Christian Group Challenges College's Speech Zone Policy

A lawsuit was filed this week in a Georgia federal district court by a Christian apologetics club against administrators of Kennesaw State University challenging the school's speech zone policy.  The complaint (full text) in Ratio Christi of Kennesaw State University v. Olens, (ND GA, filed 2/20/2018) complains that the school would not allow the group to set up a pro-life display on the Campus Green.  Instead it limited the display to a small area set aside as a "speech zone." The suit alleges in part:

Defendants prohibit individual students from reserving space on campus and require registered student organizations (“RSO”) to submit reservation requests between three and thirty days in advance.... These policies give KSU officials unbridled discretion, both over whether to grant, deny, or modify an RSO’s reservation request and over whether and how much to charge in security fees, and they quarantine any expressive activities KSU officials deem “controversial” to the small, less accessible “speech zone.”

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

Limits On Krishna Lunch Program Upheld

In Krishna Lunch of Southern California, Inc. v. Gordon, (CD CA, Feb. 9, 2018), a California federal district court dismissed a challenge by a Krishna consciousness organization to a UCLA rule that limits it to holding four event per year on the campus.  The organization, Krishna Lunch, wants to offer a lunch program with sanctified food (prasada) 2 or 3 times per week.  The court rejected free exercise, free speech and expressive association challenges to the limitation.  In rejecting plaintiff's expressive conduct claim, the court said in part:

Plaintiffs’ lunch program ... is afforded First Amendment protection only if there is an intent to convey a particularized message and a great likelihood that message would be understood by those who view it....

The Court previously concluded that Plaintiffs failed to allege a great likelihood their pro-animal/antimeat message would easily be understood by those who view it.  They still have not done so....

... [T]he fact that the Assigned Area (the location where Plaintiffs would conduct prasada) is regularly used by groups for which food distribution is common ... makes it highly unlikely that the ordinary viewer would glean a particularized message from Plaintiffs’ lunch program.

California Baker May Refuse To Create Cake For Same-Sex Wedding

A California state trial court has held that a bakery owner has the right to refuse to create a wedding cake for a same-sex couple when the owner has religious objections to same-sex marriage. The court pointed out:

The Unruh Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of religion, as well as sexual orientation.

The bakery had arranged to refer orders from same-sex couples to a competing bakery that has no objections. In Department of Fair Employment and Housing v. Miller, (CA Super., Feb. 5, 2018), the court said in part:

The right of freedom of thought guaranteed by the First Amendment includes the right to speak, and the right to refrain from speaking. Sometimes the most profound protest is silence....

No artist, having placed their work for public sale, may refuse to sell for an unlawful discriminatory purpose. No baker may place their wares in public display case, open their shop, and then refuse to sell because of race, religion, gender, or gender identification.

The difference here is that the cake in question is not yet baked. The State is not petitioning the court to order defendants to sell cake. The State asks this court to compel Miller to use her talents to design and create cake she has not yet conceived with the knowledge that her work will be displayed in celebration of marital union her religion forbids. For this court to force such compliance would do violence to the essentials of Free Speech guaranteed under the First Amendment.

The Bakersfield Californian reports on the decision.

Court Enjoins Kansas Anti-Israel Boycott Law

In Koontz v. Watson, (D KA, Jan 30, 2018), a Kansas federal district court issued a preliminary injunction barring Kansas form enforcing Kan. Stat. Ann. § 75-3740f(a).  The law requires all state contractors to certify that they are not engaged in a boycott of Israel. The law was challenged by a teacher who is a member of the Mennonite church who wants to participate as a teacher trainer in the state's Math and Science Partnership program.  The court, relying on the U.S. Supreme Court's 1982 decision in NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., concluded that the law infringes plaintiff's free speech rights:

Ms. Koontz, other members of the Mennonite Church, and others have “banded together” to express, collectively, their dissatisfaction with Israel and to influence governmental action.... She and others participating in this boycott of Israel seek to amplify their voices to influence change, as did the boycotters in Claiborne. The court concludes that plaintiff has carried her burden on the current motion to establish that she and others are engaged in protected activity.

The ACLU issued a press release announcing the decision, and has links to other documents in the case.

State Supreme Court Victory For Fired Christian Fire Fighter

In Sprague v. Spokane Valley Fire Department, (WA Sup. Ct., Jan. 25, 2018), the Washington state Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision gave an initial victory to fire captain Jonathan Sprague who had been fired for using the fire department's e-mail and electronic bulletin board systems to disseminate information on the Spokane County Christian Firefighter Fellowship that he had formed. The court refused to find that a decision by the Spokane County Civil Service Commission acted as collateral estoppel against Sprague.  On the merits of the claim, the majority found that while the fire department's policy limiting the use of its e-mail system to official business is reasonable, it enforced the policy against Sprague in a way that was not viewpoint neutral. It found that the restrictions on Sprague's use of the bulletin board system were unreasonable. The majority concluded:

On remand, the burden will shift to SVFD to show by a preponderance of the evidence that it would have terminated Sprague even in the absence of his protected conduct. ... SVFD must additionally show that Sprague's termination was justified under ROW 41.08.080, which permits the termination of civil service employees like Sprague only upon certain conditions. Assuming that the trier of fact determines that Sprague's termination was not otherwise justifiable, the trier of fact should then determine the applicable amount of damages that Sprague suffered from SVFD's viewpoint discrimination.

The four dissenters argued that the case should be remanded for the trial court to determine whether the fire department in fact had an unwritten policy that was specifically hostile to religious viewpoints.

Christian Student Group Gets Preliminary Injunction Because of Selective Enforcement

In Business Leaders in Christ v. University of Iowa, (SD IA, Jan. 23, 2018), an Iowa federal district court issued a preliminary injunction requiring the University of Iowa to restore for 90 days the registered student organization status of Business Leaders in Christ.  The University revoked the group's registration for failure to comply with the University's Human Rights Policy.  The organization required that executive officers agree to live by Biblical principles. The University found that this would disqualify individuals from leadership positions based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

The court concluded that the University's policy, as written, does not violate plaintiffs' free expression rights. However, the court found that as applied the policy is not viewpoint neutral and thus violates plaintiff's rights. Relying particularly on apparent non-enforcement against a Shia Muslim student organization, the court concluded that "on the current record ... BLinC has shown that the University does not consistently and equally apply its Human Rights Policy." The court said that after the expiration of the preliminary injunction, the University may prevent further injunctions by showing a change to its enforcement of its Policy. Cedar Rapids Gazette reports on the decision. Becket's case page has further background.

3rd Circuit: Preachers' Civil Rights Suit Dismissed On Immunity Grounds

In Karns v. Shanahan, (3rd Cir., Jan. 11, 2018), t U..S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of a civil rights damage action brought by two evangelical Christian ministers who were arrested for preaching on an NJ Transit train platform without the required permit.  In a 2-1 decision, the court held that NJ Transit is an arm of the state and thus has 11th Amendment immunity.  The 3-judge panel agreed unanimously that the police officers who were also sued have qualified immunity.  WHYY News reports on the decision.

Justice Department Supports Archdiocese Against Washington Area Transit Authority

As previously reported, the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit is considering an appeal by the Archdiocese of Washington challenging the refusal of the Washington Area Metropolitan Transit Authority to accept bus ads that promote religion, religious practices or religious beliefs. Yesterday the U.S. Department of Justice filed an amicus brief (full text) supporting the Archdiocese whose Christmas ad was rejected by WMATA. The brief argues that "WMATA’s policy constitutes unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination." National Law Journal reports on DOJ's action.

European Court Vindicates Critic of Anti-Muslim Political Remarks

In Case of GRA Stiftung gegen Rassismus und Antisemitismus v. Switzerland,  (ECHR, Jan. 9, 2018), the European Court of Human Rights in a Chamber Judgment held that the free speech rights of a civil rights organization were infringed when Swiss courts sanctioned it for a web posting calling remarks of a youth leader of a right wing party "verbal racism." The remarks were made in the context of a referendum on banning the building of minarets. A Swiss appellate court found that the web posting infringed the party leader's personality rights.  It required the organization to remove its web posting and replace it by the court's opinion. It also was required to pay legal and court costs. The ECHR held in part:

When assessing the impugned statements in the present case, it is first of all important to bear in mind the general background of the ongoing political debate in which both statements were made.

... Both B.K.’s speech and the applicant organisation’s article concerned a topic of intense public debate in Switzerland at the material time, which was the popular initiative against the construction of minarets, which was widely reported on in national and international media. The initiative, calling for a ban on the construction of minarets, was ultimately accepted by a referendum on 29 November 2009 and such a ban was included in the Swiss Constitution....

The Court reiterates that a distinction has to be made between private individuals and persons acting in a public context, as political or public figures. Accordingly, whilst a private individual unknown to the public may claim particular protection of his or her right to private life, the same is not true of public figures.... 

... B.K. had willingly exposed himself to public scrutiny by stating his political views and therefore had to show a higher degree of tolerance towards potential criticism of his statements by persons or organisations which did not share his views.

A Chamber Judgment may be appealed to the Grand Chamber.  the Court issued a press release summarizing the decision.  Law & Religion UK has more on the case.

Suit Challenges Rules Against Proselytizing At Alaska Town Festival

The Center for Religious Expression last week announced the filing of a federal lawsuit in Alaska challenging a rule at the Girdwood, Alaska Forest Fair that prohibits the distribution of religious literature.  Anchorage Daily News has more on the lawsuit:

During the Forest Fair, an annual Girdwood summer festival that celebrates tie-dye, home-spun crafts and public hula-hooping, signs posted on the tall trees alert visitors to three main rules: "No dogs, no politics, no religious orders."

But one of those rules, a doctrine of the fair for more than four decades, now faces a legal challenge. Last week, two evangelical Christians, one of whom is a well-known activist, filed a lawsuit in federal court saying the ban on "religious orders" infringes on their constitutional right to free speech....

The two plaintiffs say they were told that they could not continue to proselytize and distribute literature in the park where the festival is held.  They were required to move to sidewalks outside the park to distribute their gospel tracts. [Thanks to Jeff Pasek for the lead.]

4th Circuit Strikes Down Baltimore's Posting Requirement For Pregnancy Centers

In Greater Baltimore Center for Pregnancy Concerns, Inc., v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, (4th Cir., Jan. 5, 2018), the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals held unconstitutional a Baltimore ordinance requiring any "limited service pregnancy center" to post a notice in its waiting room telling clients that it "does not provide or make referral for abortion or birth-control services."  Finding that the speech being regulated is neither commercial speech nor professional speech, the Court held that the ordinance violates plaintiffs' 1st Amendment rights.  The Court said in part:

The dangers of compelled speech in an area as ideologically sensitive and spiritually fraught as this one require that the government not overplay its hand. Without proving the inefficacy of less restrictive alternatives, providing concrete evidence of deception, or more precisely targeting its regulation, the City cannot prevail. The Baltimore ordinance, as applied to the Center, fails to satisfy heightened First Amendment scrutiny.

...This court has in the past struck down attempts to compel speech from abortion providers.... And today we do the same with regard to compelling speech from abortion foes. We do so in belief that earnest advocates on all sides of this issue should not be forced by the state into a corner and required essentially to renounce and forswear what they have come as a matter of deepest conviction to believe.

This is the second time that the case has made it to the 4th Circuit. (See prior posting.) The Baltimore Sun reports on the decision.

Fired Atlanta Fire Chief Wins Challenge To Outside Employment Rules

In Cochran v. City of Atlanta, Georgia, (ND GA, Dec. 20, 2017), a Georgia federal district court gave a partial victory to a former Atlanta fire chief who was dismissed from his position over a book which he wrote.  The book, designed as a religious guide for men, called those who engage in extramarital or in homosexual sex "wicked" and "ungodly."  Plaintiff Kevin Cochran contends that he was fired because of his religious speech.  The city says Cochran was fired for ignoring the city's pre-clearance rules for outside employment, facilitating a public relations campaign against the mayor and the city, and also creating city vulnerability for employment discrimination claims. (See prior related posting.)

The court dismissed plaintiff's retaliation, free speech and free exercise claims.  However the court refused to dismiss plaintiff's challenges to the city's pre-clearance rules for outside employment.  The court granted plaintiff summary judgment on his prior restraint challenge to the pre-clearance rules, as well as on his claim that the rules are unconstitutional content-based restrictions that invite unbridled discretion by the city.  AP reports on the decision, indicating that the two sides have different views as to what issues remain to be determined in the case.

DC Circuit Refuses Injunction Pending Appeal In DC Religious Bus Ad Case

In Archdiocese of Washington v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, (DC Cir., Dec. 20, 2017), the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit refused to issue an injunction pending appeal to prevent enforcement of a WMATA advertising policy that rejects bus ads which promote religion, religious practices or religious beliefs.  Earlier this month, the district court upheld WMATA's rejection of an ad from the Archdiocese promoting its "Find the Perfect Gift" Christmas campaign. (See prior posting.)  In denying the motion for an injunction, the Court of Appeals said in part:

Appellant has failed to establish a substantial likelihood of success because, at least at this early pre-discovery procedural stage, Appellant’s argument of discriminatory treatment is grounded in pure hypothesis. Appellant has not come forward with a single example of a retail, commercial, or other non-religious advertisement on a WMATA bus that expresses the view that the holiday season should be celebrated in a secular or non-religious manner.

The court did order an expedited briefing schedule, and urged the parties to limit the use of abbreviations, including acronyms, in their briefs.  Washington Post reports on the decision.

DC Transit Authority's Ban On Religious Ads Upheld

In Archdiocese of Washington v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, (D DC, Dec. 8, 2017), the DC federal district court upheld advertising Guidelines of the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority which, among other things, bar transit vehicle ads "that promote or oppose any religion, religious practice or belief."  The Catholic Archdiocese challenged the application of this Guideline after WMATA refused to allow the Archdiocese's "Find the Perfect Gift" Christmas campaign ad.  The ad, intended for the exterior of public buses, was designed "to invite the public to consider the spiritual meaning of Christmas..." Denying a preliminary injunction, the court found that plaintiff is unlikely to succeed  on the merits of its free speech, free exercise, equal protection or RFRA arguments.

Rejecting the Archdiocese's free speech claim, the court held that the exterior of a bus in not a "public forum," and WMATA's restriction is neutral and reasonable.  The court said in part:

plaintiff maintains that the Guideline has been discriminatorily and arbitrarily enforced, favoring other religious advertisements over those sponsored by the Catholic Archdiocese.... But the record does not support this contention. None of the advertisements plaintiff highlights to make that point – neither the ads heralding the opening of another CorePower Yoga fitness studio in Clarendon, Virginia (“Muscle + Mantra”), nor the ads soliciting contributions to the Salvation Army’s Red Kettle effort (“Give Hope. Change Lives”) “promote or oppose any religion.”

Rejecting plaintiff's RFRA argument, the court said that no "substantial burden" or religious exercise was shown here:

... RFRA decisions turn on an element of compulsion, and here plaintiff is under no pressure to do anything. The fact that plaintiff has a sincere belief in spreading the gospel is not in dispute, but the existence of that belief, and even the sincere desire to act in accordance with it, is not enough to sustain a claim.

Washington Post reports on the decision.

Suit Challenges City's Reparative Therapy Ban

A suit was filed yesterday in Florida federal district court challenging the constitutionality of a Tampa ordinance that prohibits licensed counselors from practicing conversion therapy efforts on minors. Conversion therapy is defined in the ordinance as "efforts to change behaviors. gender identity, or gender expression, or to eliminate or reduce sexual or romantic attractions or feelings toward individuals of the same gender or sex." The complaint (full text) in Vazzo v. City of Tampa, Florida, (MD FL, filed 12/4/2017), contends that the ordinance violates plaintiffs' free speech and free exercise rights as well as rights under various Florida statutes.  Among other things, it argues that the law violates the First Amendment rights of plaintiffs' clients to receive information.  Liberty Counsel issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

DC Archdiocese Sues Over Rejection of Christmas Season Bus Ads

The Washington, D.C. Catholic Archdiocese yesterday filed suit in federal district court against the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority after WMATA rejected ads designed to be placed on the exterior of buses promoting the Archdiocese's "Find the Perfect Gift" Campaign.  The complaint (full text) in Archdiocese of Washington v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, (D DC, filed 11/28/2017), describes the ads:

the advertisements depict, in minimalist style, a starry night, with silhouettes of a small group of shepherds and sheep standing on a hill. All of the advertisements refer to an Internet site, FindThePerfectGift.org, which contains links to Mass schedules, opportunities for charitable service, information about religious holiday traditions, and reflections on the meaning of the Advent and Christmas seasons. The advertisements also refer to a social-media hashtag, #PerfectGift.

The WMATA advertising Guidelines prohibit ads that "promote or oppose any religion, religious practice, or belief."  The complaint alleges that the Guidelines as applied to this ad violate the Archdiocese's 1st amendment free speech and free exercise rights, RFRA, as well as denying it equal protection and due process.  The Archdiocese issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Abortion Clinic Buffer Zone Upheld

In Bruni v. City of Pittsburgh, (WD PA, Nov. 17, 2017), a Pennsylvania federal district court, in a case on remand from the 3rd Circuit (see prior posting), granted summary judgment to defendants in a case challenging Pittsburgh's ordinance that imposes a 15-foot buffer zone around abortion clinics and other health care facilities.  According to the court, "the undisputed evidence in this case demonstrates that the Ordinance places only a minimal burden on Plaintiffs’ First Amendment free speech rights."  The court went on:

Plaintiffs argue that the City should have considered any number of other alternatives prior to adopting the Ordinance, including targeted injunctions and/or the enforcement of antiharassment statutes.... [I]n light of the Court’s finding that the current law burdens very little speech to begin with, there is no reason to believe that any of these alternative measures would burden substantially less speech than does the current Ordinance.

BNA Daily Report for Executives [subscription required] reports on the decision.

Court Refuses To Dismiss Constitutional Challenges To City's Civil Rights Law

In Country Mill Farms v. City of East Lansing, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 191658 (WD MI, Nov. 16, 2017), a Michigan federal district court refused to dismiss a number of plaintiff's constitutional challenges to a city's civil rights ordinance. Vendor Guidelines for East Lansing's Farmers' Market required vendors to comply with the civil rights ordinance as a general business practice. Country Mill Farms was denied a vendor permit because, while it hosts weddings at its orchard, it refuses on religious grounds to host same-sex weddings.  It announced its policy in a Facebook post.

The court allowed Country Mill to move ahead with an overbreadth challenge to a portion of the ordinance, saying in part:

The City is wrong that the Ordinance regulates only conduct. The Ordinance also regulates speech. Section 22-32 of the Code defines "harass" as including "communication which refers to an individual protected under this article." Section 22-31 prohibits harassment of any person based on a list of characteristics. And, Section 22-35(b)(2) prohibits the printing and publishing of certain statements and signs based on their content.

The court also refused to dismiss plaintiff's Free Exercise and Establishment Clause challenges (as well as an unconstitutional conditions challenge), saying in part:

Plaintiffs have alleged sufficient facts to state a plausible claim for a violation of their rights under the Free Exercise Clause. Plaintiffs have pleaded facts to support a claim that the City enacted a generally applicable and neutral policy, which was then used to target Plaintiffs' religiously-motivated conduct. The Ordinance did not apply to Plaintiffs in 2016. After the City learned that Plaintiffs would not hold same-sex weddings on their farms because of Plaintiffs' religious beliefs, the City amended the Vendor Guidelines to incorporate the neutral and generally applicable law and applied it to Plaintiffs. As pled, the City's action is a "veiled cover for targeting belief or a faith-based practice." ...

Plaintiffs have pled sufficient facts to state a plausible claim under the Establishment Clause. The facts in the complaint allow the Court to infer that the predominant purpose of the changes to the Vendor Guidelines was motivated by the disapproval of Plaintiffs' religious beliefs.

Various other challenges to the ordinance were dismissed. (See prior related posting.)

Court Strikes Down Health Clinic Buffer Zone

In Turco v. City of Englewood, New Jersey, (D NJ, Nov. 14, 2017), a New Jersey federal district court struck down as overbroad a city ordinance creating an 8-foot buffer zone around health care and transitional facilities.  The ordinance was a response to militant activists and aggressive protesters who congregated outside an Englewood abortion clinic. The court said in part:

Defendant created a sweeping regulation that burdens the free speech of individuals, not just in front of the Clinic, but at health care and transitional facilities citywide. To meet the narrowly-tailored requirement, Defendant must create an Ordinance that targets the exact wrong it seeks to remedy.

Liberty Counsel issued a press release announcing the decision.

Pro-Life Group Sues Over City's Enforcement of Sign Ordinance

A suit was filed last week in a North Carolina federal district court by an anti-abortion group which contends that the city of Charlotte acted unconstitutionally when it applied an ordinance directed at preventing installation of permanent or semi-permanent signs and flyers in the public right of way to prevent plaintiffs' display of placards. The complaint (full text) in Cities4Life, Inc. v. City of Charlotte, (WD NC, filed 11/17/2017) alleges in part:

Defendants, through their enforcement of City Code § 10-212, prohibit speakers from resting their signs on the ground while they are assembled outside of abortion facilities and thereby restrict Plaintiffs’ right to free speech on significant portions of land. This restriction does not apply to many other types of signs whose content is different from those used by Plaintiffs. Defendants thus unconstitutionally restrict Plaintiffs’ rights because of the pro-life messages their signs convey.

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