Suit Over Deceptively Promoted School Religious Program Moves Ahead

In Roe v. East Baton Rouge Parish School Board, (MD LA, Oct. 8, 2024), a Louisiana federal district court refused to dismiss many claims brought by high school seniors and their parents asserting violations of the Establishment Clause, infringement of parental rights, sex discrimination, violation of the Louisiana Parents Bill of Rights, negligence, infliction of emotional distress and fraud. According to the court:

Plaintiffs’ lawsuit centers around the overarching allegation that, “[f]or several years going back to at least 2016, [defendants] ... were engaged in a conspiracy to expose public school children to overtly sectarian and religious experiences directly through the East Baton Rouge School System..., often without the knowledge or permission of the students’ parents or guardians.” [They] ...developed a program called ‘Day of Hope’, whereby public school students of the East Baton Rouge School System would be sent to a religious service during school time, chaperoned by EBRSB employees.” ... [Defendants] advertised the 2022 event to parents and students as a ‘College and Career Fair’, providing ‘a college and career fair, breakout sessions, live music, a keynote speaker, free food, and more.’ None of the promotional materials or advertisements for the event provided any obvious religious connection.” Plaintiffs claim that, “[i]n actuality, ‘Day of Hope’ speakers were almost exclusively pastors or other religious speakers who describe their participation in the public school event as ‘worship[]’ and ‘minister[ing] to over 1000 kids’, including hashtags on social media posts describing the event like ‘#GodGetsTheGlory’.” ...

The allegations taken as true suggest coercion as understood by Supreme Court precedent, and the prohibition against this practice was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation....

The Title IX claim focuses primarily on two aspects of the Day of Hope program: 1) transgender and gender non-conforming students were forced into “either male or female segregated gender groups based on their outward appearance and without their consent”; and 2) while the male students engaged in “frivolous recreational activities,” the female students were “exposed to a ‘girls gender talk’ including traumatizing lectures by pastors and other religious figures about virginity, rape, abuse, and suicide, even being told to ‘forgive’ their rapists and abusers.”...

Suit Challenges Louisiana's Law Requiring Posting of 10 Commandments in Public Schools

Suit was filed yesterday in a Louisiana federal district court by a group of parents (some of whom are clergy) on behalf of their minor children challenging Louisiana's recently enacted statute that requires the posting of the Ten Commandments in every public-school classroom. Contending that the law violates the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses, the complaint (full text) in Roake v. Brumley, (MD LA, filed 6/24/2024) alleges in part:

Permanently posting the Ten Commandments in every Louisiana public-school classroom—rendering them unavoidable—unconstitutionally pressures students into religious observance, veneration, and adoption of the state’s favored religious scripture. It also sends the harmful and religiously divisive message that students who do not subscribe to the Ten Commandments—or, more precisely, to the specific version of the Ten Commandments that H.B. 71 requires schools to display—do not belong in their own school community and should refrain from expressing any faith practices or beliefs that are not aligned with the state’s religious preferences. And it substantially interferes with and burdens the right of parents to direct their children’s religious education and upbringing.  

...The state’s main interest in passing H.B. 71 was to impose religious beliefs on public-school children, regardless of the harm to students and families. The law’s primary sponsor and author, Representative Dodie Horton, proclaimed during debate over the bill that it “seeks to have a display of God’s law in the classroom for children to see what He says is right and what He says is wrong.”

The advocacy groups bringing the suit (ACLU, Americans United, FFRF) issued a press release announcing the filing of the suit.

Louisiana Governor Signs "Given Name Act", School Chaplaincy and 10 Commandments Bills

On Wednesday, Louisiana Governor Jeff Landry signed a package of 18 separate bills which the Governor's office described as " bills that will transform our education system and bring back common sense in our classrooms."  Among the bills were:

HB 121, the "Given Name Act" (full text). The new law prohibits any public or charter school policy "that provides for an inquiry of" the pronouns of a student or employee that are inconsistent with their biological sex, or "that provides for an inquiry of" their name that is not their legal name or a derivative of it. Teachers and other employees as well as other students may not be required to address a student by a name other than the student's legal name or a derivative of it, or to address a student using pronouns that are inconsistent with the person's biological sex. A parent may seek corrective action if a school employee refers to a student by other pronouns or by another name and may bring suit if corrective action is intentionally not taken. ADF issued a press release announcing the governor's signing of the bill.

HB 334 (full text) which permits public school boards to "employ or accept as a volunteer a certified chaplain to provide support, services, and programs for students, staff, and parents as assigned by a school board...." The new law also provides the chaplain with immunity from suit for actions or statements made under the program unless they were "maliciously, willfully, and deliberately intended to cause harm to harass or intimidate those seeking support, services and programs."

HB 71 that requires the posting of the Ten Commandments in every public school and college classroom. See this post for additional details.

Court Says EEOC Exceeded Its Authority in New Rules Under Pregnant Workers Fairness Act

In State of Louisiana v. EEOC, (WD LA, June 17, 2024), a Louisiana federal district court granted a preliminary injunction to the states of Louisiana and Mississippi, as well as to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and two Louisiana dioceses, postponing the effectiveness of new EEOC rules under the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act that require employers to accommodate employees' elective abortions. The court said in part:

If Congress had intended to mandate that employers accommodate elective abortions under the PWFA, it would have spoken clearly when enacting the statute, particularly given the enormous social, religious, and political importance of the abortion issue in our nation at this time (and, indeed, over the past 50 years).  The Court is therefore not persuaded, on the record before it, that Congress could reasonably be understood to have granted the EEOC the authority to interpret the scope of the PWFA in a way that imposes a nationwide mandate on both public and private employers – irrespective of applicable abortion-related state laws enacted in the wake of Dobbs – to provide workplace accommodation for the elective abortions of employees.

In this sense, EEOC’s use of its regulatory power to insert the issue of abortion into a law designed to ensure healthy pregnancies for America’s working mothers squarely implicates the “major questions doctrine” as enunciated by the Supreme Court....  The major questions doctrine applies when an “agenc[y] assert[s] highly consequential power beyond what Congress could reasonably be understood to have granted.”...

Clearly, EEOC failed to include a broad religious exception in the Final Rule, and... EEOC’s interpretation of the PWFA religious exception – inasmuch as it mirrors the religious exception in Title VII, an antidiscrimination statute – does not square with the PWFA.

See prior related posting.

DOE Enjoined from Applying New Title IX Rules Protecting Transgender Students In 4 States

In State of Louisiana v. U.S. Department of Education, (WD LA, June 13, 2024), a Louisiana federal district court enjoined the Department of Education from enforcing against four states new rules under Title IX which, among other things, bar discrimination by educational institutions against transgender students. (See prior posting). The new rules essentially apply the Supreme Court's interpretation of Title VII in the Bostock case to Title IX as well. The injunction applies to the states that were plaintiffs in the case-- Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana and Idaho. The court found that the new rules violate a number of statutory and constitutional provisions, saying in part:

In applying these statutory principles to Title IX, the Court finds that the term “sex discrimination” only included discrimination against biological males and females at the time of enactment. ,,,,

... [T]his Court finds that the application of Bostock and the Final Rule’s definition of “sex discrimination” contradict the purpose of Title IX.... Bostock does not apply because the purpose of Title VII to prohibit discrimination in hiring is different than Title IX’s purpose to protect biological women from discrimination in education.  ...

Defendants thus seemingly use Bostock in an attempt to circumvent Congress and make major changes to the text, structure, and purpose of Title IX. Such changes are undoubtedly contrary to Title IX and contrary to the Law.....

Plaintiffs argue the Final Rule’s new broad “severe or pervasive” standard, which considers speech or other expressive conduct that “limits” a person’s ability to participate in a program to be discriminatory harassment, cannot be squared with Title IX....

While Title VII is vastly important, and the Court sees the merits in harassment standards set forth in those provisions, the Court cannot simply apply the same standard to federally funded educational institutions. The “harassment standard” created by the Final Rule is obviously contrary to Title IX, and Plaintiffs have made compelling arguments for how it can violate the free speech right of the First Amendment. ...

Because the Final Rule is a matter of both vast economic and political significance, the Court finds the enactment of this rule involves a major question pursuant to the major questions doctrine. Therefore, Congress must have given “clear statutory authorization” to the applicable agency. The Court finds that Congress did not give clear statutory authorization to this agency....

This Court finds the Final Rule violates the Spending Clause because it contains ambiguous conditions and because the Final Rule violates other constitutional provisions – free speech and free exercise. Because this Court has found the Final Rule violates the Spending Clause, there is no need to discuss the Plaintiffs’ argument that the Final Rule violates the non-delegation doctrine....

This Court further finds that the Final Rule is arbitrary and capricious because the DOE (1) failed to address relevant factors and (2) and failed to consider important aspects of the problem. 

Louisiana Governor Signs Women's Safety and Protection Act, Rejecting Gender Identity Classifications

On June 3, Louisiana Governor Jeff Landry signed HB 608, the Women's Safety and Protection Act (full text) into law. The law states as part of its purpose:

To provide protections for women and girls against sexual assault, harassment, and violence in correctional facilities, juvenile detention facilities, domestic violence shelters, dormitories, and restrooms, or where women have been traditionally afforded safety and protection from acts of abuse committed by biological men.

Where there are multi-occupancy restrooms, changing rooms or sleeping quarters, the new law requires transgender men and transgender women to use only those facilities that conform to their biological sex. The limitation applies to public schools, domestic violence shelters, correctional facilities and juvenile detention facilities. The new law also provides a detailed biological definition of male and female that is to be applied to any state law or administrative rule that refers to an individual's sex. It additionally provides:

"Sex" means an individual's biological sex, either male or female, as observed or clinically verified at birth.  Gender identity and other subjective terms shall not apply to this Part and shall not be used as synonyms or substitutes for sex.

The new law goes on to provide in part:

Notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, no governmental agency ... shall prohibit distinctions between the sexes with respect to athletics, correctional facilities, juvenile detention facilities, domestic violence shelters, or other accommodation where biology, safety, or privacy are implicated and that result in separate accommodations that are substantially related to the important government interest of protecting the health, safety, and privacy of individuals in such circumstances.

The law creates a cause of action for injunctive relief or damages to anyone who suffers direct or indirect harm from a violation of the Act. It provides:

It is a rebuttable presumption that requiring an individual to be housed with members of the opposite sex at a domestic violence shelter, juvenile detention center, corrections facility, or public school that is subject to the provisions of this Part is inherently discriminatory and is a cognizable harm to biological women under this Part.

Louisiana Illuminator has more details on the bill. ADF issued a press release announcing the governor's signing of the bill.

Louisiana Legislature Requires Posting of 10 Commandments in Every Public School and College Classroom

The Louisiana legislature this week gave final passage to HB71 (full text) which requires all public schools to display the Ten Commandments in each classroom. The bill specifies the Ten Commandments text which must be used-- choosing the text that appeared on the Ten Commandments marker at the Texas State Capitol that was the subject of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Van Orden v. Perry. The Louisiana bill requires:

The nature of the display shall be determined by each governing authority with a minimum requirement that the Ten Commandments shall be displayed on a poster or framed document that is at least eleven inches by fourteen inches.  The text of the Ten Commandments shall be the central focus of the poster or framed document and shall be printed in a large, easily readable font.

A specified "context statement" that details the appearance of the Ten Commandments in public school textbooks since 1688 must be displayed along with the Ten Commandments. It permits, but does not require, public schools to also display the Mayflower Compact, the Declaration of Independence and the Northwest Ordinance along with the Ten Commandments.

Public colleges must display the same text of the Ten Commandments (but apparently not the context statement) in each classroom on their campuses.

The bill's substantive provisions are preceded by legislative findings, including the following:

Recognizing the historical role of the Ten Commandments accords with our nation's history and faithfully reflects the understanding of the founders of our nation with respect to the necessity of civic morality to a functional self-government. History records that James Madison, the fourth President of the United States of America, stated that "(w)e have staked the whole future of our new nation . . . upon the capacity of each of ourselves to govern ourselves according to the moral principles of the Ten Commandments.

The bill now goes to Governor Jeff Landry for his signature. CNN reports on the bill.

UPDATE: On June 19, Governor Landry signed HB71, and the ACLU quickly announced that several advocacy organization would file suit to challenge the law.

Louisiana Legislature Bans Fraudulently Giving Women Abortion Pills; Reclassifies Abortion Pills as Dangerous Drugs

The Louisiana legislature yesterday gave final passage to Senate Bill 276 (full text). The bill creates the crime of "coerced criminal abortion by means of fraud", defined as "knowingly and intentionally engag[ing] in the use of an abortion-inducing drug on a pregnant woman, without her knowledge or consent, with the intent to cause an abortion."  The bill also categorizes the abortion drugs Mifepristone and Misoprostol as Schedule IV controlled substances which it is illegal to possess except pursuant to a valid prescription. It goes on to provide, however, that it is not a violation for a woman to possess these drugs for her own consumption.

AP reports on the bill in greater detail and explains:

[The bill's sponsor, Sen. Thomas] Pressly said both the bill and the amendment were motivated by what happened to his sister Catherine Herring of Texas. In 2022, Herring’s husband slipped her seven misoprostol pills in an effort to induce an abortion without her knowledge or consent.

The bill now goes to Governor Jeff Landry who is expected to sign the bill.

Louisiana Supreme Court: Revival of Barred Sex Abuse Claims Violates Priest's Rights Under State Constitution

 In Bienvenu v. Defendant 1, (LA Sup. Ct., March 22, 2024), the Louisiana Supreme Court in a 4-3 decision held that a 2021 Louisiana statute that revived child sex abuse claims that had previously been time barred violates the Louisiana Constitution. The statute gave victims a 3-year window to file claims. The court said in part:

Essentially, plaintiffs alleged they were sexually molested by a Roman Catholic priest at various times between 1971 and 1979.   At the time of the alleged abuse, plaintiffs ranged in ages from eight to fourteen.  

Defendants responded by filing several exceptions, including a peremptory exception of prescription, arguing that plaintiffs’ claims were subject to the general one-year liberative prescriptive period for delictual actions under former La. Civ. Code art. 3536(1)....

The definite nature of accrued prescription has been repeatedly recognized in our jurisprudence, which makes it clear that, unlike statutes of limitations at common law, under civilian principles, prescriptive periods that have accrued act to extinguish the civil obligation to which they apply....

Guided by Louisiana’s civil law tradition, we decline to upend nearly a half of a century’s jurisprudence that recognizes the unique nature of vested rights associated with liberative prescription, which inure to the benefit of both plaintiffs (protecting an accrued cause of action) and defendants (protecting a defense of accrued liberative prescription).  Therefore, despite the sickening  and despicable factual allegations in this case, we must conclude that La. R.S. 9:2800.9, as amended by the revival provisions, cannot be retroactively applied to revive plaintiffs’ prescribed causes of action.  To find otherwise would divest defendants of their vested right to plead prescription in violation of Art. I, Section 2 of the Louisiana Constitution.

However the court remanded the case for the trial court to determine whether the one-year prescriptive period had tolled.

Justice Crichton filed a concurring opinion, as did Justice Griffin.

Chief Justice Weimer dissented, saying in part:

Given Louisiana’s legitimate interest in protecting its citizens who were sexually abused as minors and in providing them with the ability to seek redress in the courts, and the narrowly tailored nature of the relief provided–the legislation revives, for a short period of time, for a narrow category of tort victims, actions otherwise prescribed–I would find that the revival provision is consistent with the due process guarantee.  Under the due process clause, no rights–not even fundamental ones–are absolute.  The due process clause simply offers protection from arbitrary and unreasonable action by the government.  The revival provision at issue is not arbitrary (in fact, in this case it is arguable that the “arbitrary and unreasonable” conduct was the alleged sexual abuse perpetrated upon children by those in society who were placed in positions of authority).  And, the provision has been demonstrated to have a substantial relationship to public safety, morals and welfare.

Justice Crain also filed a dissenting opinion. Justice McCallum dissented without opinion.

Balls and Strikes reported on the decision. [Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]

5th Circuit, 11-6, Denies En Banc Rehearing on Availability of Damages Under RLUIPA

In Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections and Public Safety, (5th Cir., Feb. 5, 2024), the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, by a vote of 11-6, denied an en banc rehearing in a RLUIPA suit seeking damages from officials in their individual capacities. Judge Clement, joined by 8 other judges, filed an opinion concurring in the denial, saying in part:

Officials at the Raymond Laborde Correctional Center knowingly violated Damon Landor’s rights in a stark and egregious manner, literally throwing in the trash our opinion holding that Louisiana’s policy of cutting Rastafarians’ hair violated the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act before pinning Landor down and shaving his head. Landor clearly suffered a grave legal wrong. The question is whether a damages remedy is available to him under RLUIPA. That is a question only the Supreme Court can answer.

Judge Ho, joined by Judge Elrod, filed a dissent to the denial. Judge Oldham, joined in whole or part by 5 other judges, also filed a dissenting opinion, saying in part:

The panel held RLUIPA does not allow prisoners to sue state prison officials in their individual capacities for money damages. With all due respect to my esteemed and learned colleagues, that result cannot be squared with Tanzin v. Tanvir, 592 U.S. 43 (2020). Tanzin held that individuals can sue for money damages under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (“RFRA”). The operative provisions of RFRA and RLUIPA are in haec verba, and both the Supreme Court and ours routinely interpret the statutes in parallel. Today, unfortunately for Landor, our court pits the statutes against one another. I respectfully dissent.

Exclusion of Jurors Who Have Conscientious Objection To Death Penalty Does Not Violate Free Exercise Clause

 In State of Louisiana v. Neveaux, (LA App., Nov. 8, 2023), a Louisiana state appeals court rejected a free exercise challenge to a provision in the Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure that permits the prosecution in a capital case to challenge for cause a juror "who has conscientious scruples against the infliction of capital punishment" and makes it known that for this reason he would automatically vote against imposing capital punishment or that his beliefs would substantially impair him from making an impartial decision. The court, rejecting the contention that there must be a compelling state interest to support this provision concluded in part:

[W]e find that La. C.Cr.P. art. 798(2)(a) and (b) is neutral and generally applicable because (1) it does not focus on a particular religion or religion at all, and (2) it applies to anyone regardless of the source of his or her views on the death penalty.

Suit Says High Schoolers Deceived Into Attending Christian Religious Event

Suit was filed this week in a Louisiana federal district court by two plaintiffs suing on behalf of themselves and their high-school age daughters alleging that the Baton Rouge school board and its superintendent, along with a Christian youth organization, in 2022 created a religious "Day of Hope" event that was falsely promoted to public school students and their parents as a college and career fair. The complaint (full text) in Roe v. East Baton Rouge Parish School Board, (MD LA, filed 9/19/2023), alleges in part:

When students, parents, and other volunteers arrived for the “Day of Hope” event ..., it very quickly became evident to them that the event was nothing like what had been advertised. The event immediately took the form of a Christian church service, with speakers and presenters praying and making repeated, overt appeals to Jesus and God.....

Later that morning, students were segregated by gender....  [P]resenters and facilitators of the event acted with hostility toward transgender and gender non-binary students, ... forcing them into either the male or female segregated gender group based on their outward appearance and without their consent....

While the boys competed in physical activity contests for prize money, girls were graphically lectured by pastors and other religious figures about virginity, rape, abuse, and suicide and were even told to “forgive” their rapists and abusers....

Intimidation and harassment of LGBTQ+ students at this church event were likewise rampant....

The suit alleges claims under the Establishment Clause as well as various civil rights and state law violations. BRProud reports on the lawsuit.

Expelled Church Members' Claims Barred by Statute of Limitations

In Boyett v. First Baptist Church of Bossier, (LA App., Aug. 9,2023), a Louisiana state appellate court in a 2-1 decision affirmed the trial court's holding that Louisiana's statute of limitations (called "prescription" in Louisiana law) barred a suit by members who had been expelled from the church.  Plaintiffs claimed that the Articles under which they were expelled had been improperly adopted.  Judge Hunter dissenting argued that the majority applied the wrong statute of limitations, so that the trial court should reach the merits of the case using the "neutral principles of law" approach.  He contended that the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine did not require dismissal of the case, and that the court should reverse the trial court's dismissal and remand the case for the taking of additional evidence.

Louisiana Legislature Overrides Veto of Gender Transition Ban for Minors

Yesterday the Louisiana legislature overrode Governor John Bel Edwards' veto of HB648, the Stop Harming Our Kids Act (full text). The law prohibits medical professionals from providing puberty blockers, hormonal treatments or surgery to treat gender dysphoria in minors. AP reports on the legislative override.

3 Courts Rule on Claims for Religious Exemptions from Covid Vaccine Mandates

Last week, federal district courts in three states handed down decisions in cases in which a former employee was suing his or her employer for refusing to provide them with a religious exemption from the employer's Covid vaccine mandate.

In Crocker v. Austin, (WD LA, June 22, 2023) a Louisiana federal district court dismissed as moot a suit for injunctive relief brought by seven military service members who faced involuntary separation from the Air Force when they filed suit. However, in January 2023 the military rescinded the vaccine mandate and updated personnel records to remove any adverse actions associated with the denial of requested exemptions. Any remaining suit for damages falls under the Tucker Act and must be brought in the Court of Federal Claims.

In Leek v. Lehigh Valley Health Network, (ED PA, June 23, 2023), a Pennsylvania federal district court refused to dismiss a Title VII religious discrimination claim filed by a nurse who was denied religious exemptions from a hospital's requirement to receive Covid and influenza vaccines. The hospital claimed that the nurse's objections were not religious in nature. The court held that the nurse's belief that chemical injections may make her body impure in the eyes of the Lord, and her objections to some vaccines because they were developed using aborted fetal cells, are both religious objections.  The fact that some of her other objections were more medical or political did not negate the presence of religious objections.

In Algarin v. NYC Health + Hospitals Corp., (SD NY, June 23, 2023), a New York federal district court dismissed claims by an Internet technology professional at a health care facility that denial of his request for a religious exemption from the state's Covid vaccine mandate violated Title VII and the New York State and City Human Rights Laws. The court disagreed, holding that requiring the employer to violate a state rule would place an undue burden on the employer. The court also rejected plaintiff's 1st Amendment free exercise claim, finding that the vaccine mandate was a neutral law of general applicability.

Judge Refuses to Recuse Himself from New Orleans Archdiocese Bankruptcy Matters

AP and WWL-TV reported on Saturday that federal district court judge for the Eastern District of Louisiana, Greg Guidry, has refused to recuse himself from reviewing matters related to the bankruptcy reorganization proceedings of the Catholic Archdiocese of New Orleans. An investigation by the Associated Press found:

... [S]ince being nominated to the federal bench in 2019 by then-President Donald Trump, [Guidry] has given nearly $50,000 to local Catholic charities from leftover contributions he received after serving 10 years as a Louisiana Supreme Court justice.

Most of that giving, $36,000 of it, came in the months after the archdiocese sought Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in May 2020 amid a crush of sexual abuse lawsuits. That included a $12,000 donation to the archdiocese's Catholic Community Foundation in September 2020 on the same day of a series of filings in the bankruptcy, and a $14,000 donation to the same charity in July of the following year.

At a pre-trial status conference last Friday, Guidry read from an advisory opinion he had received from the federal Judicial Conference's Committee on Codes of Conduct. It concluded that no reasonable person would question Guidry's impartiality. The Advisory Opinion said in part:

none of the charities to which you contributed some of your wind-down campaign funds has been or is an actual party in any proceeding before you....

AP had also reported that Guidry had once served as a board member on the Archdiocese's charitable arm for eight years.  The Advisory Opinion said, however:

[Y]our leadership as a board member of one of the charities ended 15 years ago, which is a significant span of time.

Guidry, who as district court judge would hear appeals from rulings of the district's bankruptcy judge, told the lawyers at the status conference:

Based upon that advice and based upon my certainty that I can be fair and impartial, I have decided not to recuse myself.

5th Circuit Rejects Pastor's Jurisdictional Theory of Religion Clauses

 In Spell v. Edwards, (5th Cir., Feb. 17, 2023), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a suit brought by a pastor and his church claiming that their First Amendment rights were violated by enforcement against them of COVID orders in the early months of the pandemic that barred their holding church services. The court said in part:

Pastor Spell explicitly waived the argument that defendants’ actions violated his constitutional rights under current free exercise jurisprudence....  Pastor Spell instead advanced an absolute, categorical theory of the Religion Clauses, arguing that church assembly is “beyond the jurisdiction of the government.”... He maintained that, under Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing Township, there is a “jurisdictional limit on intrusion by the state into the church.”  In so doing, he expressly waived other arguments.

Pastor Spell is the master of his case, and he cannot prevail on the theory he advances. Controlling precedent directly contradicts Pastor Spell’s jurisdictional theory of the Religion Clauses.

Unfiltered With Kiran reports on the decision.

Louisiana Supreme Court Refuses Stay Of Abortion Ban During Appeals

In an Order (full text) signed by four of the seven Justices on the Louisiana Supreme Court in June Medical Services, LLC v. Landry, (LA Sup. Ct., Aug. 11, 2022), the court denied a petition by abortion providers seeking to reinstate a trial court's injunction on enforcing Louisiana's abortion ban while appeals are being pursued.  As explained by The Advocate, the trial court had found that the law was likely unconstitutionally vague.  A state appellate court ordered the trial court to suspend its ruling, and now the Supreme Court has refused to overturn that decision.

Louisiana Governor Signs Two "Trigger Laws" On Abortion

On June 17, Louisiana Governor John Bel Edwards signed Senate Bill 342 (full text), amending a 2006 law that banned all abortions except to prevent death or permanent impairment of a life-sustaining organ of the pregnant woman, or in cases of unintentional termination because of medical treatment. The law becomes effective if and when Roe is reversed. The Governor's signing letter (full text) explains the changes that SB 342 made to the 2006  "trigger law":

[T]he list of exceptions to the abortion prohibition ... is expanded to include: (1) when a medical procedure is performed with the intent to save the life or preserve the health of an unborn child, (2) when medical procedures are performed after a pregnant woman miscarries, (3) treatment and removal of an ectopic pregnancy, and (4) when a medical procedure is performed to remove an unborn child with an irremediable congenital or chromosomal anomaly that is incompatible with sustaining life after birth. Although the ... Bill ... did not add rape and incest to the two existing exceptions ..., it did clarify that pregnancy and the life of an unborn child begin at implantation, rather than at fertilization ..., and clearly allows for emergency contraception to be administered to victims of rape and incest prior to when a pregnancy can be clinically diagnosed.

On June 17, the Governor also signed Senate Bill 388 (full text) to prohibit prescribing or selling in or into the state drugs for medical abortions.  Again, the bill's effectiveness is triggered by the overruling of Roe v. Wade. ABC News reports on the bills. [Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]

Louisiana Legislature Clarifies Child Sex-Abuse Look-Back Window

The Louisiana legislature yesterday gave final passage to HB402 (full text). The law clarifies that the 3-year look-back window to bring child sex abuse claims that was enacted last year applies to sex abuse claims, no matter how long ago they arose.  As explained by Louisiana Illuminator:

[O]ver the past year, the Catholic Church has repeatedly argued in Louisiana courts that some of the claims being brought under the lookback window should be thrown out because the window only applies to abuse that has happened since 1993.  Attorneys for the church said last year’s law is restrictive because it references an old statute regarding child abuse that wasn’t enacted until that year....

HB402 eliminates that ambiguity.