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.

Court Says Dobbs Decision Does Not Undercut Freedom of Access To Clinic Entrances Act

In United States v. Gallagher, (MD TN, July 3, 2023), a Tennessee federal district court became the first court to rule on whether the Supreme Court's Dobbs decision affects the constitutionality of the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances ("FACE") Act.  In the case, eleven co-defendants sought dismissal of their indictments for violating FACE. They first argued that since Dobbs held abortion is not entitled to heightened protection under the 14th Amendment, Congress' reliance in enacting the law on its 14th Amendment Section 5 enforcement powers is undercut. The court responded in part:

While the question of how section 5 applies to the FACE Act may be of some abstract or academic interest, however, it is of limited practical importance, given that section 5 is only one of two powers on which Congress relied in enacting the FACE Act, the other of which—the power to regulate interstate commerce—was not at issue in Dobbs.

Later in its opinion, the court rejected defendants' argument that Dobbs effectively created a carveout of abortion services from commerce clause coverage. It also rejected defendants' argument that they could not be prosecuted under 18 USC §241 for conspiring to prevent the exercise of a federal right. The court said "§ 241 does not require that the right in question be constitutional, only that it be federal. FACE is, of course, a federal statute...."

The court also rejected defendants' argument that the government is engaged in impermissible selective enforcement because it has not brought enough prosecutions under the FACE Act against individuals who have interfered in the operation of anti-abortion “crisis pregnancy centers.”

It went on to reject defendants' free speech arguments, saying in part:

Nor is the FACE Act being applied in an unconstitutional manner to these particular defendants based on their viewpoints or participation in First Amendment-protected activities, as would be required for a so-called “vindictive prosecution” defense. “...

Because there is no actual evidence of any such improper motive, the defendants engage in a sleight of hand, whereby they have treated any statement by the Department of Justice indicating a desire to safeguard access to abortion as evidence of a desire to punish these defendants for Dobbs. The defendants, though, are not the center of the moral or political universe. A desire to safeguard access to abortion is a desire to safeguard access to abortion—not an affront directed at them. More importantly, safeguarding access to abortion is, particularly under Dobbs, an entirely appropriate thing for legislatures and executives to do, if that is the course they choose. Indeed, it is harder to imagine a more fulsome endorsement of the elected branches’ power to set abortion policy than Dobbs...

Moving to defendants' Free Exercise/ RFRA claims, the court said in part:

The boundaries of the Free Exercise Clause are a topic of much disagreement.... The defendants’ argument, however, goes to something much more fundamental. Although the defendants go to great lengths to make this issue more complicated than it is, they ultimately ask a straightforward question: Does the Free Exercise Clause grant individuals who are acting out of religious motivations freedom to commit actions that otherwise would be crimes against the person or property of others through physical invasion, intimidation, or threat? The answer is similarly straightforward: No, it does not....

The defendants argued that RFRA requires that the state have a compelling interest to substantially burden religious exercise, and that after Dobbs there cannot be a compelling interest in protecting access to abortion. The court responded in part:

... [T]he Supreme Court has never held that a “compelling interest” depends upon something being considered a fundamental right. They are different constitutional concepts, performing different jurisprudential functions.

Supreme Court: Web Designer's Free Speech Rights Allow Her to Refuse to Design Websites for Same-Sex Weddings

The U.S. Supreme Court today in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, (Sup. Ct., June 30, 2023), in a 6-3 decision, held that the 1st Amendment's free speech protections bars Colorado from using its public accommodation anti-discrimination law to require a wedding website designer to design websites for same-sex weddings in violation of her religious beliefs. Justice Gorsuch's majority opinion says in part:

The Tenth Circuit held that the wedding websites Ms. Smith seeks to create qualify as “pure speech” under this Court’s precedents.... We agree....

Under Colorado’s logic, the government may compel anyone who speaks for pay on a given topic to accept all commissions on that same topic—no matter the underlying message—if the topic somehow implicates a customer’s statutorily protected trait.... Taken seriously, that principle would allow the government to force all manner of artists, speechwriters, and others whose services involve speech to speak what they do not believe on pain of penalty. The government could require “an unwilling Muslim movie director to make a film with a Zionist message,” or “an atheist muralist to accept a commission celebrating Evangelical zeal,” so long as they would make films or murals for other members of the public with different messages.....

Of course, as the State emphasizes, Ms. Smith offers her speech for pay and does so through 303 Creative LLC, a company in which she is “the sole member-owner.”... But none of that makes a difference. Does anyone think a speechwriter loses his First Amendment right to choose for whom he works if he accepts money in return? Or that a visual artist who accepts commissions from the public does the same? Many of the world’s great works of literature and art were created with an expectation of compensation. Nor, this Court has held, do speakers shed their First Amendment protections by employing the corporate form to disseminate their speech. This fact underlies our cases involving everything from movie producers to book publishers to newspapers....

In this case, Colorado seeks to force an individual to speak in ways that align with its views but defy her conscience about a matter of major significance. In the past, other States in Barnette, Hurley, and Dale have similarly tested the First Amendment’s boundaries by seeking to compel speech they thought vital at the time. But, as this Court has long held, the opportunity to think for ourselves and to express those thoughts freely is among our most cherished liberties and part of what keeps our Republic strong.

Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson, filed a dissenting opinion, saying in part:

A public accommodations law has two core purposes. First, the law ensures “equal access to publicly available goods and services.”...

Second, a public accommodations law ensures equal dignity in the common market. Indeed, that is the law’s “fundamental object”: “to vindicate ‘the deprivation of personal dignity that surely accompanies denials of equal access to public establishments.’”...

Time and again, businesses and other commercial entities have claimed constitutional rights to discriminate. And time and again, this Court has courageously stood up to those claims—until today. Today, the Court shrinks....

This Court has long held that “the First Amendment does not prevent restrictions directed at commerce or conduct from imposing incidental burdens on speech.”...

CADA’s Accommodation Clause and its application here are valid regulations of conduct. It is well settled that a public accommodations law like the Accommodation Clause does not “target speech or discriminate on the basis of its content.”... Rather, “the focal point of its prohibition” is “on the act of discriminating against individuals in the provision of publicly available goods, privileges, and services.”...

Petitioners remain free to advocate the idea that same-sex marriage betrays God’s laws.... Even if Smith believes God is calling her to do so through her for-profit company, the company need not hold out its goods or services to the public at large. Many filmmakers, visual artists, and writers never do....

The decision threatens to balkanize the market and to allow the exclusion of other groups from many services. A website designer could equally refuse to create a wedding website for an interracial couple, for example. How quickly we forget that opposition to interracial marriage was often because “‘Almighty God . . . did not intend for the races to mix.’”... Yet the reason for discrimination need not even be religious, as this case arises under the Free Speech Clause. A stationer could refuse to sell a birth announcement for a disabled couple because she opposes their having a child.... And so on.....

AP reports on the decision.

Christian Pre-School Challenges Exclusion from Colorado State Aid Program

Suit was filed this week in a Colorado federal district court challenging requirements that Colorado has imposed on pre-schools in order for them to participate and receive funding in the state's universal pre-school program. The complaint (full text) in Darren Patterson Christian Academy v. Roy, (D CO, filed 6/20/2023), alleges in part:

9.... [T]he Colorado Department of Early Childhood ... is requiring religious preschools like Darren Patterson Christian Academy to forgo their religious character, beliefs, and exercise to participate in UPK.

10. The Department does so through two provisions that prohibit discrimination against any person based on religion, sexual orientation, or gender identity.

11. So even though the school welcomes all families and children, these provisions would force it to hire employees who do not share its faith and to alter internal rules and policies that are based on the school’s religious beliefs about sexuality and gender, including those that relate to restroom usage, pronouns, dress codes, and student housing during school expeditions and field trips....

Plaintiff contends that the requirements violate its rights under the federal Constitiuion's Free Exercise, Free Speech and Equal Protection Clauses. ADF issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

2nd Circuit Rejects Challenge to Abortion Clinic Bubble Zone Law

In Vitagliano v. County of Westchester, (2d Cir., June 21, 2023), the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals held that plaintiff, who the court describes as "an aspiring pro-life sidewalk counselor who wishes to approach women entering abortion clinics and engage them in peaceful conversation about abortion alternatives," has standing to challenge Westchester County's recently-enacted 8-foot "bubble-zone" law. The court concluded that plaintiff has standing.  She had demonstrated a credible threat of enforcement of the law against her. Plaintiff conceded that the bubble-zone law survived constitutional attack under existing Supreme Court precedent.  She brought suit hoping to convince the Supreme court to overrule its 2000 decision that upheld a similar law. The 2nd Circuit thus affirmed the district court's dismissal of the challenge to Westchester County's ordinance, opening the way for appellant to seek Supreme Court review. Becket has background on the case.

Maine Sued Over New Limits On Religious Schools In Tuition Payment Program

 On Tuesday, a Catholic school in Maine and parents who would like to send their children to that school under Maine's tuition payment program for students from districts without public high schools filed suit in a Maine federal district court challenging new restrictions which the Maine legislature imposed on schools participating in the tuition payment program. The complaint (full text) in St. Dominic Academy v. Makin, (D ME, filed 6/13/2023), contends that the legislature enacted the new provisions to exclude religious schools after the U.S. Supreme Court in Carson v. Makin invalidated a requirement that participating schools be nonsectarian. The complaint explains: 

Among other things, Maine:

• Imposed a new religious neutrality requirement on schools, stating that “to the extent that an educational institution permits religious expression, it cannot discriminate between religions in so doing”;

• Imposed a new religious nondiscrimination requirement on schools; and

• Removed the religious exemption that had previously allowed religious (but “nonsectarian”) schools to handle sensitive issues relating to sexual orientation and gender identity in a way that reflected their faith commitments....

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

Court Tells Catholic Bookstore to Litigate Over Religious Organization Exception to Nondiscrimination Law

In The Catholic Bookstore, Inc. v. City of Jacksonville, (MD FL, June 9, 2023), a Florida federal district court found that a Catholic bookstore has standing to challenge Jacksonville's Human Rights Ordinance on free speech grounds.  It also concluded that the claim is ripe. The bookstore wants to publicize its policy requiring its staff to address co-workers and customers only by "pronouns and titles that align with the biologically originating sex of the person being referenced...." The city's Ordinance provides in part that it is unlawful to publish, circulate or display any communication indicating that service will be denied, or that patronage is unwelcome from a person because of sexual orientation or gender identity. The court, however, concluded that it is unclear whether the Human Rights Ordinance's religious organization exception applies to the bookstore.  The court went on to deny plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction, dismiss plaintiff's complaint without prejudice, and ordered plaintiff to file an amended complaint followed by a motion for summary judgment limited to the religious exception issue so it can resolve that issue before dealing with the rest of the case.

3rd Circuit Hears Oral Arguments In Abortion Clinic Buffer Zone Challenge

The U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday heard oral arguments in Reilly v. City of Harrisburg (audio of full oral arguments). In the case below (MD PA, March 28, 2022) (full text), the court dismissed a suit by anti-abortion sidewalk counselors to Harrisburg's ordinance creating a 20-foot buffer zone designed to exclude protesters around health-care facilities, including abortion clinics. Liberty Counsel issued a press release previewing its arguments for appellants in the case.

State Law May Bar Women's Spa from Refusing to Serve Transgender Women Who Have Not Had Sex-Confirmation Surgery

In Olympus Spa v. Armstrong, (WD WA, June 5, 2023), a Washington federal district court dismissed, with leave to amend, a suit by a Korean style spa designed for women. The suit challenges Washington's public accommodation law which bars discrimination, among other things, on the basis of gender expression or identity.  Because spa patrons are required to be naked during certain spa services (massages and body scrubs), the spa refuses to serve transgender women who have not gone through post-operative sex-confirmation surgery. The spa advertises itself as welcoming "biological women." Three of the spas employees and one of its patrons are also plaintiffs in the case.  Plaintiffs claim that their requiring them to service nude males and females in the same rooms substantially burdens the exercise of their religious beliefs.  The court held however that because the public accommodation law is neutral and generally applicable, it needs to meet only rational basis review and does so because of the state's interest in ensuring equal access to public accommodation. 

The court also rejected plaintiffs' claim that their free expression rights were violated by requiring them to remove language from their website that only "biological women" are females. The court said in part:

The WLAD [Washington Law Against Discrimination] bars Olympus Spa from denying services to customers based on sexual orientation and, in this regard, it incidentally burdens Olympus Spa’s speech by prohibiting advertisement of discriminatory entrance policies (e.g., one that permits only “biological women”). But that does not convert the WLAD into a content-based regulation....

Finally, the court dismissed plaintiffs' freedom of association claims, saying in part:

The Court does not minimize the privacy concerns at play when employees are performing exfoliating massages on nude patrons. Aside from this nudity, though, there is simply nothing private about the relationship between Olympus Spa, its employees, and the random strangers who walk in the door seeking a massage. Nor is there anything selective about the association at issue beyond Olympus Spa’s “biological women” policy. The Court therefore has little difficulty concluding that the personal attachments implicated here are too attenuated to qualify for constitutional protection.

Court Reaffirms Refusal to Dismiss Case Challenging 1st-Grade Teacher's Gender Identity Instruction

In Tatel v. Mt. Lebanon School District (II), (WD PA, May 31, 2023), a Pennsylvania federal district court reaffirmed its prior decision and concluded that parents of first-grade students have asserted plausible claims that their due process and free exercise rights, as well as their rights to familial privacy and equal protection, were violated by a teacher who pursued her own agenda in discussing gender identity with young students.  The court said in part:

This case ... involves not merely instruction to influence tolerance of other children or families, but efforts to inculcate a teacher’s beliefs about transgender topics in Plaintiffs’ own children. ... [T]he allegations in this case go beyond mere reading of a few books. Here, the teacher allegedly pursued her agenda throughout the school year, including teaching first-graders that their parents may be wrong about their gender, telling one boy could dress like his mother, and telling the children to keep the teacher’s discussions about gender topics secret from their parents.... [I]t was the children’s own family and their own gender identity that Williams targeted. Plaintiffs allege that Williams targeted one child for repeated approaches about gender dysphoria despite, or because of, the parents’ beliefs.... It is reasonable to infer that Williams intended to influence the children’s own gender identity and to have at least one child become like the teacher’s transgender child.

In assessing plaintiffs' free exercise claim, the court said in part: 

Plaintiffs allege that Williams’ agenda about gender dysphoria and transgender transitioning conflicts with their sincerely held religious and moral beliefs that “human beings are created male or female and that the natural created order regarding human sexuality cannot be changed regardless of individual feelings, beliefs, or discomfort with one’s identity, and biological reality, as either male or female.”... Plaintiffs contend that Defendants deliberately supplanted the parents’ role to control the instruction of their young children about their gender identity in accordance with their religious values ... and adopted a de facto policy that Williams could continue to advocate her agenda to first-graders in the future without notice or opt out rights for the parents.... As noted, this case is not about teaching kindness or tolerance, but about a teacher’s agenda to instruct first-graders that their parents’ religious beliefs about their own children’s gender are or may be wrong.....

Volokh Conspiracy has additional discussion of the case.

Lawsuit Challenges Laws Restricting Abortion Clinic Sidewalk Counselors

Suit was filed yesterday in a Colorado federal district court challenging on free speech grounds a Colorado statute and a Denver ordinance that prohibit approaching a person within 8 feet of an abortion clinic or other health care facility "for the purpose of passing a leaflet or handbill to ..., or engaging in oral protest, education, or counseling with such other person." According to the complaint (full text) in Faustin v. Polis, (D CO, filed 6/1/2023):

Defendants’ ban on approaching women outside of abortion clinics to speak with them unquestionably discriminates based on the content—and even the viewpoint—of speech. On its face, the ban applies only to speech with a particular purpose and message: speech “for the purpose . . . of engaging in oral protest, education, or counseling.”... And it targets only that speech on one side of the abortion debate: speech “protest[ing] or counsel[ing] against” what Colorado euphemistically terms “certain medical procedures.”... Defendants’ ban is also content- and viewpoint-based due to the nature of its justification: protecting the “unwilling listener’s interest in avoiding unwanted communication” from pro-life speakers when seeking “access to a medical facility.”...

First Liberty Institute issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Court OK's Police Department's Rejection of Religious-Themed Flags and Uniform Patches

In Sangervasi v. City of San Jose, (ND CA, May 22, 2023), a California federal district court dismissed a suit by a police officer William Sangervasi who challenged the police department's refusal to adopt his proposed patch and flag designs. The court explained:

In August 2019, as part of the region’s celebration of Silicon Valley Pride Month, Chief Garcia raised a rainbow-themed LGBTQ pride flag in place of the City of San Jose flag on the flagpole outside SJPD headquarters....

On July 28, 2020, Chief Garcia issued official SJPD Memorandum #2020-33, introducing a rainbow-themed LGBTQ pride shoulder patch for the SJPD uniform.... 

On November 11, 2020, Mr. Sangervasi sent a memorandum to Chief Garcia titled, “Desecration of The Uniform by Memorandum #2020-33.” ... Mr. Sangervasi’s memorandum “detailed his intent to forever protect and defend the sacrosanct neutral and impartial visual appearance of The American Uniform” by submitting various “free speech patch and flag designs” that he wanted the SJPD to adopt.... Mr. Sangervasi proposed patch designs featuring phrases and images such as “natural hetero-sexual pride,” what appears to be Christian rosary beads encircling the traditional SJPD crest, and an image of the Christian archangel Saint Michael.... He proposed flag designs featuring phrases and images including, for example, “father + mother = girls + boys,” “white lives matter,” and the confederate battle flag.... Two days later... Mr. Sangervasi was placed on indefinite administrative leave.... On December 11, 2020, Mr. Sangervasi received a letter from Acting Chief Dave Knopf denying Mr. Sangervasi’s demand that the SJPD adopt Mr. Sangervasi’s patch and flag designs.

The court, rejecting plaintiff's free exercise, free speech and equal protection claims, held:

Mr. Sangervasi does not allege any burden on his sincere religious practice pursuant to a policy that is not neutral or generally applicable. Rather, he complains that, if the SJPD authorizes specialty uniform patches to be worn on a voluntary basis, it must allow him to wear religion-themed patches of his own design.... These allegations fail to state a claim for relief because the City has not created a public forum in which Mr. Sangervasi has a right to express any views, let alone those views that may be grounded in religious practice or belief. In the absence of such a forum and as discussed above, the SJPD’s patch designs amount to government speech and do not burden Mr. Sangervasi’s religious practice.