6th Circuit Upholds Same-Sex Marriage Bans

In DeBoer v. Snyder, (6th Circuit, Nov. 6, 2014), in a 2-1 decision, the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals today became the first federal circuit court to uphold state bans on same-sex marriage and on recognition of same sex-marriages performed elsewhere.  Departing from decisions by the Fourth, Seventh, Ninth and Tenth Circuits, the court upheld state statutory and constitutional provisions from Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky and Tennessee. Judge Sutton, writing for the majority, summarized his approach:

What remains is a debate about whether to allow the democratic processes begun in the States to continue in the four States of the Sixth Circuit or to end them now by requiring all States in the Circuit to extend the definition of marriage to encompass gay couples. Process and structure matter greatly in American government. Indeed, they may be the most reliable, liberty assuring guarantees of our system of government, requiring us to take seriously the route the United States Constitution contemplates for making such a fundamental change to such a fundamental social institution.

Judge Daughtry dissenting said in part:

In the main, the majority treats both the issues and the litigants here as mere abstractions.  Instead of recognizing the plaintiffs as persons, suffering actual harm as a result of being denied the right to marry where they reside or the right to have their valid marriages recognized there, my colleagues view the plaintiffs as social activists who have somehow stumbled into federal court, inadvisably, when they should be out campaigning to win “the hearts and minds” of Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee voters to their cause. But these plaintiffs are not political zealots trying to push reform on their fellow citizens; they are committed same-sex couples, many of them heading up de facto families, who want to achieve equal status....

SCOTUSblog reporting on the 6th Circuit's decision speculated that the split among circuits that it creates is likely to lead to Supreme Court review unless en banc review from the 6th Circuit is sought and granted.

Ohio Gubernatorial Candidates Take Different Approaches To Public Religious Expression

Yesterday's Columbus Dispatch explores the difference in the public expression of religion by Ohio's two gubernatorial candidates:

Gov. John Kasich doesn’t hide his religious convictions, talking about them frequently in speeches and at other public gatherings.

Ed FitzGerald holds religious values but rarely talks about them.

Although they espouse many of the same principles, the contrast in how Ohio’s gubernatorial candidates apply their Christianity to their public life and policies is stark.

While Democrat FitzGerald, the Cuyahoga County executive, favors abortion rights and supports same-sex marriage as public policy, the lifelong Catholic won’t say how he feels about those issues personally....

Kasich, a Republican who was raised Catholic but became a Protestant after his parents were killed by a drunken driver in 1987, cites God regularly in public, such as in justifying the building of a Holocaust Memorial on the Statehouse grounds, expanding Medicaid to more than a quarter-million Ohioans, in graduation speeches, in his State of the State addresses and even during an event launching a campaign to prevent the elderly from falling....

Ohio Enacts Released Time Program, Effective In September

This weekend, the Cleveland Plain Dealer carried op-ed columns supporting and opposing Ohio House Bill 171 (full text) which was signed into law by the governor last month. (Legis. status report.) The law, which will go into effect in September, allows school districts to approve "released time" programs during which students can be excused from school to attend a program of religious instruction elsewhere. High school students can earn up to two units of course credit for participation in a released time offering.  No public funds or school personnel may be used in the religious instruction.

Suit Challenges Ohio's Refusal To Allow Same-Sex Marriages

In the wake of a federal district court ruling two weeks ago that Ohio's refusal to recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere is unconstitutional (see prior posting), a new federal lawsuit was filed yesterday challenging Ohio's ban on issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples who wish to wed in Ohio.  The complaint (full text) in Gibson v. Himes, (SD OH, filed 4/30/2014), contends:

Ohio Rev. Code § 3101.01 and OH Const. Art. XV, §11 violate fundamental liberties that are protected by the Freedom of Association Clause of the First Amendment, and the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment on their face.

Cincinnati Enquirer reports on the filing of the lawsuit.

Christian School's RLUIPA, Constitutional Challenges To Zoning Denials Are Rejected

In Tree of Life Christian Schools v. City of Upper Arlington, (SD OH, April 18, 2014), an Ohio federal district court dismissed a Christian school's challenge to an Ohio city's refusal to issue a conditional use permit or to rezone for use as a school an existing office building in an area zoned for offices and research facilities. In dismissing the school's claim that the refusal violates RLUIPA's "equal terms" provision, the court held that "the proper comparator for a religious school is a non-religious or secular school." The court also rejected the school's 1st and 14th Amendment challenges to the zoning decision.

Ohio's Ban On Recognizing Same-Sex Marriages From Elsewhere Invalidated, But Most of Order Stayed Pending Appeal

In Henry v. Himes, (SD OH, April 14, 2014), an Ohio federal district court held that Ohio's bans on recognizing same-sex marriages validly performed in other jurisdictions are "facially unconstitutional and unenforceable under any circumstances." Legal Times reports on the decision. Judge Black had announced earlier this month that this ruling was coming. In a follow-up opinion today (full text) the court stayed its broad ruling on facial unconstitutionality  while the case is appealed  However the court refused to stay the order as to the "as applied" claims of the four same-sex couples who brought the lawsuit. Judge Black ordered the state to issue birth certificates for these Plaintiffs’ children which list both lawfully married same-sex spouses as parents.

Federal Judge Announces He Will Strike Down Ohio's Refusal To Recognize Same-Sex Marriages From Elsewhere

The Cleveland Plain Dealer reports that at a Friday hearing in a Cincinnati, Ohio federal district court in Henry v. Wymyslo, Judge Timothy Black announced:

I intend to issue a written decision and order by April 14 striking down as unconstitutional under all circumstances Ohio’s bans on recognizing legal same-sex marriages from other states.

The advance announcement gives the state time to prepare an appeal that can be filed immediately after the ruling.  A spokesman for Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine says that an appeal is planned. The lawsuit was filed by four same-sex married couples and originally sought narrower relief-- an order requiring the  names both same-sex spouses to be entered on the birth certificates of their children. (full text of complaint in Henry v. Wymyslo, (SD OH, filed 2/10/2014).

Suit Challenging Ohio's Refusal to Recognize Same-Sex Marriage Dropped When Couple Gets Family Health Insurance Policy

AP reports that a gay couple in Cleveland on Friday voluntarily dismissed a lawsuit they had filed last month challenging Ohio's refusal to recognize same-sex marriages.  Al Cowger Jr. and Tony Wesley Jr., who were married in New York state in 2012, sued when they were unable to obtain family health insurance coverage for themselves and their adopted daughter through the federal health insurance marketplace. They were initially told that a family policy was not available because Ohio does not recognize their marriage.  However this week they were finally able to obtain a family policy through the Healthcare.gov website. On March 14, the Department of Health and Human Services told insurance companies that starting next year, if they offer policies to opposite-sex spouses, they cannot choose to deny coverage to same-sex spouses.

Ministerial Exception and Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrines Require Dismissal of Suit By Former Catholic Cemetery Employee

In Fisher v. Archdiocese of Cincinnati, (OH App., March 14, 2014), an Ohio state appellate court dismissed a suit by Vickie Fisher, the former co-director of a Catholic cemetery, whose job was eliminated by a new cemetery executive director. In her suit, Fisher alleged age discrimination, promissory estoppel, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.  The court held that the ministerial exception doctrine applies to require dismissal:

Fisher was responsible for coordinating services in the chapel, working with grieving families, coordinating services with various parishes, and attending grave-site services. She interacted with clergy on a daily basis, and employed her status as a person “of the faith” to console grieving families. Fisher conducted these duties in a liturgical setting replete with religious statuary, photographs of the Pope and Archbishop, and a dispensary for Rosaries. 

Fisher also underwent multi-year, doctrine-specific training at a Jesuit Catholic University to better perform her job. She was involved in the preparation and performance of religious rituals. As codirector of the cemetery, she served in an indisputable leadership position, acting as the face of the Catholic Church to thousands of grieving families. And like the plaintiff in Hosanna-Tabor, she saw herself as part of a larger ministry.

To the extent that the ministerial exception doctrine does not apply to Fisher's common law claims, the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine does: "Fisher’s claims would invariably interject this court into the Archdiocese’s internal affairs."

Judge DeWine concurred separately to urge that the court need not go beyond the ministerial exception doctrine to dismiss the lawsuit.

Suit Claims Disorientation From Religious Fast Treated As Mental Illness

Courthouse News Service reports this week on a lawsuit filed in Common Pleas Court in Cleveland, Ohio by a Pentecostal Christian "self-published spiritual author" who claims she was involuntarily committed to a hospital psychiatric ward when she became confused and disoriented on the 15th day of a "Biblical fast." She has sued the hospital and a doctor, claiming that he and the hospital staff "characterized [her] religious devotion as evidence of mental instability, making repeated references to her 'religious preoccupation' and noting [her] Bible reading and audible praying as evidence [of] mental illness." She seeks punitive damages for false arrest and violation of patient rights. The case is Doe v. St. Vincent Charity Medical Center, (filed 3/10/2014).

Suit Asks Ohio To Recognize Same-Sex Marriages On Birth Certificates

A suit was filed by three couples on Monday in an Ohio federal district court to require state officials to recognize same-sex marriages validly performed elsewhere when issuing birth certificates. The complaint (full text) in Henry v. Wymyslo, (SD OH, filed 2/10/2014) alleges that state and local health department officials will permit only one parent from married same-sex couples to be listed on the birth certificate of their children. It continues:

Plaintiffs challenge this unequal treatment as unconstitutional. These same Defendants were recently ordered to recognize valid out-of state marriages between same-sex couples on death certificates..... The reasoning from that case compels recognition of same-sex marriages on birth certificates.

Cincinnati Enquirer reports on the filing of the lawsuit.

Ohio Supreme Court Over 3 Dissents Refuses To Reconsider Science Teacher's Firing

In November, the Ohio Supreme Court, in a 4-3 decision, upheld the firing of middle school science teacher John Freshwater for insubordination in failing to comply with orders to remove religious materials from his classroom. (See prior posting.) On Wednesday, the Ohio Supreme Court denied a motion for reconsideration, but the same 3 justices who dissented originally also dissented from the refusal to reconsider. In Freshwater v. Mt. Vernon School District Board of Education, (OH Sup. Ct., Jan. 22, 2014), Justice O'Donnell filed a dissenting  opinion (joined by Justices Pfeifer and Kennedy) saying: "This case now stands as a basis for school boards to violate the constitutional rights of veteran teachers and to terminate them for insignificant reasons."

Ohio Must Recognize Same-Sex Spouses On Death Certificates

In Obergefell v. Wymyslo, (SD OH, Dec. 23, 2013), an Ohio federal district court today in a 50-page opinion held that despite its statutory and constitutional provisions to the contrary, Ohio must recognize same-sex marriages that were validly performed in other states for purposes of indicating on an Ohio death certificate the deceased's marital status and the identity of the surviving spouse. The court said in part:

... [U]nder the Constitution of the United States, Ohio must recognize valid out-of-state marriages between same-sex couples on Ohio death certificates, just as Ohio recognizes all other out-of-state marriages, if valid in the state performed, and even if not authorized nor validly performed under Ohio law, such as marriages between first cousins, marriages of certain minors, and common law marriages. 

That is, once you get married lawfully in one state, another state cannot summarily take your marriage away, because the right to remain married is properly recognized as a fundamental liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution. U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1.

Moreover, as this Court held in its initial Orders this summer and reaffirms today, by treating lawful same-sex marriages differently than it treats lawful opposite sex marriages (e.g., marriages of first cousins, marriages of certain minors, and common law marriages), Ohio law, as applied to these Plaintiffs, violates the United States Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection.... 

The court's decision does not invalidate Ohio's refusal to issue marriage licenses for same-sex marriages in the state.  The court says that there is a possibility the state's concerns about same-sex marriage are more compelling in the context of marriage creation than in the context of marriage recognition. Reporting on today's opinion, AP says that Ohio will appeal the decision.

Split Ohio Supreme Court Upholds Firing Of Science Teacher For Refusing To Remove Religious Materials

In a 4-3 decision today, the Ohio Supreme Court upheld the firing of middle school science teacher John Freshwater for insubordination in failing to comply with orders to remove religious materials from his classroom.  In Freshwater v. Mount Vernon City School District Board of Education, (OH Sup. Ct., Nov. 19, 2013), Chief Justice O'Connor in an opinion joined by Justices French and O'Neill held that the school improperly ordered Freshwater to remove his personal Bible from his desk. The order infringed Freshwater's free exercise rights; the Bible posed no threat of an Establishment Clause violation because Freshwater did not use it while teaching.  However, Freshwater was properly removed for insubordination in failing to comply with orders to remove other religious materials from his classroom.  The Chief Justice added:

Accordingly, based on our  resolution of this threshold issue, we need not reach the constitutional issue of  whether Freshwater impermissibly imposed his religious beliefs in his classroom.

Justice Lanzinger wrote a separate opinion joining only the court's syllabus in the case, saying:

I would hold that the school district’s order that John Freshwater put away his personal Bible while students were present was a reasonable and valid attempt to avoid an Establishment Clause violation. That order did not infringe on Freshwater’s free speech rights, for he was not required to remove the Bible from the classroom—merely putting the book into a desk drawer during class time would have sufficed.

Justice Pfeifer, in a rather blistering dissent, argued that the core of the insubordination charges against Freshwater involved his refusal to remove his personal Bible. Pfeifer agreed with the lead opinion that the order to remove it was improper but disagreed on the handling of the remaining insubordination charges:

With the insubordination claim gutted, the lead opinion should have moved on to consider the constitutional issues remaining in the case. Instead, the majority walks away from the opportunity to provide helpful guidance....

Thus concludes the sorry saga of John Freshwater, excellent junior-high science teacher, terminated as a result of an extreme overreaction of the parents of a decent student, followed by even less informed and measured responses by Mount Vernon school administrators and the school board.... [T]hey have managed to divide a really nice community and cost the school board and/or its insurance providers well over a million dollars to free itself of a very good teacher. And the people they did it for left town. 

There is a clear set of winners today: the lawyers.... They have told themselves that they are participating in the evolved version of the Scopes trial, when in reality they have created a modern Jarndyce and Jarndyce.... 

This court accepted jurisdiction in this case presumably to speak to the important issues of the Establishment Clause, academic freedom, and how schools may approach educating children about the scientific theories of evolution, which may directly clash with religious teachings of creation to which many children have been exposed at home and at church. Instead this court ... [leaves] the resolution of all these heady matters in the hands of a lone referee. Ironically, the lead opinion in this case proves the existence of God. Apparently, he’s an R.C. 3319.16 referee from Shelby.

Justice O'Donnell also filed a dissenting opinion, which was joined by Justices Pfeiffer and Kennedy. He argued that there was insufficient evidence to support the insubordination claim, and that Freshwater was improperly charged with injecting his personal religious beliefs into his teaching:

[T]he evidence in this case reveals that the school board has misinterpreted Freshwater’s effort to challenge students to think critically about evolutionary theory and instead construed his instruction as promoting intelligent design from a creationist perspective. This is a misimpression and contrary to the evidence in this case, and it is not a basis to terminate the contract of a teacher. 

The school board ... apparently assumed that he could not fairly present lessons on evolution and stated that he “not only injected his subjective, biased, Christian religion based, non-scientific opinion into the instruction of eighth grade science students but also gave those students reason to doubt the accuracy and or veracity of scientists, science textbooks, and/or science in general.” Yet student scores on standardized tests stand as strong, persuasive evidence of the board’s faulty conclusion; those scores instead reveal that Freshwater did teach evolution as mandated by the curriculum. Moreover, teaching students to question and rethink accepted scientific theories is essential to their understanding of the scientific method, the key concept his science students learned in eighth grade.

The Supreme Court also issued a lengthy press release on the decision, and the Columbus Dispatch reports on the decision.