RFRA Defense Precluded In Prosecution of Tribal Member For Violating Closure Order

In United States v. Ortega, (D AZ, Nov. 18, 2021), an Arizona federal district court, ruling on the government's motion in limine to preclude a defense under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act in the prosecution of a member of the Tohono O’odham Nation for violating a closure order at the Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, said in part:

There was no evidence presented that proved that the government interfered with Ms. Ortega’s prayers or ceremony at Quitobaquito Springs on 9/9/20, other than the distant sound of the heavy machinery. Ms. Ortega left the springs where she was praying and entered the closed construction area. The park rangers advised Ms. Ortega that the area under construction was closed to the public and she was instructed to leave, or she would be arrested.

Ms. Ortega was disturbed by the destruction and desecration of the land near the springs. She was spiritually wounded by the knowledge that the border wall was going to interrupt access of tribal members to their ancestral lands and that important medicinal plants would be destroyed. Construction of the border wall raised painful memories of the harms suffered by native people at the hands of the government throughout history. Ms. Ortega’s testimony was emotional and heartfelt. There is no question that her suffering is genuine and is rooted in her sincerely held religious beliefs. However, the defense was unable to prove that on 9/9/20 the closure order and the ranger’s lawful order that Ms. Ortega leave the construction zone imposed a substantial burden on her ability to engage in her religious activities.

HHS Rescinds Trump Era Religious Exemptions For Child Welfare Agencies In Three States

Yesterday, the Department of Health and Human Services announced that it is rescinding waivers of non-discrimination requirements issued during the Trump Administration to South Carolina, Texas and Michigan, along with certain child welfare agencies in those states. The waivers allowed faith-based foster care placement agencies to receive federal funds even though they select foster parents on the basis of religion. (See prior posting.) In its release yesterday, HHS summarized the background for its action:

Through these waivers, States and child welfare agencies – including States and organizations that did not make such requests - were granted exemptions from program nondiscrimination requirements in a rule that was not in effect. In taking today's actions, HHS is reestablishing its long-standing Department practice of evaluation of religious exemptions and modifications of program requirements on a case-by-case basis, as needed, and as is required by law—which was unprecedently changed in 2017 by the previous Administration. Today, HHS reaffirms its important commitment to core American values:  HHS will not condone the blanket use of religious exemptions against any person or blank checks to allow discrimination against any persons, importantly including LGBTQ+ persons in taxpayer-funded programs.

Navy's Limits On Religious Exemptions To Vaccine Mandate Are Challenged

New litigation over limited religious exemptions to COVID vaccine mandates continues to arise.  This time, 35 members of the U.S. Navy filed suit in a Texas federal district court contending that the Navy's policy of denying exemptions or disqualifying from special operations deployment personnel who claim a religious exemption violates their rights under RFRA and the 1st Amendment, as well as the Administrative Procedure Act. The complaint (full text) in U.S. Navy SEALs 1-26 v. Biden, (ND TX, filed 11/9/2021) alleges a wide variety of religious objections held by various of the plaintiffs who represent Catholic, Protestant and Eastern Orthodox traditions:

60. Plaintiffs believe that receiving a COVID-19 vaccine that was tested, developed, or produced using aborted fetal cell lines would force them to violate their sincerely held religious beliefs by causing them to participate in the abortion enterprise, which they believe to be immoral and highly offensive to God....

63. Multiple Plaintiffs hold to the sincere religious belief that the human body is God’s temple, and that they must not take anything into their bodies that God has forbidden or that would alter the functions of their body such as by inducing the production of a spike protein in a manner not designed by God....

73. Multiple Plaintiffs hold to the sincere religious belief that, upon seeking guidance from God as to whether to receive a COVID-19 vaccine, God instructed them not to do so.

74. One Plaintiff holds to the sincere religious belief that trace animal cells in the COVID-19 vaccines, such as from swine, should not be injected into his body.

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

 

DC Circuit: USCIS Denial Of Religious Worker Visa Violated RFRA

In National Capital Presbytery v. Mayorkas, (D DC, Oct. 19, 2021), the D.C. federal district court held that USCIS violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act when it refused to renew the R-1 nonimmigrant religious worker visa for one of National Capital Presbytery's (NCP) ministers who is a citizen of Myanmar. The church applying for a R-1 visa must show how it intends to compensate the religious worker. Here the agency's Administrative  Appeals Office concluded that NCP had not adequately shown this. The court said in part:

Plaintiffs note that Defendants promulgated the compensation regulation to improve its “ability to detect and deter fraud and other abuses in the religious worker program.”... No compelling interest exists here. Defendants do not argue that NCP does not exist, or that there is any fraud afoot here. Given the interest the compensation regulation serves, and that Defendants do not allege fraud, they cannot show a compelling interest in denying NCP’s petition for the reasons asserted....

Class Action Challenges Denials Of Religious Exemptions From Federal COVID Vaccine Mandate

A class action lawsuit was filed yesterday in a Florida federal district court on behalf of military personnel, federal employees federal civilian contractors who have been denied a religious exemption from the federal government's COVID vaccine mandate. The complaint (full text) in Navy Seal I v. Biden, (MD FL, filed 10/15/2021) alleges in part:

Plaintiffs ... face a deadline under the Federal COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate to receive a COVID-19 vaccine that violates their sincerely held religious beliefs, and have been refused any religious exemption or accommodation....

Plaintiffs all have sincerely held religious beliefs, rooted in Scripture, that preclude them from complying with the Federal COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate because of the connections between the various COVID-19 vaccines and the cell lines of aborted fetuses, whether in the vaccines’ origination, production, development, testing, or other inputs. Plaintiffs also have sincerely held religious beliefs, rooted in Scripture, that their bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit and that they cannot place anything into their Temples without confirmation and conviction from the Holy Spirit.

The suit seeks a temporary restraining order and preliminary and permanent injunctions, claiming violations of the Free Exercise Clause, RFRA and the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. Liberty Counsel issued a lengthy press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Nuns Again Lose Challenge To Atlantic Sunrise Pipeline

 In Adorers of the Blood of Christ v. Transcontinental Gas Pipeline Co., (ED PA, Sept. 30, 2021), a Pennsylvania federal district court dismissed a claim for damages under RFRA brought by an Order of Catholic nuns whose land was condemned for construction of the Atlantic Sunrise Pipeline. They alleged that the taking violated their religious exercise because of their belief in the need to protect and preserve creation. In 2018, the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals held that their suit seeking an injunction against the pipeline should be dismissed because their challenge should have first been brought before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). (See prior posting.) In this week's decision, the court said in part:

simply seeking money damages as opposed to injunctive relief does not cure the jurisdictional defect in this matter.

Satanic Temple Seeks RFRA Exemption From Texas Abortion Restrictions

In a press release last week, The Satanic Temple announced that it has sent a letter to the FDA arguing that its members should have unrestricted access to the medical abortion-inducing drug Mifepristone.  The move is an attempt to counter the new "heartbeat" abortion restrictions in Texas. As reported by KVUE News:

The Satanic Temple argues its members should have access to the pills under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the same law that allows Native Americans to access peyote for use in rituals. SB 8 “imposes an undue burden on the ability of TST members to undergo the Satanic Abortion Ritual” within the first 24 weeks of pregnancy, the group said.

“I am sure Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton – who famously spends a good deal of his time composing press releases about religious liberty issues in other states – will be proud to see that Texas’s robust religious liberty laws, which he so vociferously champions, will prevent future Abortion Rituals from being interrupted by superfluous government restrictions meant only to shame and harass those seeking an abortion,” Satanic Temple spokesperson Lucien Greaves said in a statement.

Catholic High School Liable Under Title VII For Firing Gay Teacher

In Billard v. Charlotte Catholic High School, (WD NC, Sept. 3, 2021), a North Carolina federal district court held that a Catholic high school is liable under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act for firing a substitute drama teacher after he entered a gay marriage and stated on Facebook his disagreement with Catholic teaching on marriage. The court said in part:

Under Bostock, this Court finds that Plaintiff has raised a valid Title VII sex discrimination claim.... Defendants cannot escape Title VII liability by recharacterizing Plaintiff’s announcement of his engagement as “advocacy.” If Plaintiff were a woman who posted on Facebook that she was getting married to her husband, Defendants would not have interpreted her announcement as “advocacy” for or against the Catholic Church. Plaintiff’s engagement was only considered advocacy because of his sex.

The court went on to reject several defenses that were raised: the religious organization exemption in Title VII; the ministerial exception doctrine; the Religious Freedom Restoration Act; and 1st Amendment freedom of association.

Another Challenge To Ban On Transgender Discrimination In Health Care

Last week, the American College of Pediatricians, the Catholic Medical Association and an individual physician filed suit in a Tennessee federal district court challenging as a violation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, as well as of free speech and freedom of association protections, rules and interpretations of the Affordable Care Act that prohibit discrimination by medical providers on the basis of gender identity. The Obama Administration originally adopted the prohibition; the Trump Administration reversed the prohibition; and the Biden Administration returned to the discrimination ban.  In the meantime, challenges proceeded through the courts. Now, the complaint (full text) in American College of Pediatricians v. Becerra, (ED TN, filed 8/26/2021), alleges in part:

Two courts have already recognized that this mandate is illegal and enjoined it in favor of plaintiffs in those cases. Franciscan Alliance, Inc. v. Becerra...; Religious Sisters of Mercy v. Azar.... But both injunctions protect only the plaintiffs in those cases, not the plaintiffs or their members here.

ADF issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

City's Use Permit Requirement Violated State Free Exercise Law

In  Henry v. City of Somerton, (D AZ, June 17, 2021), an Arizona federal district court held that an Arizona city violated the state's Free Exercise of Religion Act when, under a now-amended ordinance, it required a church to obtain a conditional use permit to use rented space for religious services. The court held in part:

The Court finds the unamended Ordinance’s CUP requirement treated the Iglesia on less than equal terms than nonreligious assemblies, such as fraternal organizations.

Because there is no genuine dispute of material facts, the Court will grant summary judgment on the FERA claim. ...

Various other claims against the city were dismissed, including plaintiffs' prior restraint claim:

... [W]ithout even having tried to apply for a CUP, any injury Plaintiffs claim that resulted from the CUP evaluation process is purely conjectural. Plaintiffs cannot claim they were deterred by the CUP evaluation process because, by all accounts, they have been conducting services uninterrupted since the Iglesia opened.

Missouri AG Sues County Over COVID Restrictions

Missouri's Attorney General yesterday filed suit in state court against the St. Louis County Executive challenging the county's COVID-19 orders.  The complaint (full text) in State of Missouri ex. rel. Schmitt v. Page, (MO Cir. Ct., filed 5/11/2021), alleges, among other things, that the orders violate the state's Religious Freedom Restoration Act by requiring pre-approval of large religious gatherings and imposing capacity limits and  masking requirements. The Attorney General issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit. AP reports on the lawsuit.

HHS Says Affordable Care Act Bars LGBTQ Discrimination In Health Care

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services announced yesterday that its Office for Civil Rights will interpret the Affordable Care Act's anti-discrimination provisions as including discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. It said that this change from Trump Administration rules was made in light of the Supreme Court's recent Bostock decision. HHS also added that in enforcing these provisions, it will comply with the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and applicable court orders.

Montana Enacts A Religious Freedom Restoration Act

On April 22, Montana Governor Greg Gianforte signed SB215, the Montana Religious Freedom Restoration Act (full text). It provides in part:

State action may not substantially burden a person's right to the exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, unless it is demonstrated that applying the burden to that person's exercise of religion: (a) is essential to further a compelling governmental interest; and (b) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.

Christianity Today reports on the new law.

DC's Capacity Restrictions On Churches Held Invalid

In Roman Catholic Archbishop of Washington v. Bowser, (D DC, March 25, 2021), the D.C. federal district court granted a preliminary injunction against D.C.'s COVID-19 capacity restrictions on houses of worship, finding that they violate the 1st Amendment as well as RFRA. The limit of the lesser of 25% or 250 congregants particularly affects the  Basilica of the Shrine of the Immaculate Conception which seats at least 3000 people. The court said in part:

In practical terms, this means that the Archdiocese’s churches must stop admitting parishioners once they become a quarter full, but Whole Foods or Target can take in as many customers as they wish while complying with social-distancing requirements. “[O]nce a State creates a favored class of businesses, as [the District] has done in this case, [it] must justify why houses of worship are excluded from that favored class.”....

The District’s restrictions are also problematic because the 250-person cap uniquely burdens churches. The Mayor’s order explained that the District set the hard cap at 250 based on the number of persons that “the largest restaurant” could serve at 25 percent capacity....   But as the District admits, “no restaurant in the District has a room that can hold 1,000 people.”

Courthouse News Service reports on the decision.

Exchange of Apache Sacred Land Does Not Violate RFRA or Free Exercise Clause

 In Apache Stronghold v. United States, (D AZ, Feb. 12, 2021), an Arizona federal district court refused to issue a preliminary injunction to prevent a land exchange between the federal government and two foreign mining companies known as Resolution Copper. The land to be conveyed to Resolution Copper contains a sacred Apache ceremonial ground know as Oak Flat. In addition to rejecting treaty claims, the court concluded that plaintiff has not shown a likelihood of prevailing on its claims under the Free Exercise clause and RFRA, saying in part:

Plaintiff has not been deprived a government benefit, nor has it been coerced into violating their religious beliefs. The Court does not dispute, nor can it, that the Government's mining plans ... will have a devastating effect on the Apache people's religious practices.... However, Oak Flat does not provide the type of "benefit" required under RFRA jurisprudence....

The Southeast Arizona Land Exchange and Conservation Act is facially neutral, and Plaintiff has provided no evidence of any discriminatory intent behind its passage....

Apache Stronghold issued a press release announcing the decision.

Transgender Health Care Mandate Violates RFRA Rights of Catholic Entities

In Religious Sisters of Mercy v. Azar, (D ND, Jan. 19, 2021), a North Dakota federal district court in a 57-page opinion, granted a number of Catholic-affiliated health care and health insurance entities, and several Catholic employers, an injunction barring enforcement against them of transgender anti-discrimination rules that require them to provide or provide insurance coverage for transgender transition procedures. The court concluded that the anti-discrimination rules violate plaintiffs free exercise rights under RFRA. Becket Law has more background on the case.

Supreme Court Holds That RFRA Authorizes Damage Actions Against Federal Officials

The U.S. Supreme Court today in Tanzin v. Tanvir, (Sup. Ct., Dec. 10, 2020), held that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act permits suits for damages against federal officials in their individual capacities. In an 8-0 opinion (written by Justice Thomas), the court described the case as follows:

Respondents Muhammad Tanvir, Jameel Algibhah, and Naveed Shinwari are practicing Muslims who claim that Federal Bureau of Investigation agents placed them on the No Fly List in retaliation for their refusal to act as informants against their religious communities. Respondents sued various agents in their official capacities, seeking removal from the No Fly List. They also sued the agents in their individual capacities for money damages. According to respondents, the retaliation cost them substantial sums of money: airline tickets wasted and income from job opportunities lost.

Focusing on RFRA's authorization of suits seeking "appropriate relief" against the federal government or government officials, the Court said in part:

A damages remedy is not just “appropriate” relief as viewed through the lens of suits against Government employees. It is also the only form of relief that can remedy some RFRA violations.

Justice Barrett did not take part in the decision.

5th Circuit: Exception To Notice Requirement Under Texas RFRA Applies

 In Gonzales v. Mathis Independent School District, (5th Cir., Oct. 22, 2020), the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a Texas federal district court's issuance of a preliminary injunction to prevent a public school's exclusion of a student from extracurricular activities. The school invoked its hair length requirement to bar two brothers from such activities. The brothers had each made a religious promise (promesa) to wear one lock of hair uncut and braided to protect their mother's pregnancy and to ask for a cure for one of the brothers who had contracted meningitis. The court concluded that one of the brothers was precluded from suing under the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act because he had not complied with the statutory requirements of giving 60 days advance notice of the suit. It found, however, that the other brother fell within an exception from the notice requirement

DC Restrictions On Outdoor Church Services Violate RFRA

 In Capitol Hill Baptist Church v. Bowser, (D DC, Oct. 9, 2020), a D.C. federal district court issued a preliminary injunction allowing plaintiff church to hold outdoor services, with masks and appropriate social distancing, beyond the 100-person maximum set out in the D.C. mayor's COVID-19 restrictions. The court concluded that current restrictions on the church's outdoor services violate RFRA.  The court said in part:

The District proposes that under its current restrictions the Church could “hold multiple services, host a drive-in service, or broadcast the service online or over the radio,” as other faith communities in the District have done.... But the District misses the point. It ignores the Church’s sincerely held (and undisputed) belief about the theological importance of gathering in person as a full congregation. The “substantial burden inquiry asks whether the government has substantially burdened religious exercise . . . not whether [the Church] is able to engage in other forms of religious exercise.”... The District may think that its proposed alternatives are sensible substitutes. And for many churches they may be. But “it is not for [the District] to say that [the Church’s] religious beliefs” about the need to meet together as one corporal body “are mistaken or insubstantial.”... It is for the Church, not the District or this Court, to define for itself the meaning of “not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together.”...

The court made clear that its order applied only to the church that was plaintiff in this case. 

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

Church Says Eminent Domain Proceeding Violates It Religious Freedom Rights

 In Duncanville, Texas, the city has filed a condemnation petition seeking to take land owned by the Canaan Baptist Church in order to build a new fire station.  The property, which currently has no buildings on it, was acquired by the church in 2002 with plans to eventually build church buildings on it. In the meantime it is used for various outdoor church events by the 125-member, largely African-American church.  On Wednesday the church filed a motion seeking dismissal of the city's eminent domain proceedings.  The motion (full text) in City of Duncanville, Texas v. Canaan Baptist Church, (TX County Ct., filed 10/7/2020) contends that the condemnation proceedings violate the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the federal RLUIPA. First Liberty issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.