Housing Commission May Not Limit Meeting Rooms To Secular Activities

In His Healing Hands Church v. Lansing Housing Commission, (WD MI, Feb. 1, 2016), a Michigan federal district court issued a preliminary injunction barring a public housing agency from denying a Christian church access to its community rooms for Sunday meetings that include worship and Biblically based lessons on morality and life skills. In the court's view, in denying use of meeting rooms in the public housing developments for religious activities, the housing commission engaged in unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination. Alliance Defending Freedom issued a press release on the decision which includes links to the complaint and other documents in the case.

Adventists Sue Town Over Required License For Door-To-Door Solicitation

The Seventh Day Adventist Church and two of its members filed a federal lawsuit yesterday against the city of White Hall, Arkansas challenging the constitutionality of the city's requirement for a permit before an individual can engage in door-to-door solicitation of funds.  The complaint (full text) in Arkansas-Louisiana Conference of Seventh Day Adventists v. City of White Hall, Arkansas, (ED AR, filed 1/19/2016), contends that the ordinance violates plaintiffs' free speech, free exercise, due process rights and their rights under Arkansas' Religious Freedom Restoration Act. At issue is a  Student Literature Evangelism Program run by Ouachita Hills College in which teams go door-to-door in neighborhoods evangelizing, offering literature and asking for donations.  The suit contends that the ordinance is overbroad and vague, and that its $50 fee chills speech, substantially burdens religious exercise. Plaintiffs also filed a brief (full text) in support of their motion for injunctive relief.  Adventist Review reports on the filing of the lawsuit.

Anti-Westboro Protest Group Found To Have Violated Ordinance Against Picketing of Religious Event

In Topeka, Kansas yesterday. a municipal court judge imposed a $10 fine and $150 in court costs on each of four members of the Journey 4 Justice motorcycle counter-protest group for their Sept. 12 protest outside the Westboro Baptist Church.  According to the Topeka Capital-Journal, the group which was formed in 2011 to counter-protest hate groups like the virulently anti-gay Westboro was found to have violated Topeka Municipal Code Sec. 9.45.140 which prohibits picketing a house of worship during an announced religious event carrying a banner, placard or sign.  The court ruled that "banners" include American flags that the protest group was carrying, and that the ordinance applies during announced hours of religious services, whether or not services were actually taking place.  Originally Topeka police merely asked the group to end their protest, but members of the group insisted that police issue a citation so that a court could clearly interpret the law.

Court Upholds Bus Company's Rejection of Pro-Life Referral Ads

In Women's Health Link, Inc. v. Fort Wayne Public Transportation Corp., (ND IN, Jan. 5, 2016), an Indiana federal district court upheld a decision by Citilink (Ft. Wayne's public bus service) to reject an ad from Women's Health Link, a pro-life health care referral service.  Citilink makes space available for public service announcements from non-profit organizations, but only if they do not express or advocate opinions on political, religious, or moral issues. The court held that Citilink maintains its advertising space as a "non-public forum".  According to the court:

The evidence doesn’t support Women’s Health Link’s contention that Citilink allowed comparable advertisements that address the same or similar topics but advocate a non-life-affirming position....

The reasonableness of the restrictions depends on the purpose of the forum.  In this case, the stated purpose was maximizing revenue, keeping the cost of riding the bus down, protecting Citilink’s passengers from the risk of imposing on a captive audience, and avoiding any “endorsement, implied or otherwise” of the product, service or message. The restrictions on political, religious, and moral speech serve that purpose and are reasonable under the circumstances.

ADF issued a press release reacting to the decision

Court Rejects Federal Challenges To School Ban On Graduate Wearing Eagle Feather

Having previously denied a preliminary injunction in the case (see prior posting), this week an Oklahoma federal district court dismissed a lawsuit brought by a Native American high school senior challenging a school policy that barred her from wearing an eagle feather on her mortar board tassel at her high school graduation. The feather had been given to her by a tribal elder, and it would be a sign of disrespect not to wear the feather which is sacred according to her religious beliefs. In Griffith v. Caney Valley Public Schools, (ND OK, Jan. 5, 2015), the court rejected plaintiff's free speech claim, concluding that graduation attire is school-sponsored speech, and that the school had a legitimate pedagogical reason for restricting decorations on graduation caps.   It rejected her First Amendment free exercise claim, finding that the regulation is a neutral rule of general applicability.  Finally the court refused to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction to decide plaintiff's claim that the school's restriction violates Oklahoma's Religious Freedom Act.  Plaintiff remains free to refile that claim in state court.

Suit Challenges Maine's Restriction On Loud Preaching Outside of Abortion Clinic

In Portland, Maine this week, a Christian pastor filed suit in federal district court challenging the constitutionality of a Maine statute designed to protect abortion facilities.  The law essentially prohibits demonstrating outside an abortion clinic with noise loud enough to be heard inside.  The complaint (full text) in March v. Mills, (D ME, filed 12/21/2015), contends that the statute violates plaintiff's 1st and 14th Amendment rights by targeting his religious, Christian, Pro-Life messages. He alleges in part:

Plaintiff considers it his vocation to encourage women to avoid the sin of abortion and to help them repent from their previous sins.... Plaintiff preaches outside of the abortion facility in order to better reach these women and to give women a last-chance alternative to their life-ending decision.

The suit claims that the restriction on his speech is a content-based prior restraint.  Thomas More Law Center issued a press release announcing the filing of the suit.

Two District Courts Refuse To Enjoin California's Reproductive FACT Act

In recent days, two separate California federal district courts have refused to enjoin the Jan. 1 effectiveness of California's new Reproductive FACT Act which requires reproductive health clinics to disseminate a notice to all clients stating that California has public programs that provide immediate free or low-cost access to comprehensive family planning services, prenatal care, and abortion, for eligible women. In Livingwell Medical Clinic, Inc. v. Harris, (ND CA, Dec. 18, 2015), the court denied a preliminary injunction, finding that plaintiffs had not shown a likelihood of success on the merits of their claim that the required disclosures violate their free expression rights by interfering with their ability to control their own religious and pro-life messages. In A Woman's Friend Pregnancy Resource Clinic v. Harris, (ED CA, Dec. 21, 2015), the court similarly rejected free expression and free exercise claims in denying a preliminary injunction. In rejecting the free exercise claim, the court found that the Act is a neutral law of general applicability even though it mostly impacts Christian-belief based crisis pregnancy centers. Courthouse News Service reports on the decisions.

Settlement Reached In Challenge To Terms of Indiana County's Open Forum Ordinance

On Friday the Thomas More Society announced that a settlement agreement (full text) has been reached in Freedom From Religion Foundation v. Franklin County, Indiana.  The suit followed the adoption of a county ordinance that, in order to insulate from challenge the display of a nativity scene, made the county courthouse a public forum for all types of expressive activities. In the suit, FFRF and the Satanic Temple objected to a provision in the ordinance that limits the open forum to county residents. (See prior posting.) Under the settlement agreement, the ordinance will be amended to merely require a local contact who works or resides in either Franklin county or an adjacent Indiana county for any unattended display.

Fired Atlanta Fire Chief Can Move Ahead With Retaliation and Religious Freedom Claims

In Cochran v. City of Atlanta, (ND GA, Dec. 16, 2015), a Georgia federal district court allowed the city of Atlanta's former fire chief, Kelvin Cochran-- who was also a deacon at his Baptist church-- to move ahead on many of his claims growing out of his termination after he self-published book which included statements that God intended marriage to exist exclusively between a man and a woman, and that homosexual conduct is immoral.  The court allowed Cochran to move ahead against the City of Atlanta on claims for retaliation, viewpoint discrimination, and freedom of expressive association. He was also permitted to move ahead against the city on his overbreadth and prior restraint challenge to a city ordinance requiring approval of the city's Board of Ethics before department heads may provide private services for remuneration. The court found that Mayor Kasim Reed, who was also a defendant, had qualified immunity as to these claims.  The court went on to permit plaintiff to proceed against the city and the Mayor on claims of denial of procedural due process, violation of his 1st Amendment free exercise and expressive association rights and of the Article VI ban on religious tests for office. The court dismissed Cochran's Establishment Clause claim, with leave to amend.  The court also dismissed his equal protection claims and his claims of vagueness and reputational injury.

Alliance Defending Freedom issued a press release announcing the decision. Washington Times reports on the decision.

Restrictions On Anti-Gay Marriage Protester Upheld

In Braun v. Terry, (ED WI, Nov. 30, 2015), a Wisconsin federal district court rejected claims by an anti-gay marriage protester that his free speech, equal protection and due process rights were infringed when authorities restricted the area in which he could carry his signs.  The events at issue occurred on the first day that same-sex marriage licenses were issued and marriages were conducted at the Milwaukee County Courthouse.  Plaintiff complains that he was not permitted to enter the courthouse to protest, and that the area in the park outside the courthouse where he could protest was restricted. The court found the restrictions imposed reasonable, non-discriminatory and narrowly tailored.

Spain's Catholic Lawyers Sue Over Art Exhibit

In Spain, the Spanish Association of Christian Lawyers has filed a lawsuit seeking to close down a controversial art exhibit which opened in Pamplona City Hall last Friday  According to yesterday's The Local, the display-- a retrospective of the works of controversial 27-year old Spanish artist Abel Azcona-- includes a work titled "Amen" which consists of 242 holy wafers spelling out "paedophilia".  Azcona's critics claim that he stole the hosts used in the display by pretending to take Holy Communion, but then pocketing the wafers.  The lawsuit alleges that Azcona committed the crimes of desecration and crimes against religious sentiment under Spain’s Penal Code. On Tuesday evening the communion wafers disappeared as critics staged a protest, and city hall says that part of the display will not be replaced.

Major British Theater Chains Reject Church of England Ad

The three largest movie chains in Britain-- Odeon, Cineworld and Vue-- all have policies against accepting political or religious advertising. Invoking these provisions, the theater chains have refused a 60 second advertisement produced by the Church of England promoting its JustPray.uk website.  According to Sunday's Guardian, the ad which the Church wanted to run before the showing of Star Wars: The Force Awakens (to be released Dec. 18) depicts each line of the Lord's Prayer being said by a different person, beginning with the Archbishop of Cantebury. The Church complained that this refusal chills free speech, and the Church's position has attracted some unexpected backers, including atheist (but free speech advocate) Richard Dawkins. [Thanks to Seth Tillman for the lead.]

Settlement Requires 1st Amendment Training For Hawaiian Police

On Nov. 16, a Hawaii federal district court approved a settlement agreement (full text) in Goodhue v. County of  Maui. In the lawsuit, a pastor and his wife charged that their First Amendment rights were infringed when police hired to provide security prevented them from handing out religious literature on sidewalks outside the Maui Fair.  As summarized in an ACLU press release:

As part of the settlement agreement, the County of Maui has dropped its appeal to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, and, for three years, will conduct additional specialized training for current and new Maui Police Department (“MPD”) officers on upholding the 1st Amendment in public spaces. 

Library Settles Challenge To Use of Meeting Rooms and Changes Its Rules

Library Journal reported yesterday that the Lawrence, Massachusetts pubic library has changed the rules for the use of its meeting rooms after the city settled a lawsuit (see prior posting) challenging the ban on using the rooms for political or religious advocacy. The suit was brought by Liberty Counsel whose application to use a room for a session that would include prayer, hymns and an appeal to return the country to Christian values was turned down. The revised rules exclude use of meeting rooms only for private social events or for groups soliciting business, trying to make a profit or fundraising.

6th Circuit En Banc: 1st Amendment Protects Christian Proselytizers At Dearborn's Arab International Festival

In a case that generated six separate opinions spanning some 65 pages, the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, sitting en banc, yesterday upheld the right of Bible Believers, a Christian group, to engage in provocative and offensive proselytizing of Muslims at the annual Dearborn, Michigan Arab International Festival. In Bible Believers v. Wayne County, Michigan, (6th Cir., Oct. 28, 2015), the majority described the Christian group's messages displayed on banners and T-shirts to a predominately Muslim crowd, many of who were adolescents. Among the slogans were: “Islam Is A Religion of Blood and Murder”; “Only Jesus Christ Can Save You From Sin and Hell”; and “Turn or Burn”. One member of the group also carried a severed pig's head on a spike, believing that Muslims are "petrified of that animal." After several encounters with hostile crowds, Bible Believers were escorted out of the Festival by police and ticketed.

Judge Clay's opinion of the court, joined in full by 7 other judges, concluded:

Ultimately, we find that Defendants violated the Bible Believers’ First  Amendment rights because there can be no legitimate dispute based on this record that the [Wayne County Sheriff's Office] effectuated a heckler’s veto by cutting off the Bible Believers’ protected speech in response to a hostile crowd’s reaction.

Several of the judges writing separate opinions concluded, contrary to the majority, that defendants at least enjoyed qualified immunity from damages.  Detroit News reports on the decision.

Church Sues Seeking Use of Public Housing Community Rooms For Worship Services

Last week, a Christian church in Lansing, Michigan filed a federal lawsuit challenging the policy of the Lansing Housing Commission on use of community rooms in public housing developments. The Commission bars use of the rooms for religious worship services, while allowing them to be used by religious and non-religious groups for other activities.  The complaint (full text) in His Healing Hands Church v. Lansing Housing Commission, (WD MI, filed 10/14/2015), says that it will shortly be too cold in Michigan for the church to hold services outside as it is now doing.  The lawsuit contends that the city has violated the Establishment Clause as well as the  church's free speech, free exercise, and equal protection rights. An ADF press release announced the filing of the lawsuit.

Pregnancy Centers Sue To Enjoin California's New Mandatory Disclosure Law

Last Friday, California Governor Jerry Brown signed into law AB 775 , the Reproductive FACT Act which requires reproductive health clinics to disseminate a notice to all clients stating that California has public programs that provide immediate free or low-cost access to comprehensive family planning services, prenatal care, and abortion, for eligible women.  On Saturday, the Pacific Justice Institute (press release) on behalf of two religiously affiliated non-profit pregnancy counseling centers filed a lawsuit seeking to enjoin enforcement of the new law.  The complaint (full text) in A Woman's Friend Pregnancy Resource Center v. Harris, (ED CA, filed 10/10/2015) contends that the new law infringes plaintiffs' free speech and free exercise rights by mandating speech inconsistent with their religious convictions.  The Sacramento Bee reports on the lawsuit.

New York Subways Must Run Satiric Ads For Film Portraying Muslim Comedians

In Vaguely Qualified Productions LLC v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority, (SD NY, Oct. 7, 2015), a New York federal district court issued a preliminary injunction requiring the Metropolitan Transportation Authority to display plaintiff's advertising campaign for its film The Muslims Are Coming! in the New York City subway system. The film is the story of a group of American Muslim comedians who travel across the country performing stand-up comedy.  The advertising posters use comedic satire to attract the reader's attention and refer the reader to the film's website.  For example, one ad reads: "The Ugly Truth About Muslims: Muslims have great frittata recipes."

After initially accepting the ads, the MTA later refused them under a revised policy that barred ads which are political in nature.  The policy change came in response to a court order requiring the MTA to accept an anti-Muslim ad from the American Freedom Defense Initiative. (See prior posting.) In yesterday's decision, the district court held that VQP's proposed ads are commercial, and not political in nature:

...[T]o "prominently or predominately" advocate or express a political viewpoint, an advertisement must do far more than refer to a subject about which there is a lack of national consensus.

The court went on to hold that the MTA's determination that VQP's ads were political is not a viewpoint neutral decision:

To suggest, as the MTA's actions do, that an advertisement for the Republican presidential debate with photographs and quotes from candidates is somehow less "political" than humorous statements about the Muslim population's dislike of both terrorism and insufficient bagel schmear is, quite clearly, not viewpoint neutral.

Wall Street Journal reports on the decision. Muslim Advocates' press release on the decision also includes a link to the original complaint in the case.

5th Circuit's Revised Opinion Again Allows School To Reject Jumbotron Ad of Tattooed Jesus

Last week in Little Pencil, LLC v. Lubbock Independent School District, (5th Cir., Sept. 23, 2015), the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals denied an en banc rehearing, but granted a panel rehearing, in a religious free speech case.  The panel withdrew its earlier brief opinion that merely adopted the reasoning of the district court and substituted an opinion that reached the same result-- dismissing the complaint-- but on somewhat narrower grounds.  At issue was a high school's refusal to display on its football field jumbotron an ad depicting a tattooed Jesus and a website URL, as part of a marketing concept using a new way to share the Bible's teachings. In its new opinion, the court s

We hold that the football field was a limited public forum and LISD’s content-based, viewpoint-neutral limitations were reasonable in the light of a Texas law against tattoo parlors serving minors and LISD policies against visible tattoos.... The plaintiffs' Establishment Clause claim fails because LISD may legitimately exclude the ad for its tattoo content without a "risk [of] fostering a pervasive bias or hostility to religion..."

The court also rejected due process, equal protection and free exercise claims.

8th Circuit: Preacher's Free Speech Rights Not Infringed By State Fair Rules On Where He Can Stand

In Powell v. Noble, (8th Cir., Aug. 14, 2015), the U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the federal district court that a Christian preacher's free expression rights were not infringed when he was barred from delivering his religious message just outside the paid admission area at the Iowa State Fair. The court said in part:

The fair’s rule prohibiting impeding the flow of people in and out of the fairgrounds addresses the need to limit congestion and disruption and to facilitate safe and efficient access to the fair.... Powell retains alternative channels of communication on the fairgrounds.... While these alternatives may not be Powell’s first choice, “‘[t]he First Amendment does not demand unrestricted access to a nonpublic forum merely because use of that forum may be the most efficient means of delivering the speaker’s message.’” .... We also conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in holding Powell is unlikely to succeed in showing the rule against bringing signs attached to poles and sticks to the fair is unreasonable....The state has a valid interest in protecting the safety of fairgoers... Neither are we persuaded by Powell’s argument that the rule is arbitrary because the fair allows mounted poles to support tents and flags and small sticks for the fair’s many food-on-a-stick offerings.

The court however remanded the case to the district court for it to consider whether the State Fair's unwritten rules on access to the fairgrounds are overly vague in violation of the due process clause.  The Des Moines Register reports on the decision.