Michigan Supreme Court Adopts New Rule Requiring Use of Preferred Pronouns, or Respectful Alternative

In Amendment of Rule 1.109 of the Michigan Court Rules, (MI Sup. Ct., Sept. 27, 2023), the Michigan Supreme Court by a vote of 5-2 adopted a Rule requiring Michigan courts to use the name and personal pronouns listed by parties and attorneys on pleadings in the case when addressing, referring to or identifying a party or attorney orally or in writing. Alternatively, the court may use "other respectful means of address not inconsistent with the individual’s designated salutation or personal pronouns." Two Justices filed opinions concurring in the adoption of the Rule, and two other Justices filed dissents. Justice Welch, concurring, said in part:

[P]eople object to honoring a person’s specified pronouns on the basis that they do not personally agree with the notion that someone can switch genders or be nonbinary. This was the subject of a great deal of the input we received after publishing the proposed amendments. Whether for religious or other reasons, many comments reflected a personal belief that gender could not change. But the rule provides that “other respectful means” can be used to address a party who makes a specific pronoun request. Certainly, asking our judges to be respectful to litigants using other general neutral means (such as addressing a party as “Attorney Smith” or “Plaintiff Smith”) does not force anyone to violate their beliefs.

Justice Bolden concurring said in part:

Some commenters have raised First Amendment concerns, arguing that the amendment compels speech and/or infringes upon religious liberty. However, Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 2(A) ...requires judges to “accept restrictions on conduct that might be viewed as burdensome by the ordinary citizen and [they] should do so freely and willingly.”... Similarly, the United States Supreme Court has explained that government employees have certain limitations on their freedom that they must accept in the workplace....

Justice Zahra, dissenting, said in part:

Some believe that the use of preferred pronouns is simply a matter of courtesy and that those who oppose it are stubborn, perhaps even bigoted. Others, however, believe they should not be compelled, especially under oath and/or in conflict with their deeply held religious beliefs, to affirm a person’s preferred pronouns that are inconsistent with the biological gender on that person’s birth certificate. All told, this is a fluid political debate into which our judicial branch of state government should not wade, let alone dive headfirst and claim to have resolved. Such hubris has no place within the operation of a judicial branch of state government. As aptly stated by the Catholic Lawyers Society of Metropolitan Detroit, “[t]he Court should decline to insert itself into one of the most controversial social issues of our time, declare a winner, dismiss objections as mere products of bigotry, and threaten to punish dissenters whilst ignoring their constitutional rights.” I am deeply troubled by the Court’s willingness to do so.

Justice Viviano, dissenting, said in part:

... [A]ll the arguments that the concurrences employ against the constitutional concerns with the present action could in turn be employed to support the opposite rule. I have my doubts that the majority would be so cavalier about the First Amendment implications of their actions if the shoe was on the other foot.

CBS Detroit reports on the new rule.

European Court Says Homophobic Posting Was Not Protected by Human Rights Convention

 In Lenis v. Greece, (ECHR, Aug. 31, 2023), the European Court of Human Rights declared inadmissible an application filed by a former Metropolitan of the Greek Orthodox Church who contended that his Freedom of Expression protected by Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights was infringed when he was convicted by Greek courts of public incitement to violence or hatred against people because of their sexual orientation.  The European Court pointed out that:

Speech that is incompatible with the values proclaimed and guaranteed by the Convention is not protected by Article 10 by virtue of Article 17 of the Convention.... The decisive points when assessing whether statements, verbal or non-verbal, are removed from the protection of Article 10 by Article 17 are whether the statements are directed against the Convention’s underlying values.... 

At issue was a homophobic article that the Metropolitan posted on his personal blog as Parliament was about to debate civil unions for same-sex couples. He titled the article "The Scum of Society Have Reared Their Heads! Let's Be Honest! Spit on Them". The Court said in part:

54.  ... [C]riticism of certain lifestyles on moral or religious grounds is not in itself exempt from protection under Article 10 of the Convention. However, when the impugned remarks go as far as denying LGBTI people their human nature, as in the present case, and are coupled with incitement to violence, then engagement of Article 17 of the Convention should be considered.

55.  ... [T]aking account firstly of the nature of the disputed article, which included incitement to violence and dehumanising hate speech ...; secondly, of the applicant’s position as a senior official of the Church who could influence many people; thirdly, of the fact that the views expressed in the article were disseminated to a wide audience through the Internet; and, fourthly, of the fact that they related directly to an issue which is of high importance in modern European society – protection of people’s dignity and human value irrespective of their sexual orientation – the applicant’s complaint does not, in the light of Article 17 of the Convention, attract the protection afforded by Article 10.

9th Circuit En Banc: California School District Must Recognize Fellowship of Christian Athletes Clubs

In Fellowship of Christian Athletes v. San Jose Unified School District board of Education, (9th Cir., Sept. 13, 2023), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals sitting en banc, in a set of opinions spanning 134 pages, held that Fellowship of Christian Athletes (FCA) is entitled to a preliminary injunction requiring the school district to restore recognition to FCA chapters as student clubs. Because FCA requires its officers to affirm a Statement of Faith and abide by a sexual purity policy, i.e. because a homosexual student could not be an officer of FCA, the District had revoked FCA's recognition. The court said in part:

While it cannot be overstated that anti-discrimination policies certainly serve worthy causes—particularly within the context of a school setting where students are often finding themselves—those policies may not themselves be utilized in a manner that transgresses or supersedes the government’s constitutional commitment to be steadfastly neutral to religion. Under the First Amendment’s protection of free exercise of religion and free speech, the government may not “single out” religious groups “for special disfavor” compared to similar secular groups.... 

The District, rather than treating FCA like comparable secular student groups whose membership was limited based on criteria including sex, race, ethnicity, and gender identity, penalized it based on its religious beliefs. Because the Constitution prohibits such a double standard—even in the absence of any motive to do so—we reverse the district court’s denial of FCA’s motion for a preliminary injunction....

Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their Free Exercise claims because the District’s policies are not neutral and generally applicable and religious animus infects the District’s decision making.

Judge Forrest filed a concurring opinion contending that the case should be seen as a free-speech care more than a religious freedom case.

Judge Smith filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, with two other judges partially joining his opinion. Judge Sung filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part. Chief Judge Murguia filed a dissenting opinion, joined in part by Judge Sung.

National Review reports on the decision.

Plaintiffs Must Seek Narrower Relief Against Restrictions on LGBTQ Books in Children's Section of Library

In Virden v. Crawford County, Arkansas, (WD AR, Sept. 12, 2023), the court denied plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction because the proposed injunction was too broad, but left open the possibility of a narrower injunction later on.  The court described the dispute:

According to Plaintiffs’ amended complaint, in late 2022 or early 2023 the Crawford County Library System implemented a policy under which its library branches must remove from their children’s sections all books containing LGBTQ themes, affix a prominent color label to those books, and place them in a newly-created section called the “social section.” Plaintiffs allege this policy was imposed on the Library System by the Crawford County Quorum Court in response to political pressure from constituents who objected, at least partly on religious grounds, to the presence of these books in the children’s section.

Plaintiffs claimed that this policy violates the Establishment Clause as well as their 1st Amendment free speech right.  The court said in part:

First, with respect to the Establishment Clause claim, it must be noted that—as Defendants acknowledge—there is little useful precedent to guide this Court’s analysis. The United States Supreme Court’s most recent guidance on such claims amounts to little more than the extremely general and abstract direction that “the Establishment Clause must be interpreted by ‘reference to historical practices and understandings.’” Kennedy v. Bremerton Sch. Dist..... In the face of this instruction, the County resorts to arguing that book banning and censorship, for reasons both religious and otherwise, have a centuries-long history in America and the broader Western world....

Neither side’s argument regarding the Establishment Clause claim is satisfactory. Plaintiffs’ argument simply sidesteps the “historical practices and understandings” analysis altogether. But the County’s argument, which is essentially that the Establishment Clause does not prohibit state-sponsored religious viewpoint discrimination because state actors have been violating the Free Speech Clause for centuries, seems out of step with the Kennedy Court’s admonition that the First Amendment’s Establishment, Free-Exercise, and Free-Speech Clauses “have complementary purposes, not warring ones where one Clause is always sure to prevail over the others.”.... 

The court found that plaintiffs had alleged sufficient facts to avoid dismissal of their claim that their 1st Amendment right to receive information had been infringed. However, it refused to enter a preliminary injunction requiring the library to return to its prior procedures for classifying and processing books, saying in part:

... Plaintiffs’ proposals would essentially freeze in perpetuity the Library’s method for processing all types of books—not only children’s books relating to LGBTQ topics. The Court does not see any reason, on the record before it, why it should curtail the Library’s discretion in processing books on such disparate topics as caring for houseplants, playing chess, or mystery novels. Furthermore, the requested injunctions are so vague and general that they could potentially prevent the Library from altering these processes even for reasons that could be perfectly benign, prudent, and constitutionally inoffensive. 

Video Pressing Estranged Husband to Give Wife a Get Is Protected Speech

In S.B.B. v. L.B.B., (NJ App., Sept. 6, 2023), a New Jersey appellate court vacated a Final Restraining Order (FRO) issued by a trial court under the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act. The court said in part:

The FRO was based on the predicate act of harassment. The communication underlying the trial judge's finding of harassment was defendant's creation and dissemination of a video accusing her estranged husband of improperly withholding a get, a Jewish bill of divorce, and asking community members to "press" her husband to deliver the get. Because defendant's communication constituted constitutionally protected free speech, we reverse.

In reaching that conclusion, the appellate court said in part:

[The trial court] judge's finding that the Jewish community was prone to violence against get refusers—and the implicit holding that defendant was aware of and intentionally availed herself of such violent tendencies—is not supported by the record. The video was intended to get a get. The video did not threaten or menace plaintiff, and nothing in the record suggests that plaintiff's safety or security was put at risk by the video.... Without credible evidence that the video incited or produced imminent lawless action or was likely to do so, defendant's speech does not fall within the narrow category of incitement exempted from First Amendment protection.

Volokh Conspiracy has more on the decision.

Court Refuses Stay Pending Appeal of Order That Attorneys Get Religious-Liberty Training

As previously reported, last month a Texas federal district court ordered sanctions against Southwest Airlines for its failing to comply with an earlier Order in the case that found the Airline had violated Title VII when it fired a flight attendant because of her social media messages about her religiously-motivated views on abortion. Southwest then filed a motion to stay the sanctions while the case is appealed. In Carter v. Transport Workers Union of America, Local 556, (ND TX, Aug. 31, 2023), the court denied the motion to stay the sanctions. Among other things, Southwest objected to the court's requirement that three of the Airline's attorneys who were responsible for non-compliance with the earlier Order attend at least 8 hours of religious liberty training conducted by the Christian legal non-profit Alliance Defending Freedom. The court said in part:

... Southwest complains that “[r]equiring religious-liberty training from an ideological organization with a particular viewpoint on what the law requires” is “unprecedented.” That appears to be more of a gripe than a legal objection, because Southwest doesn’t make any legal argument for why training with an “ideological organization” is unconstitutional or otherwise contrary to law.

In any event, the Court selected ADF for the following reason: Southwest does not appear to understand how federal law operates to protect its employees’ religious liberties. ADF has won multiple Supreme Court cases in recent years on the topic of religious liberties, evidencing an understanding of religious liberties.  And because ADF has agreed to conduct topical trainings in the past, ADF appears well-suited to train Southwest’s lawyers on a topic with which the lawyers evidently struggle.

In a footnote, the court added:

This doesn’t appear to be a First Amendment argument, as Southwest doesn’t cite the First Amendment or any First Amendment caselaw, so it appears that Southwest forfeited any First Amendment arguments concerning ADF’s viewpoint.

LawDork reports on the decision.

8th Circuit Rejects Satanic Temple's Complaint Over Closing Park to Its Display

 In The Satanic Temple v. City of Belle Plaine, Minnesota,(8th Cir., Aug. 30, 2023), the U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals held that the district court was correct in dismissing free speech, free exercise, equal protection, and RLUIPA claims brought by The Satanic Temple (TST) against the City of Belle Plaine.  As summarized by the court:

In March 2017, the City gave two groups permits [to place monuments in Veterans Memorial Park]: the Belle Plaine Veterans Club and the Satanic Temple. The Veterans Club returned the kneeling soldier statue to the Park in April, but the Satanic Temple’s display wasn’t ready yet. While the Satanic Temple’s display was being built, people objected to it being placed in the Park. In June, the Satanic Temple told the City that its display was ready. The City Council then passed a “Recission Resolution,” closing the Park as a limited public forum, terminating both permits, and instructing the Veterans Club to remove its statue.

The court held:

The City closed the limited public forum to everyone, not just speakers with certain views. The Satanic Temple has not plausibly alleged that closing the Park as a limited public forum was unreasonable or viewpoint discriminatory....

...The Satanic Temple has not alleged any facts showing that its religious conduct was targeted for “distinctive treatment.”...

... The Satanic Temple has not plausibly alleged that the City’s resolutions burden its religious conduct or philosophy....

The Satanic Temple has not plausibly alleged that it and the Veterans Club were similarly situated or that it was treated differently. Nor has it plausibly alleged that the Rescission Resolution was discriminatory on its face or had a discriminatory purpose or impact. The City gave a permit to both groups, had no control over the fact that the Veterans Club placed its statue first, and closed the Park as a limited public forum to everyone. So the Satanic Temple has not plausibly alleged an equal protection claim.

Illinois Regulation of Limited Purpose Pregnancy Centers Violates 1st Amendment

In National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Raoul, (ND IL, Aug. 4, 2023), an Illinois federal district court issued a preliminary injunction against enforcement of Illinois SB 1909 which amends the state Consumer Fraud Act to prohibit limited purpose pregnancy centers from using misrepresentations or concealment to interfere with a person's access to abortion or emergency contraception. the court said in part:

SB 1909 is content based discrimination. The subject of the prohibited speech is not just abortion but speech that emphasizes the negative effects of abortion. What's more, there is ample evidence in the record before the Court at this time that SB 1909 was adopted because of Defendant Raoul's disagreement about the content of Plaintiffs' speech. The message of Plaintiffs' speech is subject to prohibition under SB 1909 but abortion providers' speech is specifically excluded from being sanctioned under the Consumer Fraud Act.

Catholic Schools Sue Over Rules for Inclusion in Colorado's Universal Preschool Funding

Suit was filed this week in a Colorado federal district court by the Catholic Archdiocese of Denver and two Catholic schools challenging the restrictions imposed on participation in Colorado's universal preschool funding program. The complaint (full text) in St. Mary Catholic Parish in Littleton v. Roy, (D CO, filed 8/16/2023) alleges that plaintiffs' free exercise and free speech rights were infringed by conditions that did not allow giving preference to Catholic families. Rules did allow preference for members of the church's congregation, but not for a broader religious preference. The complaint also alleged that the program's non-discrimination requirements prevent Catholic schools from requiring teachers. administrators and staff to abide by Catholic teachings on marriage, gender and sexuality; from considering whether a student or family has identified as LGBTQ; and from assigning dress requirements, pronoun usage and restroom use on the basis of biological sex. Becket issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Pro-Life Protesters Can Continue Viewpoint Discrimination Suit Over D.C. Defacement Ordinance

 In Frederick Douglas Foundation, Inc. v. District of Columbia, (DC Cir., Aug.15, 2023), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit held that a pro-life group can move ahead with its viewpoint discrimination claim against the D.C. government, but not its equal protection claim.  Plaintiffs alleged that D.C. did not enforce its defacement ordinance against "Black Lives Matter" protesters who chalked or painted protest signs on public and private property. However it did enforce the ordinance against pro-life protesters who wished to paint or chalk "Black Pre-Born Lives Matter" on sidewalks or streets. The court said in part:

... [T]o make out a First Amendment selective enforcement claim, the Foundation is not required to allege discriminatory intent. Viewpoint discrimination violates the First Amendment, “regardless of the government’s benign motive … or lack of animus toward the ideas contained in the regulated speech.”... “Innocent motives do not eliminate the danger of censorship.”...

The Foundation, in the alternative, frames its selective enforcement claim in terms of equal protection. To the extent a separate equal protection claim for viewpoint discrimination arises under the Fifth Amendment, the Foundation has failed to allege an essential element—purposeful discrimination. Even taking the facts in the light most favorable to the Foundation, we find it has not put forward plausible evidence of the District’s animus....

The First Amendment prohibits the government from favoring some speakers over others. Access to public fora must be open to everyone and to every message on the same terms. The District may act to prevent the defacement of public property, but it cannot open up its streets and sidewalks to some viewpoints and not others.... The Foundation has plausibly alleged that its members were similarly situated to individuals against whom the defacement ordinance was not enforced, and that the District discriminated on the basis of viewpoint when enforcing the ordinance. Because the Foundation has failed to adequately allege animus on the part of the District, however, its equal protection challenge fails.

Judge Wilkins filed a concurring opinion, saying in part:

In my view, even though the Foundation must meet the high bar of pleading purposeful discrimination to prevail on its First Amendment claim,.. the high standard is met here.

ADF issued a press release announcing the decision.

 

Suit By Christian Ministry Says Quebec Wrongly Cancelled Its Use of Convention Center

In Canada, suit was filed last week in a Quebec trial court by the Christian organization Harvest Ministries International challenging the province's cancellation of the organization's contract reserving the Quebec City Convention Centre for its Faith, Fire and Freedom Rally.  According to the Motion to Institute Proceedings (full text) in Harvest Ministries International v. Proulx, (Quebec Dist. Ct., filed 8/2/2023), the reservation was cancelled because Harvest Ministries anti-abortion views contradict Quebec's fundamental principles, even though the Rally itself was not an anti-abortion event.  The suit alleges that the cancellation violates Harvest Ministries' freedom of religion, expression and assembly and its right equality protected by Quebec's Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It seeks damages of $212,000. The Justice Centre For Constitutional Freedoms issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Court Upholds Accreditation Requirement For Religious University

In Wisdom Ministries, Inc. v. Garrett,(ND OK, Aug. 1, 2023), an Oklahoma federal district court rejected a constitutional challenge to a cease and desist order issued by the Oklahoma State Regents.  The Regents insisted that Wisdom University, an Oklahoma-based online university operated by Wisdom Ministries, obtain proper accreditation before it issues degrees. The court held that the requirement does not violate the university's free expression, free exercise, Establishment Clause, freedom of association or equal protection rights, saying in part:

The issue raised by plaintiff has nothing to do with governmental restriction of content or subject matter being taught at Wisdom University but, instead, the state is applying a facially neutral regulation that ... falls with the power of the state to regulate business conduct....

Consumer protection is a legitimate state interest, and there is an equal need to protect students attending a secular or religious institution from paying for a degree program that does not meet certain minimal objective standards. The statute does not impose any higher burden on religious schools to obtain accreditation and such institutions are free to obtain accreditation from an agency specializing on accreditation for religious schools. Nothing about the accreditation requirement suggests that the state is favoring secular institutions or acting with hostility to religious institutions, and plaintiff has not shown that enforcement of the accreditation requirement of § 4103 violates the Free Exercise Clause as applied to religious colleges or universities....

Plaintiff’s allegations do not support a plausible claim that enforcement of the accreditation requirement of § 4103 will violate plaintiff’s rights under the Establishment Clause. Plaintiff makes a series of conclusory allegations that obtaining proper accreditation will involve the Regents in plaintiff’s religious affairs, but these allegations are speculative at best. Defendants have taken the position that Wisdom Ministries is free to operate a school or university without obtaining the accreditation required by § 4103, as long as Wisdom Ministries does not purport to offer a degree.

Idaho AG's Interpretation of Anti-Abortion Law Is Enjoined

In Planned Parenthood Greater Northwest v. Labrador, (D ID, July 31, 2023), an Idaho federal district court granted a preliminary injunction barring the state attorney general from enforcing an interpretation of a law barring healthcare professionals from assisting in performing an abortion that would cover professionals who merely provide information about or refer patients for legal out-of-state abortions. The court said in part:

... [T]he Medical Providers allege that the Crane Letter interpretation violates the First Amendment, the dormant commerce clause, and the due process clause. The Medical Providers claim they are “overwhelmingly” likely to succeed on the merits of all three claims.... Interestingly, the State did not engage this argument in any way, relying instead entirely on its jurisdictional challenges.... As discussed below, the Court finds that the Medical Providers are likely to succeed on their First Amendment cause of action.

In particular, the Medical Providers contend that the Crane Letter interpretation violates the First Amendment because it impermissibly regulates speech based on content and viewpoint.... because health care providers are silenced on a single topic—abortion—and is viewpoint discretionary because health care providers can provide information and referrals about out-of-state resources like anti-abortion counseling centers or prenatal care....

... Because the State has not opposed the First Amendment claim, and because the Court finds the Medical Providers’ argument persuasive, the Court finds that the Medical Providers have shown that they are likely to succeed on the merits of their First Amendment challenge.

Reuters reports on the decision. [Thanks to Thomas Rutledge for the lead.]

Suit Challenges Illinois Deceptive Practices Law Aimed At Anti-Abortion Pregnancy Centers

Suit was filed last week in an Illinois federal district court challenging Illinois SB 1909 which prohibits limited purpose pregnancy centers from using misrepresentations or concealment to interfere with a person's access to abortion or emergency contraception. The 55-page complaint (full text) in National Institute of Family & Life Advocates v. Raoul, (ND IL, filed 7/27/2023), attacks the legislation on free expression, free exercise, and various 14th Amendment grounds. The complaint alleges in part:

... [S]peaking common pro-life views as part of a pregnancy help ministry, or failing to speak the State’s pro-abortion views on hotly disputed issues, is illegal under state law, on pain of crippling fines, injunctions,  and attorney fees. Meanwhile, abortion facilities (as well as expressly exempted licensed healthcare providers and hospitals) remain free to engage in their own controversial speech about abortion, as they wish.

Thomas More Society issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit. 

6th Circuit Hears Oral Arguments In Wedding Photographer Case

On Friday, the U.S 6th Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments (audio of full oral arguments) in Chelsey Nelson Photography LLC v Louisville Jefferson Co KY. In the case, a Kentucky federal district court held that Louisville's public accommodation ordinance violates the free speech rights of a Christian wedding photographer who has moral and religious objections to same-sex marriages. (See prior posting.) Louisville Public Media reports on the oral arguments.

Vermont Pregnancy Counseling Centers Sue Over New Restrictions

Suit was filed yesterday in a Vermont federal district court attacking Vermont's recently-enacted SB 37 which, among other things, imposes new regulation on anti-abortion pregnancy counseling centers. The law prohibits advertising of services that is "untrue or clearly designed to mislead the public about the nature of the services provided." It also provides that licensed health care professionals who provide services at such centers are responsible for ensuring that services, information and counseling at the center complies with these requirements. The complaint (full text) in National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Clark, (D VT, filed 7/25/2023) contends that these provisions are unconstitutionally vague and also violate the free speech rights of clinics, alleging in part:

111. The Advertising Prohibition provides no guidance as to how it should be applied to advertisements including medical information on which there is no medical consensus.

112. The Advertising Prohibition is also unclear as to whether it requires a disclosure in all advertisements that the pregnancy center does not provide abortions or "emergency contraception."

113. Requiring such a disclosure would compel the centers' speech.

114. The Advertising Prohibition has chilled Plaintiffs' speech.

115. For example, Aspire's medical director created a video about abortion pill reversal that Aspire would like to post on its website....

168. Because Plaintiffs do not charge for their services, the Provider Restriction, 9 V.S.A. § 2493(b), regulates Plaintiffs' non-commercial speech.

169. The Provider Restriction is a viewpoint- and content-based regulation of pure speech because it directly regulates speech about health-care-related" information" and "counseling" by "limited-services pregnancy centers," even when no medical treatment or procedure is involved. 9 V.S.A. § 2493(b).

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

UN Human Rights Council Adopts Resolution Condemning Burning of Qur'an

The United Nations Press Centre reports that on July 14, the United Nations Human Rights Council

concluded its fifty-third regular session after adopting 30 resolutions and holding an urgent debate on the alarming rise in premeditated and public acts of religious hatred as manifested by recurrent desecration of the Holy Quran in some European and other countries.

The Council adopted Resolution A/HRC/53/L.23, Countering Religious Hatred Constituting Incitement to Discrimination, Hostility or Violence (full text), which reads in part:

Affirming that burning the Holy Qur’an or any other holy book is offensive, disrespectful and a clear act of provocation, constituting incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence and a violation of international human rights law, ...

Condemning any advocacy of religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence, whether it involves the use of print, audiovisual or electronic media or any other means...

1. Condemns and strongly rejects the recent public and premeditated acts of desecration of the Holy Qur’an, and underscores the need for holding the perpetrators of these acts of religious hatred to account in line with obligations of States arising from international human rights law....

ADF-UK issued a press release criticizing the Council's Resolution as an anti-blasphemy resolution that infringes free expression rights.

Coach Sues Over Dismissal for His Remarks About Transgender Athletes

Suit was filed this week in a Vermont federal district court by a high school snowboarding coach who was dismissed because of a comment he made regarding a transgender woman on a team that would be competing against his female high school team. The school's notice of termination (Exhibit 8 in Complaint) alleges that the coach used "disparaging names" that created "an objectively offensive environment and constituted harassment based on gender identity...." In the Complaint (full text) in Bloch v. Bouchey, (DD VT, filed 7/17/2023), the coach however alleged in part:

3. Coach Bloch is also a practicing Roman Catholic who believes that God creates males and females with immutable sex. His understanding of science complements his religious beliefs. Coach Bloch believes, based on scientific evidence, that there are only two sexes, which are male and female, and that sex is determined by a person's chromosomes. 

4. But Coach Bloch's respectful expression of his beliefs contradicted the prevailing orthodoxy of the Defendant Vermont state officials, school district, and superintendent. So, Defendant Superintendent Sherry Sousa terminated him and barred him from future employment in the school district. 

5. On February 8, 2023, Coach Bloch and his team were waiting in the lodge for a competition to start. That day, his team was to compete against a team that had a male snowboarder who identifies as a female and competes against females. During downtime in the lodge, Coach Bloch overheard a conversation between two of his athletes about that male competing against females. 

6. Coach Bloch joined the conversation to offer that people express themselves differently and that there can be masculine women and feminine men. 

7. But he affirmed that as a matter of biology, males and females have different DNA, which causes males to develop differently from females and have different physical characteristics. Coach Bloch discussed that biological differences generally give males competitive advantages in athletic events. 

8. The conversation was respectful among all parties and lasted no more than three minutes. It took place entirely outside the presence of the transgender-identifying snowboarder. 

9. Coach Bloch's team and the team with the male who identifies as a female competed without incident. After the competition, the two teams and their coaches, including Coach Bloch, shared a bus home.

The complaint goes on to allege that the school was acting pursuant to Vermont's Harassment, Hazing and Bullying Law. It contends that the HHB Law and policies under it violated the coach's free speech rights, including the 1st Amendment's ban on viewpoint discrimination, prior restraints and overbreadth. It also alleges due process violations.  ADF issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Contractor Lacks Standing to Sue Texas AG In Challenge To Anti-BDS Law

In A&R Engineering and Testing, Inc. v. Scott, (5th Cir., July 10, 2023), the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals held that a company and its Palestinian owner, both of whom boycott Israel, lack standing to sue the Texas Attorney General in a challenge to Texas' anti-Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) Act. The law requires government contracts to include a clause certifying that the contractor does not and will not boycott Israel during the duration of the contract. Plaintiff wanted to renew its long-standing $1.5 million contract with the city of Houston without the anti-BDS clause in it. The court said in part:

[I]t’s unclear how A&R can trace its economic injury to the Attorney General.... Traceability is particularly difficult to show where the proffered chain of causation turns on the government’s speculative future decisions regarding whether and to what extent it will bring enforcement actions in hypothetical cases....

The court said that the anti-BDS statute does not expressly provide a way for the Attorney General to enforce it, and the Attorney General has not taken any action suggesting that he might enforce it. The court went on:

The City told the district court it would follow state law and include the provision. But the City never attributed its actions to any enforcement or threatened enforcement by the Attorney General. A&R’s injury depended on the “unfettered,” “independent” choices of the City ..., so the injury isn’t traceable to the Attorney General.... And A&R does not have standing to sue him.

(See prior related posting.) Jerusalem Post reports on the court's decision.

School District's Preferred Name Policy Upheld

In Willey v. Sweetwater County School District No. 1 Board of Trustees, (D WY, June 30, 2023), a Wyoming federal district court, in a 56-page opinion, upheld, over parental objections, most of a school district's policy requiring school district personnel to use a student's preferred/ chosen name or pronoun in verbal, written, and electronic communications. However, the court issued a preliminary injunction barring the school district from (absent a reasonable concern of harm or abuse) precluding teachers from responding to a parent's inquiry, or lying to parents. The court then largely rejected a challenge by a teacher who had religious objections to the policy.  It said that "it is hard to imagine why a public employee's free exercise rights would warrant more protection than their free speech rights." It went on to say that, as to free speech, the policy only compels the teacher to speak pursuant to her official duties and does not restrict her speech as a citizen on matters of public concern.