Court Enjoins Idaho's Ban on Aiding a Minor in Obtaining an Abortion

In Matsumoto v, Labrador I, (D ID, Nov. 8, 2023), an Idaho federal district court issued a preliminary injunction against enforcing Idaho Code Section 18-623 which provides in part:

An adult who, with the intent to conceal an abortion from the parents or guardian of a pregnant, unemancipated minor, either procures an abortion ... or obtains an abortion-inducing drug for the pregnant minor to use for an abortion by recruiting, harboring, or transporting the pregnant minor within this state commits the crime of abortion trafficking.

The court said in part:

The Court finds Idaho Code Section 18-623 is a content-based regulation of protected speech and expression. The statute plainly regulates expression based on content by restricting adults from engaging in activities that advocate, assist, and communicate information and support to pregnant minors about legal abortion options....

Here, Idaho Code Section 18-623 fails to provide fair notice or ascertainable standard of what is and what is not abortion trafficking. The terms “recruiting, harboring, or transporting” are undefined, overbroad, and vague, making it impossible for a reasonable person to distinguish between permissible and impermissible activities....

In Matsumoto v. Labrador II, (D ID, Nov. 8, 2023), the same court refused to dismiss plaintiffs' First Amendment speech and 14th Amendment vagueness challenges as well as their right to interstate travel claims. However the court did dismiss plaintiffs right to intrastate travel challenge.

Reuters reports on the preliminary injunction.

Free Speech and Free Exercise Challenges to Law Restricting Sidewalk Counselors Moves Ahead

In Pro-Life Action Ministries v. City of Minneapolis, (D MN, Oct. 30,2022), a Minnesota federal district court dismissed void-for-vagueness and an expressive-association challenges to a Minneapolis ordinance that bans physically disrupting access to a reproductive healthcare facility.  The court however refused to dismiss plaintiff's free speech, free exercise of religion and overbreadth claims. It said that it is impossible, without a trial record that explores historical background, legislative history, and contemporaneous statements of decisionmakers to determine whether the law is neutral and generally applicable, or whether, instead, it targets religious conduct. A trial record is also needed to decide whether the law is narrowly tailored. The suit was brought by a Christian nonprofit organization that engages in “sidewalk counseling” outside abortion clinics.

Pennsylvania Legislature Repeals Ban on Public School Teachers Wearing Religious Garb or Insignia

Yesterday, the Pennsylvania legislature gave final passage to Senate Bill 84 (full text) which repeals Pennsylvania's ban on public school teachers wearing any religious garb or insignia in the classroom. According to Penn Live, Governor Josh Shapiro is expected to sign the bill when it reaches his desk. Pennsylvania is the only state that still has such a ban on its books. In Nichol v. Arin Intermediate Unit 28, (WD PA, June 25, 2003), a Pennsylvania federal district court, in a preliminary injunction action, held that the law likely violates the Free Speech and Free Exercise clauses of the 1st Amendment. After the decision, plaintiff was rehired and given back pay. (See Senate Memo on SB 84.)

Christian Pre-School May Get State Aid Without Complying With Non-Discrimination Rules Which Violate Its Beliefs

In Darren Patterson Christian Academy v. Roy, (D CO, Oct. 20, 2023), a Colorado federal district court issued a preliminary injunction barring Colorado from excluding a private Christian pre-school from its Univeral Pre-School Program. The state requires participating schools to agree that they will not discriminate on the basis of gender, race, ethnicity, religion, national origin, age, sexual orientation, gender identity, citizenship status, education, disability, socio-economic status, or any other identity.” The court said in part:

... [T]he Department’s non-discrimination policy likely violates Plaintiff’s rights by interfering with the school’s selection of key employees in accordance with its religious convictions under the “ministerial exception.” ...

Second, Plaintiff has the right to expressive association which the State’s hiring rules likely violate.... The freedom to associate with others also includes the freedom not to associate with others if doing so would compromise the associating group’s expression of beliefs....

Third, the Department’s rules also force Plaintiff to choose between adhering to religious beliefs and risking exclusion from the program or complying with the Department’s rules. In the specific context of excluding religious schools from participation in educational benefits programs, the Supreme Court has thrice held that a state may not exclude religious observers from receiving otherwise available educational funding because of a school’s religious status or practice....

Plaintiff seeks to hire only coreligionists, and to continue internal policies related to gender distinctions rooted in religious beliefs. These polices violate the Department’s non-discrimination standards for participating preschools.... The First Amendment forbids imposing such a choice.

Fourth, the State’s rules are likely not neutral and generally applicable..... They allow both categorical and individualized exemptions that would undermine the government asserted interests, and thereby trigger strict scrutiny.... See Fulton v. City ...

Plaintiff is also likely to succeed on the merits of its Free Speech claim, at least to the extent that the state would require Plaintiff and its staff to use a student’s or employee’s preferred pronouns as a condition of participating in the program.

[Thanks to Eugene Volokh via Religionlaw for the lead.]

Ban on California's Publicly Funded Home School Program Covering Faith-Based Instruction Challenged

California's public charter school program includes schools that fund independent study home schooling. Parents may use state funds for secular educational materials, but not for religious materials.  A school staff member must approve materials purchased with state funds and must periodically review work samples to assure that state educational standards are met. California Constitution Art. IX, Sec. 8 prohibits the teaching of religious doctrine in public schools, and the California Education Code requires charter schools to be non-sectarian. Suit was filed this week in a California federal district court seeking an injunction that will allow parents to spend instructional funds for faith-based materials and will require schools to accept work samples that derive from a faith-based curriculum.  The complaint (full text) in Woolard v. Thurmond, (ED CA, filed 10/11/2023), alleges that applying state law to prevent disbursement of instructional funds for faith-based materials and refusal to accept faith-based work samples violates plaintiffs Free Exercise and Free Speech rights. First Liberty Institute issued a press release announcing the filling of the lawsuit.

Kansas AG Asks 10th Circuit To End Required Use of Preferred Pronouns

Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach in an Oct. 6 letter (full text) to the Chief Judge of the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals asks the court to end the practice of some district and circuit court judges to require references to counsel, parties and witnesses by use of their preferred pronouns.  The letter says in part:

There are lawyers in my office who, for both religious and non-religious reasons, reject the idea of individuals dictating their own applicable pronouns....

The idea that a person can dictate his or her own pronouns based on internal feelings and then expect others to go along with that choice is a quite recent development....  But regardless of the merits of this idea as an abstract matter, enlisting the power of the state to force others to affirm such individual choices or feelings crosses a line and raises major questions regarding compelled speech and the First Amendment.

Many people have religious beliefs that would prevent them from using pronouns that do not correspond to a person’s sex. In Christianity (the most common religion in the United States), this position generally proceeds from interpretations of Genesis 1:27 and other scriptures that speak of a male/female dichotomy among persons. Other major world religions likewise have doctrines that point in the same direction.... To force these individuals to violate their religious beliefs in order to be heard in court is a restriction on their free exercise of religion....

Indeed, “gender identity” is the subject of growing wave of legislation and litigation. So requiring those appearing in court to use (or refrain from using) certain pronouns may reveal a prejudgment on issues in litigation.

The Attorney General's office also issued a press release summarizing the letter.

Reservist Challenges Military's Admonition of Him for His Remarks at Retirement Ceremony

Suit was filed this week in a Texas federal district court by Jace Yarbrough, a Major in the Air Force Reserve, challenging a Letter of Admonition issued to him by the military for the content of remarks he made while speaking, in uniform, at a retirement ceremony for Senior Master Sergeant Duane Fish, an Air Force flight superintendent with whom he worked closely and with whom he shared religious beliefs and values.  The complaint (full text) in Yarbrough v. United States Space Force, (ED TX, filed 10/3/2023), asserts that Yarbrough's Christian faith is central to his worldview, conduct and speech. The complaint describes the remarks at issue as encouraging people to practice the courage and virtue exemplified by SMSgt Fist.  It goes on:

92. In keeping with that theme, [Yarbrough] expressed his personal concerns about the negative impact of politicization within the military.... He worried that “radical” factions in “our wider culture” have “brought the culture war inside the DoD,” and that politicization of the military would be “a death knell for courage and competence.” 

93. To support his views, he drew on the teachings and thought of Eastern Orthodox Christian and writer Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn ... regarding the corrosive cultural consequences of dishonesty and self-deception.... 

94. Mr. Yarbrough gave two examples of objective realities he believes are known intuitively to all persons as persons: 1) “men can’t birth babies” and 2) “boys should not be allowed in girls’ locker rooms.” 

95. He expressed his faith-based belief that forcing people to deny such self-evident beliefs “requires constant . . . self-deception,” which can “habituate [us] to dishonesty” and cause us to lose our “grip on objective reality,” making us “less capable and less effective in our world.... 

96. As part of his warning against politicization, he referenced “recent DoD-wide extremism training” that he had attended, in which he “was relieved to see that [his] teammates recognized that training for what it was, a thinly veiled flex of political power.”...

The suit alleges that the Letter of Admonition, among other things, violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, as well the Free Exercise, Free Speech and Establishment Clauses.

First Liberty Institute issued a press release, including a link to the full text of plaintiff's remarks at the retirement ceremony.

Potential Candidate Challenges Religious Oath On New Jersey Candidate Petition Forms

Suit was filed this week in a New Jersey federal district court challenging the New Jersey requirement that candidates filing to run for public office sign an oath that ends with the phrase "so help me God." The complaint (full text) in Tosone v. Way, (D NJ, filed 10/3/2023), alleges that plaintiff, who wishes to run for public office, is unable as a matter of conscience to sign an oath which is religious. Alleging that the current version of the oath violates Article VI of the Constitution, as well as the free speech, free exercise and Establishment Clauses, plaintiff seeks a court order requiring the Secretary of State to provide a form that allows him to run for public office without his swearing "so help me God." New Jersey Monitor reports on the case.

School Board Member Sues to Vindicate Her Reading of Bible at Board Meetings

Suit was filed this week in an Arizona federal district court by Heather Rooks, a member of the Peoria, Arizona school board, seeking a declaratory judgment to vindicate her practice of quoting Scripture during the period of each Board meeting devoted to members making their own comments.  Advocacy organizations had complained about Rook's practice, and legal counsel to the Board furnished an opinion that reading Scripture during Board meetings violates the Establishment Clause. The complaint (full text) in Rooks v. Peoria Unified School District, (D AZ, filed 9/26/2023) seeks a judicial ruling that plaintiff's practice does not violate the Establishment Clause or the Arizona Constitution, that punishment for her practice violates her free speech and free exercise rights, and that she is entitled to absolute legislative immunity for her recitation of Scripture. Fox News reports on the lawsuit.

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

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

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

Justice Bolden concurring said in part:

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

Justice Zahra, dissenting, said in part:

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

Justice Viviano, dissenting, said in part:

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

CBS Detroit reports on the new rule.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

National Review reports on the decision.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Volokh Conspiracy has more on the decision.

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

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

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

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

In a footnote, the court added:

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

LawDork reports on the decision.

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

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

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

The court held:

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

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

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

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

Illinois Regulation of Limited Purpose Pregnancy Centers Violates 1st Amendment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Judge Wilkins filed a concurring opinion, saying in part:

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

ADF issued a press release announcing the decision.

 

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

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