Oregon State Law Overrides County Limit On Zoning For Mosque

 In Tarr v. Multnomah County, (OR App., Aug. 19, 2020), an Oregon state appellate court held that a state statute governing zoning for houses of worship prevents a county from applying a "compatibility standard" that appears in the county zoning code.  In a suit by individuals living next door to property on which it is proposed to build a mosque, the court concluded that the county code's requirement that a community service use be "consistent  with  the  character  of  the  area" cannot be invoked to prevent construction of the mosque.  The court said in part:

the  plain  terms  of  ORS  215.441(1)  and  (2),  in context, leave no room for the application of the county’s compatibility  standard—or  standards  like  it—to  proposed  religious  land  uses  where,  as  here,  a  place  of  worship  is  allowed  on  a  particular  piece  of  real  property  under  state  law  and  county  zoning  laws.

Churches Challenge Oregon's COVID-19 Limits

Suit was filed yesterday in an Oregon federal district court challenging Oregon Governor Katherine Brown's COVID-19 order that limits the size of worship services.  The complaint (full text) in Edgewater Christian Fellowship v. Brown, (D OR, filed 5/26/20), alleges in part:

1. In Douglas County Oregon, Pastor Miller may be jailed for going to church with twenty-five other people on a Sunday morning, but can join those same people and more at a dine-in restaurant for Sunday lunch with no penalty. This is irrational and unconstitutional.

2. Under Governor Brown’s Executive Order 20-25 (the “Religious Assembly Ban”) Oregonians in Josephine County may workout in a gym or participate in fitness classes in spaces up to max capacity with social distancing, but if they hold or attend a religious service with twenty-six people observing social distancing in the very same room (even one with capacity to seat over 1000) they are subject to a $1,250 fine and jail time of up to thirty days.

3. Under the Religious Assembly Ban, a church auditorium could host a gym class of any size with social distancing, but the same auditorium is limited to twenty-five people for church services.

ADF issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit. (See prior related posting.)

Oregon Trial Court Enjoins Enforcement of State's COVID-19 Orders In Suit By Churches

In Elkhorn Baptist Church v. Brown, (OR Cir. Ct., May 18. 2020), an Oregon state trial court granted a preliminary injunction against further enforcement of the governor's COVID-19 emergency orders in a suit brought by 16 churches and a number of other plaintiffs who complain that the order prevents them from holding church services.  The court held that under the relevant legislation invoked by the governor, a state of emergency could be declared only for up to 28 days.

[W]hen the Governor utilized the provisions of ORS 433.441 in her executive order, she triggered all the provisions of ORS 433.441 including the time restrictions in ORS 433.441(5). By doing so, the executive order became null and void beyond the maximum 28-day time period allowed by the statute. Moreover, by not complying with ORS 433.441(5) timelines, the Governor’s subsequent Executive Orders 20—05 through 20-25 are also null and void....

The Governor has an enormous responsibility to protect the lives of the citizens of our state balanced against the citizens’ constitutional rights to freedom of religion which includes how he or she chooses to worship. The Governor’s orders are not required for public safety when Plaintiffs can continue to utilize social distancing and safety protocols at larger gatherings involving spiritual worship, just as grocery stores and businesses deemed essential by the Governor have been authorized to do.

Reporting on the decision, The Oregonian says that the governor's office has filed an appeal with the Oregon Supreme Court.

UPDATE: According to a statement on Twitter by Governor Brown, late last night the Oregon Supreme Court reinstated her emergency orders while the state Supreme Court hears arguments in the appeal.

Suit Against Community College Challenges Campus Speech Restrictions

Suit was filed in an Oregon federal district court last week by a pro-life group and two Christian students challenging a community college's policies that require advance approval for speech activities on campus as well as limiting speeches and leafleting to certain speech zones.The complaint (full text) in Chemeketa Students for Life v. Members of the Chemketa Board of Education, (D OR, filed 5/5/2020) challenges the school's policies on free speech and vagueness grounds. ADF issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Judge May No Deduct Litigation Expenses Borne By His Legal Defense Fund

As previously reported, in 2018 the Oregon Supreme Court suspended state circuit court judge Vance D. Day from his judicial office for three years without pay. The suspension was based in part on Judge Day's refusal to solemnize same-sex marriages.  Now in Vance v. Department of Revenue, (OR Tax Ct., March 13, 2020), the Oregon Tax Court held that Day improperly claimed as a deduction on his state income tax $128,000 in legal fees paid on his behalf by his legal defense fund.

9th Circuit OK's School's Policy On Transgender Students

In Parents for Privacy v. Barr, (9th Cir., Feb. 12, 2020) the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld an Oregon school district's policy of allowing transgender students to use school bathrooms, locker rooms and showers that correspond to their gender identity. The court issued a summary along with its full opinion, saying in part:

 [T]here is no Fourteenth Amendment fundamental privacy right to avoid all risk of intimate exposure to or by a transgender person who was assigned the opposite biological sex at birth.....  [T]he Student Safety Plan provided alternative options and privacy protections to those who did not want to share facilities with a transgender student, even though those alternative options admittedly appeared inferior and less convenient....

... [T]the Fourteenth Amendment does not provide a fundamental parental right to determine the bathroom policies of the public schools to which parents may send their children, either independent of the parental right to direct the upbringing and education of their children or encompassed by it.

Wife of Sex Offender Sues Church For Reporting Confessed Abuse

The Salem (OR) Statesman Journal reports on a suit filed recently in an Oregon state trial court by the wife of convicted sex offender Timothy Johnson. She claims that leaders of the Turner, Oregon Latter Day Saints congregation breached their duty to her husband in reporting his confessed sex abuse to authorities. According to the report, Johnson followed church doctrine by confessing and repenting his sins in front of clergy and the church court:

The clergy portrayed that such a confession and repentance was dictated by church doctrine, and church doctrine required strict confidence of such confessions, according to the lawsuit.....

But what leaders failed to advise Johnson of is that if he confessed to the abuse, they would report his actions to local law enforcement, according to the lawsuit. 

The lawsuit filed in Oregon singled out a man who served as a counselor to Johnson's bishop, claiming the church failed to properly supervise him and train him of his obligations as a member of the clergy.

The suit seeks damages of $9.5 million on behalf of Johnson's wife and four children.

State Senator's Threats Were Not Religious Speech

In Boquist v. Oregon State Senate President Peter Courtney, (D OR, Jan. 7, 2020), an Oregon federal district court rejected claims by Oregon state senator Brian Boquist that his constitutional rights, including his 1st Amendment rights, were violated when state Senate leaders imposed a requirement that he give 12-hours notice before entering the Capitol building. The notice requirement was imposed in reaction to statements made by Boquist that others saw as threatening.  All of this occurred during a political battle in which Republican senators left the Capitol in order to prevent a quorum from being present in the Senate, and the governor ordered state police to arrest them and bring them back. Rejecting Boquist's 1st Amendment claims, the court said in part:

While both sides can point fingers and complain that the other is overreacting to a political situation, Plaintiff’s chosen words on the Senate floor were those of a bully on the playground. As such, they are unprotected fighting words. See Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568, 572 (1942).... Remarkably, Plaintiff argues that his statement to Defendant Courtney— “if you send the [S]tate [P]olice to get me, Hell’s coming to visit you personally”—was a statement of religious expression.... But here, Plaintiff seems to overlook the fact that he sounds more like a character out of a Clint Eastwood movie than he does Mother Theresa.... Plaintiff made this statement in anticipation of his potential arrest, not during a religious discussion. Plaintiff also said that if the State Police were to arrest him, they should “send bachelors and come heavily armed.”... These statements, apart and together, resonate more as threats than the expression of theological ideas.

The Oregonian reports on the decision.

Misunderstanding of RFRA Not A Defense To Willful Failure To File Tax Returns

The Oregonian reports that an Oregon federal district court yesterday found a tax protester guilty on four counts of willful failure to file tax returns.  The verdict came in a second trial on stipulated facts after defendant's first trial ended in a hung jury. The court ruled that while a good faith misunderstanding of the tax law is a defense to "willfulness", that defense was unavailable here. As reported by The Oregonian:

Bowman’s lawyer had argued during Bowman’s jury trial that Bowman’s reliance on another federal law, the Religious Freedom [Restoration] Act, led to his "good faith’' misunderstanding of his obligations under the federal tax code. The judge threw out that defense before Bowman’s second trial, ruling that any "good faith'' misunderstanding had to be of the tax code itself, not another law.

The court's ruling was presumably based on its reading of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Cheek v. United States (1991).  An appeal of the conviction is planned.

Hung Jury In Pro-Life Tax Objector's Trial

KGW8 News reports that the federal court trial of an Oregon man, Michael Bowman, on misdemeanor charges of willful failure to file a tax return has ended in a mistrial.  Bowman has not filed a return since 1999 because he refuses to have any of his funds go toward funding abortions. Charges were filed against him in 2017. Bowman argues that the 1st Amendment, RFRA and the Oregon Constitution protect his decision on religious grounds to refuse to pay taxes. A jury could not reach a verdict after 11 hours of deliberation.

Supreme Court Vacates and Remands Same-Sex Wedding Cake Case

The U.S. Supreme Court today granted certiorari, vacated the judgment of the Oregon Court of Appeals and remanded for further consideration the case of Klein v. Bureau of Labor & Industries, (Docket No. 18-547, 6/17/2019). (Order List). In the case, the Oregon Court of Appeals agreed with the state Bureau of Labor and Industries that Sweetcakes bakery violated the state's public accommodation law when it refused to design and create a wedding cake for a same-sex wedding. (See prior posting.)  The Supreme Court ordered reconsideration in light of its decision in Masterpiece Cakeshop last year.

Christian School May Use Oregon's Religious Exemption To Reject Jewish Faculty Applicant

In King v. Warner Pacific College, (OR App, Feb. 21, 2019), an Oregon state appellate court held that a Christian college's refusal to hire a Jewish applicant for a position as adjunct professor of psychology falls within the religious preference exemption to Oregon's non-discrimination law.  ORS 659A.006(4)provides:

It is not an unlawful employment practice for a bona fide ... religious institution, including ... a school... to prefer an employee, or an applicant for employment, of one religious sect or persuasion over another if:  (a) The religious sect or persuasion to which the employee or applicant belongs is the same as that of the ... institution; ... [and]  (c) The employment involved is closely connected with or related to the primary purposes of the ... institution....

The court held that the exemption allows the school to reject a non-Christian applicant and await a later hiring cycle to fill the position, or to assign the work to an existing Christian employee.  A majority of the judges also held that this particular faculty position met the requirement of being closely connected to the school's religious purpose.

Abortion Measures Defeated In Oregon; Approved In West Virginia

Oregon voters yesterday apparently defeated, by a vote of 37% yes and 63% no, a proposed state constitutional amendment (Oregon Measure 106) that would have prohibited the expenditure of public funds directly or indirectly for abortion, except when medically necessary or required by federal law. These figures are based on tabulation of 68% of the votes.

Voters in West Virginia yesterday approved, by a vote of 51.7% yes and 48.3% no, Amendment 1 which amends the state constitution to add language providing "nothing in this Constitution secures or protects a right to abortion or requires the funding of abortion."

Ballot Issues To Watch In Tomorrow's Elections

Several ballot measures that may be of interest to Religion Clause readers will be voted on around the country tomorrow:

• Alabama Ten Commandments Amendment, Amendment 1
• Alabama State Abortion Policy Amendment, Amendment 2
• Oregon Ban Public Funds for Abortions Initiative
• West Virginia Amendment 1, the No Right to Abortion in Constitution Measure

Cert. Filed In Oregon Wedding Cake Case

A petition for certiorari (full text) was filed yesterday with the U.S. Supreme Court in Klein v. Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries, (cert. filed 10/22/2018). In the case, the Oregon Court of Appeals agreed with the state Bureau of Labor and Industries that Sweetcakes bakery violated the state's public accommodation law when it refused to design and create a wedding cake for a same-sex wedding. First Liberty issued a press release announcing the filing of the petition for review.

No Free Exercise Violation In Teacher's Support of Transgender Student

In Leontiev v. Corbett School District, (D OR, Aug. 10, 2018), a Oregon federal district court dismissed a suit brought against a school district and a number of individuals by the mother of a transgender male high school student. The suit alleged that several individuals interfered with plaintiff's parental relationship in helping the student leave his home. It also alleged that one teacher violated plaintiff's First Amendment rights by disparaging her religion when she told a deputy sheriff that plaintiff and her husband were conservative Christians who were not supportive of the student's gender transition. The court said:

... [T]he Court can find no case, that supports the constitutional principle that an off-duty teacher who has never had a particular student in her class violates the Free Exercise Clause of that student’s parent when the teacher, off school premises, expresses her personal opinion, even if that expression is critical of the parent’s religious beliefs. If a public school teacher makes derogatory comments about a particular religion in a classroom in the presence of students, that teacher very well may have violated clearly established principles under the First Amendment, either in violation of the Establishment Clause or, perhaps, the Free Exercise Clause. But that is not what happened in this case....

Challenge To School's Transgender Policy Is Rejected

In Parents for Privacy v. Dallas School District No. 2, (D OR, July 24, 2018), an Oregon federal district court in a 56-page opinion rejected an array of challenges to a school district's policy that allows transgender students to use restrooms, locker rooms, and showers that match their gender identity rather than
their biological sex assigned at birth.  Plaintiffs alleged that the policy violates the Administrative Procedure Act, the right to privacy, Title IX, Oregon state law, parents’ rights to direct the education and upbringing of their children, and the First Amendment and RFRA. Responding to these claims, the court said in part:

... [H]igh school students do not have a fundamental privacy right to not share school restrooms, lockers, and showers with transgender students whose biological sex is different than theirs. The potential threat that a high school student might see or be seen by someone of the opposite biological sex while either are undressing or performing bodily functions in a restroom, shower, or locker room does not give rise to a constitutional violation....

It is within Parent Plaintiffs’ right to remove their children from Dallas High School if they disapprove of transgender student access to facilities. Once the parents have chosen to send their children to school, however, their liberty interest in their children’s education is severely diminished....

In this case, the law is neutral and generally applicable with respect to religion. There are no allegations that District forced any Plaintiff to embrace a religious belief, nor does the Plan punish anyone for expressing their religious beliefs. In any event, Plaintiffs do not have standing to bring this claim.

Court Says Tribe Has Standing, But Did Not Prove Its RFRA Claim

As previously reported, in March an Oregon federal magistrate judge recommended dismissing a RFRA challenge to the destruction of sacred Native American burial grounds.  In reviewing the magistrate's recommendation, the district court in Slockish v. U.S. Federal Highway Administration, (D OR, June 11, 2018) held, disagreeing with the magistrate judge, that plaintiffs have standing to bring the challenge.  However the court still held that the RFRA claim should be dismissed because plaintiffs had not established a prima facie case of a substantial burden on their religious exercise.  Reporting on the decision, KUOW News says that members of the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation and members of the Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde will appeal to the 9th Circuit.

Judge Suspended, In Part For Refusal To Conduct Same-Sex Weddings

In In re Day, (OR Sup. Ct., March 15, 2018), the Oregon Supreme Court in a 91-page opinion suspended state circuit court judge Vance D. Day from his judicial office for three years without pay. The state's Commission on Judicial Fitness and Disability had recommended the harsher penalty of removal from office. (Commission report).  A number of unrelated charges were involved; the court concluded that six of the counts had been proven.  One of those was described as follows by the court in its press release on the case:

Count 12 concerned a change in respondent's chambers relating to marriage requests that he received after issuance of a federal court ruling, in May 2014, that had invalidated Oregon's constitutional ban on same-sex marriage. Before that ruling, respondent had made himself available to solemnize marriages. After that ruling, he told his staff that, upon receiving any marriage request, they should check for any personal gender information available in the court's case register system, to try to determine whether the request involved a same-sex couple. If so, they should tell the couple that he was not available on the requested date or otherwise notify him so that he could decide how to proceed. If the request were from an opposite-sex couple, however, then they should schedule the wedding date.  Respondent's judicial assistant checked the system one time and determined that a requesting couple might be a same-sex couple, but respondent had an actual scheduling conflict, so she truthfully told the couple that he was not available.  Several weeks after that, respondent stopped solemnizing all marriages. The Court concluded that respondent's conduct had been willful and had violated Rule 3.3(B) (prohibiting manifestation of bias or prejudice in the performance of judicial duties) and related constitutional provisions. The Court did not address a number of constitutional challenges that respondent had raised as affirmative defenses to Count 12. It explained that, in light of the other, notably serious misconduct that the commission had proved by clear and convincing evidence, the misconduct at issue under Count 12 would not affect its consideration of the appropriate sanction, regardless of whether those constitutional challenges were meritorious or not.

Progressive Secular Humanist blog reports on the decision.

Oregon Appeals Court Upholds Judgment Against Baker Who Refused Same-Sex Wedding Cake

In Klein v. Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries, (OR App., Dec. 28, 2017), an Oregon appeals court in a 62-page opinion agreed with the state Bureau of Labor and Industries that Sweetcakes bakery violated the state's public accommodation law when it refused to design and create a wedding cake for a same-sex wedding. The court upheld $135,000 in damages that the Bureau had awarded. The court held that the bakery's refusal of service  was "on account of" the couple's sexual orientation. Rejecting plaintiffs' constitutional arguments the court said that "the final order does not impermissibly burden the Kleins' right to the free exercise of their religion because it simply requires their compliance with a neutral law of general applicability...."

Moving to plaintiffs' free expression argument, the court said in part:

Although the Kleins’ wedding cakes involve aesthetic judgments and have decorative elements, the Kleins have not demonstrated that their cakes are inherently “art,” like sculptures, paintings, musical compositions, and other works that are both intended to be and are experienced predominantly as expression. Rather, their cakes, even when custom-designed for a ceremonial occasion, are still cakes made to be eaten. Although the Kleins themselves may place more importance on the communicative aspect of one of their cakes, there is no information in this record that would permit an inference that the same is true in all cases for the Kleins’ customers and the people who attend the weddings for which the cakes are created. Moreover, to the extent that the cakes are expressive, they do not reflect only the Kleins’ expression. Rather, they are products of a collaborative process in which Melissa’s artistic execution is subservient to a customer’s wishes and preferences. For those reasons, we do not agree that the Kleins’ cakes can be understood to fundamentally and inherently embody the Kleins’ expression, for purposes of the First Amendment.

The court concluded that at most intermediate scrutiny applies and the Bureau's order survives that level.  The court however reversed the Bureau's holding that the bakery's statements about the case violated a separate provision prohibiting display of any notice that a business intends to discriminate in the future. KPTV News and The Oregonian report on the decision.