2022), alleges in part:

9. By exhibiting open hostility toward Ms. Kloosterman’s religious beliefs, University of Michigan Health-West officials violated the Free Exercise Clause.... 

10. By accommodating secular preferences while refusing to grant a religious accommodation to Ms. Kloosterman, University of Michigan Health-West’s actions trigger and fail strict scrutiny under the Free Exercise Clause.... 

11. By seeking to compel Ms. Kloosterman to speak biology-obscuring pronouns that would violate her conscience and her medical judgment, as doing so could cause patients to miss potentially life-saving screenings, University of Michigan Health-West also violated the Free Speech Clause.... 

12. When it engaged in the aforementioned actions and fired Ms. Kloosterman, University of Michigan Health-West also violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, as well as Article I, §§ 2, 4, and 5 of the Michigan Constitution and the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act of 1976....

First Liberty issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

City's Harassment Of Private Prayer Services In Rabbi's Home Violated 1st Amendment

In Congregation 3401 Prairie Bais Yeshaya D'Kerestir, Inc. v. City of Miami, (SD FL, Oct. 6, 2022), a Florida federal district court refused to dismiss claims that city officials' harassment of a rabbi's home that hosted daily minyans (prayer services) for invited guests violated the 1st Amendment.  Private groups worshiping in a person's home are permitted in residential areas under the city's zoning code. The court said in part:

Defendant, wielding the City Code "like a club" ... issued multiple erroneous citations against Plaintiff for zoning code violations...; sent City personnel to the Property a staggering 126 times...; installed a surveillance camera that monitors only the Property ...; conducted at least one warrantless search...; and otherwise singled Plaintiffs out for harassment.... These events have had "a chilling effect on Plaintiff[s'] First Amendment Rights."... . Defendant's conduct, at least as alleged, could certainly "chill a person of ordinary firmness from exercising his or her First Amendment rights."  [Quote updated.]

11th Circuit: City Council Invocation Is Government Speech

In Gundy v. City of Jacksonville Florida, (11th Cir., Sept. 30, 2022), the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of appeals held that an invocation opening a city council meeting delivered by Reginald Gundy, a pastor invited by a member of Council, is government speech.  At issue is a suit by the pastor whose microphone was cut off in the middle of his invocation by the city council president who concluded that the invocation had crossed over into a political attack. The court concluded that the pastor's suit should be dismissed, saying in part:

Mr. Gundy's appeal centers on the fact that he brought counts against Mr. Bowman and the City based on alleged violations of his free speech and free exercise rights under the United States Constitution and the Florida Constitution.

As a threshold and dispositive matter, ... we hold that the district court erred in deeming the invocation private speech in a nonpublic forum instead of government speech. And since Mr. Gundy did not allege a violation of his rights under the Establishment Clause, which is the proper constitutional vehicle to attack the government speech at issue here, his appeal must fail.

Certiorari Denied In Scientology Arbitration Case and Falun Gong Leafleting Case

Today's 48-page Order List from the U.S. Supreme Court on its opening day of the term includes the denial of review in two cases of interest:

Church of Scientology v. Bixler (Docket No. 22-60, cert. denied 10/3/2022): In the case, a California state appellate court held that former Church of Scientology members were not bound by their agreement to submit all disputes with the Church to the Church's Religious Arbitration system when the dispute involves conduct that occurred after plaintiffs left the Church. (See prior posting.)

Zhang Jingrong v. Chinese Anti-Cult World Alliance, Inc. (Docket No. 21-1429, cert. denied 10/3/2022) and Chinese Anti-Cult World Alliance, Inc. v. Zhang Jinrong (Docket No. 21-1556, cert. denied 10/3/2022)- In the case the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals held that five tables on the sidewalk in Flushing, Queens, New York where Falun Gong adherents passed out flyers and displayed posters were not a "place of religious worship" under the Freedom of Access To Clinics Entrances Act that prohibits intentionally injuring, intimidating, or interfering with anyone who is exercising 1st Amendment religious freedom rights “at a place of religious worship.” In addition, the cross-petition for review raised the issue of the validity of the statute under the commerce clause. (See prior posting.)

DC Circuit Hears Oral Arguments From Abortion Protesters

On Wednesday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit heard oral arguments (audio of full oral arguments) in Frederick Douglass Foundation, Inc. v. DC.  In the case, a D.C. federal district court dismissed claims that enforcing ordinances prohibiting the defacing property against anti-abortion protesters but not against racial-justice protesters violated free exercise and free speech protections.  The abortion protesters sought to paint or chalk D.C. streets with the slogan "Black Pre-Born Lives Matter." (See prior posting.) An ADF press release has more on the case.

Supreme Court Vacates Stay of Injunction Against Yeshiva University, Sending Case Back To State Courts

The U.S. Supreme court yesterday in Yeshiva University v. YU Pride Alliance, (Sup. Ct., Sept. 14, 2022), vacated the stay issued on Sept. 9 by Justice Sotomayor of a New York state trial court's injunction that required Yeshiva University to officially recognize as a student organization an LGBTQ group, YU Pride Alliance. In a 5-4 vote, the Court issued the following opinion directing the University to first seek expedited review and interim relief from New York trial courts.  Here is the full opinion [paragraph breaks added]:

The application (22A184) for stay pending appeal of a permanent injunction entered by the New York trial court, presented to Justice Sotomayor and by her referred to the Court, is denied without prejudice to applicants again seeking relief from this Court if, upon properly seeking expedited review and interim relief from the New York courts, applicants receive neither. The order heretofore entered by Justice Sotomayor is vacated.

Applicants Yeshiva University and its president seek emergency relief from a non-final order of the New York trial court requiring the University to treat an LGBTQ student group similarly to other student groups in its student club recognition process. The application is denied because it appears that applicants have at least two further avenues for expedited or interim state court relief. First, applicants may ask the New York courts to expedite consideration of the merits of their appeal. Applicants do not assert, nor does the Appellate Division docket reveal, that they have ever requested such relief. Second, applicants may file with the Appellate Division a corrected motion for permission to appeal that court’s denial of a stay to the New York Court of Appeals, as the Appellate Division clerk’s office directed applicants to do on August 25. Applicants may also ask the Appellate Division to expedite consideration of that motion.

If applicants seek and receive neither expedited review nor interim relief from the New York courts, they may return to this Court.

Justice Alito, with whom Justice Thomas, Justice Gorsuch, and Justice Barrett join, dissent.

NY Jewish Week reports on the decision. [Thanks to Rabbi Michael Simon for the lead.]

UPDATE: Here is the full text of Justice Alito's dissent. He said in part:

At least four of us are likely to vote to grant certiorari if Yeshiva’s First Amendment arguments are rejected on appeal, and Yeshiva would likely win if its case came before us. A State’s imposition of its own mandatory interpretation of scripture is a shocking development that calls out for review. The Free Exercise Clause protects the ability of religious schools to educate in accordance with their faith.

Justice Sotomayor Stays NY Order Requiring Yeshiva University To Recognize LGBTQ Group

In Yeshiva University v. YU Pride Alliance, (Sup. Ct., Sept. 9, 2022),  U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor today issued an order staying a New York trial court's injunction that required Yeshiva University to officially recognize as a student organization an LGBTQ group, YU Pride Alliance. The New York trial court held that applying the public accommodation provisions of the New York City Human Rights Law to Yeshiva does not violate its First Amendment free exercise or free speech rights. (See prior posting.) Justice Sotomayor granted the University's Emergency Application for a Stay Pending Appellate Review without referring the petition to the full Court. However she wrote that her stay was granted "pending further order of the undersigned or of the Court." CNN reports on developments.