Idaho Supreme Court: Marijuana Ban Does Not Violate Free Exercise Rights

In State of Idaho v. Heath, (ID Sup. Ct., April 8, 2021), the Idaho Supreme Court held that the state's prohibition of marijuana does not violate defendant-appellant's right to religious liberty.  The issue arose as appellant attempted to recover a pipe and bong made from elk antler, seized as contraband (along with marijuana), during a police traffic stop. The court said in part:

... Heath contends that the provisions of the [Controlled Substances Act] prohibiting the use of marijuana are not neutral and generally applicable. However, Heath's arguments do not support his conclusion. Certainly, the prohibition of marijuana under the CSA impairs Heath's ability to consume marijuana, which he attests is an important element of his belief system.... [W]e will not question the sincerity of his beliefs. But the impact of the CSA on Heath's ability to legally practice his beliefs is not the dispositive issue. Rather, the issue is whether the CSA proscribes religious use of marijuana while permitting non-religious use, or has been designed so that it applies primarily to religiously motivated conduct..... Heath has made no such argument.

Anti-Mask Protesters Arrested At Religious Protest Assembly Sue

As reported by KREM News, three individuals who were arrested in September 2020 by Moscow, Idaho police for not wearing masks or social distancing at a protest have sued in an Idaho federal district court.  The complaint (full text) in Rench v. City of Moscow, (D ID, filed 3/24/2021) says that the arrests took place at a religious assembly organized by Christ Church "to sing praise to their God in a 'Psalm Sing' in front of the Moscow City Hall to protest the mask mandate in the Amended Public Health Emergency Order...." Plaintiffs contend that the arrests violated their free speech and free exercise rights, and say that the Public Health Order by its terms excluded constitutionally protected speech, assembly and religious activity.

Cert. Denied In Boise Ban On Sleeping Outdoors

Yesterday the U.S. Supreme Court denied review in Boise, ID v. Martin, (Docket No. 19-247, certiorari denied 12/16/2019). (Order List.) In the case the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held that the ban on cruel and unusual punishment in the 8th Amendment bars a city from criminalizing sleeping outdoors on public property when homeless people have no option to sleep indoors, including where their access to a shelter is conditioned on their participating in religious programs. (See prior posting.) Los Angeles Times has an Opinion piece on the case.

Judge Overrules Jury Saying No Religious Discrimination By Homeowners Association Was Shown

In Morris v. West Hayden Estates First Addition Homeowners Association, Inc., (D ID, April 4, 2019), an Idaho federal district judge enjoined a Christian couple from hosting an elaborate Christmas display that violates Homeowner Association Rules. As described by the Spokane Spokesman-Review's report on the decision:

On one side, a devoutly Christian couple throwing extravagant celebrations for thousands at a home decked to the halls with 200,000 light bulbs. At times, even featuring a camel and donkey to re-create the Nativity scene.

On the opposite side, a Hayden homeowners association with specific rules that prohibited such excessive celebrations – and the noise that follows – in favor of a more modest showing of holiday spirit.

Despite a jury verdict in favor of plaintiffs, the court ruled as a matter of law that plaintiffs had not shown that the Homeowners Association discriminated against them on the basis of religion in violation of the Federal Fair Housing Act.  Plaintiff had pointed to a letter from the Homeowners Association which described rule violations that would be involved in the Christmas display.  The letter added that some of the subdivision residents are non-Christians.  The court said in part:

While January 2015 Letter was not drafted with lawyerly precision and contained a boorish reference to “undesireables,” it cannot be read as evidence that the Homeowners Association intended to discriminate against Plaintiffs because they were Christian. On this score, the Court notes that several members of the Board were practicing Christians. Furthermore, Board President Jennifer Scott is both a practicing Christian and married to a Christian minister. The Court is not suggesting that Christians cannot, per se, discriminate against other Christians. But, the fact that the Board was at least partially composed of practicing Christians significantly decreases the probability that the Board intended to discriminate against Plaintiffs based on a faith shared by both Plaintiffs and several Board members.

The court concluded that the jury was likely prejudiced by testimony which they were instructed to ignore relating to threats received by plaintiffs from other homeowners who were not Association board members.  Because the decision is likely to be appealed, the court held that if its conclusion of law was reversed, defendants should be granted a new trial or alternatively the jury's award of $75,000 in damages should be reduced to $4.

Religious Opposition To Furnishing Social Security Number Fails

In Ricks v. State of Idaho Contractors Board, (ID App., Dec. 3, 2018), an Idaho appeals court dismissed free exercise challenges to the state's requirement that an applicant for a contractor's license furnish his Social Security number.  Federal child support enforcement laws require states to collect Social Security numbers as part of applications for professional licenses if the state wishes to be eligible for certain federal grants.  George Ricks refused to furnish his Social Security number because of his religious belief that Social Security numbers are a form of the Biblical "mark of the beast."

The court rejected on pre-emption grounds Ricks argument that the requirement violates Idaho's Free Exercise of Religion Protected Act (FERPA):

 [T]he operation of FERPA, in the context of the cooperative endeavor between Congress and the Idaho Legislature, does impede 42 U.S.C. § 666(a)(13)’s objective of improving child support enforcement effectiveness by exempting individuals from I.C. § 73-122’s and I.C. § 54-5210’s requirement of providing social security numbers on professional license applications. In other words, an exemption granted by FERPA would make it more difficult to locate a parent who may have outstanding child support obligations through the Federal Parent Locator Service database. Because this amounts to a direct conflict with Congress’s intent in passing 42 U.S.C. § 666(a)(13), 42 U.S.C. § 666(a)(13) preempts FERPA in this context.

The court rejected Ricks' federal RFRA argument because no federal defendant was named. Finally it rejected his First Amendment and state constitution free exercise claims finding that the laws at issue are neutral laws of general applicability. The court also released a summary statement of its holding.

Jury Awards $75,000 To Couple Whose Christmas Program Was Opposed By Homeowners Association

The Spokane Spokesman-Review reports that a federal court jury in Idaho last month awarded $60,000 in compensatory damages and $15,000 in punitive damages against a Homeowners Association that attempted to block a resident from setting up an elaborate Christmas display. The jury, in the case which attracted national media attention when filed, found that the Homeowners Association engaged in religious discrimination in violation of the Federal Fair Housing Act when it sent a letter to Jeremy and Kristy Morris telling them that if they wanted to move into the neighborhood they would need to cancel plans for their annual 5-day Christmas celebration.  The celebration features elaborate decorations, live music, and live animals, draws thousands of people, and raises money for charities benefiting children suffering from cancer and abused children. The HOA letter, in addition to claiming that the celebration would violate lighting and noise rules, added: "And finally, I am somewhat hesitant in bringing up the fact that some of our residents are non-Christians or of another faith, and I don’t even want to think of the problems that could bring up."  This was portrayed by some media as part of the so-called "war on Christmas." More details on the lawsuit and photos of the celebration are at The Daily Mail and the Coeur d'Alene Press.

Homeless People May Not Be Prosecuted For Sleeping Outdoors When Only Option Is Religious Shelter

In Martin v. City of Boise, (9th Cir., Sept. 4, 2018), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held that the ban on cruel and unusual punishment in the 8th Amendment bars a city from criminalizing sleeping outdoors on public property when homeless people have no option to sleep indoors, including where their access to a shelter is conditioned on their participating in religious programs.  Two of the city's three shelters are run by Christian organizations.  The court concluded that

River of Life permits individuals to remain at the shelter after 17 days in the Emergency Services Program only on the condition that they become part of the New Life Discipleship program, which has a mandatory religious focus.... There are also facts in dispute concerning whether the Emergency Services Program itself has a religious component....  A city cannot, via the threat of prosecution, coerce an individual to attend religion-based treatment programs consistently with the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.... Yet at the conclusion of a 17-day stay at River of Life, or a 30-day stay at City Light, an individual may be forced to choose between sleeping outside on nights when Sanctuary is full (and risking arrest under the ordinances), or enrolling in BRM programming that is antithetical to his or her religious beliefs.

AP reports on the decision.

Suit Challenges Idaho Invalidation of Pregnant Women's Living Wills

Suit was filed in an Idaho federal district court last week challenging the constitutionality of an Idaho statute that invalidates a woman's health care advance directive if the woman is pregnant.  The complaint (full text) in Almerico v. Denney, (D ID, filed 5/31/2018) alleges in part:

That law improperly infringes on the right to privacy in making medical decisions and subjects women of child bearing age to unequal and demeaning treatment in multiple ways. First, the law on its face eliminates the right of a woman who has been diagnosed as pregnant to have her express decisions about medical treatment, including whether to request or decline life-sustaining measures, honored by her health care providers. Second, the law renders ineffective the right of a woman who has been diagnosed as pregnant to designate her health care agent. Third, because of the law, the effectiveness of the health care directives of all women of childbearing age in Idaho is thrown into question until each woman’s pregnancy status is determined. Additionally, Defendants have exceeded the statute’s mandate by publicly stating that not only will the health care directives of women who have been diagnosed as pregnant be rendered null and void, but they will be forced to receive life-sustaining treatment for the duration of their pregnancies.

Mormon Student Loses Religious Harassment Claim Against College Tennis Coach

In Duffin v. Idaho State University, (D ID, Dec. 21, 2017), an Idaho federal district court dismissed on qualified immunity grounds religious discrimination and other constitutional claims by a Mormon college student who alleges that the head tennis coach and his assistant harassed plaintiff about his religion. The court added:

Defendants were clearly harassing Duffin about his religion, and trying to test his adherence to his beliefs – especially when they invited him to a night club and sent women to his hotel room to proposition him for sex. Such actions were boorish and entirely inappropriate. In doing so, they likely intended to discourage Duffin from practicing his religion and following the tenets of his faith, by presenting him with opportunities to act contrary to his religious beliefs. But, their actions do not rise to the level of coercion or substantial pressure to modify Duffin’s behavior, which is needed to establish a free exercise of religion claim.

The court asserted supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff's state law claims.  In connection with plaintiff's negligence claim, the court certified a question of law to the Idaho Supreme Court.  The court dismissed plaintiff's intentional infliction of emotional distress claim and denied summary judgment on his claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress.

Homeowners Sue Over Opposition To Their Christmas Display

A lawsuit alleging violations of the federal Fair Housing Act and the Idaho Human Rights Act has been filed by a Hayden, Idaho couple who are in a battle with their neighbors and their homeowners association over an elaborate Christmas display they put on every year to raise funds for two local charities.  The display, which includes a live nativity scene with a small camel, sheep, donkey, Santa Claus, and the Grinch, attracts large crowds.  The complaint (full text) in Morris v. West Hayden Estates First Addition Homeowners Association, Inc., (D ID, filed 1/13/2017), alleges religious discrimination, contending that the Homeowners Association objects to the couple's Christian beliefs being pressed on others in the neighborhood.  KHQ News report on the lawsuit.

College Tennis Player Sues For Religious Discrimination

The Washington Times reports on a religious discrimination lawsuit filed last week in Idaho federal district court by a former player on the Idaho State University tennis team.  The suit also alleges negligence, infliction of emotional distress and other causes of action growing out of harassment of plaintiff Orin Duffin by his teammates and his coaches.  The complaint (full text) in Duffin v. Idaho State University, (D ID, filed 5/20/2016) alleges that when the team learned that Duffin was a Mormon, his coaches began to harass him, in part through inappropriate questions about sexual practices and his religious beliefs.  The harassment peaked after he told the team that he would be on his mission call in Taiwan the following school year. While the team was staying in Las Vegas, one of the coaches arranged a trip to a strip club, provided the team with alcoholic beverages, and sent two prostitutes to Duffin's room to tempt him. Duffin became the butt of jokes and comments after the Las Vegas trip.

Idaho Governor Vetoes Bill That Would Have Allowed Bible To Be Used For Reference In Public Schools

Earlier this month, Idaho Governor C.L. "Butch" Otter vetoed S1342 (full text) which would have explicitly permitted religious texts, including the Bible,

to be used in Idaho public schools for reference purposes to further the study of literature, comparative religion, English and foreign languages, United States and world history, comparative government, law, philosophy, ethics, world geography, archaeology, music, sociology, and other topics of study where an under standing of religious texts, including the Bible, may be useful or relevant.

An amendment had deleted a reference to geology, astronomy and biology courses. (Spokane Spokesman-Review, April 5).

In his April 5 veto message (full text), Otter said that the bill "is in direct contravention to the Idaho Constitution, and it could result in a loss of funding and costly litigation for Idaho public schools." Art. 9, Sec. 6 of the state constitution specifically prohibits "books, papers, tracts or documents of a political, sectarian or denominational character" from being used in any public school, and calls for a cut off of funding for schools that do not comply.  As reported earlier this month by Idaho Education News, Otter issued his veto a week after the legislature adjourned.

Wedding Chapel That Objects To Performing Same-Sex Ceremonies Lacks Standing For Most of Its Challenges

In 2014, two Christian ministers and their wedding chapel known as the Hitching Post brought suit in an Idaho federal district court to enjoin the city of Coeur d'Alene from enforcing its LGBT anti-discrimination ordinance against them, and for damages. In Knapp v. City of Coeur d'Alene, (D ID, March 25, 2016), the court held that because the city conceded within a week of the filing of the lawsuit that the religious chapel is exempt from the anti-discrimination law, plaintiffs lack standing to seek an injunction.  At most the chapel can sue for lost business on the one day after same-sex marriages became legal that it was closed out of fear it would be required to perform same-sex marriages.  The court did not reach the merits of whether plaintiffs' free speech, free exercise, equal protection and due process rights were in fact infringed on that day. (See prior related posting.)

UPDATE: The suit was eventually settled by the city paying plaintiffs $1000. (CDA Press, May 3, 2016).

SCOTUS: State Courts Can Award Attorneys' Fees In Sec. 1983 Cases Only If Suit Was Unreasonable

Suits under 42 USC Sec. 1983 for deprivation of federal civil rights may be brought in state court as well as federal court. Today the U.S. Supreme Court in a per curiam opinion published at the end of its Order List held that state courts are bound by the Supreme Court's interpretation of provisions regarding award of attorneys' fees to defendants in Sec. 1983 actions.  In James v. City of Boise, Idaho, (Sup. Ct., Jan. 25, 2016), the Supreme Court reversed a decision of the Idaho Supreme Court that had held in awarding attorneys' fees under 42 USC Sec. 1988, state courts could ignore the U.S. Supreme Court's interpretation of the statute that limited awards to cases where plaintiff's suit is frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation.  Idaho had taken the position that since this limitation is not found in the words of the statute, the Supreme Court was merely limiting the discretion of federal courts. The U.S. Supreme Court however, citing cased dating back as far as the 19th century, held that once the Supreme Court interprets federal law, it is the duty of state courts to follow that interpretation.

Over Strong Dissent, 9th Circuit Denies En Banc Review of Marriage Equality Decisions

In Latta v. Otter, (9th Cir., Jan. 9, 2015), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals refused to grant en banc review of a 3-judge panel's decision striking down same-sex marriage bans in Idaho and Nevada. (See prior posting.) Judge O'Scannlain, joined by Judges Rawlinson and Bea, filed a 25-page dissent to the denial of review, saying in part:

Nothing about the issue of same-sex marriage exempts it from the general principle that it is the right of the people to decide for themselves important issues of social policy.

SCOTUSBlog reports on the 9th Circuit's action, calling Judge O'Scannlain's opinion "one of the strongest dissenting statements yet ... on same-sex marriages."

City Now Says Ministers' For-Profit Wedding Chapel Need Not Perform Same-Sex Marriages

In Coeur d'Alene, Idaho, the Hitching Post, a for-profit wedding chapel across the street from the county clerk's office now seems in the clear to refuse to perform same-sex marriages.  Earlier this month, the ministers filed suit against the city which had threatened to enforce its non-discrimination ordinance against the chapel. (See prior posting.) However now, as reported Friday by Boise State Public Radio, the city attorney says that the chapel is exempt, even though it is a for-profit entity.   Last month it reorganized as a limited liability company and provided in its operating agreement: "The Hitching Post is a religious corporation owned solely by ordained ministers of the Christian religion who operate this entity as an extension of their sincerely held religious beliefs and in accordance with their vows taken as Christian ministers."

On Friday, the Kootenai County Task Force on Human Relations sent a statement (full text) to Couer d'Alene officials agreeing that the chapel is exempt:

When they are performing a religious activity like marrying people, ministers have the right to choose which marriages they will solemnize. That's why we don't think the public accommodation law applies to ministers making choices about performing marriages. So, if the only service offered is a religious wedding ceremony performed by a minister, then the law would not apply. But that reasonable exception doesn't change the general rule that businesses that open their doors to the public to provide services, including services related to weddings, cannot turn people away just because of who they are.

Avalanche of Same-Sex Marriage Legal Developments

In the last several days there has been an avalanche of legal developments relating to same-sex marriages:

Alaska:  Yesterday in Parnell v. Hamby, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an order denying a stay of a federal district court's decision striking down Alaska's same-sex marriage ban.

Arizona: in Majors v. Horne,(D AZ, Oct. 17, 2014) and Connolly v. Jeanes, (D AZ, Oct. 17, 2014), an Arizona federal district court in two short and substantially identical opinions struck down Arizona's ban on same-sex marriages, citing the 9th Circuit's decision earlier this month in Latta v. Otter striking down bans in Nevada and Idaho. (See prior posting.) State Attorney General Tom Horne announced he would not appeal and sent a letter to the state's 15 county clerks telling them that they may not deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Arizona Republic reports on developments.

Wyoming: In Guzzo v. Mead, (D WY, Oct. 17, 2014), a Wyoming federal district court granted a preliminary injunction against Wyoming's ban on same-sex marriage and recognition of same-sex marriages performed elsewhere.  However the court also granted a stay of its injunction until Oct. 23 to allow an appeal to the 10th Circuit or until an earlier date at which the state informs the court that it will not appeal. Governor Matt Mead's office announced that the state will file a notice with the district court that it will not appeal the decision.

Idaho: Two Christian ministers and their for-profit wedding chapel located across the street from the Kootenai County (Idaho) Clerk’s office (which issues marriage licenses) brought suit in an Idaho federal district court to enjoin the city of Coeur d'Alene from enforcing its anti-discrimination ordinance against them. The 63-page complaint (full text) in Knapp v. City of Coeur d'Alene, (D ID, filed Oct. 17, 2014) contends that the Ordinance violates plaintiffs' 1st and 14th Amendment rights as well as their rights under state law. Plaintiffs also filed a motion for a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction.  ADF issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

North Carolina: In North Carolina, the general counsel of the state's Administrative Office of the Courts on Oct. 14 issued a memo (full text) to judges and magistrates stating that magistrates must perform wedding ceremonies for same-sex couples who present a license in the same way they do for opposite-sex couples. Refusal to do so could lead to suspension, removal or even criminal charges. In response, on Thursday Rockingham County Magistrate Judge John Kallam who has religious objections to performing same-sex marriages resigned.  Alamance County Judge Jim Roberson, who originally suggested that Magistrates with religious objections be excused from performing same-sex ceremonies, issued a statement yesterday saying that magistrates in his county are required to perform ceremonies for same-sex couples. (Qnotes.)  Time Warner Cable News reported on developments.

Federal Government: On Friday, the U.S. Department of Justice announced that the federal government will now recognize same-sex marriages performed in Indiana, Oklahoma, Utah, Virginia, and Wisconsin for purposes of extending federal benefits. The action came after the Supreme Court refused review of Circuit Court decisions affecting those states. Apparently (though there is some slight ambiguity in DOJ's announcement) the federal government will also recognize same-sex marriages performed in Nevada and Idaho after the Supreme Court refused to stay the 9th Circuit's decision as to those states. (See prior posting.)

9th Circuit Says Same-Sex Marriages Can Go Ahead In Idaho

In what could be the final procedural step in the challenge to Idaho's ban on same-sex marriage, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday issued an order dissolving its prior stay of its decision invalidating the Idaho ban.  According to KVPI News, the court's order provides that the lifting of the stay is effective at 10 a.m. tomorrow, at which time same-sex marriages will be legal in the state.

Marriage Equality Proponents Win Victories In Nevada, Idaho, North Carolina

As previously reported, on Wednesday U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy issued an order temporarily staying the 9th Circuit's  mandate invalidating same-sex marriage bans in Idaho and Nevada, even though only Idaho officials applied for the stay.  Later the same day, Justice Kennedy issued a second order (full text) vacating the portion of his order staying the 9th Circuit's decision as to Nevada, presumably allowing same-sex marriages to begin immediately there.Then yesterday, the full Court issued an order as to the Idaho case (full text) reading:

The application for stay presented to Justice Kennedy and by him referred to the Court is denied. The orders heretofore entered by Justice Kennedy are vacated.

The 9th Circuit's decision affirmed the Idaho federal district court's decision invalidating Idaho's same-sex marriage ban.  However, because the 9th Circuit recalled its mandate ordering its affirmance effective immediately once the petition for a stay was filed with the Supreme Court, the parties are concerned that the decision by itself did not serve to dissolve the stay pending appeal of the district court's decision entered by the 9th Circuit in May. So yesterday the plaintiffs filed a motion (full text) to dissolve that stay, and (as reported by SCOTUblog) the 9th Circuit has called for a response by noon Monday, and a reply to that by 5:00 p.m. Monday. [Corrected chronology.]

Meanwhile, in General Synod of the United Church of Christ v. Resinger, (D NC, Oct. 10, 2014), a North Carolina federal district court on its own motion in a case challenging North Carolina's same-sex marriage ban held that the ban is unconstitutional as a matter of law.  In a brief opinion and order, the court pointed to the 4th Circuit's decision in Bostic v. Schaefer striking down Virginia's ban on same-sex marriage. (See prior posting.) The Charlotte Observer reports on the decision.

9th Circuit: Same-Sex Marriage Bans In Idaho and Nevada Are Unconstitutional

In Latta v. Otter, (9th Cir., Oct. 7, 2014), a 3-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held unanimously that laws in Idaho and Nevada that prohibit same-sex marriage and recognition of same-sex marriages performed elsewhere violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment because they discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. Judge Reinhardt, who wrote the court's opinion, also filed a concurring opinion arguing that the bans also infringe plaintiffs' fundamental right to marriage protected by the 14th Amendment's due process clause.  Judge Berzon wrote a concurring opinion holding that the bans also amount to unconstitutional discrimination on the basis of gender.

A mandate issued by the 9th Circuit yesterday evening decreed that its decision takes effect immediately.

Reporting on the decision, Lyle Denniston at SCOTUSblog says that the decision is expected to control pending challenges to similar laws in Alaska, Arizona and Montana-- all in the 9th Circuit.