Presumption of Discrimination in Virginia Fair housing Law Held Unconstitutional

 In Carter v. Virginia Real Estate Board, (VA Cir. Ct., Jan. 24, 2024), a Virginia state trial court held unconstitutional a portion of Virginia's Fair Housing Law (§36-96.3) that provides:

The use of words or symbols associated with a particular religion, national origin, sex, or race shall be prima facie evidence of an illegal preference under this chapter that shall not be overcome by a general disclaimer. However, reference alone to places of worship, including churches, synagogues, temples, or mosques, in any such notice, statement, or advertisement shall not be prima facie evidence of an illegal preference....

In the case, a realtor's e-mails contained a signature line reading "For Faith and Freedom, Jesus Loves You, and with God all things are Possible." Her e-mails also contained a personal statement reading "For God so loved the world that He gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. John 3:16". The Virginia Real Estate Board began an investigation of the realtor based on these religious statements. The court invalidated this portion of the Fair Housing Law, saying in part:

[This section of the] Virginia Fair Housing Law ... infringes the natural right of individuals to express their identity and, as such, stands in sharp contrast to the freedom of Virginians and Americans to express their identity that lie at the heart of the First Amendment ... and the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom. Moreover, the statute restricts individual expression with a sweeping generalization so broad that any expression of individual identity related to religion, national origin, sex, or race is deemed tantamount to a desire to engage in unlawful discrimination.... Virginia's presumption of animus in the Fair Housing Law inequitably and overbroadly inhibits those rights, and as such, it fails to give the breathing space that First Amendment freedoms require....

ACLJ issued a press release announcing the decision.

Sign Ordinance Restricting Anti-Abortion Protester Does Not Violate 1st Amendment

In Roswell v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, (D MD, Jan.19, 2024), a Maryland federal district court dismissed a suit by an anti-abortion sidewalk counselor who communicates with women entering and exiting a Planned Parenthood Clinic. A city ordinance prevented plaintiff from using A-frame signs in front of the clinic to communicate his religious convictions about abortions as well as information about alternatives to abortion. A permit to erect such signs can be obtained only by the owner of the property or an agent of the owner. Finding that the city ordinance did not violate plaintiff's free speech rights, the court said in part:

Plaintiff asks this Court to find that zoning ordinances cannot distinguish between the owners and tenants of adjacent properties utilizing A-frame signs for non-residential uses and those with no such property interest without running afoul of First Amendment principles. Fatal to Roswell’s position is the simple fact that the regulations do not “target speech based on its communicative content.” ...

The court also rejected plaintiff's free exercise of religion challenge, saying in part: 

Here, the challenged ordinances are unconcerned with religious exercise. They neither prohibit nor compel religious conduct. And even if the ordinances did burden religious exercise, a law that “incidentally burden[s] religion” does not violate the Free Exercise Clause if it is “neutral and generally applicable.”

11th Circuit: Transit Agency's Policy Barring Religious Ads Violates Free Speech Protections

In Young Israel of Tampa, Inc. v. Hillsborough Area Regional Transit Authority, (11th Cir., Jan. 10, 2024), the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals held unconstitutional a public transit agency's policy on the sale of advertising space on its vehicles and property.  While selling advertising space, the agency prohibited ads that "primarily promote a religious faith or religious organization." Applying this policy, the transit agency rejected an ad from plaintiff promoting a "Chanukah on Ice" event. The court concluded that the policy violates plaintiff's free speech rights, saying in part:

Though the analysis would not change one way or another, we’ll assume, without deciding, that the HART vehicles and property at issue here are nonpublic forums as opposed to limited public forums. Even so, when the government restricts speech in nonpublic forums, it “must avoid the haphazard and arbitrary enforcement of speech restrictions in order for them to be upheld as reasonable.”...

Given the inherent ambiguity of the word “religious,” the uncertainty and potential breadth of the term “primarily promote,” and the lack of any definitions, we agree with the district court that the policy fails to provide any objective or workable standards. The policy therefore fails under [the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Minnesota Voters Alliance v.] Mansky....

Judge Newsom filed a concurring opinion, saying in part:

I'm not sure that any religious-speech restriction could survive a reasonableness inquiry under Mansky—because I’m not sure that any policymaker could define or identify “religious” speech using “objective, workable standards.”

Judge Grimberg filed a concurring opinion, saying in part:

By constructing a policy that is so clearly and completely incapable of reasonable application, HART has successfully evaded a ruling on the viewpoint-versus-subject-matter dispute that is at the heart of this case. And that evaded ruling, in my view, has long been settled by the Supreme Court’s “trilogy” of cases....

Where the same advertisement, with the same content is welcomed when references to religion are removed and replaced with secular ones, I see no way around concluding ... that the public transportation system engaged in unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination.

See prior related posting.

Inmate's Speech and Religion Challenges to His Execution Method Are Not Dismissed, But Execution Not Enjoined

In Smith v. Hamm, (MD AL, Jan. 10, 2024), plaintiff, who is scheduled for execution by nitrogen hypoxia on January 25, challenges the legality of his execution on several grounds.  Among these are his claims that his free speech rights as well as his free exercise rights are violated because masking him will interfere with his making an audible statement and praying audibly during his execution.  The court concluded that plaintiff had made plausible claims that the execution protocol violates his First Amendment free speech rights and his religious free exercise rights under RLUIPA, the First Amendment and the Alabama Religious Freedom Act (as well as his 8th Amendment rights).  Therefore, it denied defendants' motion to dismiss those claims.  The court went on, however, to conclude that plaintiff had not shown a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of those claims. Therefore, the court refused to issue a preliminary injunction to bar execution of plaintiff. At issue in the case is the state's second attempt to execute plaintiff. A previous attempt to execute him by lethal injection failed when after 90 minutes of trying, authorities were unable to access his veins.

Court Limits Discussion of Religion in Trial for Blocking Abortion Clinic Entrance

In United States v. Gallagher, (MD TN, Jan. 5, 2024), a Tennessee federal district court ruled on the extent to which defendants can refer to their religious activities or beliefs and to the First Amendment in their upcoming criminal trial for violation of the Free Access to Clinic Entrances Act. Defendants are charged criminally with barricading the entrance to a Mt. Juliet, Tennessee abortion clinic in a so-called "rescue" operation. The court said in part:

It does not appear to be disputed that these defendants’ actions were motivated, at least in part, by their religious objections to the intentional termination of pregnancies. The Government argues, however, that evidence of those motivations would be “totally extraneous” to the “nature of the” charged offenses and should, therefore, be excluded.... The Government’s argument, however, is in significant tension with the FACE Act itself, which affirmatively places the defendants’ states of mind at issue by criminalizing only “intentional” acts taken “because [the victim] is or has been, or in order to intimidate such person or any other person or any class of persons from, obtaining or providing reproductive health services.” 18 U.S.C. § 248(a)(1). The defendants’ subjective motivations are, therefore, an unavoidable aspect of this case, and it is not clear to the court that those motivations can be accurately represented without at least some incidental reference to the details of their beliefs—which happen, in this instance, to be based in religion....

The court has already ruled that, as a matter of well-settled law, religious motivations are not a defense to a violation of either the FACE Act or the conspiracy statute.... The court, however, will not go so far as to wholly forbid the discussion of the defendants’ religious beliefs for the limited purpose of establishing or refuting intent or purpose.... 

... The defendants cannot turn an ounce of relevance into a gallon of irrelevant political messaging. The court, however, will not bar discussion of the defendants’ views altogether.

... When the defendants prayed or discussed their religious views, those specific actions were protected by the First Amendment. But if, in the next breath, they turned to discussing a plan to unlawfully obstruct the entrance of a clinic, then that conspiracy was just as illegal as it would have been if it had been the sole topic of conversation. Similarly, if they engaged in activities that would, in isolation, be protected by the First Amendment, but they did so while also violating the FACE Act through physical obstruction or intimidation, then the non-criminal components of their actions are no shield against prosecution for the criminal ones. Any argument to the contrary would be improper and will be barred.

The court also ruled that defendants may not present evidence or arguments at trial on various other matters including jury nullification, selective prosecution, potential sentences and good character. (See prior related posting.)

Virginia Supreme Court Rules For Teacher Who Refused To Use Student's Preferred Pronouns

In Vlaming v. West Point School Board, (VA Sup. Ct., Dec. 14, 2023), the Virginia Supreme Court, in a 4-3 decision, held that a teacher who was fired after refusing for religious reasons to use masculine pronouns in referring to a biologically female student has a claim for violation of the free exercise provisions of the Virginia state Constitution. The majority, in a 73-page opinion, held that the Virginia Constitution requires greater accommodation than does the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution when a neutral law of generally applicability conflicts with a religious belief.  The majority said in part:

[W]e hold that in the Commonwealth of Virginia, the constitutional right to free exercise of religion is among the “natural and unalienable rights of mankind,” ... and that “overt acts against peace and good order,”  correctly defines the limiting principle for this right and establishes the duty of government to accommodate religious liberties that do not transgress these limits.

The majority also held that plaintiff had adequately stated a claim under the Virginia Religious Freedom Restoration Act as well as a claim for violation of the free speech and due process provisions of the Virginia Constitution. The majority said in part:

Because the gravamen of Vlaming’s free-speech claims involves an allegation of compelled speech on an ideological subject, we hold that the circuit court erred when it dismissed Vlaming’s free-speech claims....

At the time that the School Board fired Vlaming, no clearly established law — whether constitutional, statutory, or regulatory — put a teacher on notice that not using third-person pronouns in addition to preferred names constituted an unlawful act of discrimination against transgender students. If the government truly means to compel speech, the compulsion must be clear and direct.

Finally the majority concluded that plaintiff adequately alleged that the School Board had breached his contract.

Justice Powell, joined by Chief Justice Goodwyn concurred in part, saying in part:

I write separately to clarify that, in my opinion, the proper test to evaluate a free exercise claim under Article I, Section 16 of the Virginia Constitution is traditional strict scrutiny as expressed in Sherbert v. Verner.... I disagree with the majority’s conclusion “that ‘overt acts against peace and good order,’ ... correctly defines the limiting principle for this right [in Article I, Section 16] and establishes the duty of the government to accommodate religious liberties that do not transgress these limits.”

Justice Mann filed a 64-page opinion dissenting in part. He said in part:

I dissent from the majority’s analysis and interpretation of Article I, Section 16.... The majority’s proposed limiting principle for the free exercise provision ... is not supported by the plain words of our Constitution, its history, our legal precedent, or legislative action of the General Assembly. I also dissent with respect to the majority’s rulings on Vlaming’s free speech and due process claims. Regarding Vlaming’s free-exercise claim, the majority establishes a sweeping super scrutiny standard with the potential to shield any person’s objection to practically any policy or law by claiming a religious justification for their failure to follow either.,,, 

Where a claimant alleges that the government was hostile towards his religious free exercise or that the government did not neutrally apply the law, the reviewing court should apply strict scrutiny to determine whether the government’s enforcement was narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling state interest....

As for Vlaming’s free speech and due process claims, the facts speak for themselves. Under well-established federal precedent, Vlaming’s allegations as pleaded establish that Vlaming was (1) a public employee engaged in curricular speech pursuant to his official job duties, (2) not speaking as a private citizen on a matter of public concern; and (3) had ample notice that his refusal to use Doe’s preferred pronouns was a violation of the School Board’s policies, and the School Board provided him an opportunity to be heard on his discipline.... 

Justice Powell and Chief Justice Goodwyn joined the portions of Justice Mann's opinion that relate to the Virginia Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and the free speech and due process provisions of the Virginia Constitution.

Florida Transgender Teachers Challenge Law That Bars Them from Using Their Preferred Pronouns

Suit was filed this week in a Florida federal district court by three current and former Florida public-school teachers who identify as transgender or non-binary. They challenge a provision of Florida law that bars K-12 teachers from providing students with the teacher's preferred title or pronouns if they do not reflect the teacher's biological sex. The 61-page complaint (full text) in Wood v. Florida Department of Education, (ND FL, filed 12/13/2023) alleges in part:

[The statute] unlawfully discriminates against Plaintiffs on the basis of sex in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 because whether Plaintiffs may provide to students a particular title or pronoun depends entirely on Plaintiffs’ sex, and Florida has only an invidious basis—not an exceedingly persuasive or even a rational one—for discriminating in this harmful way. It also unconstitutionally restrains Plaintiffs’ speech in violation of the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution because it prohibits Plaintiffs from using the titles and pronouns that express who they are, the same way that their colleagues do.

The Hill reports on the lawsuit.

Suit Challenges D.C. Bus Advertising Restrictions

Suit was filed yesterday in a D.C. federal district court against the Washington Metropolitan Transit Authority challenging its guidelines on permissible bus advertising. Plaintiff is an organization seeking to educate about the religious faith of the founders of America and the role of their religion in the drafting of the Constitution. Its ads violate two WMTA guidelines: one which prohibits advertising "intended to influence members of the public regarding an issue on which there are varying opinions" and the other which bars ads "that promote or oppose any religion, religious practice or belief." The complaint (full text) in WallBuilder Presentations v. Clarke, (D DC, filed 12/12/2023) alleges in part:

8. First, Guideline 9’s “issue” advertising ban, applied by WMATA to prohibit the advertisements, violates the First Amendment in a number of ways. It is unconstitutionally vague, announces an unworkable standard that grants unfettered discretion to the decisionmakers, and, consequently, unlawfully discriminates against WallBuilders’ religious viewpoint. While it rejected WallBuilders’ advertisements, WMATA permits a wide array of advertising relating to issues involving “varying opinions” on its public buses and other advertising venues subject to its Advertising Guidelines. WMATA also permits advertisements for other mission-oriented organizations, even advertisements that relate to the faith-based missions of other organizations. 

9. Second, Guideline 12’s ban on religious advertising also infringes WallBuilders’ right to speak on otherwise permissible topics because of the religious viewpoint WallBuilders seeks to express in its advertisements. By refusing to accept advertisements that “promote or oppose any religion, religious practice or belief,” Guideline 12 necessarily results in discrimination against religious viewpoints on a range of otherwise permissible topics.

Daily Caller reports on the lawsuit which was brought on behalf of plaintiffs by the ACLU and First Liberty Institute, as well as the law firm Steptoe, LLP.

Certiorari Denied in Challenge to Conversion Therapy Ban

Today by a vote of 6-3, the U.S. Supreme Court denied review in Tingley v. Ferguson, (Docket No. 22-942, certiorari denied 12/11/2023). In the case the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected free speech, free exercise and vagueness challenges to Washington state's ban on practicing conversion therapy on minors. (See prior posting.) Justice Thomas filed an opinion dissenting from the denial of certiorari, saying in part:

Under SB 5722, licensed counselors can speak with minors about gender dysphoria, but only if they convey the state-approved message of encouraging minors to explore their gender identities. Expressing any other message is forbidden—even if the counselor’s clients ask for help to accept their biological sex. That is viewpoint-based and content-based discrimination in its purest form. As a result, SB 5722 is presumptively unconstitutional, and the state must show that it can survive strict scrutiny before enforcing it.

The Ninth Circuit attempted to sidestep this framework by concluding that counseling is unprotected by the First Amendment because States have traditionally regulated the practice of medicine....

This case is not the first instance of the Ninth Circuit restricting medical professionals’ First Amendment rights, and without the Court’s review, I doubt it will be the last.

Justice Alito filed a brief opinion dissenting from the denial of review. Justice Kavanaugh also indicated that he would grant the petition for certiorari.

Elimination of Religious Exemption from School Vaccination Requirements Is Upheld

 In Milford Christian Church v. Russell-Tucker, (D CT, Dec. 1, 2023), a Connecticut federal district court dismissed 1st and 14th Amendment challenges to Connecticut's removal of its religious exemption from school vaccination requirements. The court said in part:

To be clear, Plaintiffs do argue that Conn. Gen. Stat. § 10-204a is not a neutral law and that it “specifically targeted religious practices that it disagreed with – refusing to take a vaccine because of its ingredients – and it eliminated any tolerance for those religious beliefs by completely foreclosing all avenues for parents who hold religious beliefs against taking vaccines to education their children at al.”... But this argument ... is based on Plaintiffs contention that Defendants’ failure to eliminate medical exemptions and legacy exemptions undermines their stated goal of protecting children’s and community health. ...

Here, the conduct regulated by Conn. Gen. Stat. § 10-204a—requiring vaccination before attending school—is applied to everyone regardless of religious or secular objections. 

The secular conduct permitted—exemptions for medical reasons—does not “undermine[] the government’s asserted interests in a similar way,”... These medical exemptions—because they are limited in number—are not “at least as harmful to the legitimate government interest purportedly justifying it,”....

In We the Patriots...., the Second Circuit held that that “protecting public health is a compelling government interest,”... and that “Act’s repeal of the religious exemption is rationally related to that interest because it seeks to maximize the number of students in Connecticut who are vaccinated against vaccine-preventable diseases.”...

To the extent that mandating the vaccination of students affects the Plaintiffs’ speech rights, it is “an incidental burden” related to a “neutral regulation” for “substantial” public health reasons, an interest not achievable by not requiring vaccinations, despite any “incidental” message it sends Plaintiffs’ about their religion....

Court Upholds Oregon's Rules for Approving Adoptive Parents Over Free Exercise and Free Speech Challenges

In Bates v. Pakseresht, (D OR, Nov. 14, 2023), an Oregon federal district court, in a 53-page opinion, rejected plaintiff's challenge to the state's denial of her application to be certified to adopt children through the Oregon Department of Human Services.  Plaintiff was denied certification because, consistent with her Christian religious beliefs, she would not agree to support an adoptive child's sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression. Rejecting plaintiff's free exercise claim, the court said in part:

A willingness to take in an LGBTQ+ child, but disavow their identity, cannot by analogy be compared to a business owner's willingness to provide some services, but not others, to LGBTQ+ individuals. To make such a claim demonstrates a lack of understanding of the importance of providing a child with the holistic support and care required to produce well-rounded and confident adults....

The court also rejected plaintiff's free speech claim, saying in part:

[T]he issue in this case is not that plaintiff is seeking to provide religious instruction to her child. She is seeking to provide religious instruction to a child in the care and custody of the state. She does not possess the same rights as a parent in this situation because the state is the de facto parent. Although plaintiff's ultimate goal is adoption, she is seeking a certification that grants her only the opportunity to house and care for a child under the state's umbrella of protection.

Court Enjoins Idaho's Ban on Aiding a Minor in Obtaining an Abortion

In Matsumoto v, Labrador I, (D ID, Nov. 8, 2023), an Idaho federal district court issued a preliminary injunction against enforcing Idaho Code Section 18-623 which provides in part:

An adult who, with the intent to conceal an abortion from the parents or guardian of a pregnant, unemancipated minor, either procures an abortion ... or obtains an abortion-inducing drug for the pregnant minor to use for an abortion by recruiting, harboring, or transporting the pregnant minor within this state commits the crime of abortion trafficking.

The court said in part:

The Court finds Idaho Code Section 18-623 is a content-based regulation of protected speech and expression. The statute plainly regulates expression based on content by restricting adults from engaging in activities that advocate, assist, and communicate information and support to pregnant minors about legal abortion options....

Here, Idaho Code Section 18-623 fails to provide fair notice or ascertainable standard of what is and what is not abortion trafficking. The terms “recruiting, harboring, or transporting” are undefined, overbroad, and vague, making it impossible for a reasonable person to distinguish between permissible and impermissible activities....

In Matsumoto v. Labrador II, (D ID, Nov. 8, 2023), the same court refused to dismiss plaintiffs' First Amendment speech and 14th Amendment vagueness challenges as well as their right to interstate travel claims. However the court did dismiss plaintiffs right to intrastate travel challenge.

Reuters reports on the preliminary injunction.

Free Speech and Free Exercise Challenges to Law Restricting Sidewalk Counselors Moves Ahead

In Pro-Life Action Ministries v. City of Minneapolis, (D MN, Oct. 30,2022), a Minnesota federal district court dismissed void-for-vagueness and an expressive-association challenges to a Minneapolis ordinance that bans physically disrupting access to a reproductive healthcare facility.  The court however refused to dismiss plaintiff's free speech, free exercise of religion and overbreadth claims. It said that it is impossible, without a trial record that explores historical background, legislative history, and contemporaneous statements of decisionmakers to determine whether the law is neutral and generally applicable, or whether, instead, it targets religious conduct. A trial record is also needed to decide whether the law is narrowly tailored. The suit was brought by a Christian nonprofit organization that engages in “sidewalk counseling” outside abortion clinics.

Pennsylvania Legislature Repeals Ban on Public School Teachers Wearing Religious Garb or Insignia

Yesterday, the Pennsylvania legislature gave final passage to Senate Bill 84 (full text) which repeals Pennsylvania's ban on public school teachers wearing any religious garb or insignia in the classroom. According to Penn Live, Governor Josh Shapiro is expected to sign the bill when it reaches his desk. Pennsylvania is the only state that still has such a ban on its books. In Nichol v. Arin Intermediate Unit 28, (WD PA, June 25, 2003), a Pennsylvania federal district court, in a preliminary injunction action, held that the law likely violates the Free Speech and Free Exercise clauses of the 1st Amendment. After the decision, plaintiff was rehired and given back pay. (See Senate Memo on SB 84.)

Christian Pre-School May Get State Aid Without Complying With Non-Discrimination Rules Which Violate Its Beliefs

In Darren Patterson Christian Academy v. Roy, (D CO, Oct. 20, 2023), a Colorado federal district court issued a preliminary injunction barring Colorado from excluding a private Christian pre-school from its Univeral Pre-School Program. The state requires participating schools to agree that they will not discriminate on the basis of gender, race, ethnicity, religion, national origin, age, sexual orientation, gender identity, citizenship status, education, disability, socio-economic status, or any other identity.” The court said in part:

... [T]he Department’s non-discrimination policy likely violates Plaintiff’s rights by interfering with the school’s selection of key employees in accordance with its religious convictions under the “ministerial exception.” ...

Second, Plaintiff has the right to expressive association which the State’s hiring rules likely violate.... The freedom to associate with others also includes the freedom not to associate with others if doing so would compromise the associating group’s expression of beliefs....

Third, the Department’s rules also force Plaintiff to choose between adhering to religious beliefs and risking exclusion from the program or complying with the Department’s rules. In the specific context of excluding religious schools from participation in educational benefits programs, the Supreme Court has thrice held that a state may not exclude religious observers from receiving otherwise available educational funding because of a school’s religious status or practice....

Plaintiff seeks to hire only coreligionists, and to continue internal policies related to gender distinctions rooted in religious beliefs. These polices violate the Department’s non-discrimination standards for participating preschools.... The First Amendment forbids imposing such a choice.

Fourth, the State’s rules are likely not neutral and generally applicable..... They allow both categorical and individualized exemptions that would undermine the government asserted interests, and thereby trigger strict scrutiny.... See Fulton v. City ...

Plaintiff is also likely to succeed on the merits of its Free Speech claim, at least to the extent that the state would require Plaintiff and its staff to use a student’s or employee’s preferred pronouns as a condition of participating in the program.

[Thanks to Eugene Volokh via Religionlaw for the lead.]

Ban on California's Publicly Funded Home School Program Covering Faith-Based Instruction Challenged

California's public charter school program includes schools that fund independent study home schooling. Parents may use state funds for secular educational materials, but not for religious materials.  A school staff member must approve materials purchased with state funds and must periodically review work samples to assure that state educational standards are met. California Constitution Art. IX, Sec. 8 prohibits the teaching of religious doctrine in public schools, and the California Education Code requires charter schools to be non-sectarian. Suit was filed this week in a California federal district court seeking an injunction that will allow parents to spend instructional funds for faith-based materials and will require schools to accept work samples that derive from a faith-based curriculum.  The complaint (full text) in Woolard v. Thurmond, (ED CA, filed 10/11/2023), alleges that applying state law to prevent disbursement of instructional funds for faith-based materials and refusal to accept faith-based work samples violates plaintiffs Free Exercise and Free Speech rights. First Liberty Institute issued a press release announcing the filling of the lawsuit.

Kansas AG Asks 10th Circuit To End Required Use of Preferred Pronouns

Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach in an Oct. 6 letter (full text) to the Chief Judge of the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals asks the court to end the practice of some district and circuit court judges to require references to counsel, parties and witnesses by use of their preferred pronouns.  The letter says in part:

There are lawyers in my office who, for both religious and non-religious reasons, reject the idea of individuals dictating their own applicable pronouns....

The idea that a person can dictate his or her own pronouns based on internal feelings and then expect others to go along with that choice is a quite recent development....  But regardless of the merits of this idea as an abstract matter, enlisting the power of the state to force others to affirm such individual choices or feelings crosses a line and raises major questions regarding compelled speech and the First Amendment.

Many people have religious beliefs that would prevent them from using pronouns that do not correspond to a person’s sex. In Christianity (the most common religion in the United States), this position generally proceeds from interpretations of Genesis 1:27 and other scriptures that speak of a male/female dichotomy among persons. Other major world religions likewise have doctrines that point in the same direction.... To force these individuals to violate their religious beliefs in order to be heard in court is a restriction on their free exercise of religion....

Indeed, “gender identity” is the subject of growing wave of legislation and litigation. So requiring those appearing in court to use (or refrain from using) certain pronouns may reveal a prejudgment on issues in litigation.

The Attorney General's office also issued a press release summarizing the letter.

Reservist Challenges Military's Admonition of Him for His Remarks at Retirement Ceremony

Suit was filed this week in a Texas federal district court by Jace Yarbrough, a Major in the Air Force Reserve, challenging a Letter of Admonition issued to him by the military for the content of remarks he made while speaking, in uniform, at a retirement ceremony for Senior Master Sergeant Duane Fish, an Air Force flight superintendent with whom he worked closely and with whom he shared religious beliefs and values.  The complaint (full text) in Yarbrough v. United States Space Force, (ED TX, filed 10/3/2023), asserts that Yarbrough's Christian faith is central to his worldview, conduct and speech. The complaint describes the remarks at issue as encouraging people to practice the courage and virtue exemplified by SMSgt Fist.  It goes on:

92. In keeping with that theme, [Yarbrough] expressed his personal concerns about the negative impact of politicization within the military.... He worried that “radical” factions in “our wider culture” have “brought the culture war inside the DoD,” and that politicization of the military would be “a death knell for courage and competence.” 

93. To support his views, he drew on the teachings and thought of Eastern Orthodox Christian and writer Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn ... regarding the corrosive cultural consequences of dishonesty and self-deception.... 

94. Mr. Yarbrough gave two examples of objective realities he believes are known intuitively to all persons as persons: 1) “men can’t birth babies” and 2) “boys should not be allowed in girls’ locker rooms.” 

95. He expressed his faith-based belief that forcing people to deny such self-evident beliefs “requires constant . . . self-deception,” which can “habituate [us] to dishonesty” and cause us to lose our “grip on objective reality,” making us “less capable and less effective in our world.... 

96. As part of his warning against politicization, he referenced “recent DoD-wide extremism training” that he had attended, in which he “was relieved to see that [his] teammates recognized that training for what it was, a thinly veiled flex of political power.”...

The suit alleges that the Letter of Admonition, among other things, violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, as well the Free Exercise, Free Speech and Establishment Clauses.

First Liberty Institute issued a press release, including a link to the full text of plaintiff's remarks at the retirement ceremony.

Potential Candidate Challenges Religious Oath On New Jersey Candidate Petition Forms

Suit was filed this week in a New Jersey federal district court challenging the New Jersey requirement that candidates filing to run for public office sign an oath that ends with the phrase "so help me God." The complaint (full text) in Tosone v. Way, (D NJ, filed 10/3/2023), alleges that plaintiff, who wishes to run for public office, is unable as a matter of conscience to sign an oath which is religious. Alleging that the current version of the oath violates Article VI of the Constitution, as well as the free speech, free exercise and Establishment Clauses, plaintiff seeks a court order requiring the Secretary of State to provide a form that allows him to run for public office without his swearing "so help me God." New Jersey Monitor reports on the case.

School Board Member Sues to Vindicate Her Reading of Bible at Board Meetings

Suit was filed this week in an Arizona federal district court by Heather Rooks, a member of the Peoria, Arizona school board, seeking a declaratory judgment to vindicate her practice of quoting Scripture during the period of each Board meeting devoted to members making their own comments.  Advocacy organizations had complained about Rook's practice, and legal counsel to the Board furnished an opinion that reading Scripture during Board meetings violates the Establishment Clause. The complaint (full text) in Rooks v. Peoria Unified School District, (D AZ, filed 9/26/2023) seeks a judicial ruling that plaintiff's practice does not violate the Establishment Clause or the Arizona Constitution, that punishment for her practice violates her free speech and free exercise rights, and that she is entitled to absolute legislative immunity for her recitation of Scripture. Fox News reports on the lawsuit.