New York Sues Anti-Abortion Group That Physically Obstructs Clinics

New York Attorney General Letitia James announced last week that she has filed suit against the anti-abortion group Red Rose Rescue and various of its members seeking to enjoin them from physically interfering with persons seeking abortions or providing abortion services. The complaint (full text) in People of the State of New York v. Red Rose Rescue, (SD NY, filed 6/8/2023), alleges in part:

8. Red Rose Rescue is an anti-abortion group whose members conspire to illegally trespass into private medical facilities that perform abortions and shut down or physically obstruct the provision of all reproductive health services, refusing all requests to leave by staff and law enforcement. 

9. Criminal trespass at reproductive health facilities is not incidental to Red Rose Rescue members’ activism, but rather is the core mission of their group.

The complaint alleges violations of the federal Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act and New York's Clinic Access Act. In addition to injunctive relief, the suit also seeks damages and civil penalties. Catholic News Agency reports on the lawsuit.

Sex Abuse Claims Arising Before Diocese Was Formed Are Disallowed in Bankruptcy Case

In In re Roman Catholic Diocese of Rockville Centre, New York, (SD NY Bkrptcy., May 26, 2023), a New York federal bankruptcy court disallowed nine sex-abuse claims filed in the bankruptcy reorganization of the Rockville Centre Catholic Diocese because they occurred before the Rockville Centre Diocese was formed and in territory which, at the time of the alleged abuse, belonged to the Diocese of Brooklyn. The court allowed claims by four other individuals to be filed in amended form because while they occurred before the Rockville Centre Diocese was incorporated in New York, they occurred after the Vatican formed the Diocese. The court said in part:

First, the Court finds that the First Amendment, and its intersection with canon law, is not a bar to the Court's ruling on this Objection. Second, the Court finds that the Objection must be sustained for Pre-Establishment Claims because the Diocese i) did not assume the prior liabilities and ii) the de facto merger exception does not apply. Finally, the Court finds that fairness requires allowing the Post-Establishment Claimants an opportunity to amend their claims.

Bankruptcy Court Rejects Sex Abuse Claims Arising Outside Boundaries of Diocese

In In re Roman Catholic Diocese of Rockville Centre, New York,(SD NY Bkrptcy., April 19, 2023), a New York federal bankruptcy court held that two groups of claims filed in the Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Reorganization of the Rockville Centre Diocese should be expunged. The claims grow out of alleged sexual abuse by Franciscan brothers that occurred outside of the Diocese.  Claimants argued that the Rockville Centre Diocese had control over the Franciscan Brothers religious organization and so had control over the alleged abusers.  The court said in part:

It is well-established under New York law that for the Diocese to be liable for torts of alleged abusers, the Diocese must have had a duty to control them....

The Brooklyn Claimants’ position is that the Objection fails to settle the question of “control” as a matter of law considering the internal rules of the Catholic Church, and therefore there is a disputed fact that warrants discovery. The parties agree that the Franciscan Brothers operated the five schools and parishes at issue in the Brooklyn Claims, and the Brooklyn Claimants focus solely on whether the Debtor had control over the Franciscan Brothers. They contend that the Diocese had control over the Subject Entities through its control over the Franciscan Brothers....

The additional allegations in the Brooklyn Response frame Catholic Canon Law as a set of rules that govern employer-employee or principal-agent liability outside of secular legal  principles governing these relationships. Not so. As discussed above, there is a clear constitutional prohibition on this Court weighing in on the parties’ dispute over Catholic Canon Law.... New York courts have rejected the argument that Catholic Canon Law imposes diocesan liability where secular law would not.

Muslim Corrections Officer Applicant Can Move Ahead With 1st Amendment and Title VII Claims

In Talukder v. State of New York, (SD NY, March 31, 2023), a New York federal district court allowed a Sunni Muslim applicant to the New York Department of Corrections Training Academy to move ahead with his 1st Amendment free exercise claim as well as his Title VII failure to accommodate and disparate treatment claims.  Plaintiff sought to wear a 3-inch beard for religious reasons, while the Academy was unwilling to permit any beard longer than one-eighth of an inch. Finding a free exercise violation was adequately alleged, the court said in part:

DOCCS allows numerous uniformed staff to grow beards for secular reasons, while simultaneously denying trainees the same accommodation on religious grounds....

The justification that Defendants proffer for the ban—that “all trainees must pass a respirator fit test and applicable respirator training to become certified correctional officers,” ...—raises a fact-intensive inquiry that fails to justify dismissal at this stage. The Complaint raises a plausible inference that a policy requiring all trainees to be clean-shaven or wear facial hair no longer than 1/8 of an inch in order to pass a respiratory fit-test is not narrowly tailored to advance the goal of preparing trainees to become corrections officers—particularly given that many of those officers will never have to wear a respirator at all....

Yeshivas Win Partial Victory In Challenge To New York's Substantial Equivalency Rules

In In re Parents for Educational and Religious Liberty in Schools v. Young, (Albany County Sup.  Ct., March 23, 2023), a New York state trial court gave a partial victory to Orthodox Jewish day schools (yeshivas) that are challenging the state's "substantial equivalency" regulations. The regulations require that students in non-public schools receive instruction in required subject areas that is substantially equivalent to instruction received by public school students in the same district. While the court rejected petitioners' constitutional challenges, it held that the Department of Education exceeded its authority in promulgating rules that require parents to withdraw their children from schools that do not meet the substantial equivalency standards and enroll them elsewhere, and which allow local school authorities to shut down schools that do not meet the required standards. The court said in part:

[T]the statutory scheme places the burden for ensuring a child's education squarely on the parent, not the school.... [T]he Compulsory Education Law does not authorize or contemplate the imposition of penalties or other consequences upon a nonpublic school that has been found not to provide substantially equivalent instruction.

... [T]the court finds that respondents lack authority to direct parents to completely unenroll their children from nonpublic schools that have been determined to fall short of meeting each and every substantial equivalency criteria, nor do respondents have authority to direct the closure of such schools. Rather, the parents should be given a reasonable opportunity to prove that the substantial equivalency requirements for their children's education are satisfied by instruction provided through a combination of sources. For example, parents should be permitted to supplement the education that their children receive at a nonpublic school with supplemental instruction that specifically addresses any identified deficiencies in that education, such as by providing supplemental home instruction in compliance with the home schooling regulations as set forth in 8 NYCRR 100.10. Therefore, if a student is found to be attending a school that is not deemed "substantially equivalent", the home schooling rules shall apply if the parent chooses to keep their child enrolled at that school. As such, the parent may submit a plan that utilizes said school along with supplemental education as needed to create a satisfactory Individualized Home Instruction Plan....

Hamodia reports on the decision. [Thank to Thomas Rutledge for the lead.]

Albany, NY Catholic Diocese Files for Bankruptcy Reoganization

The Roman Catholic Diocese of Albany, New York announced that on Wednesday it filed a petition for bankruptcy reorganization in federal bankruptcy court.  The Bishop's letter to the faithful said in part:

We maintain global mediation would have provided the most equitable distribution of the Diocese’s limited financial resources but as more Child Victims Act (CVA) cases reached large settlements, those limited funds have been depleted. The Chapter 11 filing is the best way, at this point, to ensure that all Victim/Survivors with pending CVA litigation will receive some compensation. The decision to file was not arrived at easily, but we, as a Church, can get through this and grow stronger together.

To date, the Diocese has been named in more than 400 CVA lawsuits which were filed between Aug. 15, 2019, and Aug. 14, 2021. With the assistance of the Court and demonstrating its ongoing good faith commitment to Victim/Survivor claims, the Diocese has separately settled more than 50 CVA cases....

This filing also puts on hold the lawsuits involving the St Clare’s pensioners. That was not our purpose for filing. While many questions remain regarding the St. Clare’s pension fund, the plight of the pensioners is of great concern to me. The St. Clare’s pensioners are certainly close to my heart and, as I would do with anyone in a difficult situation, I offer my pastoral care.

CNA reports on the bankruptcy filing.

Court Rejects Free Exercise Claim of Judge Who Was Not Reappointed Because of Vaccination Status

In Donlon v. City of Hornell, (WD NY, Feb. 27, 2023), a New York federal district court refused to issue a preliminary injunction requiring the city to appoint plaintiff to another term as an assistant city court judge. Plaintiff was denied a religious exemption from the New York court system's COVID vaccination mandate.  This meant that she was unable to conduct in-person hearings and could not maintain a criminal calendar while working virtually. The court said in part:

Plaintiff has not demonstrated that the City’s alleged reasons for denying her reappointment were either “non-neutral or not generally applicable.”... 

In her papers, Plaintiff has a tendency to conflate her vaccination status with her religious beliefs, but the two are distinct....

Plaintiff acknowledges that the City’s concern was not her religious beliefs about vaccination, but the fact that her vaccination status interfered with her “ability to do [her] job while barred from the courtroom.”...

The City’s preference for a candidate who could hold proceedings in person and maintain the criminal caseload required of the position is “religion[] neutral.”... The City is free to prefer such a candidate, and Plaintiff is not, “under the auspices of her religion, constitutionally entitled to an exemption,”... or to “preferential . . . treatment.”... Furthermore, Plaintiff presents no evidence that the City’s preference was not generally applicable—i.e., that the City relied on this preference in a selective manner, imposing “burdens only on conduct motivated by religious belief.”... There were only two candidates for the position, and, in accordance with its “religion-neutral” preference, the City selected an attorney who was vaccinated and could therefore conduct proceedings in person.

2nd Circuit: Expressive Association Challenge to NY "Boss Bill" Can Move Ahead

In Slattery v. Hochul, (2d Cir., Feb. 27, 2023), the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals held that the district court should not have dismissed an expressive association challenge to New York's "Boss Bill," a law that prohibits employers from discriminating against employees on the basis of reproductive health choices made by the employee or a dependent. Plaintiffs are anti-abortion crisis pregnancy centers and the president of one of them. The court said in part:

[W]e conclude that Evergreen plausibly alleged that § 203-e imposes severe burdens on Evergreen’s right to freedom of expressive association. The statute forces Evergreen to employ individuals who act or have acted against the very mission of its organization.... The right to expressive association allows Evergreen to determine that its message will be effectively conveyed only by employees who sincerely share its views....

Still, “[t]he right to associate for expressive purposes is not … absolute. Infringements on that right may be justified by regulations adopted to serve compelling state interests, unrelated to the suppression of ideas, that cannot be achieved through means significantly less restrictive of associational freedoms.”...

We hold that at this stage of the litigation, New York has not shown that § 203-e satisfies this standard....

It may be the case that preventing discrimination based on one’s choice to engage in certain, legally authorized conduct is a compelling state interest. But we need not decide that question here. Even if we answer in the affirmative, that interest cannot overcome the expressive rights of an association dedicated to outlawing or otherwise opposing that specific conduct....

The court went on to affirm the dismissal of plaintiffs' free speech, free exercise of religion and vagueness challenges. Bloomberg Law reports on the decision.

New York's Hateful Conduct Law Violates 1st Amendment

 In Volokh v. James, (SD NY, Feb. 14, 2023), a New York federal district court issued a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of New York's Hateful Conduct Law against social media platforms that are plaintiffs in the case. The court found that plaintiffs were likely to succeed in both their facial and their "as applied" free speech challenges. The law defines hateful conduct as:

the use of a social media network to vilify, humiliate, or incite violence against a group or a class of persons on the basis of race, color, religion, ethnicity, national origin, disability, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression.

It goes on to provide:

 A social media network that conducts business in the state, shall provide and maintain a clear and easily accessible mechanism for individual users to report incidents of hateful conduct. Such mechanism shall be clearly accessible to users of such network and easily accessed from both a social media networks' application and website, and shall allow the social media network to provide a direct response to any individual reporting hateful conduct informing them of how the matter is being handled.

Each social media network shall have a clear and concise policy readily available and accessible on their website and application which includes how such social media network will respond and address the reports of incidents of hateful conduct on their platform.

The court concluded in part:

The Hateful Conduct Law both compels social media networks to speak about the contours of hate speech and chills the constitutionally protected speech of social media users, without articulating a compelling governmental interest or ensuring that the law is narrowly tailored to that goal....

[T]he law requires that social media networks devise and implement a written policy—i.e., speech....

Similarly, the Hateful Conduct Law requires a social media network to endorse the state’s message about “hateful conduct”.... To be in compliance ..., a social media network must make a “concise policy readily available and accessible on their website and application” detailing how the network will “respond and address the reports of incidents of hateful conduct on their platform.”... Implicit in this language is that each social media network’s definition of “hateful conduct” must be at least as inclusive as the definition set forth in the law itself....

[Thanks to Volokh Conspiracy for the lead.]

Bishop Must Testify in Divorce Case with Millions of Dollars at Stake

L.M. v. M.A., (NY County Sup. Ct., Feb. 6, 2023), is a decision by a New York state trial court refusing to quash a subpoena that orders a Coptic Orthodox Church Bishop to testify in a divorce action.  At issue is whether the parties to the divorce action were ever married. If they were, the wife may share in millions of dollars of assets in her claims for equitable distribution of marital property and spousal support. The court explains:

The parties here disagree about whether they were married in 2017, with plaintiff stating that they were married, and defendant stating that the Bishop "blessed" their relationship, but did not marry them. The parties agree that their infant son was baptized, as planned.... The parties also agree that Plaintiff mother L.M., who had previously been baptized by another church ... was then baptized in front of many witnesses in the church in an unplanned ceremony immediately following the child's baptism. What occurred next is the crux of the parties' dispute. Defendant father M.A. asserts that the Bishop, the subject of the instant subpoena, who had conducted the two baptisms, then proceeded to perform a family blessing. Plaintiff mother, on the other hand, claims that the Bishop offered to marry the parties ... and that he then performed the parties' previously unplanned wedding ceremony....  The Bishop performed the ceremonies in a combination of the English, Arabic and Coptic languages and most of the guests, all of whom had only been invited to the child's baptism, were not sure whether or not the final ceremony was a marriage ceremony....

As the Bishop has refused to testify as to which ceremony he performed, allegedly because his religious conviction prevents him from testifying in a civil action involving church members, and the parties and their witnesses have testified to diametrically conflicting views as to which ceremony took place, the Court and the parties have all asked the Bishop to testify. Defendant served a valid subpoena upon the Bishop and the Bishop ... has moved to quash the subpoena, stating through counsel and an affidavit from a Coptic theologian, that it is contrary to the tenets of the religion for the Bishop to testify in civilian court "brother against brother."

The court however refused to quash the subpoena, saying in part:

[T]he Court does not have a sufficient factual basis to find that either (i) Bishop A.B. personally has a religious belief that he cannot come into a civilian court to testify "brother against brother," or that (ii) even if he had such a belief, that it is applicable here, where he is not being asked to testify against a co-religionist but instead to describe a public factual event, and both parties (the only people who could plausibly be considered to be a person "against" whom he is testifying) are instead asking him to testify about those facts.....

In a lengthy discussion, the court went on to say that even if this did pose a 1st Amendment issue, there was no violation here.

Chabad's Long-Running Suit Over Land Use Dismissed In Part

In Lubavitch of Old Westbury, Inc. v. Incorporated Village of Old Westbury, New York, (ED NY, Jan. 31, 2023), a New York federal magistrate judge recommended that the district court dismiss on various procedural and jurisdictional grounds (including statute of limitations) a number of the claims in a long-running suit by an Orthodox Jewish Chabad organization that has been unable to obtain permission to use some seven acres of property for religious education, worship and related activities. The magistrate judge began his lengthy Report and Recommendation as follows:

Presently before the Court is a motion to partially dismiss this action, which has been pending for more than fourteen years and involves factual allegations going back to 1994. In the years since the initial complaint was filed on December 17, 2008, this case has been assigned (and then reassigned) to four District Judges ... and four Magistrate Judges.... Furthermore, numerous law firms and attorneys have come and gone on behalf of the parties over this lengthy time span. As a reminder to the parties, they have an affirmative obligation under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ("Rule") 1 "to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding."...

A 237-page Second Amended Complaint in the case asserted 17 causes of action under the 1st, 4th, 5th and 14th Amendments, RLUIPA and the state Constitution.

Federal Reserve Bank Can Be Sued Under Both Title VII and RFRA

In Gardner-Alfred v. Federal Reserve Bank of New York, (SD NY, Jan. 18, 2023), a New York federal district court held that two former employees of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York may bring Title VII as well as RFRA and Free Exercise claims against FRBNY for denying them a religious exemption from the Bank's COVID vaccine mandate. It distinguished cases holding that other governmental entities can be sued only under Title VII. It held however that New York City and New York state anti-discrimination laws are pre-empted by federal law giving NYFRB the power to dismiss employees.

NY Governor Vetoes Bill on Notifying Defendants of Right to Secular 12-Step Programs

On Dec. 23, New York Governor Kathy Hochul vetoed New York Senate Bill 7313A which would have required courts, in imposing alcohol or substance abuse treatment on a defendant, to inquire if the defendant has religious objections to the program, and if the defendant does, to identify an alternative nonreligious treatment program for the defendant.  As reported by Only Sky, the veto was met with substantial criticism.  In her Veto Memo, Governor Hochul explained her veto in part as follows:

While I support the right to a substance use treatment program that will be most effective, codifying the right to object to mandated attendance at a religious substance use treatment program sets an uncomfortable precedent in that it may invite future selective legislative efforts to inject a similar burden upon judges to inform litigants of their rights to opt out of other court mandates. This process may raise questions whether litigants enjoy rights to opt out of other mandates on religious grounds where the underlying statutes have not been amended to codify those rights. Given that defendants already have the right to request nonreligious treatment, this bill is unnecessary and imposes an overly rigid burden on courts and judges.

Jewish Congregation Sues for Return of Deeds To 5000 Burial Plots

 An unusual suit was filed this week in a New York state trial court by a Bukharian Jewish religious organization which is seeking to recover nearly 5,000 burial plot deeds that the organization says belong to it. The complaint (full text) in Bukharian Jewish Community Center v. Nektalova, (NY County Sup. Ct., filed 12/6/2022) alleges that United Bukharian Congregation holds cemetery documents in trust for members of the Bukharian Jewish community in New York. One of its members, 92-year old Roman Nektalov, was in charge of providing the relevant deeds to cemeteries and families when funerals of members were being arranged.  During COVID, Nektalov took the deeds to his home so he could distribute them from there. A domestic dispute arose between Nektalov and his wife. His wife obtained a protective order which prevents Nektalov from accessing the deeds in his home. She later filed for divorce and refuses to turn the deeds over to the religious organizations, claiming that they are marital property. The Jewish organizations ask the court to hold that they are the rightful owners of the deeds, and to order them turned over to them or to a receiver. AMNY reports on the lawsuit. [Names in post corrected]

Suit By Law Prof and Internet Site Challenges NY Statute on Online Hate Speech

 In May, the New York legislature enacted A7685-A requiring social media networks to provide a means for its users to report postings which vilify, humiliate or incite violence group on the basis of race, color, religion, ethnicity, national origin, disability, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression.  They must also have a policy on responding to and addressing such postings.  Yesterday-- two days before the law is to go into effect-- suit was filed in a New York federal district court by law professor and blogger Eugene Volokh and the social media platform Rumble challenging the law on free speech as well as overbreadth and vagueness grounds. The complaint (full text) in Volokh v. James, (SD NY, filed 12/1/2022), alleges in part:

New York cannot justify such a sweeping regulation of protected speech. The Online Hate Speech Law violates the First Amendment because it burdens the publication of speech based on its viewpoint, unconstitutionally compels speech, and is overbroad. It is also vague in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment....and preempted by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Given well-settled Supreme Court precedent, the New York’s law must be enjoined and struck down.

Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

New York Governor Announces Steps to Combat Hate Crimes

Earlier this week, New York Governor Kathy Hochul announced a number of steps to combat hate crimes. On Nov. 22, the Governor signed A1202 (full text) which makes mandatory rather than just permissive the requirement that sentences for hate crimes include an appropriate program, training session, or counseling session directed at hate crime prevention and education. She also signed A5913A (full text) which requires the state Division of Human Rights to develop and implement a campaign to promote acceptance, inclusion and tolerance of the state's diverse population with the purpose of combatting bias, hatred and discrimination based on religion, race, color, creed, sex, ethnicity, national origin, age, disability, sexual orientation, and gender identity or expression. She also announced plans for a Unity Summit and emphasized grant funding available to strengthen safety measures to protect against hate crimes.

NY Child Victim Act Revives Claim Even Though Prior Order of Dismissal Did Not Specify Statute of Limitations Grounds

In D.P. v. Riverside Church in the City of New York, (NY Cnty. Sup. Ct., Nov. 14, 2022), a New York state trial court refused to dismiss on res judicata grounds a suit against Riverside Church alleging abuse of a teenage player by the founder of a Harlem basketball program sponsored by the church. A federal court lawsuit making similar allegations was dismissed in 2008 after plaintiff filed a stipulation of dismissal.  While the federal court's order of dismissal did not state the grounds for dismissal, plaintiff in this case filed an affidavit saying that the rationale was the statute of limitations.  The New York state court held that since the Child Victim Act revived causes of action that had previously been dismissed on limitations grounds, it would allow plaintiff to move ahead with the suit, saying in part:

As the Federal case was discontinued in 2008 and makes no mention as to why same occurred this court must give every deference to the party seeking an opportunity to proceed with this case under the CVA on the merits.

2nd Circuit Remands Challenge to Emergency Ban of Unvaccinated Children from Public Places

In M.A. v Rockland County Department of Health, (2d Cir., Nov. 9, 2022), the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals sent back to the trial court a free exercise challenge to Rockland County, New York's Emergency Declaration barring children who were not vaccinated against measles from places of public assembly.  Children with medical exemptions were exempt from the ban. The court said in part:

Because there are factual issues relevant to whether the Emergency Declaration was neutral and generally applicable, the district court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Defendants on Plaintiffs’ claim that the Emergency Declaration violated their rights under the Free Exercise Clause. While a reasonable juror could conclude that [County Executive] Day’s statements evinced religious animus, rendering the Declaration not neutral, a reasonable juror could also conclude the opposite. Similarly, there are disputes of fact regarding whether the Declaration, in practice, primarily affected children of religious objectors or whether there was a sizable population of children who were unvaccinated for a variety of non-medical and non-religious reasons. There are also disputes as to whether the County’s purpose in issuing the Declaration was to stop the spread of measles or to encourage vaccination. Given these fact-intensive issues, the district court’s grant of summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ Free Exercise Claim was erroneous.

Judge Park filed a concurring opinion, saying in part:

In the spring of 2019, Rockland County quarantined children who were unvaccinated for measles for religious reasons— prohibiting them from entering any public place—but not children who were unvaccinated with medical exemptions. County officials did not even try to hide their reasons for engaging in this “religious gerrymander[ing],” which served to isolate, target, and burden Plaintiffs’ religious practices.... To them, Plaintiffs were “anti-vaxxers” who were “loud, very vocal, [and] also very ignorant.”...

Court Upholds NY Law Banning Bars from Opening on New Year's When It Falls on Sunday

In Eris Evolution, LLC v. Bradley, (ED NY, Nov. 8, 2022), a New York federal district court rejected an Establishment Clause challenge to a provision in New York's liquor laws that allows bars to apply for permits to stay open all night on New Year's except when New Year's falls on a Sunday. The court concluded that the U.S. Supreme Court's 1961 decision in McGowan v. Maryland upholding Sunday closing laws forecloses plaintiff's claim.  The court said in part:

McGowan holds that a law with a secular purpose does not violate the Establishment Clause; it does not hold that providing a uniform day of rest is the only such purpose. Indeed, the Supreme Court enumerated the exceedingly broad categories of “health, safety, recreation and general well-being.” ... The only available legislative history states that the law at issue was amended in 1950 “to protect the health of the people.”...

Eris must do more than show that the law is irrational; it must also show that its real purpose is to advance a particular religion or religion in general. This it has failed to do.

Suit Challenges New York Ban on Firearms in Houses of Worship

Suit was filed this week in a New York federal district court challenging the constitutionality of New York's ban on carrying firearms in houses of worship. The complaint (full text) in His Tabernacle Family Church, Inc. v. Nigrelli, (WD NY, filed 11/3/2022) alleges that the ban violates the free exercise, Establishment Clause, Second Amendment, and equal protection rights of a church and its pastor.  The complaint says in part:

S51001 forbids Pastor Spencer and the Church’s members, under threat of criminal penalties, from exercising their religious conviction to carry firearms into the Church to protect themselves and other congregants.....

[S51101]  subjects houses of worship to disfavored treatment while treating comparable secular organizations, such as retail stores or restaurants, more favorably than those offering religious exercise....

A church’s authority over who may enter the sanctuary and under what circumstances lies at the very heart of “the general principle of church autonomy” protected by the Establishment Clause.....

First Liberty issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit. Last month, in another case, the same court issued a temporary restraining order barring enforcement of this statutory provision. (See prior posting.)