Jewish Women Lack Standing in Religious Freedom Challenge to Kentucky Abortion Restrictions

In Sobel v. Cameron, (KY Cir. Ct., June 28, 2024), plaintiffs, three Jewish women, alleged, among other things, that the lack of exceptions for complications during pregnancy and lethal fetal anomalies in Kentucky's restrictive abortion laws impinge on their willingness to follow their religious obligations to expand their families in a manner that does not jeopardize their health or the health of their unborn children. Plaintiffs say that "In Judaism, having children is considered a blessing, and the commandment to be fruitful and multiply is paramount." Plaintiffs alleged that the abortion statutes are unconstitutionally vague, violate the Kentucky Religious Freedom Restoration Act and reflect sectarian Christian views that denigrate Jewish practice. A Kentucky state trial court dismissed the case, saying in part:

... [T]he alleged injuries of the three Plaintiffs are hypothetical as none are currently pregnant or undergoing IVF at the present time. Accordingly, the Court simply cannot find that the plaintiffs have shown "the existence of an actual controversy respecting justiciable questions which is a required condition precedent for a declaratory judgment action.... Therefore, the Court must conclude that the Plaintiffs here lack standing to proceed in this action.

NPR reports on the decision. [Thanks to Thomas Rutledge for the lead.]

Certiorari Denied In Religious Broadcasters Challenge to Royalty Rates

The U.S. Supreme Court yesterday denied review in National Religious Broadcasters Noncommercial Music License Committee v. Copyright Royalty Board, (Docket No. 23-927, certiorari denied 6/24/2024). (Order List.) At issue in the case was whether the Copyright Royalty Board violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act when the royalties it set for non-commercial religious broadcasters that stream copyrighted songs over the Internet were 18 time higher than the rates it set for the secular National Public Radio. (See prior related posting and ADF's press release for additional details.) Here are links to all the documents filed in the case.

DC Circuit: No Tax-Exempt Status for Church Promoting Psychedelics Unless It Has Received DEA or Judicial Exemption

In Iowaska Church of Healing v. Werfel, (DC Cir., June 21, 2024), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld the IRS's denial of tax-exempt status to a church whose practices revolved around the use of the psychedelic Ayahuasca.  According to the court:

The Church’s purpose and mission revolve primarily around the consumption of Ayahuasca and embracing certain spiritual benefits that the Church’s members believe follow from Ayahuasca consumption.  

The church contended that denial of tax-exempt status violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. However, the court concluded that the church lacked standing to assert a RFRA claim because it did not show sufficient economic injury, and it had waived other theories of standing.

Additionally, the church argued that it qualified for an exemption under Internal Revenue Code §501(c)(3) because it was organized for religious purposes. The court said, however, that tax-exempt status can be denied if its purposes or activities are illegal.  Use of Ayahuasca in religious ceremonies is legal only if the Drug Enforcement Agency or a federal court has issued the church an exemption from the Controlled Substances Act. The church had received no exemption. The court rejected the church's argument that the Supreme Court's 2006 O Centro decision made the use of Ayahuasca presumptively legal for churches. the court concluded:

... [T]he IRS was correct in concluding that the Church’s Ayahuasca use foreclosed its eligibility for tax-exempt status.

GAO Says DEA Should Improve Its Process for Granting Religious Exemptions for Psilocybin Use

Last Week, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released an 80-page Report to Congressional Committees (full text) titled DEA Should Improve its Religious Exemptions Petition Process for Psilocybin (Mushrooms) and Other Controlled Substances. The Report says in part:

Selected stakeholders reported several barriers to the legal access and use of psilocybin for religious practices under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. For example, DEA established a process for parties to petition for a religious exemption from the Controlled Substances Act to use controlled substances for religious purposes. However, DEA’s guidance does not inform petitioners on its timeframes to make determinations on completed petitions. DEA officials stated the agency is aware of public concerns on the need to better understand its policies and processes that impact the petitions for religious exemptions. In 2019, DEA initiated a draft notice of proposed rulemaking related to its process for petitioning for religious exemptions. Four years later, in February 2023, the final draft notice was submitted to DEA’s Office of the Administrator, according to DEA officials; but there is no timeframe for issuance of the notice or final regulations....

Including timeframes to make determinations about religious exemption petitions in DEA’s guidance will provide better transparency about the agency’s process.

Filter has additional details.

Medicaid Limit on Reimbursing for Family Care Did Not Violate Muslim Family's Free Exercise Rights

In Alsyrawan v. Department of Human Services, (PA Commonwealth Ct., May 20, 2024), a Pennsylvania state appellate court held that Medicaid rules limiting reimbursement of family members providing in-home and companion services to a total of 60 hours per week did not violate a Muslim family's rights under Pennsylvania's Religious Freedom Protection Act. The Medicaid recipient was a non-verbal adult male with Down syndrome and several other disabilities who was being cared for by his mother and sister. According to the court:

... [The] family, including Petitioner, follows Islamic law set forth in the Quran, which forbids ... unrelated males and females from being alone together, and unrelated males from providing personal care involving nudity or exposed private areas....  Therefore, to protect Petitioner from sin, only Mother, Sister, or other closely related female relatives may be alone with Petitioner, and only a father, brother, uncle, or grandfather could provide his more intimate bathroom and shower care....  Mother added that the prohibition of unrelated males and females being alone together likewise prohibits her from being alone with an unrelated male caretaker while he is tending to Petitioner....

... Petitioner also asserts that the Department’s refusal to grant him an exception to the 40/60 Rule violates the RFPA, where he has shown by clear and convincing evidence that placement of an unrelated caregiver in his home would burden his and his family’s religious exercise, and the Department cannot show that its denial of an exception is the least burdensome way to serve a compelling interest....

... [S]substantial record evidence supports that Islamic law allows an unrelated, non-Islamic male aide to assist Petitioner outside Mother’s presence (i.e., either outside the home or when Mother leaves the home to attend to personal business), before and after which Mother could provide Petitioner’s necessary intimate personal care.... 

... Because Petitioner has not shown by clear and convincing evidence that the 40/60 Rule “[s]ignificantly constrains or inhibits conduct or expression mandated by [his] sincerely held religious beliefs[,]” “[s]ignificantly curtails [his] ability to express adherence to [his] faith[,]” “[d]en[ies] [him] reasonable opportunity to engage in activities . . . fundamental to [his] religion[,]” nor “[c]ompels conduct or expression which violates a specific tenet of [his] religious faith[,]” 71 P.S. § 2403, he has failed to meet his initial burden of proving that the application of the 40/60 Rule substantially burdens his free exercise of religion under the Free Exercise Clause or the RFPA.

Civil Rights Commission Holds Briefing on Prisoners' Religious Freedom

Last Friday, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights held a lengthy hearing on The Federal Role in Enforcing Religious Freedom in Prisons. A video of the full hearing is available on YouTube. In announcing the hearing, the Commission said:

The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights will hold a briefing on, Friday, May 17, 2024, on whether prisoners’ religious freedom rights are being protected and enforced in accordance with constitutional and statutory provisions. This is an update to the Commission’s 2008 statutory enforcement report, Enforcing Religious Freedom in Prison.

Specifically, the Commission will review the constitutional and federal statutory provisions of the First Amendment, the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act of 1980 (CRIPA), the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1990 (RFRA), the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA), and the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA).

At this public briefing, the Commission will hear from subject matter experts such as government officials, religious leaders, academics, prisoners’ rights advocates, religious liberty organizations, and legal experts. The Commission will accept written materials from the public for consideration as we prepare our report....

5th Circuit Denies Further Relief to Native American Church Objecting to Park Modifications

As previously reported, last year a Texas federal district court held that members of the Lipam-Apache Native American Church should be given access for religious services to a point on the San Antonio River which is a Sacred Site for them.  The court refused to grant plaintiffs' request that the proposed improvements to the park in which the Sacred Site is located be limited so that the spiritual ecology of the Sacred Area would be preserved by minimizing tree removal and allowing cormorants to nest. Plaintiffs appealed the injunction denials.  In Perez v. City of San Antonio, (5th Cir., April 11, 2024), the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court. Rejecting appellants' claim under the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the court said in part:

In analyzing Appellants’ contention that the destruction of the tree canopies, where cormorants nest, and the driving away of the cormorants themselves will burden their religions, we consider whether the presupposed burden is real and significant....

Appellants continue to have virtually unlimited access to the Park for religious and cultural purposes. Appellants’ reverence of the cormorants as sacred genesis creatures from the Sacred Area is not implicated here because the City’s rookery management program does not directly dictate or regulate the cormorants’ nesting habits, migration, or Park visitation. For example, the record shows that, regardless of the rookery management program, no cormorants, due to their migration patterns, inhabit the area for extended periods of time each year. Moreover, the City’s rookery management program does not substantially burden Appellants’ religious beliefs because cormorants can still nest elsewhere in the 343-acre Park or nearby. The deterrent activities are deployed only within the two-acre Project Area and only to persuade the birds to nest elsewhere....

The record indicates that various areas of the Park “become nearly unusable for 10 months of the year due to the bird density/habitat.”...

 [T]he City’s tree removal plan is narrowly tailored to achieve the City’s compelling governmental interest of making the Project Area safe for visitors to the Park....

Appellants assert that the City’s plan violates the religious-service protections provision of the Texas Constitution....

Even accepting that the “relatively new provision bars any government action that prohibits or limits religious services,” Appellants do not sufficiently brief the question of whether a compelled “preservation of spiritual ecology” was envisioned in the statute’s definition of a “religious service” protected from state sanctioned prohibitions or limitations.

Judge Higginson dissented in part, contending that the city should have done more to accommodate plaintiffs as to tree removal and anti-nesting matters.

Apaches Seek Review of Their RFRA Claim by 29-Judge Panel

As previously reported, last month the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals sitting en banc, by a vote of 6-5, refused to enjoin the government from transferring to a copper mining company federally-owned forest land that is of significant spiritual value to members of the Western Apache tribes. The land sits on the third largest deposit of copper ore in the world. The case generated six separate opinions spanning 241 pages which created separate majority alignments on different aspects of the interpretation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Yesterday, plaintiffs filed a petition (full text) seeking review by a panel of all 29 judges on the 9th Circuit. The petition states in part:

If any case warrants full-court review, it is this one—where one en banc panel has overruled another, this Court’s judges are split 6-6, and a fractured decision has contradicted Supreme Court precedent on a question of existential importance to Native Americans. That question is whether the government “substantially burdens” religious exercise when it physically destroys a Native American sacred site, ending religious exercise forever. And the answer is plain: yes.

Becket Fund for Religious Liberty issued a press release announcing the filing.

Religiously Motivated Aid for Drug Abusers Not Protected by RFRA or 1st Amendment

In United States v. Safehouse, (ED PA, April 3, 2024), a Pennsylvania federal district court held that neither the Religious Freedom Restoration Act nor the Free Exercise Clause of the 1st Amendment is violated by prosecuting Safehouse for violating 21 USC §856 (Maintaining Drug-Involved Premises). Safehouse is a nonprofit corporation that plans to open a safe injection site for those struggling with opioid abuse. Its founders were religiously motivated, but the corporation's articles do not set out any religious purpose. The court said in part:

Here, the organizers and leaders of Safehouse profess religious motivation, but the work of Safehouse itself is in no respect religious....

As an entity unaffiliated with any specific faith or religious institution, Safehouse claims protection for its non-religious actions, based solely upon the religious motivation of its founders.  Neither RFRA nor the free exercise clause extends that far, as religion cannot provide a “limitless excuse for avoiding all unwanted obligations.” ...  That is necessarily so, because “‘the very concept of ordered liberty precludes allowing’ [a plaintiff], or any other person, a blanket privilege ‘to make his own standards on matters of conduct in which society as a whole has important interests.’”...  The noble intentions of Safehouse and its founders are self-evident, and the public health crisis they seek to address continues unabated, but their religious inspiration does not provide a shield against prosecution for violation of a federal criminal statute barring its operation.

WHYY News reports on the decision.

Iowa Enacts Religious Freedom Restoration Act

Yesterday Iowa Governor Kim Reynolds signed SF 2095, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. (Governor's press release.) (Full text of Act.) It provides in part:

State action shall not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, unless the government demonstrates that applying the burden to that person's exercise of religion is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest and is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.

The Gazette reports on the bill.

Denial of Temporary Religious Worker Visa Upheld

In Calvary Albuquerque Inc. v. Blinken, (D NM, March 13, 2024), a New Mexico federal district court dismissed challenges to the denial of an R-1 (Temporary Religious Worker) visa for Stefen Green, a South African citizen who was to be hired as Calvary Church's Worship Director. At issue was the fact that Green received honoraria and allowances from Calvary Church while in the United States on a B-1 visitor's visa before the R-1 visa was approved. Green and Calvary Church both contended that the denial violated their rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Denying Green's claim, the court said in part:

Because the doctrine of consular nonreviewability is a long-standing “no trespass rule” for judicial review, and Congress has not expressly provided for judicial review of consular visa decisions, this Court may not infringe upon the consular officer’s decision to deny Mr. Green’s visa except where the constitutional rights of an American citizen are implicated....

Moving on to the RFRA claim by the Church, the court said in part: 

Calvary Church is a United States church making a free exercise claim under RFRA, so this Court must next determine whether the consular officer’s visa denial was made for a facially legitimate and bona fide reasons....

Here, the consular officer cited a valid statutory reason for denial.... [T]he consular officer made a factual determination that Mr. Green willfully misrepresented the purpose of his April 9, 2022, visit to a border official as commensurate with a B-1/B-2 visa and then violated that status by intending to engage in unauthorized employment for hire as an independent contractor at Calvary Church within 90-days of his entry into the United States.

9th Circuit En Banc Refuses to Bar U.S. Transfer of Sacred Apache Site to Copper Mining Company

In Apache Stronghold v. United States, (9th Cir., March 1, 2024), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals sitting en banc, by a vote of 6-5, refused to enjoin the government from transferring to a copper mining company federally-owned forest land that is of significant spiritual value to the Western Apache Indians. The land sits on the third largest deposit of copper ore in the world. The case generated six separate opinions spanning 241 pages. The court's per curiam opinion summarizes the holding:

A majority of the en banc court ...concludes that (1) the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 ... and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act ... are interpreted uniformly; and (2) preventing access to religious exercise is an example of substantial burden.  A majority of the en banc court therefore overrules Navajo Nation v. U.S. Forest Service to the extent that it defined a “substantial burden” under RFRA as “imposed only when individuals are forced to choose between following the tenets of their religion and receiving a governmental benefit (Sherbert) or coerced to act contrary to their religious beliefs by the threat of civil or criminal sanctions (Yoder).”...   

A different majority ...concludes that (1) RFRA subsumes, rather than overrides, the outer limits that the Supreme Court’s decision in Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Ass’n ... places on what counts as a governmental imposition of a substantial burden on religious exercise; and (2) under Lyng, a disposition of government real property does not impose a substantial burden on religious exercise when it has “no tendency to coerce individuals into acting contrary to their religious beliefs,” does not “discriminate” against religious adherents, does not “penalize” them, and does not deny them “an equal share of the rights, benefits, and privileges enjoyed by other citizens.”... The same majority holds that Apache Stronghold’s claims under the Free Exercise Clause and RFRA fail under these Lyng-based standards and that the claims based on the 1852 Treaty fail for separate reasons.  

We therefore AFFIRM the district court’s order denying the motion for a preliminary injunction.

Becket issued a press release announcing the decision and saying in part: "With the help of Becket, Apache Stronghold has vowed to appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court." Los Angeles Times reports on the decision.

UPDATE: On May 14, 2024, the Court issued an amended opinion, clarifying some of the reasoning of the majority.

Cert. Filed In Religious Broadcasters' Appeal of Mandatory Royalty Rates

 A petition for certiorari (full text) was filed last week with the U.S. Supreme Court in National Religious Broadcasters Noncommercial Music License Committee v. Copyright Royalty Board, (Sup. Ct., cert. filed 2/23/2024).  In the case, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in a July 28, 2023, opinion (full text) upheld the royalty rates set by the Royalty Board for calendar years 2021 through 2025 that must be paid by various classes of webcasters that stream copyrighted songs over the Internet. In its certiorari petition, the Religious Broadcasters set out the following as one of the Questions Presented for review:

Recently, the Board adopted rates requiring noncommercial religious webcasters to pay over 18 times the secular NPR-webcaster rate to communicate religious messages to listeners above a modest 218-average listener threshold. The D.C. Circuit upheld that disparate burden based on the Board treating some secular webcasters as poorly as religious webcasters. The result is suppression of online religious speech....

Its decision presents ... important legal questions: 

1. Whether approving noncommercial rates that favor NPR’s secular speech over religious speech violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) or the First Amendment....

ADF issued a press release announcing the filing of the cert. petition.

Recission of Covid Mandate Did Not Totally Moot Navy SEALs' RFRA Challenge

 In U.S. Navy SEALs 1-26 v. Austin, (ND TX, Feb. 14, 2024), a Texas federal district court held preliminarily that the rescission of the military's Covid vaccine mandate only partially mooted a suit under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act brought by Navy SEALs who were denied a religious accommodation. The court said in part:

Plaintiffs’ supplemental briefing satisfies the Court that, “[w]hile the Mandate may be gone, the effects of that Mandate and the discriminatory treatment the Class Members were subject to because of the Mandate still linger.” That is because Defendants have announced no changes to its overarching religious accommodations process. According to Plaintiffs, this allegedly “sham” process is what enabled the coercive and discriminatory treatment of the Class Members while their accommodation requests sat unadjudicated. The Mandate simply served as the catalyst that unveiled the problems with this broader process during the pandemic. These problems include: (1) indefinitely sitting on requests for religious accommodation; (2) foregoing the required individualized assessments, citing standardized policy memos (even if outdated) to satisfy the compelling interest requirement, and using boilerplate statements to suffice for demonstrating that the Navy’s action is the least restrictive means; (3) permitting discrimination and coercive tactics to pressure servicemembers to forego their religious beliefs; (4) authorizing Navy leadership to dictate denial of all requests without considering the individual circumstances of the requests and current conditions or facts; (5) permitting coercion and retaliation against commanding officers who recommend approval of religious accommodations despite the chain of command’s desire that requests be denied; and (6) prohibiting resubmission of denied requests and updates to pending requests due to a change of job, location, or other relevant circumstances.

First Liberty Institute issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Church May Move Ahead with RFRA Challenge to Limits on Its Use of Ayahuasca

In Church of the Celestial Heart v. Garland, (ED CA, Jan. 9, 2023), a California federal magistrate judge refused to dismiss a suit under RFRA challenging the application of the Controlled Substances Act to use of sacramental tea by a church whose beliefs are based on the Santo Daime religion. The court concluded that plaintiffs had adequately alleged that application of the CSA would substantially burden a sincere religious exercise, saying in part:

Similar to part of Defendants’ arguments above relating to standing, and additionally the alternative request for stay below, Defendants argue under 12(b)(6) that the complaint fails to state a claim because, fundamentally, all of Plaintiffs’ grievances stem from their failure to obtain, much less apply for, a registration through DEA’s exemption process. Defendants argue that to prevail on the RFRA claim, Plaintiffs must demonstrate how DEA’s exemption process substantially burdens their allegedly sincere exercise of religion, and Plaintiffs have not attempted to plead such burden.

The Court rejects this argument....

The court also refused to stay proceedings and require the Church to apply for a religious exemption from the Drug Enforcement Administration before reaching a decision on plaintiff's claims. 

11th Circuit: Appeal of DEA's Denial of Religious Exemption to Controlled Substances Act Must Be in Circuit Court

In Soul Quest Chruch of Mother Earth, Inc. v. Attorney General, (11th Cir., Dec. 18, 2023), the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision, held that an appeal of the DEA's denial of a religious exemption to a church so it could legally use ayahuasca (a sacramental tea) needs to be made to a Circuit Court of Appeals, not to a federal district court. The issue turned on whether the DEA's denial was made "under" the statutory provisions of the Controlled Substances Act, or whether it was made "under" the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.  21 USC §877 requires appeals of final decisions made under the Control and Enforcement subchapter of the CSA to go to federal circuit courts.  Judge Newsom dissenting argued that the decision was made "under" the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and so was appealable to a federal district court.

2nd Circuit: 1st Amendment Free Exercise Claim Requires Only "Burden", Not "Substantial Burden" On Religion

In Kravitz v. Purcell, (2d Cir., Nov. 27, 2023), the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals held that unlike suits under RFRA, an inmate alleging a 1st Amendment violation of his religious freedom need not show a "substantial burden" on his sincere religious beliefs, but only a "burden." The suit was brought by an inmate whose observance of the Jewish holiday of Shavuot was impaired by harassment of prison correctional officers. As described by the court:

The admissible evidence shows that Kravitz was unable to observe his religious holiday due to the abusive conduct of corrections officers. On the first night, corrections officers obstructed all communal prayer and threw paper bags at the inmates, “laughing and say[ing], here is your kosher meal. You Jew, blah, blah, and F-U.” ... On the second night, an officer interrupted Kravitz’s prayer after approximately thirty seconds, stating, “I don’t want to hear that. You need to stop and get eating that food. I got things to do.” ... 

In vacating the district court's grant of summary judgment, the court said in part:

When we are considering government policies that are not neutral and generally applicable—that is, policies that discriminate against religion rather than burden it incidentally—there is no justification for requiring a plaintiff to make a threshold showing of substantial burden. “The indignity of being singled out for special burdens on the basis of one’s religious calling is so profound that the concrete harm produced can never be dismissed as insubstantial...." 

... The district court erred in deciding that the burden on Kravitz’s observance was insufficient to establish an infringement of his right to free exercise under the First Amendment. The district court could reach that conclusion only by deciding that thirty seconds of prayer or a blessing over bread suffices for Shavuot observance. But what the observance of Shavuot entails is beyond the competence of a federal court.

No Damages Under Illinois RFRA for Wedding Cancelled Over Covid Vaccine Mandate

In Schneider v. City of Chicago, (ND IL, Nov. 20, 2023), an Illinois federal district court dismissed a damage action brought under the Illinois Religious Freedom Restoration Act by a couple who cancelled their wedding at the Drake Hotel, losing their deposit, when the city of Chicago required proof of COVID vaccination for gatherings in large areas such as hotels and banquet halls. The couple had religious objections to receiving vaccines. The court held that because the city's Health Order included a religious exemption, plaintiffs had not alleged that the Order substantially burdened their religious practice or beliefs.  The couple contended that there was no ascertainable way for them to obtain a religious exemption from the city. The court responded:

[P]laintiffs point to nothing in their complaint or the health order itself to support a reasonable inference that the City of Chicago would not provide a religious exemption or that religious exemptions were impossible to receive. Their notion of impossibility amounts to an unreasonable interpretation of the Order—that the absence of more specific directions on how to obtain an exemption meant that no exemption was obtainable....

[A]fter two calls to the Corporation Counsel went unanswered, the plaintiffs summarily concluded that obtaining a religious exemption in time for their February 2022 wedding was “impossible.”... [T]his conclusion is not entitled to the assumption of truth....

Even if plaintiffs had been able to state a claim for violation of the Illinois Religious Freedom Restoration Act, their complaint only requests money damages and those damages are prohibited by the Illinois Tort Immunity Act.... . It is likely that the Illinois Supreme Court would hold that the ITIA protects local governments from damages claims under IRFRA.

Church Sues Challenging Fee for Water Connection

Suit was filed this week in a Texas state trial court by a church challenging a Houston-area utility district's insistence that the church pay a capital recovery fee of $83,780 rather than the actual cost of $24,900 to connect its new office building and auditorium to the district's water system. The district insists that the added fee "prevents taxpayers from bearing the burden of paying taxes on the bonds issued to construct water, sewer, and drainage facilities that also serve the Church." The complaint (full text) in Grace Community Church- The Woodlands, Inc. v. Southern Montgomery County Municipal Utility District, (TX Dist. Ct., filed 11/15/2023), alleges that the fee in excess of the actual cost of the connection amounts to an unlawful tax on a tax-exempt organization.  It also contends that the fee violates the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the First Amendment's free exercise clause. First Liberty issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Today Is 30th Anniversary of RFRA

Today is the 30th anniversary of President Bill Clinton's signing of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (Public Law 103-141). In his Remarks on Signing the Bill (full text), the President said in part:

It is interesting to note ... what a broad coalition of Americans came together to make this bill a reality; ... that coalition produced a 97-to-3 vote in the United States Senate and a bill that had such broad support it was adopted on a voice vote in the House. I’m told that, as many of the people in the coalition worked together across ideological and religious lines, some new friendships were formed and some new trust was established, which shows, I suppose, that the power of God is such that even in the legislative process miracles can happen. [Laughter]

We all have a shared desire here to protect perhaps the most precious of all American liberties, religious freedom. Usually the signing of legislation by a President is a ministerial act, often a quiet ending to a turbulent legislative process. Today this event assumes a more majestic quality because of our ability together to affirm the historic role that people of faith have played in the history of this country and the constitutional protections those who profess and express their faith have always demanded and cherished.