New Immigration Rules Impact Foreign Religious Workers

America: The Jesuit Review yesterday published an extensive analysis of how the Trump Administration's new immigration rules defining those who may become "public charges" will adversely impact foreign religious workers.  It explains in part:

Men and women in religious orders—like the Dominicans, Jesuits, Franciscans or Carmelites, or Buddhist monks and others whose lives are devoted to their vocation—take vows of poverty. Their religious communities provide for their simple needs. But unlike previous “public charge” criteria that considered the income of sponsors, the new rules shift attention to the income of individual applicants, which is negligible for most members of religious orders....

Health care coverage for religious orders does not necessarily come through traditional insurance plans and may not meet D.H.S. standards for proof of insurance. For example, one cloistered community of nuns ... has an agreement with a Catholic hospital system to provide health care for its members. This is not a traditional insurance plan, but they are not receiving care at the government’s expense....

The government has suggested that this problem can be managed under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. However ... [t]he lengthy lawsuit process would make it impractical to use the R.F.R.A. as a way to help a foreign-born religious worker who is currently being denied entry due to the public charge rule.

Nuclear Protesters' RFRA Defense Rejected

In United States v. Kelly, (SD GA, Aug. 26, 2019), a Georgia federal district court refused to dismiss indictments against seven Catholics who are members of the Plowshares Movement, an activist group opposed to nuclear weapons.  Defendants were indicted for trespass and destruction of government property after they broke into a highly secured Naval Submarine Base and in protest of nuclear weapons poured blood on the ground, hung banners and painted messages. Defendants contended that their actions were protected by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The court said:

Because Defendants' actions at Kings Bay were exercises of their sincerely held religious beliefs that they should "take action in opposition to the presence of nuclear weapons at Kings Bay,"... Defendants' actions at Kings Bay were engaged in for religious reasons and were thus "religious exercises" within the meaning of RFRA....

It went on, however:

The government has established that it has compelling interests in the safety of those on Kings Bay Naval Submarine Base, the security of the government assets housed there, and the smooth operation of the base.

Money Damages Unavailable Under RFRA

In Ajaj v. United States, (SD IL, Aug. 13, 2019), an Illinois federal district court, passing on an issue on which several circuits are split, held that money damages are not available in suits under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act against federal officials in their individual capacities. The suit was brought by a Muslim inmate who claims prison officials burdened his religious practices. The court said in part:

[T]he Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLIUPA)—RFRA’s “sister statute” that applies against the states ... contains nearly the exact same operative language as RFRA....But the Supreme Court has already held that damages against the states were not “appropriate relief” under that statute because Congress must “give clear direction that it intends to include a damages remedy” against a State for one to be available.....

While Ajaj says that the Court should treat RLIUPA and RFRA differently because Congress enacted RLIUPA under the Spending Clause, that looks like a red herring. “Given that RFRA and RLUIPA attack the same wrong, in the same way, in the same words, it is implausible that ‘appropriate relief against a government’ means something different in RFRA, and includes money damages.”

Court Refuses To Order Return of WWII Remains To Supposed Next-of-Kin

In Patterson v. Defense POW/ MIA Accounting Agency, (WD TX, July 29, 2019), a Texas federal district court refused to order return to plaintiffs of the remains of seven servicemen who were killed or perished as POW's in the Philippines in World War II.  The court explains:

The parties dispute the extent to which the remains are identified. Plaintiffs argue that they have a property interest in these remains and that Defendants’ retention of these remains impinges on Plaintiffs’ religious practices and Plaintiffs’ interest in securing proper burial.

The court rejected plaintiffs' due process, 4th Amendment, free exercise and RFRA claims to the remains at issue, saying in part:

They state “the facts alleged in the Amended Complaint show that the Government has placed a substantial burden on the Families’ exercise of religion.”... 

The record reveals nothing further about Plaintiffs’ religious beliefs or how Defendants have burdened them. Plaintiffs do not indicate the nature, substance, or contours of their beliefs, or even whether all Plaintiffs share the same religious beliefs. In the complaint, Plaintiffs allege that a “proper burial is essential for many practicing Christians,” but they produce no declarations or other evidence outlining these beliefs. Defendants thus contest whether Plaintiffs’ beliefs are sincerely held. 

The Court is inclined to grant summary judgment on the sincerity grounds ... given Plaintiffs’ total lack of evidence. Courts have cautioned, however, that “[t]hough the sincerity inquiry is important, it must be handled with a light touch.... 

In keeping with this tradition ... the Court assumes Plaintiffs show sincerely held beliefs and concludes alternatively that Plaintiffs do not show a substantial interference with these beliefs. As Defendants note, Plaintiffs allege only that their beliefs require a “proper burial,” but without any explanation of what makes a “proper burial in accordance with each respective family’s religious beliefs,” the Court cannot assess the alleged interference.... Thus, Plaintiffs do not meet their initial burden for either their RFRA or Free Exercise claims.

3rd Circuit Affirms Injunction Against Expanded Contraceptive Mandate Exemptions

In Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. President United States of America, (3d Cir., July 12, 2019), the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a district court's entry of a nationwide preliminary injunction against enforcement of the Trump Administration's final rules expanding the scope of the exemptions under the Affordable Care Act for employers having religious or moral objections to contraceptive coverage. The court said in part that the agencies involved lacked good cause to dispense with the notice and comment requirements in promulgating the Interim Final Rules expanding the exemptions, and the use of the notice and comment procedure to finalize the rules did not cure the defect.  The court also said:

The Agencies’ effort to cast RFRA as requiring the Religious Exemption is also incorrect. Even assuming that RFRA provides statutory authority for the Agencies to issue regulations to address religious burdens the Contraceptive Mandate may impose on certain individuals, RFRA does not require the enactment of the Religious Exemption to address this burden....

RFRA does not require the broad exemption embodied in the Final Rule nor to make voluntary a notice of the employer’s decision not to provide such coverage to avoid burdening those beliefs.

The Hill reports on the decision and says that an appeal to the Supreme Court is likely.

House Holds Hearing On "Do No Harm" Act

The U.S. House Education and Labor Committee held a hearing yesterday on H.R. 1450, the "Do No Harm" Act. The hearing was titled Do No Harm: Examining the Misapplication of the 'Religious Freedom Restoration Act'. A video of the full 3 hour and 45 minute hearing plus transcripts of the prepared testimony of the committee chairman and the witnesses are all available from the committee's website.   The Opening Statement by Committee Chairman Robert C. “Bobby” Scott reads in part"

The passage of RFRA was meant to re-instate a broader protection of free exercise rights. It was not meant to erode civil rights under the guise of religious freedom. Importantly, it did not change the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause, which ensures that the government cannot elevate certain religious or moral beliefs above the law.

No sooner than RFRA was enacted, the floodgates began to open and RFRA has since been used to: • Legitimize housing discrimination against single mothers and minorities, • Shield church groups from paying child abuse victims, and • Impose extreme emotional harm on schoolchildren based on their gender identity.

Since the beginning of the Trump administration, this troublesome trend has only gotten worse. On May 4th, 2017, the Trump administration issued an Executive Order, undermining RFRA’s original intent and allowing individuals to use 'conscience-based objections' to override civil rights protections....

We must pass legislation that restores RFRA’s original intent. H.R. 1450, the Do No Harm Act, would help ensure that our right to religious liberty does not threaten fundamental civil and legal rights.

Specifically, the bill would prevent RFRA from being used to deny: • Equal opportunity and protection against discriminatory laws; • Workplace protections and protections against child abuse; • Health care access, coverage, and services; and, • Contracted services.

Tax Court Denies Deduction For Evangelist's Expenses

In Oliveri v. Commissioner (US Tax Ct., May 28, 2019), the U.S. Tax Court rejected claims by a Catholic evangelist that the disallowance of a charitable deduction for many of his evangelistic activities violated his rights under the First Amendment and RFRA:

Petitioner contends that respondent is characterizing his evangelism as if it were not a religious activity and that respondent’s characterization violates the First Amendment. Petitioner mischaracterizes respondent’s position, which is that petitioner’s expenses for evangelistic activities are not deductible as charitable contributions under section 170, not that they are not religious activities. Not all religious activities are services “to or for the use of” a religious organization for purposes of section 170....

Petitioner contends that disallowance of his section 170 deductions violates his right to the free exercise of religion by placing a substantial burden on his evangelization, in that it would result in his having less money to evangelize. We disagree. In Hernandez v. Commissioner, 490 U.S. 680, 699 (1989), the Supreme Court said that “we need not decide whether the burden of disallowing the §170 deduction is a substantial one, for our decision in Lee establishes that even a substantial burden would be justified by the ‘broad public interest in maintaining as ound tax system’”. 

The Tax Court also rejected petitioner's claim that "three audits of his Federal income tax returns within 10 years resulted in excessive Government entanglement with his exercise of religion."

Burdensome Water Rates On Churches Challenged In Lawsuit

A suit was filed in a Texas state trial court this week challenging a Magnolia, Texas ordinance imposing disproportionately higher water rates on non-profit institutions, including churches. The higher rates were intended to make up for the city's inability under state law to collect property taxes from non-profit institutions. The complaint (full text) in Magnolia Bible Church v. City of Magnolia, (Montgomery Cty. Dist. Ct., filed 5/14/2019), contends that the city's actions violate state law, including the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act:

The Institutional Water Rate is void for three independent reasons. First, the Institutional Water Rate is a thinly veiled property tax on a tax-exempt entity, and, as such, it is preempted by state law. Second, even were the Institutional Water Rate not a tax, it would nonetheless be void as a discriminatory, arbitrary utility rate. Finally, by nearly tripling the Churches’ water bills (a substantial burden on free exercise of religion) simply because the Churches do not pay property taxes (an irrational, non-tailored justification), the Institutional Water Rate violates the TRFRA.

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

Court Rejects RFRA Claims By Former Street Gang Members

In People v. Latin Kings Street Gang, 2019 Ill. App. Unpub. LEXIS 852 (IL App., May 13, 2019), an Illinois appellate court rejected claims by former street gang members that the state violated Illinois Religious Freedom Restoration Act by bringing a frivolous lawsuit against them under the Illinois Streetgang Terrorism Omnibus Prevention Act .

The state sought to obtain damages from 79 individuals and enjoin them from further gang activity including meeting with members of the Latin Kings. Defendants contended that they had left the Latin Kings and become born-again Christians who met with current gang members in order to share the Christian Gospel with them.  They contend that after the suit was filed, they could no longer go into schools to speak with students about the danger of gangs, nor were they able to preach the Gospel to gang members out of fear of being arrested. The court concluded, however:

... [T]he lawsuit here did not constitute a substantial burden on defendants' religious exercise.... [D]efendants were still able to communicate their faith to Latin Kings gang members after the complaint was filed in this case. Oscar testified that he was not prevented from communicating his faith to Latin Kings in a different county or city. There were times when he wanted to reach out to gang members through Facebook to get together so he could share his faith with them, but felt that he could not do so because of the lawsuit. However, he conceded that no one told him that he could not do so and that he merely considered it an inconvenience. Elias testified how he communicated with gang members via text messages.... He did not state that the lawsuit prevented from engaging in such communication, and the record does not reflect that police were monitoring defendants' cell phones such that they would have discovered, and used against them, such evidence. Further, Ruben testified that he held Bible studies in his home and spoke about his faith at other churches.

ACA Mandate Does Not Violate RFRA

In Cash v. United States, (MD PA, March 20, 2019), a Pennsylvania federal district court rejected an attack on the Affordable Care Act's tax penalties for failing to purchase health insurance. Plaintiff taxpayers had religious objections to purchasing medical insurance and contended that the penalties substantially burdened their religious exercise under RFRA (see prior posting). The court disagreed, saying in part:

The Magistrate Judge ... found that the burden imposed on Plaintiffs was de minimis.... RFRA prohibits substantial burdens on the free exercise of religion absent a compelling governmental interest achieved by the least restrictive means.... Describing the thousands of dollars Plaintiffs have paid in ACA penalties since 2014 as de minimis may not be fair. However, that does not render the penalties substantially burdensome, either. Plaintiffs offer no indication that they are forced to decide between their religious beliefs and a benefit generally available. Moreover, Plaintiffs do not allege or otherwise show that the ACA penalty places a substantial burden on them to modify their religious conduct.... [T]he cost of the penalty would not exceed the cost to obtain the required level of insurance. Plaintiffs do not indicate how this applies substantial pressure to forego their religious beliefs. Staying true to their religion and avoiding health insurance would cost no more, and potentially cost less, than purchasing insurance at the expense of their religious beliefs.

Supreme Court Review Denied In Nuns' Pipeline Challenge

The U.S. Supreme Court today denied certiorari in Adorers of the Blood of Christ v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, (Docket No. 18-548, certiorari denied 2/192019) (Order List).  In the case, the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed on procedural grounds a Religious Freedom Restoration Act challenge to FERC's approval of a pipeline project. The natural gas pipeline at issue runs through land owned by an order of Catholic nuns whose religious beliefs require them to preserve the earth. Developers were authorized to acquire land for the pipeline by eminent domain. (See prior posting.)

Death Qualification of Jurors Does Not Violate RFRA

In United States v. Ofomata, (ED LA, Feb. 11, 2019), a Louisiana federal district court rejected a number of challenges to the federal death penalty, including the argument that the death-qualification process violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the First Amendment by necessarily excluding jurors based on their religion. The court said in part:

Even assuming that Ofomata was able to show that the death-qualification process constitutes a substantial burden, his RFRA claim fails because “[t]he question [of] whether a juror is able to follow the law and apply the facts in an impartial way . . . is a compelling government interest.”

2nd Circuit Denies En Banc Review In RFRA Damages Case

In Tanvir v. Tanzin, the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals by a vote of 7-3 denied en banc review of a panel decision that held RFRA plaintiffs could recover money damages against federal officials sued in their individual capacities. (See prior posting.) Plaintiffs in the lawsuit are three Muslim men who claim that federal officials placed or kept them on the no-fly list because they refused for religious reasons to act as FBI informants.  In denying en banc review, Chief Judge Katzmann and Judge Pooler filed an opinion explaining their reasons for doing so.  Judge Jacobs, joined by Judges Cabranes and Sullivan filed an opinion dissenting from the denial of review.

Expanded Religious and Moral Exemptions From Contraceptive Mandate Enjoined In Part of the Country

In State of California v. Health and Human Services, (ND CA, Jan. 13, 2019), a California federal district court granted a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the the Trump Administration's broadened religious and moral exemptions from the ACA's contraceptive coverage mandate. The court enjoined enforcement of the Final Rules that were scheduled to take effect today, but only in  the 13 states and the District of Columbia that are plaintiffs in the case.  The court concluded that the plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their claim that the exemptions are inconsistent with the Women's Health Amendment, and that the religious exemption is likely not required by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The court agreed with decisions in nine Courts of Appeal that the Obama Administration accommodation for religious objectors does not impose a substantial burden on the free exercise of religion. Politico reports on the decision.

Court Refuses To Dismiss Suit Over Parents' Religious Promise

In Gonzales v. Mathis Independent School District, (SD TX, Dec. 27, 2018), a Texas federal district court refused to dismiss a claim under the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act by parents of school children who were unable to participate in interscholastic extra-curricular activities because of their violation of grooming standards..  The facts at issue are summarized by the court:

Parents are Hispanic and practice the Roman Catholic religion. As an expression or exercise of their faith and heritage, and in a promise (promesa) to God, Parents have kept a strand of hair on the back of the Children’s heads uncut since birth. More recently,the Children have adopted that promise as their own affirmation of faith and heritage and continue to maintain the single long braid down their backs. However, Parents admit that the promise is not dictated by the Catholic religion and they could change it at any time.

[Thanks to Eugene Volokh via Religionlaw for the lead.] 

Religious Opposition To Furnishing Social Security Number Fails

In Ricks v. State of Idaho Contractors Board, (ID App., Dec. 3, 2018), an Idaho appeals court dismissed free exercise challenges to the state's requirement that an applicant for a contractor's license furnish his Social Security number.  Federal child support enforcement laws require states to collect Social Security numbers as part of applications for professional licenses if the state wishes to be eligible for certain federal grants.  George Ricks refused to furnish his Social Security number because of his religious belief that Social Security numbers are a form of the Biblical "mark of the beast."

The court rejected on pre-emption grounds Ricks argument that the requirement violates Idaho's Free Exercise of Religion Protected Act (FERPA):

 [T]he operation of FERPA, in the context of the cooperative endeavor between Congress and the Idaho Legislature, does impede 42 U.S.C. § 666(a)(13)’s objective of improving child support enforcement effectiveness by exempting individuals from I.C. § 73-122’s and I.C. § 54-5210’s requirement of providing social security numbers on professional license applications. In other words, an exemption granted by FERPA would make it more difficult to locate a parent who may have outstanding child support obligations through the Federal Parent Locator Service database. Because this amounts to a direct conflict with Congress’s intent in passing 42 U.S.C. § 666(a)(13), 42 U.S.C. § 666(a)(13) preempts FERPA in this context.

The court rejected Ricks' federal RFRA argument because no federal defendant was named. Finally it rejected his First Amendment and state constitution free exercise claims finding that the laws at issue are neutral laws of general applicability. The court also released a summary statement of its holding.

Families of WW II Vets May Move Ahead With Suit To Recover Remains

In Patterson v. Defense POW/ MIA Accounting Agency, (WD TX, Oct. 23, 2018), a Texas federal district court refused to dismiss substantive and procedural due process, and free exercise and RFRA claims by the families of seven American Army service members who died in the Philippines in World War II. The families sought recovery of the remains of their veterans so they can be properly buried.  The remains are interred as "Unknowns" in the Manila American Cemetery, but the families believe that they can now identify in which of the Unknowns' graves the seven service members are buried. The court said in part:

Plaintiffs allege that the government’s refusal to return allegedly identified remains to the appropriate families for burial “shocks the conscience.” ... Plaintiffs argue that their allegations that the remains are in fact identified, taken as true, render Defendants’ withholding of the remains a substantive due process violation.... At this stage, the Court finds that Plaintiffs sufficiently allege a substantive due process violation....

[G]iven Plaintiffs’ private interests regarding their family members’ remains and the alleged erroneous deprivation of an opportunity to be heard, the Court finds that, at this stage, Plaintiffs sufficiently allege a procedural due process violation that will benefit from further fact development.....

Plaintiffs allege that their free exercise of their sincerely held religious tradition of burial has been burdened because the government refuses to return the remains of their relatives.... These allegations are plausible on their face and meet the pleading requirements at this stage of litigation for both a Free Exercise claim and a RFRA claim

RFRA Defense To Virgin Islands Marijuana Prosecution Fails

In People of the Virgin Islands v. Felix, (VI Super. Ct., Sept. 11, 2018), a Virgin Island trial court avoided deciding the interesting question of whether RFRA applies to the Virgin Islands even though it does not apply to states. Instead the court held that even if RFRA does apply, the Virgin Islands' ban on possession of marijuana with intent to distribute would survive a RFRA challenge by defendant, a Rastafarian.  The court concluded that both the "substantial burden" and "compelling interest" tests under RFRA were not met.  The court said in part:

The defendant might have been successful in defending against a charge of simple possession of marijuana since marijuana is important to Rastafarian religious practice.  But there exists in the record no evidence establishing that the distribution of marijuana is a requirement of Rastafarianism.

Furthermore, the circumstances leading to the Defendant's arrest were clearly unrelated to his religious beliefs. At the time of his arrest, the Defendant was an employee of the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands and allegedly used the Superior Court's corporate account to have 127.5 grams of marijuana transported — without the knowledge of the Superior Court — from St. Croix to himself on St. Thomas. The Defendant received the drugs at about eleven-thirty in the morning during his shift....

RFRA Defense To Harboring Aliens Rejected At Pre-Trial Stage

An Arizona federal district court this week refused to dismiss criminal charges against Scott Warren, a volunteer with the humanitarian group No More Deaths.(Background). Warren was charged with concealing and harboring aliens to avoid their detention by immigration authorities. The complaint alleges that Warren gave two men who crossed the border illegally food, water, beds and clean clothes for three days.  In United States v. Warren, (D AZ, Sept. 17, 2018), the court rejected at this stage of the case Warren's defense that his actions are protected under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.  The court held that RFRA is an affirmative defense to the charges against Warren, and should be decided through a trial rather than through a pre-trial motion to dismiss. [Thanks to Stephanie Inks via Religionlaw for the lead.]

Amicus Briefs Filed With SCOTUS In Case of Funeral Home's Firing of Transgender Employee

Several amicus briefs have been filed with the U.S. Supreme Court urging the Court to grant certiorari in R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. EEOC. Links to the briefs are available at SCOTUSblog.  In the case, the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, rejecting the employer's religious freedom defense, held that a Michigan funeral home violated Title VII when it fired a transgender employee. (See prior posting.) Townhall has more on these developments.