Suit Challenges New York's Ban On Reproductive Health Care Employment Discrimination

A lawsuit was filed last week in a New York federal district court by a pro-life pregnancy care center, a religious pro-life pregnancy care center membership organization and a Baptist church challenging the constitutionality of  New York's SB 660 which was signed into law earlier this month. the new law prohibits employers from taking action against an employee because of reproductive health care decisions by the employee or their dependents.  It bars employers from accessing information about employees' reproductive health decision making or requiring waivers by employees of their right to make such decisions. The complaint (full text) in CompassCare v. Cuomo, ND NY, filed 11/14/2019), alleges in part:

SB 660 is a transparent attempt to meddle in the affairs of religious and pro-life organizations—including but not limited to pregnancy care centers, churches, and schools—by forcing them to employ and associate with those persons who do not share or live by the organizations’ beliefs regarding abortion, contraception, and the impropriety of sexual relations outside the context of a marriage between a man and a woman.....

Taken together, these requirements compromise the very reason for being of these organizations, which is to promote life, oppose abortion, and teach and live a sexual ethic consistent with biblical principles.

The suit claims that the law violates their free speech and free exercise rights. CNA reports on the lawsuit.

State Must Issue "IM GOD" Vanity License Plate

In Hart v. Thomas, (ED KY, Nov. 13, 2019), a Kentucky federal district court held that a car owner's First Amendment rights were infringed when the state refused to issue him a vanity licence plate reading "IM GOD".  The court said in part:

...[A]voidance of controversy is a valid ground for restricting speech in a nonpublic forum.... However, the Transportation Cabinet has been so inconsistent in its application of § 186.174 that it has ceased to be “consistent with [Kentucky’s] legitimate government interest” in any way. If the Transportation Cabinet genuinely wants to avoid controversy on Kentucky’s highways by preventing “promotion of any specific faith, religion, or anti-religion” from appearing on vanity plates, then it should have denied “IM4GOD”, “ASKGOD”, GR8GOD”, “LUVGOD”. But it did not.... Instead, the Transportation Cabinet has approved multiple vanity plates featuring the word “god”.... This suggests that the law as applied to Mr. Hart is neither reasonable nor viewpoint neutral. To allow such plates as “IM4GOD” and “LUVGOD” but reject “IM GOD” belies viewpoint neutrality.

FFRF issued a press release announcing the decision.

11th Circuit: Christian School Can Proceed In Challenge To Pre-Game Loudspeaker Prayer Ban

In Cambridge Christian School, Inc. v. Florida High School Athletic Association, Inc., (11th Cir., Nov. 13, 2019), the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals held that a Christian school could move ahead with its complaint that its free speech and free exercise rights were infringed when it was denied permission to broadcast a joint prayer over the loudspeaker at the state championship high school football game. Both schools in the playoff were Christian schools. In its 70-page opinion, the court said in part:

As we see it, the district court was too quick to dismiss all of Cambridge Christian’s claims out of hand. Taking the complaint in a light most favorable to the plaintiff, as we must at this stage in the proceedings, the schools’ claims for relief under the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses have been adequately and plausibly pled. There are too many open factual questions for us to say with confidence that the allegations cannot be proven as a matter of law. The question of whether all speech over the microphone was government speech is a heavily fact-intensive one that looks at the history of the government’s use of the medium for communicative purposes, the implication of government endorsement of messages carried over that medium, and the degree of government control over those messages.... [B]ased on this limited record, we find it plausible that the multitude of messages delivered over the loudspeaker should be viewed as private, not government, speech. And while we agree with the district court that the loudspeaker was a nonpublic forum, we conclude that Cambridge Christian has plausibly alleged that it was arbitrarily and haphazardly denied access to the forum in violation of the First Amendment. Likewise, we cannot say, again drawing all inferences in favor of the appellant, that in denying scommunal prayer over the loudspeaker, the FHSAA did not infringe on Cambridge Christian’s free exercise of religion.

WCTV News reports on the decision.

Organization Lacks Standing To Claim Sexual Orientation Discrimination By Christian Business Owners

In Lexington-Fayette Urban County Human Rights Commission v. Hands On Originals, (KY Sup. Ct., Oct. 31, 2019), The Kentucky Supreme Court dismissed on standing grounds a suit against a small business whose Christian owners refused on religious grounds to print T-shirts for a Pride Festival. The court held that because the discrimination complaint was filed only by a gay-rights organization, plaintiff lacks statutory standing:

[B]ecause an “individual” did not file the claim, but rather an organization did, we would have to determine whether the organization is a member of the protected class, which we find impossible to ascertain. No end user may have been denied the service who is a member of the protected class, or perhaps one was. If so, then the determination would have to follow whether the reason for denial of service constitutes discrimination under the ordinance, and then whether the local government was attempting to compel expression, had infringed on religious liberty, or had failed to carry its burden under KRS 446.350. But without an individual, as required by Section 2-32(2)(a), this analysis cannot be conducted.

Justice Buckingham filed a concurring opinion, arguing that the Human Rights Commission had unconstitutionally attempted to compel the business to express ideas with which it disagreed. [Thanks to Tom Rutledge for the lead.]

Cert. Denied In Challenge To High School Unit On Islam

On Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court denied review in Wood v. Arnold, (Docket No. 18-1438, certiorari denied 10/15/2019). (Order List.)   In the case, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected a high school student's Establishment Clause and compelled speech challenges to a classroom unit on The Muslim World.  One challenge was to the teacher's Power Point slide which included the statement that most Muslims' faith is stronger than that of the average Christian.  The other challenge was to the requirement on a work sheet for the student to fill in two words of the shahada. (See prior posting.) The Free Thinker blog has more on the case.

European Court Says Conviction For Holocaust Denial Does Not Violate Free Speech Rights

In Pastors v. Germany, (ECHR, Oct. 3, 2019), the European Court of Human Rights in a chamber judgment rejected claims by the chairman of the National Democratic Party of Germany that his criminal conviction for a speech he gave in the Land Parliament of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania violated his free expression rights under Art. 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.  Pastors was convicted of defamation and violating the memory of the dead for language in his speech denying the existence of the Holocaust.  The court said in part:

In the present case, the applicant intentionally stated untruths in order to defame the Jews and the persecution that they had suffered during the Second World War. Reiterating that it has always been sensitive to the historical context of the High Contracting Party concerned when reviewing whether there exists a pressing social need for interference with rights under the Convention and that, in the light of their historical role and experience, States that have experienced the Nazi horrors may be regarded as having a special moral responsibility to distance themselves from the mass atrocities perpetrated by the Nazis ..., the Court therefore considers that the applicant’s impugned statements affected the dignity of the Jews to the point that they justified a criminal-law response. Even though the applicant’s sentence of eight months’ imprisonment, suspended on probation, was not insignificant, the Court considers that the domestic authorities adduced relevant and sufficient reasons and did not overstep their margin of appreciation. The interference was therefore proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued and was thus “necessary in a democratic society”.

... In these circumstances the Court finds that there is no appearance of a violation of Article 10 of the Convention. Accordingly the complaint must be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.

The court also issued a press release summarizing the decision.

Christian Student Group Can Retain Selective Leadership Requirements

In Intervarsity Christian Fellowship USA v. University of Iowa, (SD IA, Sept. 27, 2019), an Iowa federal district court held that the University of Iowa and three of its administrators violated the free speech and free exercise rights of a Christian student organization when it revoked its registered student organization status. The University's action was taken because Intervarsity Christian Fellowship required its leaders to affirm the groups Christian statement of faith. The court said in part:

by granting the exceptions it has to the Human Rights Policy and refusing to make a similar exception for InterVarsity, the University has made a value judgment that its secular reasons for deviating from the Human Rights Policy are more important than InterVarsity’s religious reasons for the deviation it seeks. Because this reflects an impermissible “value judgment in favor of secular motivations,” ... the University’s decision to deregister InterVarsity is subject to strict scrutiny.

Becket issued a press release announcing the decision.

Fired Teacher Sues Saying Requirements On Pronouns For Transgender Students Violated His Rights

A Virginia high school teacher filed suit yesterday in a Virginia state trial court challenging his firing for refusing to use male pronouns to refer to a transgender student in his French class.  The complaint (full text) in Vlaming v. West Point School Board, (VA Cir. Ct., filed 10/1-/2019), claims that the teacher's free speech and free exercise rights, as well as other rights, were violated. Plaintiff contends that the case is

about whether the government may force [plaintiff] to express ideas about human nature, unrelated to the school's curriculum, that he believes are false.

Plaintiff also contends that

[his] views and expression related to gender identity, would require [him] to violate his sincerely held religious beliefs.

Washington Post reports on the lawsuit.

DOJ Backs Catholic Archdiocese In Firing of Teacher For Same-Sex Marriage

On Friday, the Department of Justice filed a Statement of Interest (full text) in an Indiana state trial court in Payne-Elliott v. Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Indianapolis, Inc., (IN Super Ct., 9/27/2019).  In the suit, a teacher in a Catholic school in Indianapolis claims that the Archdiocese wrongly interfered with his contractual relationship with the school when the Archdiocese ordered the school to dismiss the teacher because of his public same-sex marriage. (See prior posting.)  DOJ argued that the First Amendment requires the court to dismiss the teacher's complaint:

The First Amendment bars this action for at least two independent reasons. First, Plaintiff’s action seeks to penalize an indisputably expressive association—the Archdiocese—for deciding which schools may identify as Catholic under its associational umbrella.....

Second, Plaintiff seeks to embroil this Court in a dispute over the Archdiocese’s application of Catholic law, in violation of the church-autonomy doctrine.

A Justice Department press release announced its filing with the court.

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.

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.

Third Circuit: Ban On Religious Bus Ads Violates 1st Amendment

In Northeastern Pennsylvania Freethought Society v. County of Lackawanna Transit System, (3d Cir., Sept. 17, 2019), the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision, held that the County of Lackawanna Transit System's ban on bus advertising that promotes religious views violates the First Amendment.  Plaintiff's proposed ad that featured the word "Atheists" along with the group's name and website was rejected under this policy. The majority said in part:

The 2013 policy’s ban on speech related to religion discriminates on the basis of viewpoint. And it is not a permissible limitation on COLTS’s forum, however that forum is characterized.

Judge Cowen dissenting said in part:

I do not believe that the transit system’s policy rises to the level of viewpoint discrimination. As the D.C. Circuit has recently explained, there is a critical difference between the prohibition of religious (and atheistic) perspectives on otherwise permissible subject matters—which constitutes viewpoint discrimination—and the exclusion of religion itself as a subject matter—which does not.

WNEP News reports on the decision.

Student's Distribution of Religious Valentines On Campus Is Protected Speech

In Olsen v. Rafn, (ED WI, Sept. 13, 2019),a Wisconsin federal district court held that Northeast Wisconsin Technical College's Public Assembly Policy violates the free speech rights of plaintiff, a student at the college. The school contended that Polly Olsen violated its policy by distributing hand-made Valentines with Biblical verses on them to fellow students, friends and staff at various places on campus. The school's policy, both the one in effect at the time of plaintiff's activity and an amended one subsequently adopted, limits assembly and expressive activity to designated Public Assembly Areas. Quoting precedent, the court held that the school's limitations on speech as applied here are an "anathema to the nature of a [college], which is ‘peculiarly the marketplace of ideas'." WBAY News reports on the decision.

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.]

City's Special Events Ordinance Partly Upheld

In Shook v. City of Lincolnton, NC, (WD NC, Aug.29, 2019). a North Carolina federal district court agreed with only part of a challenge by a group of Christian street preachers to a city's Special Event and Unnecessary Noise Ordinances. the court said in part:

[T]he Court will grant Plaintiff’s preliminary injunction [as to] the portion of the Special Events Ordinance prohibiting “[a]ny conduct deemed to be disruptive . . . to participants or attendees of the special event” and “[a]busive . . . language that disrupts a special event or festival.” However, the City may still enforce the ... [ban on] "language ... that abuses or threatens another person in a manner likely to cause a fight or brawl at a special event or festival,” “... conduct deemed to be ... dangerous to participants or attendees of the special event,” and “threatening language that disrupts a special event or festival.”

The court also upheld the city's Unnecessary Noise ban.

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.

Author's Suit Against Libraries and Media Is Dismissed

In Egli v. Chester County Library System, (ED PA, Aug. 12, 2019), a Pennsylvania federal district court dismissed a pro se lawsuit brought by the author of a book on anti-Semitism against several libraries, and radio and television stations.  The libraries refused plaintiff's offer to present book talks, and the media defendants refused to interview him on air. The court said in part:

Libraries are not required to accommodate every book or proposed talk, but instead must determine based on their professional judgment which materials are deemed to have “requisite and appropriate quality” to occupy the limited space available. There is nothing in the Complaint to suggest that either MCLS or CCLS had policies or customs that are inconsistent with this constitutionally permissible discretion or that target certain viewpoints.

Pennsylvania Record reports on the decision.

Suit Over Use of Civic Center For Religious Worship Is Settled

A joint consent decree (full text) was filed yesterday in a South Carolina federal district court in Redeemer Fellowship of Edisto Island v. Town of Edisto Beach, South Carolina, (D SC, Aug. 19, 2019), settling a lawsuit over restrictions on the use of the Edisto Beach Civic Center.  The decree reflects the town's action rescinding its prohibition on renting out space in the Civic Center for “religious worship services.” The town also agreed to pay $3112 in damages plus plaintiff's attorney's fees. As explained in a press release from ADF:

Shortly after the lawsuit began, the U.S. Department of Justice filed a statement of interest in the case in favor of the church. The lawsuit argued that the town’s previously amended guidelines were inconsistent and amounted to viewpoint discrimination—allowing some groups “to engage in singing, teaching, social interaction, and similar expressive activities” at the center while denying “access to those groups that engage in those same activities from a religious viewpoint.”