Air Force Officer Gets Injunction Against Required COVID Vaccine

In Air Force Officer v. Austin, (MD GA, Feb. 15, 2022), a Georgia federal district court, invoking RFRA and the 1st Amendment, granted a preliminary injunction to an Air Force officer who sought a religious exemption from the Air Force's COVID vaccine mandate.  The court said in part:

[T]he Court agrees with Plaintiff’s argument that Defendants haven’t “shown that vaccination is actually necessary by comparison to alternative measures[]” since “the curtailment of free [exercise] must be actually necessary to the solution.”...

Moreover, one must keep in mind that the Air Force has rejected 99.76% of all religious accommodation requests.... With such a marked record disfavoring religious accommodation requests, the Court easily finds that the Air Force’s process to protect religious rights is both illusory and insincere. In short, it’s just “theater.”...

Defendants’ COVID-19 vaccination requirement allows service members to refuse vaccination for secular reasons while disallowing refusal based on religious reasons.... No matter whether one service member is unvaccinated for a medical reason and another unvaccinated for a religious reason, one thing remains the same for both of these service members—they’re both unvaccinated. In other words, both of these service members pose a “similar hazard” to Defendants’ compelling interest in “[s]temming the spread of COVID-19” within the military....

[W]hat real interest can our military leaders have in furthering a requirement that violates the very document they swore to support and defend? The Court is unquestionably confident that the Air Force will remain healthy enough to carry out its critical national defense mission even if Plaintiff remains unvaccinated and is not forced to retire.

Thomas More Society issued a press release announcing the decision. 

10th Circuit: Muslim Terrorism Inmate Can Sue Under RFRA For Damages

In Ajaj v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, (10th Cir., Feb. 9, 2022), the U.S. 10th circuit Court of Appeals reversed a Colorado federal district court's dismissal of a religious freedom suit brought by an inmate who is serving a sentence of 114 years for terrorist acts related to the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. The court summarized its holding:

Ahmad Ajaj, a practicing Muslim, ... sued to obtain injunctive relief against BOP and damages from BOP officials [alleging] violations of his rights to free exercise of religion under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).... He contends that the district court erred by holding (1) that his claim against the BOP for denial of his right to group prayer was moot and (2) that RFRA did not provide a claim for damages against government officials in their individual capacities.... [W]e ... reverse the challenged rulings. The mootness ruling was based on a misconception of the evidence....  And the Supreme Court has now ruled in Tanzin v. Tanvir ... that damages claims are permissible under RFRA.... We reject Mr. Ajaj’s contention that the doctrine of qualified immunity is inapplicable to RFRA claims, but we decline to resolve whether the individual defendants in this case have shown entitlement to qualified immunity, leaving that matter to the district court in the first instance.

Court Rejects Religious and Other Challenges To Takeover Of Abandoned Homes

Honkala v. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development,  (ED PA, Jan. 31, 2022) involves an unsuccessful challenge to the Philadelphia Housing Authority's (PHA) attempted eviction of homeless families who took over abandoned vacant housing owned by PHA.  A community activist and the Poor People’s Economic Human Rights Campaign staged a series of such takeovers.  Among the challenges raised by plaintiffs were religious freedom claims under RFRA and RLUIPA. The court explains:

[Plaintiffs assert] they are “currently possessed of ethical, moral, humanitarian and/or religious belief(s) and action(s), including but not limited to those rooted in a Judeo-Christian tradition of caring for the least and most needy amongst us, which federal law therefore respects and identifies as a ‘religious belief’ pursuant to the definition thereof as set forth in 42 U.S.C. §2000cc-5.”... Plaintiffs allege that their work “building and/or repairing and/or converting real property, such as the public housing property at issue…is therefore considered a ‘religious exercise,’ and Defendants are unable to satisfy their “burden of proving that eviction is the least restrictive means of fostering any compelling interest it may otherwise invoke.....

The Pennsylvania federal district court rejected plaintiffs' RFRA claim because RFRA applies only to actions of the federal government and not to that of states and municipalities.  While PHA holds the property in trust for HUD, HUD did not cause their injuries.  The court also rejected plaintiffs" RLUIPA claim because the claim does not involve a zoning issue and because plaintiffs have no property interest in the house.  The court additionally rejected several other legal theories put forward by plaintiffs, but said in part:

As a means of focusing attention on governmental failure to make effective use of assets available to reduce homelessness, this action succeeds. And if principles of natural law provided the controlling standard, Plaintiffs would have a compelling moral argument: “In cases of need, all things are common property, so there would seem to be no sin in taking another’s property, for need has made it common.” Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica 2.2, Question 66, Article 7. But civil law is not designed to answer such ultimate moral questions.

RFRA Defense Successful For Tribal Member Charged In Protest Over Border Wall Construction

In United States v. Ortega, (D AZ, Jan. 19, 2022), an Arizona federal district court reversed its earlier ruling (see prior posting) and allowed Amber Ortega, a member of the Tohono O’odham Nation, to raise a Religious  Freedom Restoration Act defense in her trial on two misdemeanor charges for violating a closure order at the Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument. Ortega was protesting construction of a border wall at Organ Pipe. At the hearing on Wednesday, the court went on to acquit Ortega.  According to KJZZ News, at the hearing Ortega's new lawyer argued:

[T]he religious act in question was not prayer at Quitobaquito.  It was the act of standing at the construction line and witnessing what she saw as the destruction of her ancestral land.

Navy Enjoined From Applying Vaccine Mandate To Plaintiff Religious Objectors

 In U.S. Navy SEALs 1-26 v. Biden, (ND TX, Jan. 3, 2022), a Texas federal district court issued a preliminary injunction barring the U.S. Navy from imposing its COVID-19 vaccine mandate on 35 Navy service members who are plaintiffs in the case.  The court held that plaintiffs need not exhaust their military remedies before suing because, while the Navy's policy provides for religious exemptions, the denial of each exemption request is predetermined.  Also, even if a religious exemption is granted, the service member is then permanently barred from deployment.

The court concluded that applying the vaccine mandate to plaintiffs violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, saying in part:

Because the Plaintiffs have demonstrated a substantial burden, Defendants must show that this burden furthers a compelling interest using the least restrictive means....

Even if Defendants have a broad compelling interest in widespread vaccination of its force, they have achieved this goal without the participation of the thirty-five Plaintiffs here. At least 99.4% of all active-duty Navy servicemembers have been vaccinated.... The remaining 0.6% is unlikely to undermine the Navy’s efforts.... With a 99.4% vaccination rate, the Navy’s herd immunity is at an all-time high. COVID-19 treatments are becoming increasingly effective at reducing hospitalization and death....

Moreover, the Navy is willing to grant exemptions for non-religious reasons. Its mandate includes carveouts for those participating in clinical trials and those with medical contraindications and allergies to vaccines.... Because these categories of exempt servicemembers are still deployable, a clinical trial participant who receives a placebo may find himself ill in the high-stakes situation that Defendants fear.... As a result, the mandate is underinclusive.

The court also concluded that applying the mandate to plaintiffs violates the 1st Amendment's free exercise clause because the mandate is not neutral and generally applicable.

First Liberty issued a press release announcing the decision.

Christian Organizations Ask Supreme Court To Stay OSHA Private-Employer Vaccine Mandate

Last Friday, in a 2-1 decision in In re: MCP No. 165, Occupational Safety & Health Admin. Rule on COVID-19 Vaccination and Testing, (6th Cir., Dec. 17, 2021), the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals dissolved a stay of OSHA's Emergency Temporary Standard that calls for employers of of 100 or more persons to require either COVID vaccination of employees or weekly testing (and masks) for unvaccinated workers. Challenges in some three dozen cases had been consolidated in the 6th Circuit which then had authority to modify or dissolve the prior stay issued by the 5th Circuit. 

Among the consolidated cases was one brought by a number of Christian schools, colleges and organizations that were subject to the rule. They quickly filed an Emergency Application with the U.S. Supreme Court asking for a stay pending appeal of the 6th Circuit's decision. The Application (full text) in Southern Baptist Theological Seminary v. OSHA, (Sup. Ct., filed 12/17/2021) argues:

OSHA lacks jurisdiction to regulate religious non-profit institutions, because they are not “employers” under the OSH Act.

It goes on to contend that the OSHA rule also violates Applicants' religious freedom rights under RFRA and the 1st Amendment, saying in part:

OSHA “commandeers” Religious Institutions “to compel [their] employees” to comply with the mandate.... To ensure compliance, Religious Institutions must probe their ministers’ and employees’ intimate and personal medical decisions that often implicate their religious beliefs. This is precisely the “secular control or manipulation” that the First Amendment prohibits.... In addition, the mandate violates the First Amendment by setting the “terms and conditions of employment” to work for Religious Institutions ... and interfering with their ability to “select[] ... the individuals who play certain key roles”....

Religious Institutions exercise their faith by providing seminary training, providing Catholic and Christian education, engaging in nonprofit ministries, and operating for-profit businesses according to Christian values. The Mandate will force Religious Institutions to take faculty out of classrooms, and staff out of operating these organizations and businesses—for testing on a weekly basis or for non-compliance—which will significantly disrupt Religious Institutions’ mission, including for-profit businesses’ operations and exercise.... This burden is substantial—not mere inconvenience—because Religious Institutions’ employees are not fungible.

ADF issued a press release announcing the filing of the Emergency Application. SCOTUblog discusses the filing.

A second Emergency Application was filed by a different group of Christian organizations.  The Application (full text) in Word of God Fellowship, Inc. v. OSHA, (Sup. Ct., filed 12/19/2021) contends in part:

... [T]he violation of the Ministries’ religious faiths is not cured by the provisions of the ETS and Title VII that provide them with discretion to grant religious accommodations to their employees.... The Ministries cannot put their employees to the test by requiring them to seek religious accommodations for the government-imposed vaccine mandate.... In other words, even asking their employees to make a decision of religious conscience about the vaccine mandate causes the Ministries to engage in what they believe is sin. Moreover, the mask requirement for unvaccinated employees also burdens the Ministries’ religious beliefs, because they believe that OSHA’s requirement that they mask unvaccinated employees would forcibly identify those who are unvaccinated and cause division within their organizations.... The Ministries believe they have a Biblical duty to promote unity within their organizations.

Axios reports on this filing.

Tribe Sues Claiming Energy Project Violates Its Religious Rights

The Center for Biological Diversity announced yesterday:

The Fallon Paiute-Shoshone Tribe and Center for Biological Diversity sued the U.S. Bureau of Land Management Wednesday over its approval of the Dixie Meadows geothermal energy project, which could dry up nearby springs and harm an extremely rare amphibian, the Dixie Valley toad.

The complaint (full text) in Fallon Paiute-Shoshone Tribe v. U.S. Department of the Interior, (D NV, filed 12/15/2021), includes a claim that approval of the project violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act:

188. The Tribe and its members’ sincerely held religious beliefs involve quiet contemplation and reflection at Dixie Meadows Hot Springs, including the surrounding landscape. Tribal members’ compliance with these beliefs is a religious exercise.

189. Defendants’ approval of the Project creates government-imposed coercive pressure on the Tribal members to change or violate their religious beliefs. As detailed in this Complaint, approval of the Project damages the sacred value of the Hot Springs by altering its undisturbed state, and damages Tribal members’ ability to carry out religious practices by creating noise, light, and visual pollution.

The complaint points out:

59. On November 9, 2021—14 days before BLM approved the Project—Interior, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the U.S. Department of Transportation, the U.S. Department of Energy, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, CEQ, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and the Tennessee Valley Authority entered into a memorandum of understanding (“MOU”) concerning the protection of indigenous sacred sites.

60. The MOU recognizes that the spiritual and religious practices and traditions of indigenous peoples are closely tied to the natural world and specific places.

Court Denies Motion Under RFRA And 1st Amendment To Dismiss Indictments

In United States v. Morales, (SD CA, Dec. 13, 2021), a California federal district court denied a motion to dismiss indictments against three defendants who claimed that the indictments violated their rights under RFRA and the Free Exercise Clause. Among the charges were that defendants induced Imperial Valley Ministry participants to surrender SNAP benefits to the Ministries and that they dispatched IVM participants to panhandle. The court said in part:

The Court finds too attenuated a link between the Government’s prosecution of Defendants for forced labor, document servitude, and benefits fraud and Defendants’ purported religious activities of evangelizing, fundraising, donating to the church, and general operation of IVM programs for there to be a substantial burden, as there remain viable alternative avenues for Defendants to conduct their specified religious activities....

11th Circuit Rejects Nuclear Protesters' RFRA Defense

In United States v. Grady, (11th Cir., Nov. 22, 2021), the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the convictions of three members of the Plowshares movement, a Catholic protest organization opposed to nuclear weapons. Defendants were convicted for their illegal entry onto a Naval submarine base that was followed by a religious "symbolic disarmament" protest. The court rejected defendants' argument that their indictments should have been dismissed under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, saying in part:

In this case, the parties agree that the defendants were exercising sincerely held religious beliefs, the government substantially burdened the defendants’ religious exercise, and the government has a compelling interest. Accordingly, the fourth prong in the RFRA analysis is the only prong in dispute in this appeal—whether the government met its burden of demonstrating that criminal prosecution of the defendants was the least-restrictive means of furthering its significant compelling interests in the safety and security of the naval base, naval base personnel, and naval base assets....

[I]n order to be a viable least-restrictive means for purposes of RFRA, the proposed alternative needed to accommodate both the religious exercise practiced in this case— unauthorized entry onto the naval base and destructive actions, including spray painting monuments, doors, and sidewalks, pouring human blood on doors and other areas, hammering on a static missile display, hanging banners and crime scene tape, as well as removing and partially destroying signage and monuments around the naval base—and simultaneously achieve the government’s compelling interests in the safety and security of the naval base, naval base assets, personnel, and critical operations....

[N]othing in RFRA supports destructive, national-security-compromising conduct as a means of religious exercise. 

Court Defers Ruling On Military's Actions On Religious Exemption Requests From Vaccine Mandate

In Seal I v. Biden, (MD FL, Nov. 22, 2021), a Florida federal district court, after a lengthy discussion of free exercise protection under the 1st Amendment and RFRA, deferred until at least Jan. 7, 2022, ruling on a motion for a preliminary injunction sought by service members seeking religious exemptions from the federal government's COVID vaccine mandate for members of the military. According to the court:

[P]laintiffs claim the regulations — governing in each respective branch the availability of a religious exemption from the COVID vaccine and purporting to comply with the demands of RFRA — in reality disguise an unlawful and pervasive policy of the Secretary of Defense and each branch of the armed forces to deny individual consideration of each claim for a religious exemption, to instead “deny them all,” and to punish, possibly by discharge, without exemption and without accommodation, those who assert a sincere religious objection and accordingly refuse the vaccine....

[T]he data produced by the defendants show that more than 16,643 requests for a religious exemption pend. The military has granted no exemptions but has denied hundreds. This disparity, although susceptible to a benign explanation is, as well, susceptible to an explanation actionable and remediable under RFRA.

The court ordered each branch of the armed forces, beginning Jan. 7, 2022, to file bi-weekly reports on the number of exemption requests and the number granted, as well as on the number of service members court martialed after the denial of a religious exemption. Liberty Counsel issued a press release announcing the decision.

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.