Law and Religion Prof Seriously Injured In Attack

Above the Law reports that law professor Leslie Griffin, an expert and prolific writer in the area of law and religion, was seriously injured when she was attacked in a Henderson, Nevada park near her home last Friday.  The brutal attack, allegedly perpetrated by a man who was out of jail on supervised release after a domestic battery incident, occurred while Griffin was jogging.  Griffin is William S. Boyd Professor of Law at University of Nevada Law Vegas Law School.  We all wish Prof. Griffin a full and speedy recovery.

Nevada Supreme Court Upholds School Choice Plan, But Invalidates Appropriations For It

In Schwartz v. Lopez, (NV Sup. Ct., Sept. 29, 2016), the Nevada Supreme Court gave a mixed victory to opponents of the state's school choice program.  The state's Educational Savings Account program is the most extensive in the country.  It allows parents of any child who has attended a public or charter school for at least 100 days to receive into an educational savings account a portion of the state's public school funding for use at an eligible alternative private (including religious) school. (See prior posting.) The Court held that the plan does not violate Art. 2, Sec. 11 of the Nevada Constitution that requires the legislature to provide for a uniform system of common schools. Nor does it violate Art. 11, Sec. 10 that prohibits use of public funds for sectarian purposes since the funds cease being public funds when deposited in a parent's educational savings account.

The Court however held that no valid appropriation had been made by the legislature to fund the Educational Savings Account program.  The state is using funds appropriated for public schools. Therefore the Court remanded to the trial courts the two cases under review ordering the issuance of declaratory judgments and permanent injunctions against implementing the Educational Savings Account program until the legislature makes a valid appropriation to cover its costs.

Justices Douglas and Perry dissented in part contending that the Court should not have reached the issue of whether the plan violates Art. 11, Sec. 10's prohibition on use of public funds for sectarian purposes. Las Vegas Sun reports on the decision.

Nevada Supreme Court Hears Oral Arguments In School Choice Cases

On Friday, the Nevada Supreme Court heard oral arguments (audio of full oral arguments) in two cases challenging the constitutionality of Nevada's extensive school-choice law enacted in 2015.  The law provides for educational savings accounts funded by the state. The cases are captioned Schwartz v. Lopez in the Supreme Court, and were decided below sub. nom Duncan v. State of Nevada (see prior posting) and Lopez v. Schwartz (see prior posting).  Courthouse News Service reports on Friday's oral arguments.

Nevada Trial Court Rejects State Constitutional Challenge To School Choice Law

In Duncan v. Sate of Nevada, (NV Dist. Ct., May 18, 2016), a Nevada state trial court judge dismissed state constitutional challenges to Nevada's new Educational Savings Account program. The program, more extensive than any other in the country, allows parents of any child who has attended a public or charter school for at least 100 days to receive into an educational savings account a portion of the state's funding for use at an eligible alternative private (including religious) school. Finding that plaintiffs had standing only to bring facial challenges, the court held that the program does not violate Nevada Constitution Art. XI, Sec. 2 that requires the legislature to provide a uniform public school system nor Art. XI, Sec. 10 that prohibits use of public funds for sectarian purposes.

In a wide-ranging 45-page opinion, the court held that the state constitution does not limit the legislature to providing education only through a uniform public school system. It may also use other suitable means.  It also held that the prohibition on using public funds for sectarian purposes only imposes restrictions co-extensive with the federal Establishment Clause.

In January, another trial court judge enjoined implementation of the program. (See prior posting.) Reacting to yesterday's court's decision, Nevada Attorney General Adam Paul Laxalt said  in part (full text of statement): "The decision today clears the way for the Nevada Supreme Court to meaningfully address the remaining uncertainty caused by the injunction in the other case challenging Nevada’s ESA program. We are one giant step closer to helping thousands of Nevada families choose the best educational option for their children." AP reports on the decision and the ACLU's reaction to it.

Nevada Democratic Caucuses Pose Problems For Sabbath Observers

After this week's New Hampshire primaries, the presidential candidates move to Nevada and South Carolina.  As reported last week by the Las Vegas Review-Journal, the Democratic caucuses in Nevada are on Saturday, Feb. 20 at 11:00 a.m.  This means that observant Jews and Seventh Day Adventists may be unable to participate because doing so violates their Sabbath.  The Republican caucuses in Nevada will be held on Tuesday, Feb. 23, obviating the Sabbath observance problem.  The same concerns arose in 2008 and 2012 when both parties held their Nevada caucuses on Saturday.  In 2012, the Republicans held an additional evening caucus for those unable to participate earlier in the day for religious reasons.  In 2008, Democrats placed caucus sites near religious neighborhoods and synagogues so people could walk, and precinct captains were educated to write down information on behalf of observant Jews instead of asking them to sign-in and write themselves. (See prior posting.) It is unclear whether Democrats will be making similar accommodations this year.

South Carolina's primaries are on Saturdays for bot parties (Feb. 20 and 27).  However, unlike in caucuses, primary voters can cast absentee ballots in advance. [Thanks to Steven H. Sholk for the lead.]

Preliminary Injunction and Bitter Fighting Among Top State Officials Over Nevada School Voucher Law

Litigation over Nevada's new school voucher program is getting messy.  As previously reported, two lawsuits have been filed challenging the voucher law. Then, as reported by This Is Reno, on January 8, a third lawsuit was filed by Nevada Lt. Governor Mark Hutchison, acting in his private capacity as a lawyer representing for free two Nevada families who want to participate in the voucher program.  He is asking the court for a declaratory judgment supporting the constitutionality of the plan, hoping that this will lead to a quicker ruling. The filing of this suit led to bitter criticism from the state attorney general and state treasurer. The attorney general quickly filed a motion to dismiss the suit (full text) (press release) and State Treasurer Dan Schwartz issued a flurry of releases critical of Hutchinson, and is quoted by the press as saying:

[Hutchison is] using this to fill his campaign coffers for political office. We’ve never seen the Lt. Governor at any of the hearings. I’ve never seen him at any of the workshops. He went about getting [information] surreptitiously from one of my staff. All [this lawsuit] is going to do is distract from our other cases, which are serious cases. It’s a political stunt. It’s a perversion of justice. He’s using the court system for his own political gain. I’m seriously considering asking him to resign.

Then yesterday, a state court judge in one of the other cases issued a preliminary injunction ordering the state treasurer to stop implementing the new law's educational savings accounts while the court hears challenges to the law. According to AP,  Carson City District Court Judge James Wilson concluded that plaintiffs had shown a reasonable chance of prevailing on the merits.  Implementation would have diverted $20 million from the public school budget.

UPDATE: Here is Judge Wilson's full opinion in Lopez v. Schwartz, (NV Dist. Ct., Jan 11, 2016) granting the preliminary injunction. [Thanks to Blog From the Capital for the lead.]

Church Denied Injunction Against Noise From Downtown Festival

A Nevada federal district court last week refused to grant a preliminary injunction to a downtown Las Vegas church that fears noise and road closings from the annual Life Is Beautiful festival will interfere with its ability to hold its regular weekend services.  The festival is scheduled for this coming weekend.  While the parties worked out some compromises, the festival would not agree to cancel concerts on two stages near the church on Saturday and Sunday nights. The church refused suggestions to move its services elsewhere.  In Amistad Christiana Church v. Life Is Beautiful, LLC, (D NV, Sept. 18, 2015), the court rejected the argument that the grant of the special use permit to the festival violates the church's free exercise rights. The permit does not selectively burden the church.  The court relied heavily on the U.S. Supreme Court's statement in its 1988 Lyng case that: "The Free Exercise Clause simply cannot be understood to require the Government to conduct its own internal affairs in ways that comport with the religious beliefs of particular citizens." The court also rejected the church's private nuisance claim.

Second Suit Filed Challenging Nevada's School Voucher Law

This week a second state court lawsuit challenging Nevada's broad school voucher program was filed. The complaint (full text) in Lopez v. Schwartz, (NV Dist. Ct., filed 9/10/2015), claims that the challenged statute violates the Education Article (Art. XI) of the Nevada Constitution. The suit alleges that the new law diverts funds appropriated for uniform public schools to non-uniform private ones,  A press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit said that it complements the one filed last month by the ACLU (see prior posting) by raising a separate and independent basis for invalidating the law.

Suit Challenges Nevada's School Voucher Program

The ACLU yesterday filed suit in state court in Nevada challenging the state's broad school voucher program.  Under the program, parents of a child who has attended public school for 100 consecutive days may move the child to a private school (including a religious school) and have the state pay into an educational savings account for the student an amount equal to at least 90% of the statewide average basic support per pupil. (See prior posting.) The complaint (full text) in Duncan v. State of Nevada, (NV Dist. Ct., filed 8/27/2015), contends that private religious schools constitute the majority of private schools eligible to participate in the educational savings account program. It alleges that the program violates Art. XI, Sec. 10 of the Nevada constitution that prohibits public funds from being used for sectarian purposes, as well as Art. XI Sec. 2 that requires a uniform system of common schools in which no instruction of a sectarian character takes place. AP reports on the lawsuit.

Nevada Enacts Expansive School Choice Legislation

As reported by the Las Vegas Review Journal, on Tuesday, Nevada Governor Brian Sandoval signed SB 302 (full text) creating an extensive school choice program. The legislature gave final passage to the bill last week.  Under the bill, the parents of a child who has attended public school for 100 consecutive days may move the child to a private school (including a religious school), a tutoring facility or to home schooling and have the state pay into an educational savings account for the student an amount equal to 90% (or 100% for low-income and disabled) of the statewide average basic support per pupil. Currently 100% of the statewide average is about $5700.  The funds may be used for tuition, fees, textbooks, tutoring, testing and transportation.  A student may also be moved part-time to another educational facility and spend part-time in public school, receiving a partial grant. The Reno Gazette Journal has more details of the legislation. Payments under the new law will start Jan. 1, 2016.

Opponents of the legislation argued in part that the bill is unconstitutional because it allows taxpayer money to be spent on religiously-oriented private schools. The Nevada Constitution, Art. 11, Sec. 10, provides: "No public funds of any kind or character whatever, State, County or Municipal, shall be used for sectarian purpose."

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."

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.

9th Circuit Hears Oral Arguments In 3 Same-Sex Marriage Cases

The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday heard oral arguments in cases from Idaho, Nevada and Hawaii challenging same-sex marriage bans. Audio recordings of the full arguments in each of the cases is available: Latta v. Otter (Idaho); Sevcik v. Sandoval (Nevada); Jackson  v. Abercrombie  (Hawaii). Subsequent to the district court opinion being appealed, Hawaii legalized same-sex marriage. (See prior posting.)  MSNBC, reporting on the oral arguments, called it "a rough day for marriage equality opponents."