National Archives Sued for Requiring Visitors to Remove Pro-Life Apparel

Suit was filed this week in the D.C. federal district court by three anti-abortion proponents who visited the National Archives on the day of the March for Life in Washington. The complaint (full text) in Tamara R. v. National Archives and Records Administration, (D DC, filed 2/8/2023) alleges in part:

5. While in the National Archives, Plaintiffs were subject to a pattern of ongoing misconduct by federal government officials, specifically National Archives security officers, Defendants John Does and Jane Doe, who targeted Plaintiffs and intentionally chilled their religious speech and expression by requiring Plaintiffs to remove or cover their attire because of their pro-life messages.

6. This case seeks to protect and vindicate Plaintiffs’ fundamental and statutory rights under federal law, the First and Fifth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (“RFRA”).

American Center for Law and Justice issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit. A similar suit was filed against the National Air & Space Museum earlier this week. (See prior posting.)

Court Tells City to Negotiate Damages After Its Wrongful Arrest of "Psalm Sing" Protesters Against Covid Restrictions

In Rench v. City of Moscow, (D ID, Feb. 1, 2023), an Idaho federal district court refused to dismiss a suit by three plaintiffs who were arrested for violating a COVID Public Health Emergency Order requiring masking or social distancing in public settings.  The Order was issued pursuant to an Ordinance that excluded expressive and associative activity protected by the 1st Amendment if the activity was not specifically prohibited in the Public Health Order. Plaintiffs participated in a local church's "psalm sing" to protest the Order.  In making the arrests, authorities overlooked the exclusion for 1st Amendment activity. Eventually the city moved to dismiss the case, but not before plaintiffs incurred significant legal expenses, The court said in part:

The City’s Code could not be more clear: Under a plain reading of the Order in conjunction with the Ordinance, all expressive activity was excluded from the mask or distance mandate because such conduct was not explicitly addressed in the Order itself. In other words, during the relevant time period, those participating in expressive or associative conduct were not required to mask or distance. Plaintiffs should never have been arrested in the first place, and the constitutionality of what the City thought it’s Code said is irrelevant.....

Given that Plaintiffs were wrongfully arrested, the City indisputably erred in interpreting its own Code, the City consequently misadvised its officers as to the Code’s application, and Plaintiffs are so far reasonable in their damages requests, this case should not need to see the inside of a courtroom. It would behoove everyone involved to take a step back from their respective positions and prepare to negotiate in good faith.

Christian Post reports on the decision.

Catholic School Students Sue Air & Space Museum for Barring Pro-Life Apparel

Suit was filed this week in the D.C. federal district court by or on behalf of eleven South Carolina Catholic high school students against the National Air and Space Museum and seven members of its staff alleging that the students were required to remove their hats which carried a pro-life message during their visit to the Museum. The students visited the Museum after participating in the D.C. March for Life event. The complaint (full text) in Kristi L. v. National Air and Space Museum, (D DC, filed 2/6/2023), alleging violations of the 1st and 5th Amendments and RFRA, states in part:

Plaintiffs were subjected to a pattern of ongoing misconduct ... which included targeting, harassment, discrimination and, ultimately, eviction from NASM simply because they wore blue hats with the inscription, “Rosary Pro-Life.”...

Defendants’ restriction on Plaintiffs’ speech is content and viewpoint-based and demonstrates a concerted effort to single out, embarrass, intimidate, exclude, and ultimately silence the message expressed by Plaintiffs in wearing their “Rosary Pro-Life” hat....

The disparate treatment of Plaintiffs based on their viewpoints was a result of a discriminatory purpose on the part of Defendants...

Defendants’ restriction on Plaintiffs’ expressive religious activity as set forth in this Complaint imposes a substantial burden on Plaintiffs’ religious exercise in violation of RFRA....

American Center for Law & Justice issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Baker Cannot Refuse to Provide Non-expressive Cake to Transgender Customer

In Scardina v. Masterpiece Cakeshop, Inc., (CO Ct. App., Jan. 26, 2023), a Colorado state appellate court held that Masterpiece Cakeshop and its co-owner Jack Phillips violated the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act when they refused a transgender woman's order for a pink cake with blue frosting.  The woman sought the cake to celebrate her birthday and her gender transition. The court said in part:

[A] proprietor may not refuse to sell a nonexpressive product to a protected person based on that person’s intent to use the product as part of a celebration that the producer considers offensive....

We conclude that creating a pink cake with blue frosting is not inherently expressive and any message or symbolism it provides to an observer would not be attributed to the baker. Thus, CADA does not compel Masterpiece and Phillips to speak through the creation and sale of such a cake to Scardina....

Masterpiece and Phillips argue, requiring them to make a cake that they know will be used to celebrate an occasion that their faith informs them is an affront to God’s design violates their right to freely exercise their religion.

In the context of providing public accommodations, however, a proprietor’s actions based on their religious beliefs must be considered in light of a customer’s right to be free from discrimination based on their protected status. The Supreme Court has long held that the Free Exercise Clause does not relieve a person from the obligation to comply with a neutral law of general applicability.... CADA is a neutral law of general applicability.... 

The Supreme Court has consistently held that the state has a legitimate, indeed compelling, interest in eliminating discrimination from public accommodations.,,, Thus, CADA is rationally related to a legitimate governmental interest. Accordingly, CADA may be enforced against Masterpiece and Phillips without violating their right to the free exercise of religion.

In a press release, ADF said that it would appeal the decision.

9th Circuit Denies En Banc Review of Conversion Therapy Ban

In Tingley v. Ferguson, (9th Cir., Jan. 23, 2023), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals denied an en banc rehearing of a 3-judge panel's decision rejecting free speech, free exercise and vagueness challenges to Washington state's ban on practicing conversion therapy on minors. Judge O’Scannlain, joined by Judges Ikuta, R. Nelson and VanDyke, filed an opinion dissenting from the denial of en banc review, saying in pat:

Our decision in Pickup [v. Brown] is, I suggest, no longer viable. While Pickup may have seen no distinction between “treatments … implemented through speech” and those implemented “through scalpel,” ... the First Amendment recognizes the obvious difference, and protects therapeutic speech in a way it does not protect physical medical procedures....

[T]he panel majority here entirely ignored the First Amendment’s special solicitude for religious speech. Instead, it commended Washington for concluding “that health care providers should not be able to treat a child by such means as telling him that he is ‘the abomination we had heard about in Sunday school’.”...

Judge Bumatay also filed an opinion dissenting from the denial of review, saying in part:

[W]e also cannot ignore that conversion therapy is often grounded in religious faith. According to plaintiff Brian Tingley, a therapist licensed by the State of Washington, his practice of conversion therapy is an outgrowth of his religious beliefs and his understanding of Christian teachings....

Because the speech underpinning conversion therapy is overwhelmingly—if not exclusively—religious, we should have granted Tingley’s petition for en banc review to evaluate his Free Speech claim under a more exacting standard. It may well be the case that, even under heightened review, Washington’s interest in protecting minors would overcome Tingley’s Free Speech challenge. But our court plainly errs by subjecting the Washington law to mere rational-basis scrutiny. 

Refusal To Approve Athletic Field Lights for Catholic School Did Not Violate RLUIPA

In Edgewood High School of the Sacred Heart, Inc. v. City of Madison, Wisconsin, a Wisconsin federal district court rejected RLUIPA, free speech and other challenges by a Catholic high school to the city's denial of a permit for outdoor lighting at its athletic fields. The surrounding residential neighborhood association objected to the proposal.  The court said in part:

The initial question is whether putting lights on an athletic field is a religious exercise for plaintiff Edgewood at all....  Edgewood suggests that athletics have long been a part of Edgewood, consistent with the Sinisawa Dominican tradition of educating the whole person. Yet this case is not about athletics in general; it is about Edgewood’s ability to install lights in order to use its athletic field at night.... [U]se of the field at night has never been a part of Sinisawa’s Dominican strategy, which largely takes place during regular school hours.

In fairness, plaintiff also suggests that the field could be used for liturgies and other religious ceremonies, but there is nothing in the record indicating that Edgewood ever uses the field for such purposes, much less that it has a need to do so at night....

Even if the court were to assume that night football (as opposed to a variety of sports conducted in gym classes and at practices) is an important element of Edgewood’s religious exercise, which is certainly not a given, plaintiff offers no evidence that it is substantially burdened by having to play night home games at a different field....

[I]t would be a misreading of [two prior cases cited by plaintiffs] to hold that public outcry is sufficient to show unequal treatment under RLUIPA absent proof of a substantial burden on religious exercise, something simply lacking in this case.

6th Circuit: Healthcare Buffer Zone Law Violates Pro-Lifer's Free Speech Rights

In Sisters for Life, Inc. v. Louisville-Jefferson County, KY Metro Government, (6th Cir., Dec. 21, 2022), the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals held that an ordinance imposing a 10-foot buffer zone around the entrance of any healthcare facility abridges the free speech rights of pro-life groups and individuals who wish to hand out leaflets and speak with women entering abortion clinics. The court said in part:

Even though caselaw permits a city to enact access laws focused on abortion facilities, ... the County sought to advance its interests by imposing a buffer zone on all medical facilities in Louisville. And why? The record does not reveal access problems beyond EMW.... Yet the ordinance covers every single hospital, clinic, and dentist’s office in the area.... Because the County may not “burden substantially more speech than is necessary” to further the County’s order and access interests,..., and because the County has not made any showing that all medical facilities need this kind of regulation, the ordinance lacks any tailoring, to say nothing of narrow tailoring.... 

The second problem is that the County has not shown that it “seriously undertook to address” its concerns “with less intrusive tools.”... [T]he County offers no tenable... explanation why the first prohibition in the law—that no one shall “knowingly obstruct, detain, hinder, impede, or block another person’s entry to or exit from a healthcare facility,”... will not work.

Another Catholic Parish Sues Michigan Over Expanded Interpretation of State's Anti-Discrimination Laws

 As previously reported, in August the Michigan Supreme Court interpreted the state's civil rights law which bans sex discrimination to cover discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. Yesterday, a Catholic parish, including its school, as well as several parents of students in the school filed suit in a Michigan federal district court alleging that, interpreted in this manner, the employment, education and public accommodation provisions of the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act violate plaintiffs' First and 14th Amendment rights.  The complaint (full text) in Sacred Heart of Jesus Parish v. Nessel, (WD MI, filed 12/22/22), alleges in part:

To comply with Michigan’s re-understood laws, Sacred Heart Parish and its school, Sacred Heart Academy, would be forced to hire faculty and staff who lead lives in direct opposition to the Catholic faith, speak messages that violate Church doctrine, and refrain from articulating Catholic beliefs in teaching its students and when advertising the school to prospective students or job applicants. All of this violates Sacred Heart’s free speech and free exercise rights. Rather than defy Catholic doctrine in these ways, Sacred Heart would shut down. 

But if Sacred Heart cannot operate consistent with its Catholic faith, the parental and free exercise rights of its families are also implicated. Parents have explicitly opted out of public schools in favor of sending their children to Sacred Heart for an authentic Catholic education where their children would never be exposed to harmful ideas and ideologies that contradict the Catholic faith. When Michigan prevents Sacred Heart from operating its school consistent with its Catholic beliefs, it also necessarily violates the fundamental parental and free exercise rights of Sacred Heart families.

ADF issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.  Earlier this month, a different Catholic parish filed a similar lawsuit.

European Court Upholds France's Conviction of Journalist for Inciting Anti-Muslim Hatred

In Zemmour v. France, (EDHR, Dec. 20, 2022) (full text of decision in French), the European Court of Human Rights upheld France's conviction of a journalist for inciting discrimination and religious hatred against the French Muslim community through anti-Muslim remarks he made on a 2016 television talk show.  According to the Court's English language press release summarizing the decision, the Court found no violation of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights protecting freedom of expression.  The press release says in part:

The Court was of the opinion that his remarks had not been confined to criticism of Islam but had, in view of the context of terrorist violence in which they had occurred, been made with discriminatory intent such as to call on viewers to reject and exclude the Muslim community. The Court concluded that the grounds on which the domestic courts had convicted the applicant and sentenced him to a fine, the amount of which was not excessive, had been sufficient and relevant. In conclusion the Court held that the interference with the applicant’s right to freedom of expression had been necessary in a democratic society to protect the rights of others which had been at stake in the case, and therefore there had been no violation of Article 10 of the Convention.

Court Upholds Conversion Therapy Ban

In Chiles v. Salazar, (D CO, Dec. 19, 2022), a Colorado federal district court rejected constitutional challenges to Colorado's ban on mental health professionals engaging in conversion therapy for minors who identify as gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, or gender non-conforming. In a suit brought by a licensed counselor, the court found no violation of plaintiff's free speech rights because the Minor Therapy Conversion Law regulates professional conduct rather than speech. Any speech that is affected is incidental to the professional conduct. The court also found no violation of plaintiff's free exercise rights, saying in part:

According to Ms. Chiles, the Minor Therapy Conversion Law is not neutral because it was “well-known” at the time the Colorado General Assembly enacted the Minor Therapy Conversion Law that conversion therapy was primarily sought for religious reasons.... Therefore, Ms. Chiles’ argument goes, the Minor Therapy Conversion Law impermissibly burdens practitioners who hold particular religious beliefs.... The Court disagrees. The Minor Therapy Conversion Law does not “restrict [therapeutic] practices because of their religious nature.”... [T]he Minor Therapy Conversion Law targets specific “modes of therapy” due to their harmful nature— regardless of the practitioner’s personal religious beliefs or affiliations.... [T]he Minor Therapy Conversion law targets these therapeutic modalities because conversion therapy is ineffective and has the potential to “increase [minors’] isolation, self-hatred, internalized stigma, depression, anxiety, and suicidality”....

Christian Doctors Challenge New Mexico's Assisted Suicide Law

Suit was filed this week in a New Mexico federal district court by a physician and the Christian Medical & Dental Associations challenging the constitutionality of New Mexico's End-of-Life Options Act.  The complaint (full text) in Lacy v, Balderas, (D NM, filed 12/14/2022), alleges in part:

6. The Act purports to protect physicians who object to assisted suicide for reasons of conscience, saying they will not be required to “participate.” But that promise rings hollow. The Act does not define the word “participate,” requires conscientious objectors to facilitate suicide in material ways, and expressly prohibits professional associations like CMDA from taking action to ensure that their members advance—rather than undermine—their mission and message.

7. The Act compels objecting physicians to speak and inform terminally ill patients about the availability of assisted suicide.....

8. The Act forces objecting physicians to refer their patients to physicians or organizations who are “able and willing to carry out” the patient’s assisted suicide.....

9. The Act expressly prohibits professional associations like CMDA from suspending, denying, or revoking membership to physicians who participate in assisted suicide, violating CMDA’s right to associate with members who will present a consistent message. Id. at § 24-7C-7(B).

10. The State of New Mexico thus compels objecting health care professionals to speak a certain message about assisted suicide, and forces them to provide proximate, formal, and material cooperation in an unethical and sinful act.

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

Teacher Sues Over School's Policy on Transgender Students

Suit was filed this week in an Ohio federal district court by a middle school teacher who resigned after refusing on religious grounds to comply with the school's policy regarding transgender students.  The school required teachers to address students by their preferred names and pronouns. The complaint (full text) in Geraghty v. Jackson Local School District Board of Education, (ND OH, filed 12/12/20222), alleges in part:

2. The Constitution guarantees a freedom of thought that includes a freedom to differ.... 

3. The Constitution protects this freedom to differ, in part, by prohibiting the government from adopting and enforcing a set of approved views on these matters in America’s public schools.... 

4. Defendants have abandoned this guiding light and adopted one particular view on this subject: that a person’s subjective identity determines whether a person is male or female, not a person’s sex. Compounding their unlawful adoption of an orthodoxy in this area, they have created and implemented a Policy requiring teachers, including Plaintiff Vivian Geraghty, to mouth her own support of Defendants’ views by forcing her, as a condition of keeping her job as a public school teacher, to participate in the “social transition” of children in her class.

5. Ms. Geraghty has a different view of this fundamental matter, informed by her scientific understanding and her Christian faith....

7. Because no interest justifies the state’s treatment of Ms. Geraghty—indeed, the very nature of free speech, free exercise of religion, and freedom from state-enforced orthodoxy on fundamental matters condemns the state’s attempt to purge contrary views from its schools—she brings this Complaint for injunctive, declaratory, and compensatory relief.

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

9th Circuit: Native American Student's Suit Over Wearing Eagle Feather at Graduation Should Move Ahead

 In Waln v. Dysart School District, (9th Cir., Dec. 9, 2022), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held that a free speech and free exercise suit against an Arizona school district should not have been dismissed by the district court.  The school district refused to allow a Native American student to wear an eagle feather in her cap during graduation ceremonies. Wearing the eagle feather, which had been blessed and is considered a sacred object, was a religious practice. Sustaining plaintiff's Free Exercise claim, a majority of the court said in part:

Plaintiff has carried her burden, at the motion-to-dismiss stage, to show that the District’s policy [prohibiting decoration of graduation caps] is not generally applicable because it was enforced in a selective manner.

The court also held that plaintiff should be able to move ahead on her free speech claim, saying in part:

Here, the complaint plausibly alleges that the District enforced its facially neutral policy in a selective way.

The majority rejected the school district's contention that it had a compelling interest in complying with the Establishment Clause. 

Judge Baker filed an opinion dissenting in part, contending that plaintiff had not adequately alleged that the school district selectively enforced its policy against decorating graduation caps. However, he believed that the district court erred in not permitting plaintiff to amend her complaint to provide more factual content.

Catholic Parish Sues Michigan Over Expansion of Its Civil Rights Act

Suit was filed this week in a Michigan federal district court by a Catholic parish which operates an elementary school claiming that the Michigan Supreme Court's interpretation of the state's anti-discrimination law violates the parish's First Amendment rights.  The complaint (full text) in St. Joseph Parish St. Johns v. Nessel, (WD MI, filed 12/5/2022), alleges in part:

5. In a series of actions culminating in a Michigan Supreme Court decision from July 2022, the Michigan Attorney General, the Michigan Department of Civil Rights, and the Michigan Civil Rights Commission ... reinterpreted the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act (“ELCRA”) such that provisions which previously prohibited conduct based only on biological sex now also apply to distinctions made based on sexual orientation and gender identity....

10. As a result, Michigan’s new understanding of “sex” discrimination deems it unlawful for St. Joseph’s to follow the 2,000-year-old teachings of the Catholic Church, including its teaching that marriage is a lifelong commitment between one man and one woman, that sexual relations are limited to marriage, and that human beings are created as either male or female....

11. Michigan’s reinterpretation poses an imminent threat to St. Joseph. St. Joseph needs to hire new employees and to publicize its job openings. St. Joseph’s advertisements would note, as they have in the past, that applicants must be “practicing Catholic[s] with the ability to infuse Catholic faith and teaching throughout the curriculum.”... 

12. St. Joseph is also reviewing applications for new families seeking to send their children to its school. And families at St. Joseph Catholic School enter a “Family – School Agreement.” This agreement requires, among other things, that parents and students agree “to live their lives in a way that supports, rather than opposes, the mission of our school and our faith beliefs.”

13. Also at stake is St. Joseph’s ability to rent its facilities—like its gymnasium and soccer fields—and whether it can carry out its parish activities open to all, like attending Mass, without being held liable as a public accommodation....

15. St. Joseph’s religious decisions regarding how to advance its mission and ministry are protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Michigan cannot force the Catholic Church to compromise its religious character simply as a function of its doors being open to all.

Becket has a case page with more details on the case.

Street Preacher Loses His Free Speech Lawsuit

In Sessler v. City of Davenport, (SD IA, Nov. 22, 2022), an Iowa federal district court dismissed a suit for damages and injunctive relief brought by a street preacher who claimed that his free speech rights were violated when he and others with him were required to move from the location at which they were preaching during the city's Street Fest and continue their preaching from another location. According to the court:

Sessler and his group carried signs on extendable poles with messages including: "Hell is enlarged for adulterers . . . homosexuals . . . abortionists" and "Warning! If you are involved in sex out of marriage[,] homosexuality[,] drunkenness[,] night clubbing . . . you are destined for a burning hell[.]" 

The court concluded that Street Fest was a limited public forum, and plaintiff's removal was reasonable and viewpoint neutral.  It went on to say in part:

Sessler has failed to carry his burden of showing Behning, Smith, and Alcala violated a clearly established right, even if Street Fest is considered a traditional public forum. The case law discussed by Sessler does not show a member of the public has a right to continue preaching at a permitted event open to the public after event organizers requested his removal due to complaints that his preaching was driving customers away from fee-paying vendors. Rather, the case law on point suggests a reasonable officer could have concluded Sessler had no constitutional right to continue preaching within the boundaries of Street Fest following such complaints, as long as he was permitted to continue preaching across the street from an entrance to Street Fest. The Officers violated no clearly established right, so they are entitled to qualified immunity from Sessler's claims against them.

Supreme Court Hears Arguments Today on Wedding Website Designer Who Opposes Same-Sex Marriage

Today the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in 303 Creative v. Elenis. In the case, the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the application of Colorado's Anti-Discrimination Act to a wedding website design company whose owner for religious reasons refuses to create websites that celebrate same-sex marriages. The Court granted certiorari only on the question of "Whether applying a public-accommodation law to compel an artist to speak or stay silent violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment." Over 75 amicus briefs have been filed in the case.  The SCOTUSblog case page has links to them and to other filings in the case. The arguments will be broadcast live beginning at 10:00 AM at this link. SCOTUSblog has a preview of the arguments. I will update this post with links to the recording and transcript of the arguments when they become available later today.

UPDATE: Here are links to the transcript and audio of this morning's oral arguments.

Suit By Law Prof and Internet Site Challenges NY Statute on Online Hate Speech

 In May, the New York legislature enacted A7685-A requiring social media networks to provide a means for its users to report postings which vilify, humiliate or incite violence group on the basis of race, color, religion, ethnicity, national origin, disability, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression.  They must also have a policy on responding to and addressing such postings.  Yesterday-- two days before the law is to go into effect-- suit was filed in a New York federal district court by law professor and blogger Eugene Volokh and the social media platform Rumble challenging the law on free speech as well as overbreadth and vagueness grounds. The complaint (full text) in Volokh v. James, (SD NY, filed 12/1/2022), alleges in part:

New York cannot justify such a sweeping regulation of protected speech. The Online Hate Speech Law violates the First Amendment because it burdens the publication of speech based on its viewpoint, unconstitutionally compels speech, and is overbroad. It is also vague in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment....and preempted by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Given well-settled Supreme Court precedent, the New York’s law must be enjoined and struck down.

Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

7th Circuit: Law on Disposal of Fetal Remains Does Not Violate 1st Amendment

In Doe v. Rokita, (7th Cir., Nov. 28, 2022), the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected 1st Amendment challenges to an Indiana statute that requires abortion providers to dispose of fetal remains either by burial or by cremation. The suit was brought both by two women who raise free exercise claims and by two physicians who oppose the requirement that they inform patients of the law's provisions. The court said in part:

[N]either of the two plaintiffs who has had an abortion contends that a third party’s cremation or burial of fetal remains would cause her to violate any religious principle indirectly. What these two plaintiffs contend is that cremation or burial implies a view—the personhood of an unborn fetus—that they do not hold. They maintain that only human beings are cremated or buried. This is questionable. Dogs, cats, and other pets may be cremated or buried, sometimes as a result of legal requirements not to put animals’ bodies in the garbage,,,,. Indiana’s statute about fetal remains therefore need not imply anything about the appropriate characterization of a fetus. At all events, a moral objection to one potential implication of the way medical providers handle fetal remains is some distance from a contention that the state compels any woman to violate her own religious tenets....

As for the requirement that physicians and other providers tell patients about the statutory options: no one contends that the required notice is false or misleading....

The norm that units of government may require physicians (and other professionals) to provide accurate information to their clients long predates Casey and has not been disturbed since...

Cross On Park Land Must Remain While State Court Reconsiders Its Eminent Domain Ruling

 In Lions Club of Albany, California v. City of Albany, (ND CA, Nov. 17, 2022), a California federal district court clarified its 2018 ruling in which it held that the city of Albany violated the Establishment Clause by acquiring for a public park a 1.1 acre parcel of land that includes a large cross. Originally the cross was on private property, and the Lion's Club held an easement to maintain the 20-foot high cross and to illuminate it each Christmas and Easter. In its earlier ruling the court said that the city could cure its Establishment Clause problem in one of several ways, one of which was by taking the Lion's Club easement by eminent domain. (See prior posting.) In May 2022, the city began state court eminent domain proceedings.  The state court permitted the city to take prejudgment possession of the Lion's Club easement and take down the cross and store it in a safe place. The Lion's Club than filed the present federal court action seeking a preliminary injunction, contending that its free speech and free exercise rights were being violated. The court said in part:

The City wants to keep the park and remove the cross, not sell the land. Further, as revealed at our hearing, there is and has been no current offer by the Lions Club to purchase a parcel that includes the cross. These considerations are relevant in weighing hardships and, as explained above, the question of provisional relief is wholly in the hands of the [state court] Judge Chatterjee. He is free to rule either way without offending any order or dictum by this court. 

At our hearing, however, it also developed that the City cannot say with any certainty whether it can put the cross back up after its provisional removal, should the City ultimately lose the eminent domain jury trial.... Thus, as the Court sees things, this is not just a decision merely pending litigation, but rather practically, once the cross is down, it is down for good. This raises a serious exercise of religion problem and in considering this issue, Judge Chatterjee’s ruling appears to have been based on a misunderstanding of this Court’s prior ruling. Therefore, until such time as Judge Chatterjee can reassess the motion for prejudgment possession, taking into consideration the correct understanding of the June 2018 Order, removal of the cross is ENJOINED.

Parties Agree To $2 Million + Attorneys' Fees in Christian Flag Case

After plaintiffs' win in the Supreme Court in Shurtleff v. City of Boston (the Christian flag case), plaintiffs sought to recover attorneys' fees and costs for the five years of litigation. On Nov. 8, the parties filed a Joint Notice of Settlement in the case in a Massachusetts federal district court. The City of Boston will pay $2,125,000 to Liberty Counsel, attorneys for plaintiffs.  Liberty Counsel issued a press release announcing the settlement.