Supreme Court Vacates Stay of Injunction Against Yeshiva University, Sending Case Back To State Courts

The U.S. Supreme court yesterday in Yeshiva University v. YU Pride Alliance, (Sup. Ct., Sept. 14, 2022), vacated the stay issued on Sept. 9 by Justice Sotomayor of a New York state trial court's injunction that required Yeshiva University to officially recognize as a student organization an LGBTQ group, YU Pride Alliance. In a 5-4 vote, the Court issued the following opinion directing the University to first seek expedited review and interim relief from New York trial courts.  Here is the full opinion [paragraph breaks added]:

The application (22A184) for stay pending appeal of a permanent injunction entered by the New York trial court, presented to Justice Sotomayor and by her referred to the Court, is denied without prejudice to applicants again seeking relief from this Court if, upon properly seeking expedited review and interim relief from the New York courts, applicants receive neither. The order heretofore entered by Justice Sotomayor is vacated.

Applicants Yeshiva University and its president seek emergency relief from a non-final order of the New York trial court requiring the University to treat an LGBTQ student group similarly to other student groups in its student club recognition process. The application is denied because it appears that applicants have at least two further avenues for expedited or interim state court relief. First, applicants may ask the New York courts to expedite consideration of the merits of their appeal. Applicants do not assert, nor does the Appellate Division docket reveal, that they have ever requested such relief. Second, applicants may file with the Appellate Division a corrected motion for permission to appeal that court’s denial of a stay to the New York Court of Appeals, as the Appellate Division clerk’s office directed applicants to do on August 25. Applicants may also ask the Appellate Division to expedite consideration of that motion.

If applicants seek and receive neither expedited review nor interim relief from the New York courts, they may return to this Court.

Justice Alito, with whom Justice Thomas, Justice Gorsuch, and Justice Barrett join, dissent.

NY Jewish Week reports on the decision. [Thanks to Rabbi Michael Simon for the lead.]

UPDATE: Here is the full text of Justice Alito's dissent. He said in part:

At least four of us are likely to vote to grant certiorari if Yeshiva’s First Amendment arguments are rejected on appeal, and Yeshiva would likely win if its case came before us. A State’s imposition of its own mandatory interpretation of scripture is a shocking development that calls out for review. The Free Exercise Clause protects the ability of religious schools to educate in accordance with their faith.

Justice Sotomayor Stays NY Order Requiring Yeshiva University To Recognize LGBTQ Group

In Yeshiva University v. YU Pride Alliance, (Sup. Ct., Sept. 9, 2022),  U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor today issued an order staying a New York trial court's injunction that required Yeshiva University to officially recognize as a student organization an LGBTQ group, YU Pride Alliance. The New York trial court held that applying the public accommodation provisions of the New York City Human Rights Law to Yeshiva does not violate its First Amendment free exercise or free speech rights. (See prior posting.) Justice Sotomayor granted the University's Emergency Application for a Stay Pending Appellate Review without referring the petition to the full Court. However she wrote that her stay was granted "pending further order of the undersigned or of the Court." CNN reports on developments.

Christian Healthcare Organization Sues Over Michigan Non-Discrimination Law

Suit was filed yesterday in a Michigan federal district court by a faith-based healthcare organization contending that Michigan's employment discrimination law violates its free exercise, free speech and due process rights. The 73-page complaint (full text) in Christian Healthcare Centers, Inc. v. Nessel, (WD MI, filed 8/29/2022), contends in part:

Under the guise of stopping discrimination, the law discriminates against religious organizations, requiring them to forfeit their religious character and hire people who do not share their faith. That same law also forces Christian Healthcare to prescribe cross-sex hormones and refer to patients in communications and medical records according to their stated gender identity, rather than their biological sex. All of this violates Christian Healthcare’s religious convictions. In effect, the law requires Christian Healthcare to check its religious faith at the clinic door—the very faith that motivates the clinic to open its doors to help those in need....

290. Michigan’s laws do not contain a religious exemption for religious entities like Christian Healthcare.

291. Michigan’s Employment Clause allows employers to apply to the Commission for an exemption on the basis that religion is a bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ) reasonably necessary to the normal operation of the business or enterprise. MCL 37.2208; MDCR Rule 37.25(1)....

297. Because Christian Healthcare requires all employees to affirm and live in accordance with its Religious Statements, which prohibit same-sex relationships and expressing a transgender identity, it would need a BFOQ exemption from discrimination on the basis sexual orientation, gender identity, and religion for every one of its employees.

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

Yeshiva University Asks Supreme Court For Stay While State Court Ruling On Recognizing LGBTQ Group Is Appealed

Yesterday, an emergency Application for a Stay Pending Appellate Review (full text) was filed in Yeshiva University v. YU Pride Alliance, (Sup. Ct., filed 8/29/2022). In the case,  a New York state trial court held that New York City's public accommodation law requires Yeshiva University to officially recognize as a student organization an LGBTQ group, YU Pride Alliance. (See prior posting.) State appellate courts refused to stay the ruling. The petition contends that Yeshiva University is likely to succeed on its contention that forcing it to recognize the group violates the University's free exercise rights and the principles of church autonomy. The filing asks that alternatively it be treated as a petition for certiorari. Becket issued a press release announcing the filing of the Application.

No Church Autonomy Defense To Catholic Organization's Sexual Orientation Discrimination

In Doe v. Catholic Relief Services, (D MD, Aug. 3, 2022), a Maryland federal district court granted summary judgment in favor of plaintiff who was denied spousal health insurance coverage for his same-sex husband. Rejecting a church-autonomy defense, the court said in part:

CRS insists that any judicial inquiry into this case inevitably requires an inquiry into matters of Catholic faith and doctrine. This is not so; this case concerns a social service organization's employment benefit decisions regarding a data analyst and does not involve CRS's spiritual or ministerial functions.

The court held that Catholic Relief Services violated Title VII, and that the exemption in Title VII for religious organizations only applies to discrimination by them on the basis of religion. It also held that RFRA does not provide a defense because it applies only to claims against the government. The court also found no First Amendment violation, saying in part:

Our Constitution's solicitousness of religious exercise is not carte blanche for any religious institution wishing to place itself beyond the reach of any neutral and generally applicable law. This court need not engage in a strict scrutiny analysis that would apply if a truly comparable secular institution were being treated favorably compared to CRS.

The court went on to find violations of the federal and state Equal Pay Acts, and ordered certification to the state court of a question of coverage by Maryland's Fair Employment Practices Act.

Michigan Supreme Court: State's Public Accommodation Law Bars Sexual Orientation Discrimination

In Rouch World, LLC v. Department of Civil Rights, (MI Sup. Ct., July 28, 2022), the Michigan Supreme Court, in a 5-2 decision, held that the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act's ban on sex discrimination on the basis of sex includes discrimination based on sexual orientation. The case was brought in the state Court of Claims by two businesses which, on religious grounds, refused to serve LGBT clients. One of the plaintiffs had refused to host a same-sex wedding at its event center. The other had refused to provide electrolysis hair-removal services to a transgender woman. The Court of Claims, bound by higher state court precedent, held that the ELCRA did not cover sexual orientation discrimination. However, lacking state court precedent on its application to transgender discrimination, the Court of Claims held that the ECLRA does ban discrimination on the basis of gender identity.  Only the holding regarding sexual orientation was appealed to the state Supreme Court.

Justice Clement's majority Supreme Court opinion said in part:

[W]e conclude that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation necessarily involves discrimination because of sex in violation of the ELCRA. In so doing, we find persuasive Bostock’s application of Title VII’s but-for standard. While we are encouraged but not bound to consider persuasive Title VII federal case law, ... we find that Bostock offers a straightforward analysis of the plain meaning of analogous statutory language and we agree with its reasoning....

Plaintiff Rouch World, along with the dissent, also criticizes this conclusion as inconsistent with the intent of the 1976 Legislature that enacted the ELCRA. It argues that the ELCRA’s legislative history demonstrates that the Legislature intentionally chose to exclude protections from discrimination based on sexual orientation, both at the time of its enactment by declining to include the specific language and repeatedly thereafter by rejecting proposed amendments that would have added the specific language. However, the legislative history of a statute is relevant to the statute’s meaning only where the statute is ambiguous.... When the statute’s language is clear, as it is here, we rely on that plain language as the best evidence of its meaning.

Judge Zahra, dissenting, said in part:

I take no issue with the merits of the policy adopted today by a majority of this Court. I also harbor no doubt that my colleagues in the majority are acting in good faith, with pure hearts and the best of intentions.

Yet ... this Court’s duty is to say what the law is, not what it thinks the law ought to be.

The majority opinion declares that “because of . . . sex” means something that nobody in 1976 thought it meant.... [T]he majority opinion also declares that phrase to encompass something that the enacting Legislature specifically and explicitly considered including but ultimately chose not to embrace.... If we are to be faithful to our constitutional mandate to say what the law is, we simply cannot pretend that the ELCRA says something that it does not say.

Justice Viviano filed a dissenting opinion which says in part:

The relevant statutory provision, MCL 37.2302(a), prohibits certain discriminatory actions taken “because of . . . sex,” among other things. Properly interpreted, this requires that the defendant maintain some prejudice, bias, animus, or belief about “sex” or the other characteristics protected by the statute....

[D]iscrimination on the basis of one’s sexual orientation is not discrimination because of some prejudice, bias, animus, or belief about the male sex or the female sex.

Bridge Michigan reports on the decision.

Christian University Sues To Stop Investigation of LGBTQ Discrimination

Suit was filed yesterday in a Washington federal district court by a Christian university challenging the state of Washington's investigation of whether the university has discriminated in hiring on the basis of sexual orientation.  The complaint (full text) in Seattle Pacific University v. Ferguson, (WD WA, filed 7/27/2022), alleges in part:

4. As part of its religious commitment, Seattle Pacific expects its faculty, staff and leadership to agree with the University’s statement of faith and to live out that faith as a model for others, including by living according to the University’s religious teachings on marriage. Seattle Pacific relies on its faculty, staff, and leadership to provide a Christian higher education by integrating faith and learning.

5. The U.S. Constitution recognizes and protects the right of Seattle Pacific University to decide matters of faith and doctrine, to hire employees who share its religious beliefs, and to select and retain ministers free from government interference.

6. Defendant does not recognize that right. Despite the Constitution’s clear prohibition on interference in matters of church governance, including entangling investigations of religious employment decisions and the selection of ministers, Washington’s attorney general has launched a probe that does just that.

Courthouse News Service reports on the lawsuit.

Maine AG Says Christian Schools May Still Be Ineligible For Tuition Assistance Program

 As previously reported, last week in Carson v. Makin, the U.S. Supreme Court held that sectarian schools could not be excluded from Maine's tuition aid program that is open to nonsectarian private schools. In a press release posted immediately after the Court's decision, Maine's Attorney General said that many religious schools may still not be able to participate in the program because they:

refuse to admit gay and transgender children, and openly discriminate in hiring teachers and staff....  Educational facilities that accept public funds must comply with anti-discrimination provisions of the Maine Human Rights Act, and this would require some religious schools to eliminate their current discriminatory practices.

Insurance Journal reports that in response to the AG's statement, a spokesperson for the American Association of Christian Schools said:

We don’t look at it as discrimination at all. We have a set of principles and beliefs that we believe are conducive to prosperity, to the good life, so to speak, and we partner with parents who share that vision....

Proposed Rule Amendments Say Title IX Bars LGBT Discrimination

Last Thursday, the Department of Education issued a 700-page Release (full text) proposing amendments to the regulations implementing Title IX which bars sex discrimination in education programs or activities that receive federal funding. Among other things, a new rule, 34 CFR 106.10, would provide:

Discrimination on the basis of sex includes discrimination on the basis of sex stereotypes, sex characteristics, pregnancy or related conditions, sexual orientation, and gender identity.

President Issues Executive Order On Equality For LGBTQI+ Individuals

President Biden yesterday issued an Executive Order on Advancing Equality for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, and Intersex Individuals. (Full text). The Order sets out a long list of initiatives to be undertaken by various Cabinet departments and federal agencies. These include using federal authority to counter state laws which limit access to medically necessary care, reducing the risk of exposure to conversion therapy, and strengthening non-discrimination protections.  The Order also focuses on support for LGBTQI+ individuals in schools, housing programs, family counseling and health care.

Yeshiva University Must Recognize LGBTQ Student Group

In YU Pride Alliance v. Yeshiva University, (NY Cty. Sup.Ct., June 14, 2022), a New York state trial court held that New York City's public accommodation law requires Yeshiva University to officially recognize as a student organization an LGBTQ group, YU Pride Alliance.  The University must immediately grant the organization the full and equal treatment accorded to other student organizations.  The court rejected the University's claim that it is exempt from coverage under the definitions in NY Admin Code §8-102 which excludes from coverage a "religious corporation incorporated under the education law."  While Yeshiva University is incorporated under the education law, according to the court:

Yeshiva's organizing documents do not expressly indicate that Yeshiva has a religious purpose. Rather, Yeshiva organized itself as an "educational corporation" and for educational purposes, exclusively.... [T]he inquiry must focus on the purpose of the institution, which is typically expressed in a corporation's organizing documents. There may be schools organized under the education law that have a stated religious purpose so that they are exempt.... Since Yeshiva has not done so, the court does not need to reach this issue.

The court went on to hold that applying the public accommodation provisions of the New York City Human Rights Law to Yeshiva does not violate its First Amendment free exercise or free speech rights, saying in part:

Assuming arguendo that Yeshiva's refusal to recognize an LGBTQ student group is part of its exercise of religion, the NYCHRL's impact on Yeshiva's exercise of religion is only incidental to the NYCHRL's ban on discrimination. There can be no dispute that the NYCHRL is a neutral law of general applicability. It does not target religious practice....

... Yeshiva's Free Speech rights will not be violated by application of the NYCHRL. Formal recognition of a student group does not equate with endorsement of that group's message....

Washington Examiner reports on the decision.

Arizona Legislature Passes Bill To Protect Practices Of Faith-Based Adoption Agencies

On Monday, the Arizona legislature sent to the governor for his signature Senate Bill 1399 (full text) which protects adoption and foster care agencies from adverse action when they provide or decline services on the basis of their religious beliefs. It also provides that the state may consider whether a potential foster or adoptive family shares the same religious beliefs or practices as the child being placed. AZ Mirror has extensive reporting on the views of proponents and opponents of the legislation.

Christian Wedding Photographer Loses Suit Against NY Public Accommodation Law

In Emilee Carpenter, LLC v. James, (WD NY, Dec. 13, 2021), a New York federal district court refused to enjoin the application of New York's public accommodation law to a Christian wedding photographer who refuses on religious grounds to photograph same-sex weddings. The court rejected plaintiff's Free Speech and Free Exercise claims, saying in part:

New York has a compelling interest in ensuring that individuals, without regard to sexual orientation, have “equal access to publicly available goods and services.”...

The crux of Plaintiff’s claims is that her photography is the product of her unique artistic style and vision. Thus, an exemption for Plaintiff’s unique, nonfungible services would necessarily undermine, not serve, the State’s purpose, as it would “relegate [same-sex couples] to an inferior market” than that enjoyed by the public at large....

Exclusion Of Christian School From Scholarship Program Violated Its Free Speech Rights

In Bethel Ministries, Inc. v. Salmon,(D MD, Dec. 10, 2021), a Maryland federal district court held that the free speech rights of a Christian elementary school were violated when the state disqualified it from participating in a scholarship program for disadvantaged students attending private schools. The school lost its eligibility because its handbook set out a policy inconsistent with sexual orientation non-discrimination provisions. The court held that this amounted to an unconstitutional viewpoint-based condition on the school's ability to receive government funding. The court said in part:

Defendants have failed to put forth any evidence that Bethel’s policy has deterred a single prospective applicant from applying for admission at Bethel, let alone any evidence that Bethel has ever denied admission, expelled, or disciplined a student on the basis of sexual orientation.... Instead ... the record reflects that Defendants focused exclusively on the text of Bethel’s handbook....

The text of Bethel’s policy alone is not evidence of discriminatory conduct; the text of the policy is speech.... [E]xcluding Bethel ... based on the text of its admissions policy alone ... is a regulation of speech, not a regulation of conduct....

Not only was Defendants’ decision to exclude Bethel from BOOST eligibility based on Bethel’s speech, but it was based on the specific viewpoints Bethel chose to express in its admissions policy...

ADF issued a press release announcing the decision.

Religious Child Placement Agency Challenges HHS Non-Discrimination Regulations

Suit was filed yesterday against the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services in a Tennessee federal district court by a religious child welfare agency that offers residential and foster care services for abused and neglected children. The suit challenges an HHS regulation that prohibits foster care and adoption programs receiving federal funds from discriminating on the basis of religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or same-sex marriage status. The regulation expands upon the statutory prohibition on discrimination in such programs on the basis of race, color or national origin. The complaint (full text) in Holston United Methodist Home for Children v. Becerra,(ED TN. filed 12/2/2021), alleges that the regulation exceeds the federal agency's authority and that it violates RFRA and various 1st Amendment rights. The complaint alleges in part:

28. It would substantially burden Holston Home’s exercise of its religious beliefs to knowingly engage in child placing activities in connection with persons that do not agree with its Christian statement of faith and beliefs....

30. It would substantially burden Holston Home’s exercise of its religious beliefs to knowingly engage in child placing activities in connection with couples who may be romantically cohabitating but not married, or who are couples of the same biological sex.

The Trump Administration had issued waivers of the rule for faith-based agencies, but those waivers were rescinded by the Biden Administration last month. (See prior posting). ADF issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Settlement Agreement Reached In Arleen's Flowers LGBT Discrimination Case

ADF announced yesterday that a settlement agreement (full text) has been reached in the long-running Arleen's Flowers litigation. In the case, the Washington state Supreme Court held that a florist shop's refusal to provide flowers for a same-sex wedding constitutes sexual orientation discrimination under the Washington Law Against Discrimination, and that enforcement of the law does not violate the constitutional rights of the floral shop owner. In July, the U.S. Supreme Court denied review (see prior posting). According to ADF:

A settlement agreement ... ends a lawsuit brought against floral artist Barronelle Stutzman nearly a decade ago without forcing her to act against her religious beliefs or to pay potentially ruinous attorneys’ fees.... Stutzman has chosen to retire so her beloved employees can run her business, Arlene’s Flowers. She will withdraw a pending petition for rehearing at the U.S. Supreme Court and make a payment of only $5,000 to the two men who sued her.

Stutzman, 77 and a great-grandmother, explained that she is at peace because the settlement allows her to finally retire with her conscience intact, and she knows that the legal effort to protect the artistic freedoms of creative professionals will continue in cases like 303 Creative v. Elenis, which the U.S. Supreme Court could decide to hear soon.

Tri-City Herald reports on the settlement.

LGBTQ Discrimination In Placing Unaccompanied Minor Refugees Is Challenged

Suit was filed earlier this week in federal district court for the District of Columbia challenging the Office of Refugee Resettlement's contracting with religiously-sponsored agencies (including the USCCB) that discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation in providing foster parents for unaccompanied minor refugees. The complaint (full text) in Easter v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, (D DC, filed 10/13/2021), alleges in part:

Some ... organizations ... provide taxpayer-funded foster placement services on the federal government’s behalf in a discriminatory manner that categorically excludes lesbian, gay, and bisexual people from participating as prospective foster parents. They contend that the organizations’ religious beliefs justify denying lesbian, gay, and bisexual people from participating equally in the government program that the agencies receive taxpayer funds to administer....

The United States Constitution constrains the government by requiring freedom without favor and equality without exception in performing its functions. And what the government cannot do directly, it may not do indirectly.

Americans United issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit. 

Executive Order Calls For Review To Assure No Discrimination In Education On Basis of Sex, Sexual Orientation or Gender Identity

Yesterday President Biden issued an Executive Order on Guaranteeing an Educational Environment Free from Discrimination on the Basis of Sex, Including Sexual Orientation or Gender Identity (full text). It calls for a review of existing federal regulations and guidance documents to assure "an educational environment free from discrimination on the basis of sex, including discrimination in the form of sexual harassment, which encompasses sexual violence, and including discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. "

Biden Issues Executive Order Calling For Agency Rules To Protect Against LGBTQ Discrimination

On Wednesday, President Biden issued an Executive Order (full text) calling on all federal agencies that administer statutes barring sex discrimination to review any of their regulations that do not assure that this protection extends to discrimination on the basis of gender identity and sexual orientation. The Executive Order begins with a broad policy statement:

Every person should be treated with respect and dignity and should be able to live without fear, no matter who they are or whom they love.  Children should be able to learn without worrying about whether they will be denied access to the restroom, the locker room, or school sports.  Adults should be able to earn a living and pursue a vocation knowing that they will not be fired, demoted, or mistreated because of whom they go home to or because how they dress does not conform to sex-based stereotypes.  People should be able to access healthcare and secure a roof over their heads without being subjected to sex discrimination.  All persons should receive equal treatment under the law, no matter their gender identity or sexual orientation.

It also takes the position that the Supreme Court's recent Title VII Bostock decision applies equally to the sex discrimination bans in Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, the Fair Housing Act and the Immigration and Nationality Act. NBC News reports on the Executive Order.

Ministerial Exception Applies To Title IX Hostile Work Environment Claims

In Koenke v. Saint Joseph's University, (ED PA, Jan. 8, 2021), a woman employed by a Catholic university sued under Title IX claiming sexual orientation discrimination.  The court held that the Supreme Court's Bostock decision should be read to apply to sexual orientation discrimination under Title IX as well as under Title VII. All the parties agreed that plaintiff's position as Assistant Director for Music and Worship was a "ministerial" position for purposes of the ministerial exception. However plaintiff claimed that the ministerial exception does not apply to non-tangible employment discrimination claims such as hostile work environment.  The court disagreed, saying in part:

[H]ostile work environment claims, particularly those brought pursuant to Title VII or Title IX, clearly fall within the scope of cases banned by the ministerial exception.... The Supreme Court has not cabined the ministerial exception to tangible or intangible employment actions, and it is not for this Court to create such an exception to binding precedent.