Veteran Has Standing to Challenge Therapist Bill As Establishment Clause Violation

In Copas v. Haslam, (MD TN, May 25, 2018), a Tennessee federal district court held that a gay Army veteran, who also holds a degree in counseling, has standing to bring an Establishment Clause challenge to a Tennessee law that permits therapists to refuse to serve LGBT clients when doing so would violate the therapist's religious beliefs. Plaintiff suffers from PTSD and Chronic Adjustment disorder, and has sought therapy in the past. The court held that plaintiff's claim that he has been marginalized and "made to feel ostracized and
unworthy as a non-adherent to the religiously-based, anti-LGBT preference" in the law is a sufficiently concrete injury to grant standing.  It also held that he has been sufficiently personally injured by the law to satisfy Article III standing requirements for his Establishment Clause claim.  The court however dismissed several equal protection claims made by plaintiff.

Church's Suit Challenging California Health Insurance Rules Dismissed As Not Ripe

In Skyline Wesleyan Church v. California Department of Managed Health Care, (SD CA, March 9, 2018), a California federal district court dismissed on ripeness and standing grounds a suit by a church challenging California insurance rules on the coverage of abortion services by health policies.  The church objected to providing its employees with policies that covered abortions.  Initially state regulators required all policies to contain such coverage, but subsequently said they would grant exemptions for policies offered exclusively to religious employers.  The court said in part:

At this point in time it cannot be said that the DMHC would deny a health care plan’s request to offer the exemption sought by Plaintiff because no such plan has been submitted. Thus, the existence of a controversy depends on a factual scenario that may or may not materialize, making this case unfit for review.

Monument Challenges Dismissed For Lack of Standing

In American Atheists, Inc. v. Levy County, (ND FL, Dec. 3, 2017), a Florida federal district court dismissed on standing grounds a challenge to a Ten Commandments monument in a courtyard outside county government buildings, as well as a challenge to the county's refusal to allow placement in the same area of a granite bench dedicated to non-believers.  Dismissing plaintiffs' Establishment Clause challenge to the Ten Commandments, the court said in part:

Plaintiffs have failed to meet the injury-in-fact requirement because [plaintiff] Mr. Sparrow is unlikely to encounter the Monument in the future and because his only encounter with the Monument in the past was during a purposeful visit.

Dismissing an equal protection challenge to the refusal of a permit for the monument to atheists, the court held that "Plaintiffs lack standing because they have failed to show redressability."  Their proposal did not comply with guidelines for permissible monuments.  The court concluded:

Had counsel for Plaintiffs devoted more thought to these [standing] issues, then perhaps this Court could have addressed the merits of this dispute. But counsel didn’t, so this case must be dismissed for lack of standing.

Liberty Counsel issued a press release announcing the decision.

6th Circuit Dismisses Challenge To Michigan Procedures For Vaccination Exemption

In Nikolao v. Lyon, (6th Cir., Nov. 7, 2017), the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals ordered dismissal of a challenge to Michigan's procedures for granting school children a religious exemption from vaccination requirements. In order to obtain an exemption, a parent is required to visit the local health department and explain the basis for the objection.  A health worker must certify that the parent has received education on the benefits of immunizations and the risks involved in not receiving them.  Also the state has published a series of "Waiver Notes" containing responses to parental objections, including religious objections.  The court held that plaintiff, a mother who asserted her Catholic religious beliefs as the basis for the request, lacked standing to raise a free exercise claim, saying in part:

While Nikolao has presented facts suggesting that she was exposed to religious information with which she did not agree, she has given no indication that the information coerced her into doing or not doing anything. Nikolao went to the WCDH to receive a vaccination exemption and left with one.

The court found that plaintiff did have standing to assert an Establishment Clause claim, but concluded that no Establishment Clause violation was shown, saying in part:

The Certification Rule only requires local health workers to have a conversation with objecting parents.... As part of that conversation, the state may offer its own take on a parent’s objections. But the Certification Rule does not allow state officials to withhold an exemption based on the legitimacy of those objections. Were that the case, the outcome here may very well be different....

Similarly, the Religious Waiver Note does not violate the Establishment Clause. The Note outlines a health department worker’s available responses to religious objections concerning vaccination. To be sure, this document contains information about specific religions.... But, again, the purpose of providing this information is secular.

[Thanks to Tom Rutledge for the lead.]

Court Says Tax Code's Parsonage Allowance Is Unconstitutional

In Gaylor v. Mnuchin, (WD WI, Oct. 6, 2017), a Wisconsin federal district court held that the parsonage allowance provision in Sec. 107(2) of the Internal Revenue Code violates the Establishment Clause. That section allows clergy to exclude from income the rental allowance they receive that is used to rent or provide a home.  In a 2013 decision, the same court reached a similar conclusion, but was reversed on appeal on standing grounds.  Plaintiffs cured those standing issues in the present case. The court summarized it holding:

any reasonable observer would conclude that the purpose and effect of § 107(2) is to provide financial assistance to one group of religious employees without any consideration to the secular employees who are similarly situated to ministers. Under current law, that type of provision violates the establishment clause.

As a remedy, however, the court issued only a declaratory judgment, and gave the parties the opportunity to file supplemental briefs on additional remedies such as a tax refund to plaintiffs who were taxed on their housing allowances from their employer (the Freedom From Religion Foundation), or an injunction of some sort.  FFRF issued a press release announcing the decision. [Thanks to Bob Ritter for the lead.]

Over Dissent, En Banc Rehearing Denied On Mississippi Conscience Protection Act

In Barber v. Bryant, (5th Cir., Sept. 29, 2017), the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals by a vote of 12-2 refused to grant an en banc rehearing in a challenge to a Mississippi law (HB 1523) that protects from discriminatory state action anyone who acts on religious or moral beliefs relating to traditional marriage, sex outside of marriage, or transgender rights.  In June, a 3-judge panel held that plaintiffs lack standing to challenge the law. (See prior posting.) Two judges dissented from the denial of an en banc rehearing in an opinion that argues:

... the panel opinion is wrong; the plaintiffs have standing to challenge HB 1523 under Supreme Court and Courts of Appeals precedents. The panel opinion misconstrues and misapplies the Establishment Clause precedent, and, as explained below, its analysis creates a conflict between our circuit and our sister circuits on the issue of Establishment Clause standing.

Pastor's Suit Against VA Over Prayer Content Dismissed For Lack of Standing

In Youngblood v. United States Department of Veterans Affairs, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 156522 (MD FL, Sept. 25, 2017), a Florida federal district court dismissed for lack of standing a suit by a Baptist pastor who feared that VA officials would not allow him to offer prayers on VA property consistent with his religious beliefs.  At a memorial ceremony, Pastor Gene Youngblood offered an invocation specifically criticizing former secretary of State Hilary Clinton.  This led to a complaint that Youngblood had violated VA regulations that bar demonstrations or services on VA property that support or oppose current U.S. government policy. In dismissing Youngblood's suit seeking an injunction to prevent his future exclusion from VA property, the court said in part:

In short, the Complaint claims injury because Defendants will consider Pastor Youngblood's past noncompliance in determining whether to allow future ceremonies on VA property. While Pastor Youngblood claims the "threat of future exclusion of Plaintiff from VA property is both great and immediate" he fails to plead specific facts as to how that is so. Instead, Pastor Youngblood sets forth general and vague allegations regarding injury...

Wedding Website Designer Has Standing To Challenge One of Colorado's Civil Rights Laws

In 303 Creative, LLC v. Elenis, (D CO, Sept. 1, 2017), a website designer challenged the constitutionality of two anti-discrimination provisions of Colorado law that protect, in part, against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.  One provision prohibits any place of public accommodation from withholding services on the basis of sexual orientation.  The second prohibits publishing of any communication that indicates services will be withheld on the basis of sexual orientation.  Plaintiff wants to promote and create wedding websites, but, because of her religious beliefs, not for same-sex couples. A Colorado federal district court held that plaintiff has standing to challenge the prohibition on publishing discriminatory communications since she plans to post a statement indicating that she will not create websites that violate her religious beliefs. However she does not have standing to challenge the ban on withholding services because a number of steps would need to occur before any enforcement of that provision against her would become likely.  The court also postponed any ruling on the merits pending the U.S. Supreme Court's decision on a similar issue in Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. ADF issued a press release announcing the decision.

No Taxpayer Standing To Challenge North Carolina Conscience Law Excusing Magistrates From Performing Marriages

In Ansley v. Warren, (4th Cir., June 28, 2017), the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed on standing grounds an Establishment Clause challenge to North Carolina's Senate Bill 2 which allows state magistrates who have religious objections to same-sex marriage to recuse themselves from performing all marriages.  (See prior posting.)  The court said in part:

The outcome here is in no way a comment on same-sex marriage as a matter of social policy. The case before us is far more technical—whether plaintiffs, simply by virtue of their status as state taxpayers, have alleged a personal, particularized injury for the purposes of Article III standing. Based on a century of Supreme Court precedent, we conclude that they have not.

Asheville Citizen-Times reports on the decision.

5th Circuit: Plaintiffs Lack Standing to Challenge Mississippi's Anti-LGBT Conscience Law

In Barber v. Bryant, (5th Cir., June 22, 2017), the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed for lack of standing two suits challenging Mississippi's HB 1523 which protects against discriminatory action by state government anyone who acts in accordance with his or her religious beliefs or moral convictions on three topics.  The protected beliefs are that marriage is only between one man and one woman, sexual relations are reserved to such marriages, and gender is determined by anatomy and genetics at the time of birth.  The district court had concluded that the statute violates the Establishment Clause and Equal Protection Clause. (See prior posting.) However the 5th Circuit concluded that plaintiffs had alleged nothing more than "a general stigmatic injury," and this is insufficient for standing. MS News Now reports on reactions to the decision.

Student Has Standing Under Establishment Clause To Challenge School's Christian Fundraising

In American Humanist Association, Inc. v. Douglas County School District RE-1, (10th Cir, June 20, 2017), the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals held that one of the plaintiffs challenging a Colorado public school's Christian fundraising efforts has standing to bring an Establishment Clause challenge seeking retrospective relief. However the 10th Circuit agreed with the district court (see prior posting) that the other plaintiffs do not have standing. The appeals court said in part:

Although we have no doubt that plaintiffs are genuinely and fervently committed to righting what they view as an injustice, “a generalized grievance, no matter how sincere, is insufficient to confer standing.”.... Most of the plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that they or their children experienced “personal and unwelcome contact with government-sponsored religious” activities.....  Further, they have not made out a case for municipal taxpayer standing because they have not shown an expenditure of municipal funds on the challenged activities.

The sole exception is plaintiff Jane Zoe. She contends that DCSD violated the Establishment Clause when school officials announced they were “partnering” with a Christian student group and solicited her and her son for donations to a “mission trip.” The district court held that because Zoe’s contacts with the challenged actions were not conspicuous or constant, she did not suffer an injury for standing purposes.  We find no support in our jurisprudence for the proposition that an injury must meet some threshold of pervasiveness to satisfy Article III.

American Humanist Association issued a press release announcing the decision.

Challenge To Boca's Zoning For Chabad Again Dismissed For Lack of Standing

As previously reported, last July a Florida federal district court dismissed on standing grounds a challenge by residents and taxpayers of Boca Raton to zoning changes by the city that permitted a Chabad (Hasidic Jewish) group to construct a religious center.  Plaintiffs, who identified themselves as Christians, claim that the city's actions violated the Establishment clause, the equal protection and due process clauses, and the Florida Constitution. Subsequently plaintiffs filed an amended complaint attempting to find standing by describing plaintiffs as citizens and residents of the United States residing in Boca Raton, and as members of the Christian religion.  In Gagliardi v. City of Boca Raton, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46805 (SD FL, March 27, 2017), the court again found that plaintiffs lack standing, saying in part:

Far from the particularized and concrete injury required to confer standing, Plaintiffs have simply reasserted, again and again, a list of conjectural injuries to the whole of the area surrounding the proposed Chabad site, and potentially beyond.

Jewish Religious Court Lacks Standing To Appeal Bankruptcy Stay of Its Proceedings

As previously reported, last year a New York federal bankruptcy court held that the statutory automatic stay of proceedings against a debtor that is triggered by the filing of a petition in a bankruptcy reorganization applies to invalidate proceedings against a debtor and its principals brought in a Jewish religious court (bais din). In In re Congregation Birdchos Yosef, (SD NY, Sept. 27, 2016), a New York federal district court dismissed for lack of standing an appeal of the bankruptcy court's decision brought by the Jewish religious court involved:

 Any effect on the Bais Din from that decision is indirect, seeks to challenge orders directed at third parties, and is insufficient to confer standing.....

Appellant argues that “[t]he Bais Din is a gatekeeper who ensure [sic] that community members can seek to enforce community standards and Jewish law,” and that the Bankruptcy Court’s Order enforcing the automatic stay “interferes with this function.”... This contention underscores the lack of any direct, financial impact the Bankruptcy Court’s Order has had – or could have – on the Bais Din....

That the Bais Din claims that its or its constituents’ constitutional right to the free exercise of religion was impaired by the Bankruptcy Court’s ruling does not give it standing.

No Taxpayer Standing To Challenge NC Magistrate Opt-Out Law

In Ansley v. Warren, (WD NC, Sept. 20, 2016), a North Carolina federal district court dismissed for lack of standing an Establishment Clause challenge to North Carolina's S.B. 2 that allows magistrates to recuse themselves from performing same-sex marriages on the basis of sincerely held religious beliefs. Plaintiffs, asserting taxpayer standing, pointed to expenditures involved in implementing the opt-out provisions.  The court held, however:

Plaintiffs have not pointed to the establishment of any specific appropriation of funds by the legislature to implement the allegedly unconstitutional purpose of S.B. 2. The funding provisions that Plaintiffs challenge here—travel expenses for magistrates and retirement contributions—are not “expenditures made pursuant to an express [legislative] mandate and a specific [legislative] appropriation,” ... but are “incidental expenditure[s] of tax funds in the administration of an essentially regulatory statute,” which is not sufficient for the purposes of standing.

Dealing with a separate due process concern, the court said:

Because a magistrate’s “sincerely held religious objection” is secret, a person appearing before a state magistrate on a matter in said magistrate’s jurisdiction will not be aware of a potential bias against them. A law that allows a state official to opt out of performing some of the duties of the office for sincerely held religious beliefs, while keeping it a secret that the official opted out, is fraught with potential for harm that could be of constitutional magnitude.... But such matters must be dealt with as they arise.

2nd Circuit: Students Lack Standing To Challenge Diversion of Dollars To Religious Schools

In Montesa v. Schwartz, (2d Cir., Sept. 12, 2016), the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision, held that plaintiffs-- dozens of students in the East Ramapo Central School District in New York state-- lack standing to sue over funds allegedly diverted by the school board to Orthodox Jewish schools.  The students claim that the diversion-- in part through manipulation of payments under the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act-- led to less funding for the public schools they attend.  In denying standing, the majority said in part:

We have not found a case ... where an appeals court has recognized [plaintiffs'] theory of direct exposure—where the plaintiffs’ exposure is the loss of a favored governmental service or benefit caused, in part, by a diversion of public resources away from such service or benefit to support a preferred religion....  The Student‐Plaintiffs’ injury arises out of being enmeshed in an underfunded school system, not out of being directly exposed to the alleged unconstitutional IDEA Settlements themselves. An alleged causal connection between the underfunding of the school district’s budget and the alleged unconstitutional expenditures is insufficient to give rise to a direct injury. To hold otherwise would impermissibly expand the concept of direct exposure to include injuries that are unrelated to the challenged governmental act but which flow in fact from a government’s decision to fund one program or service at the expense of another.  This is a theory of indirect injury and recognizing it would allow plaintiffs who are only incidentally affected by a challenged governmental expenditure to assert Establishment Clause claims.

Judge Reiss dissented. Courthouse News Service reports on the decision.

Florida Appeals Court Hears Oral Arguments In Scholarship Tax Credit Challenge

A Florida state appeals court on Tuesday heard oral arguments (video of full oral arguments) in McCall v. Scott, a constitutional challenge to the state's Tax Credit Scholarship Program.  A trial court dismissed the case, finding that plaintiffs lacked standing. (See prior posting.) Daily Business Review reports on the oral arguments.

Challenge To School Religious Activities Dismissed On Standing Grounds

In American Humanist Association, Inc. v. Douglas County School District RE-1, (D CO, Jan. 20, 2016), a Colorado federal district court dismissed for lack of standing a lawsuit by parents of children in the Douglas County School District, and by the American Humanist Association. The suit challenged as violations of the Establishment Clause and the Equal Access Act various religious activities in the school system, including participation in Operation Christmas Child collections for needy children, a trip by the Fellowship of Christian Athletes to Guatemala and faculty participation in the Fellowship of Christian Athletes.  Some plaintiffs did not show any injury in fact, while others did not show that their injury was traceable to the challenged conduct. The court also found no standing for plaintiffs as municipal taxpayers.

Nativity Scene Challenge Dismissed After New Law Creates Neutral Forum

In Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc. v. Franklin County, Indiana, (SD IN, Sept. 23, 2015), an Indiana federal district court dismissed a suit challenging the annual display of a nativity scene on the lawn of the Franklin County courthouse.  After the suit was filed, the county enacted a new ordinance providing a content neutral system for erecting private displays on the courthouse lawn.  The court held that this eliminated plaintiffs' claim for injunctive relief.  While plaintiffs still sought nominal damages, the court held:

By seeking only nominal damages, plaintiffs concede ... that they suffered no actual injury, or at least that the injury they claim cannot be redressed by an award of actual damages; thus appearing to have no standing.

Thomas More Society issued a press release announcing the decision.

FFRF Lacks Standing To Challenge Church Filing Exemptions

In Freedom From Religion Foundation v. Koskinen, (WD WI, Dec. 17, 2014), a Wisconsin federal district court held that Freedom From Religion Foundation and its local affiliate lack standing to challenge the Internal Revenue Service's  exemption of religious organizations from filing Form 990 annual reports, while requiring most other non-profit organizations to file. FFRF had never sought a similar exemption and disavowed any intent to do so. In reaching its conclusion, the court reversed its own holding to the contrary a year ago because of the intervening 7th Circuit decision in Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc. v Lew. (See prior posting).

N.H. Supreme Court Dismisses Challenge To Education Tax Credits On Standing Grounds

In Duncan v. State of New Hampshire, (NH Sup. Ct., Aug. 28, 2014), the New Hampshire Supreme Court vacated and remanded a trial court decision that invalidated New Hampshire's Education Tax Credit program. The trial court held that the program was a violation of the state constitution's ban on compelling any person to support sectarian schools. (See prior posting.) In yesterday's decision, the state Supreme Court did not reach the merits of the argument, but instead dismissed on standing grounds.  The Court summarized its holding:

We do not reach the merits of the petitioners’ declaratory judgment petition because we conclude that: (1) the 2012 amendment to RSA 491:22, I, which allows taxpayers to establish standing without showing that their personal rights have been impaired or prejudiced, is unconstitutional; and (2) absent that amendment, the petitioners have no standing to bring their constitutional claim.

AP reports on the decision.