Court Enjoins NY Ban On Adoption Agencies Discriminating Against Gay Or Unmarried Couples

In New Hope Family Services, Inc. v. Poole, (ND NY, Oct. 5, 2020), a New York federal district court, hearing a case on remand from the Second Circuit (see prior posting), issued a preliminary injunction against enforcement of a regulation of New York's Office of Children and Family Services. 18 NYCRR §421.3 bars discrimination based on sexual orientation or marital status in furnishing of adoption services. The regulation was challenged by a Christian adoption agency that refuses to place children with unmarried or same-sex couples.  The court said in part:

[T]he totality of the evidence indicates that section 421.3(d), as promulgated and enforced by OCFS, is not neutral and appears to be based on some hostility towards New Hope's religious beliefs. In light of the Second Circuit's all but explicit direction, the Court finds that the totality of the evidence weighs in favor of a finding of hostility. In finding hostility, the Court relies on a number of factors that the Circuit noted in its decision.....

The Court finds that by attempting to force New Hope to say that it is in a child's best interests to be placed with an unmarried or same sex couple, despite New Hope's sincere disagreement with that statement, OCFS is attempting to compel speech. Although OCFS argues that New Hope is not compelled to speak because there is an alternative, closure is surely a harsh alternative for New Hope and, as discussed below, it is not the most narrowly tailored means of advancing the state's compelling interests....

Washington Times reports on the decision.

Two Catholic Dioceses File For Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Reorganzation

In the face of sex abuse lawsuits filed after states enacted legislation reviving previously time-barred claims, on Oct. 1 two more Catholic dioceses filed for bankruptcy reorganization under Chapter 11. 

The Diocese of Rockville Centre, New York (covering Long Island) issued a press release and a letter from Bishop John Barres. The letter said in part:

[I]n the year since the passage of the Child Victims Act, more than 200 lawsuits alleging sexual abuse have been filed against the Diocese of Rockville Centre. What became clear is that the Diocese could not continue to carry out its spiritual, charitable and educational missions while also having to shoulder the increasingly heavy burden of litigation expenses associated with these cases.

Filing for Chapter 11, we believe, is the only way for the Diocese to ensure a fair and equitable outcome for everyone involved.... 

During this period of restructuring, most Diocesan operations and ministries will continue without interruption.... 

Since the parishes and schools of the Diocese of Rockville Centre are separate legal entities, they are not included in this Chapter 11 filing. But it is also the case that after Chapter 11, the Diocese will have fewer financial resources to help struggling schools and parishes.

CNN reports on the filing, noting that this is the largest U.S. diocese to file for bankruptcy.

The Diocese of Camden, New Jersey issued a letter from Bishop Dennis Sullivan as well as an FAQ document and a summary of developments. The Bishop's letter reads in part:

The effects of the pandemic, which have curtailed our revenue and deeply impacted our parishioners and neighbors, were further compounded by the over $8 million we have paid out this year through the New Jersey Independent Victims Compensation Program to victims of clergy abuse, money which we have had to borrow. Additionally, the recent repeal of the statute of limitations has resulted in over fifty lawsuits being filed against the diocese involving long-ago claims of abuse. If it were just the pandemic, or just the costs of the Victims Compensation Program, we could likely weather the financial impact; however, the combination of these factors has made that impracticable. Because of this, today I announce that the Diocese of Camden is filing for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code.

Bloomberg News reports on the filing.

Weddings In Restaurant Cannot Be Limited More Than Dining

 In DiMartile v. Cuomo, (ND NY, Aug. 7, 2020), a New York federal district court preliminarily enjoined enforcement of a COVID-19 50-person limit on weddings when they are held in a restaurant which is allowed to seat more people when operating for dining. The court said in part:

The Court is not persuaded by the State Defendants’ argument that the fact that part of the purpose of a wedding is for the married couple to interact with friends and family is sufficient to justify finding that weddings are practically dissimilar from ordinary dining and thus do not merit to be treated the same as an ordinary dining use of the venue.

New York Child Victims Act Filing Window Is Extended

Yesterday New York Governor Andrew Cuomo signed into law S7082 (full text) which extends the window for Child Victims Act lawsuits until August 14, 2021. (Press release). Originally, the window was for a one-year period ending this month. CNA, reporting on the new legislation, says that the change in the law was motivated by concern that the Covid pandemic has deterred many victims from coming forward in time to meet the prior deadline.

Anti-Kapparot Group Renews Attempt To Get NYC Police Enforcement of Health Code

As previously reported, in 2018 New York's highest court refused a writ of mandamus to require enforcement of public health and animal cruelty laws against the Jewish pre-Yom Kippur religious practice of kaporos using live chickens. The court held that mandamus cannot be used to order discretionary enforcement action.  Now a motion to renew the request for a mandamus petition has been filed, alleging that the COVID-19 pandemic has revealed new evidence relevant to the claim. In Alliance to End Chickens as Koporos v. New York City Police Department, (NY Ct. Sup. Ct.) a motion and affidavit (full text) filed 7/6/2020, focuses in large part on the animal-to-human spread of COVID-19, saying in part:

99. In light of the health, economic, and financial devastation caused [by] Covid-19, in light of how this pandemic [has] caused our lives to come to a grinding halt, in light of the hundreds of thousands of lives lost worldwide, and in light of the fact that Covid-19 originated from a live animal wet market, we cannot allow our police department to pick and choose what lows to enforce when it comes to the health code. Too much is at stake, which we all so painfully are currently aware of.

JTA reports on these developments. Attorney for plaintiffs issued a press release on the filing.

2nd Circuit: Free Speech and Free Exercise Claims of Christian Adoption Agency Can Move Forward

In New Hope Family Services, Inc. v. Poole, (2d Cir., July 21, 2020), the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, in an 84-page opinion, reversed the dismissal of free exercise and free speech claims brought by a Christian adoption agency.  The court summarized the issues:

New Hope Family Services, Inc., is a voluntary, privately funded Christian ministry devoted to providing adoption services and authorized to do so in the State of New York for more than 50 years. New Hope professes that, consistent with its religious beliefs, it cannot recommend adoptions by unmarried or same-sex couples. It does not itself disapprove such couples; rather, it refers them to other adoption agencies. In 2018, the State’s Office of Children and Family Services (“OCFS”) informed New Hope that its policy respecting unmarried and same-sex couples violates the antidiscrimination mandate of N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 18, § 421.3(d). OCFS advised New Hope that it either had to change its policy or close its operation.

In reversing and remanding the case to the district court, the 2nd Circuit said in part as to plaintiff's free exercise claim:

[W]e conclude that the pleadings give rise to a sufficient “suspicion” of religious animosity to warrant “pause” for discovery before dismissing New Hope’s claim as implausible. 

In connection with plaintiff's free speech claim, the court said:

New Hope asserts that, based on its religious beliefs about marriage and family, it does not believe and, therefore, cannot state, that adoption by unmarried or same-sex couples would ever be in the best interests of a child. It charges OCFS with requiring it to say just that—or to close down its voluntary, privately funded adoption ministry....

AP reports on the decision.

Jewish Summer Camps In New York Lose Challenge To COVID-19 Closures

In Ass'n of Jewish Camp Operators v. Cuomo, (ND NY, July 6,2020), a New York federal district court rejected arguments that New York state, among other things, violated the Free Exercise clause "by discriminatorily banning children’s Jewish overnight camps (while exempting favored secular conduct) in a way that is not narrowly tailored to curbing the transmission of the COVID-19 virus...." The court said in part:

Plaintiffs argue that Defendant’s executive orders are not neutral because his refusal to allow overnight camps to open effectively targets Jewish overnight camps (given that almost all of the secular or non-Jewish overnight camps had already decided they would not open in the summer of 2020 by the time Defendant and Health Commissioner Zucker specifically clarified on June 12, 2020, that overnight camps would not be allowed to open). Although it is true that “[t]he effect of the law in its real operation is strong evidence of its object,” it is likewise true that “adverse impact will not always lead to a finding of impermissible targeting.” ... Plaintiffs have provided no factual allegations or evidence to indicate that the fact that only Jewish overnight camps have continued to plan to open for the summer leads to the conclusion that Defendant’s executive orders have targeted the Jewish faith. To the contrary, it is undisputed that Defendant’s ban on overnight camps applies equally to all such camps, regardless of the camps’ religious (or secular) nature. The fact that Plaintiffs have maintained a hope and willingness to operate or send their children to overnight camps this summer longer than most persons involved with secular or non-Jewish overnight camps does not somehow turn Defendant’s facially neutral executive order into impermissible targeting.

The court also rejected 14th Amendment challenges contending that the closures infringed parental rights to control the upbringing of their children. Times Herald Record reports on the decision.

Appeals Court Upholds NY Abortion Coverage Requirement

In Roman Catholic Diocese of Albany v Vullo, (NY App.Div., July 2, 2020), a New York state appellate court rejected a challenge by several religious organizations and other plaintiffs to a New York administrative regulation  requiring health insurance policies in New York to provide coverage for medically necessary abortion services. The court held that the case was governed by a 2006 decision of New York's highest court rejecting a challenge to a state statutory requirement that health insurance policies which provide coverage for prescription drugs must include coverage for prescription contraceptives, saying in part:

The overriding reason for such rejection — equally applicable in the instant case — was that the WHWA set forth a neutral directive with respect to prescription medications to be uniformly applied without regard to religious belief or practice, except for those who qualified for a narrowly tailored religious exemption 

The court also rejected the argument that the Superintendent of Financial Services had exceeded his regulatory authority in promulgating the regulation.

New York Enjoined From Enforcing Stricter Limits Against Worship Services

In Soos v. Cuomo, (ND NY, June 26, 2020), a New York federal district court granted a preliminary injunction barring New York from enforcing COVID-19 orders that impose stricter limits on worship services than on other activities. The suit was brought by two Catholic priests and three Orthodox Jews.  The court said in part:

Assuming, without deciding, that the challenged laws are neutral, plaintiffs have demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits with respect to their free exercise claim because it appears that the challenged laws are not generally applicable, and that they would fail strict scrutiny....

On its face, the 25% indoor capacity limitation applies only to houses of worship... Indeed, that limitation is the only one of its kind in the tangle of executive orders and the Guidance Document that have been issued in response to the pandemic; in other words, no other secular entity, save for those that remain closed in their entirety until Phase 4 or beyond, are limited to only 25% capacity. The “nonessential businesses,” dubbed “Phase 2 industries” by executive order, that enjoy a 50% capacity limitation are, however, not justifiably different than houses of worship.

The court enjoined the state:

(1) from enforcing any indoor gathering limitations against plaintiffs greater than imposed for Phase 2 industries, provided that plaintiffs follow social distancing requirements as set forth in the applicable executive orders and guidance; and

(2) from enforcing any limitation for outdoor gatherings provided that participants in such gatherings follow social distancing requirements as set forth in the applicable executive orders and guidance.

Thomas More Society issued a press release announcing the decision.

Suit Challenges COVID-19 Closure of Jewish Overnight Camps

Suit was filed yesterday in a New York federal district court challenging New York COVID-19 orders that require Jewish overnight camps to remain closed this summer. The complaint (full text) in Association of Jewish Camp Operators v. Cuomo, (ND NY, filed 6/18/2020), alleges in part:

5. On June 12, 2020, Defendant announced that overnight camps would be closed for the summer of 2020 under his COVID-19 orders, without making any exceptions for Jewish overnight camps, notwithstanding that these overnight camps involve core religious exercise.

6. In contrast, Defendant has made a broad First Amendment exception from his COVID-19 orders for First Amendment activities that he favors. In particular, Defendant has created a de facto exemption from his COVID-19 orders for mass demonstrations ... even though these mass protests pose greater risks of the transmission of COVID-19 than do Jewish overnight camps.

7. Defendant also has allowed a wide array of similar, secular activities to remain open....

11. Defendant’s statewide closure of all Jewish overnight camps this summer violates Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights of the free exercise of religion and the fundamental rights of parents to control the religious education and upbringing of their children, guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution and Article III, § 3 of the New York Constitution. 

[Thanks to Steven H. Sholk for the lead.]

Suit Challenges NY Worship Restrictions vs. Permitted Floyd Protests

Suit was filed last week in a New York federal district court by two Catholic priests and three Orthodox Jews challenging limits on worship services imposed by  New York state and city COVID-19 orders. The complaint (full text) in Soos v. Cuomo, (ND NY, filed 6/10/2020), alleges in part:

[W]hile defendants jointly impose this arbitrary, pseudo-scientific regime of strict gathering limits for some groups and activities but not others, they are permitting closely packed gatherings of thousands to protest the wrongful death of George Floyd at the hands of a police officer, which have been taking place in New York City and every other major city in New York State day-after-day since Floyd’s death on May 25.

Plaintiffs' Memorandum In Support of an Application for a Preliminary Injunction (full text) contends in part:

Here, the Orders only purport to mandate a general limit on non-essential gatherings across the state. But aside from the voluminous formal exemptions that undermine the Orders’ general applicability ..., Defendants recently granted an individualized exemption to mass gatherings protesting the death of George Floyd at the hands of a police officer.... These protests have involved hundreds or thousands of protestors all across the state, often packed together shoulder-to-shoulder in express derogation of the Orders’ limits on gathering sizes and social distancing.... And yet, while Defendants expressly approve of these gatherings, they have insisted that limits on religious gatherings remain in place.... This is exactly the type of disparate individualized assessment that must pass strict scrutiny under the Free Exercise Clause.

Thomas More Society issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit. [Thanks to Steven H. Sholk for the lead.]

UPDATE: Here is defendants' Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Application for Injunctive Relief.

Court Upholds Most of NY's Statute Barring Employer Reproductive Health Discrimination; Enjoins Notice Provision

In CompassCare v. Cuomo, (ND NY, June 5, 2020), a church and two pro-life organizations challenged the constitutionality of N.Y Labor Law § 203-e which prohibits employers from discriminating or taking retaliatory action against an employee because of the employee's reproductive decision making or use of any drug, device or medical service. It also requires employee handbooks to give notice to employees of their rights under the statute. According to the court:

Plaintiffs’ complaint, then, is that Labor Law § 203-e will alter their appearance and thus undermine their message. People will know that, even though they proclaim a public commitment to a particular message about religion, sexuality, abortion, and contraception, employees may engage in conduct contrary to their professions of faith....

The court, in a 67-page opinion, rejected plaintiffs' free speech and association claims, saying in part:

The limitations here are not on the speech for which the Plaintiffs contend they associate, but instead threaten to create a situation where hearers might perceive that not all employees ... of the Plaintiffs practiced what they preached. The danger that others be able to call the Plaintiffs hypocrites is not a significant limitation on Plaintiffs’ speech or right to associate. 

The court also rejected plaintiffs' free exercise claims, saying in part:

In the end, the Court cannot find that the evidence presented by the Plaintiffs establishes that the legislature’s purpose was “to challenge the plaintiffs’ religious beliefs” and instead finds that “there was a neutral, secular purpose” for Section 203-e: protecting New Yorkers’ right to make their own decisions about reproduction, including whether to have a child and whether to use birth control....

The court, however, did find that the notice provision amounts to unconstitutional compelled speech and enjoined enforcement of this portion of the law, saying in part:

The notice directed by the statute is language that the Plaintiffs would otherwise not use, and they contend that the prohibitions on discrimination because of “reproductive decision making” undermines their message that the only choices that persons should make on such matters are to carry a child to term, not use birth control, and conduct their sexual lives according to the standards Plaintiffs claim the Bible sets out. While the language in Section 203-e’s notice section does not mention abortion by name, does not suggest to anyone that abortion providers are available, and does not direct anyone to use birth control, the Court finds that the statute compels Defendants to use language they otherwise would not. The notice provision, therefore, is subject to strict scrutiny. No issue of professional speech applies here, which could raise an issue concerning some other level of scrutiny.

Suits In NY and Texas Say Stay-At-Home Orders Infringe Religious Rights

New York Post reports that a lawsuit was filed last Friday in a New York federal district court against the state of New York and Gov. Andrew Cuomo challenging the constitutionality of Cuomo's stay-at-home order imposed to limit the spread of COVID-19. Among other things, plaintiff, a Brooklyn lawyer, alleges that the ban violates his rights to free speech and to observe his Jewish faith.

A mandamus action filed in the Texas Supreme Court similarly challenges a Harris County, Texas stay-at-home order. Houston Chronicle reports that the challenge filed by three pastors and a conservative Republican activist claims that the order violates the 1st Amendment by ordering the closure of churches and also violates the Constitution by failing to classify gun shops as essential businesses.

UPDATE: Here is the full text of the complaint in the Texas case, In re Hotze, (TX Sup. Ct., filed 3/30/2020).

UPDATE 2: Front Porch News reports on an April 21 updated version of Texas' “Guidance to Houses of Worship During the COVID-19 Crisis.”

White House Briefs New York's Orthodox Rabbis On COVID-19 Precautions

Jerusalem Post and Jewish Insider report that the White House yesterday held a conference call with 15 leading Orthodox rabbis in the New York area to encourage them to follow the White House guidelines designed to prevent the further spread of COVID-19. The call was conducted by Avi Berkowitz, an Orthodox Jew who is an assistant to the President. More than 100 people have tested positive for the coronavirus in New York's Orthodox Jewish Borough Park neighborhood. After the call, the Satmar Rebbe, Rabbi Aaron Teitelbaum, ordered all synagogues and Jewish schools in the largely Hasidic village of Kiryas Joel to close.

Buffalo Catholic Diocese Files For Bankruptcy Reorganization

The Catholic Diocese of Buffalo (NY) announced last week that it has filed for bankruptcy reorganization, saying in part that the petition has:

a primary aim of enabling financial resolution for the most number of individuals who have filed claims under the Child Victims Act - a year-long window that opened on August 14, 2019 that suspends the statute of limitations related to allegations of past sexual abuse.  A further objective of reorganization is that it allows the Diocese to continue uninterrupted its mission throughout Western New York, while working to settle claims with existing Diocesan assets and insurance coverages....

Parishes of the Diocese are separately incorporated under New York State's Religious Corporation Law and not included in today's filing. Similarly, Catholic elementary and secondary schools are also not part of the Chapter 11 case, given that they are owned by parishes or are separately incorporated entities. Catholic Charities of Buffalo, with its extensive ministries that serve residents throughout Western New York, providing critical social services, is also separately incorporated under New York's Not for Profit Corporation Law and will not be part of the filing. This is also true for the Diocese's capital and endowment Campaign - Upon This Rock.

The Bradford Era reports on the filing.

Jewish School Sues Town For Religious Discrimination

A religious discrimination suit was filed in a New York federal district court this week by an Orthodox Jewish girl's school against the Town of Clarkstown, New York charging it with wrongfully preventing the school from purchasing a Baptist Church property.  The complaint (full text) in Ateres Bais Yaakov Academy of Rockland v. Town of Clarkston, (SDNY, filed 2/18/2020), alleges in part:

In early January 2019, in reaction to ABY’s pending permit application following its entry into a contract for the purchase of the Property, Clarkstown Supervisor George Hoehmann, other Clarkstown officials and members of a Rockland County political party, members of CUPON, and CUPON’s counsel met to concoct a plan to prevent ABY’s purchase of the Property.

... In parallel to the manufactured public pressure from CUPON, the Town denied ABY’s permit application through a blatant misapplication of its zoning laws....

Following its knowing interference with and evisceration of ABY’s contract topurchase the  Property and months of delay, the Town purchased the Property for itself. For the Town, this is but the latest example in a demonstrable pattern of wreaking havoc on religious property applicants to prevent their engagement in the Clarkstown community. 

Lower Hudson News reports on the lawsuit.

Jewish Day School May Move Ahead With Some Claims In Dispute With New York Village

A press release from First Liberty describes the claims that gave rise to an opinion by a New York federal district court last week:

The lawsuit, filed in November 2018, alleges that government officials in the Village of Airmont, New York and the Suffern Central School District engaged in a deliberate effort to dissuade Orthodox Jewish residents from staying in or moving to the Village of Airmont. Central UTA owns 21 acres of property within the Village of Airmont that for nearly 20 years served as both a children’s school and day camp. The Village granted multiple approvals for the private, non-Orthodox school to operate. However, since Central UTA purchased the property in 2016 and advised the Village of its plans to build new buildings, Village officials have repeatedly used discriminatory zoning tactics to prevent Central UTA from operating.

In a similar effort, the local school district, Suffern Central, denied Central UTA children transportation and special education services even though it provided these same services to the previous school.

In Central UTA of Monsey v. Village of Airmont, New York, (SD NY, Jan. 23, 2020), the court held that claims growing out of the attempt to obtain approval for building two new school buildings and renovating an existing building should be dismissed for lack of ripeness. However the court allowed plaintiffs to move ahead with their RLUIPA, 1st Amendment and 14th Amendment claims growing out of a Notice of Violation issued as to the operation of a school for 200 to 300 students in an existing building and the failure to provide transportation and special needs services. The Notice of Violation placed the school at risk for over $2 million in fines.

Court Refuses To Examine Parties' Need For Jewish Religious Divorce

In A.W. v. I.N., (Sup Ct Nassau Cty NY, Jan. 2, 2020), a New York state trial court held that the 1st Amendment precludes it from looking beyond a wife's sworn statement that she has, to the best of her knowledge, removed all barriers to the Husband's remarriage. NY Domestic Relations Law §253 requires such a statement from a plaintiff in a divorce action, and also provides that the court may not look into any religious or ecclesiastical issue.  In this case, the husband sought a stay in entering a final judgment of divorce because the wife refused to appear before an Orthodox Jewish religious court and accept a get (divorce document) from the husband.  According to an affidavit from a rabbi submitted by the husband, the husband is prevented from remarrying without the wife's acceptance of a get.  The wife contends, on the other hand;

the parties were not married religiously nor was there any religious ceremony. Therefore ... since there was no marriage according to Jewish Law, there is no religious divorce to be had. The Wife states that she refused the Husband's offers for a religious wedding ceremony because she wanted to avoid any religious divorce rituals. The Wife argues that in any event, the Husband is not a practicing Orthodox Jew.

The court said in part:

It would be a violation of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution for the Court to order the Wife to participate in a religious ritual when she did not agree to do so.

Hate Crime Charges Filed In Hanukkah Stabbing Spree

The U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York announced yesterday that it has filed federal hate crime charges in the Hanukkah mass stabbing attack at a Rabbi's home in Monsey, NY last week.  The criminal complaint (full text) charges Grafton Thomas with 5 counts of obstruction of the free exercise of religious beliefs involving an attempt to kill and use of a dangerous weapon. The affidavit supporting the complaint says that a handwritten journal containing anti-Semitic views was recovered from the suspect's residence. Washington Post reports on these developments.

Cuomo Vetoes Expansion of Federal Judges Who Can Officiate At Weddings

On Dec. 20, that New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo vetoed S6330 which would have expanded the federal judges who can officiate at marriage ceremonies in New York.  Currently only federal judges sitting in New York districts or on the 2nd Circuit can officiate. The vetoed bill would have expanded this to all federal judges. According to yesterday's New York Times, Cuomo said in his veto message:

I cannot in good conscience support legislation that would authorize such actions by federal judges who are appointed by this federal administration. President Trump does not embody who we are as New Yorkers.