Religious Children's Home Lacks Standing To Challenge Now-Defunct HHS Non-Discrimination Rule

 In Holston United Methodist Home for Children, Inc. v. Becerra, (ED TN, Nov. 18, 2022), a Tennessee federal district court held that a religiously affiliated children's home that places children for foster care or adoption lacks standing to challenge a 2016 anti-discrimination rule promulgated by the Department of Health and Human Services. According to the court:

Holston Home requires prospective foster and adoptive parents to affirm a Christian statement of faith and beliefs before they can engage in child-placement activities.... Further, Holston Home does not place children with foster or adoptive parents who are in same-sex relationships or unmarried couples of any biological sex who are romantically cohabitating....

While the challenged rule, promulgated at the end of the Obama Administration, barred such restrictions, HHS policy had undergone successive changes in the Trump and Biden Administrations. These are traced at length in the court's 22-page opinion. In particular the court noted:

Although HHS had not enforced the 2016 Grants Rule since it became effective, on November 19, 2019, HHS published a formal notification in the Federal Register to inform the public that it would not enforce the 2016 Grants Rule after determining that the rulemaking raised “significant concerns about compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act [‘RFA’].”...

Because the 2016 Grants Rule is, for all intents and purposes, defunct pursuant to the Notification of Nonenforcement, Holston Home faces no credible threat of prosecution.... Having also failed to show any history of past enforcement of the 2016 Grants Rule, enforcement warning letters, or a feature of the regulation making it easier or more likely to be enforced, Holston Home lacks standing to bring this lawsuit.

Certiorari Denied In Fetal Personhood Case

The U.S. Supreme Court today denied review in Doe v. McKee,  (Docket No. 22-201, certiorari denied 10/11/2022) (Order List). The certiorari petition  asked the Supreme Court to review a decision of the Rhode Island Supreme Court that held unborn fetuses do not have due process and equal protection rights under the U.S. Constitution and do not have standing to challenge Rhode Island's Reproductive Privacy Act which granted the right to abortions consistent with Roe v. Wade. CNN reports on the Court's action. [Thanks to Thomas Rutledge for the lead.]

Village Residents Lack Standing In Establishment Clause Challenge To Zoning Law

In Citizens United to Protect Our Neighborhoods v. Village of Chestnut Ridge, New York, (SD NY, Sept. 30, 2022), a New York federal district court dismissed for lack of standing a suit by a civic organization and Village residents alleging that the Village's new zoning code violated the Establishment Clause by favoring one religious group, Orthodox Jews.  The Code created new categories of religious uses and houses of worship, including "residential gathering places" so that single-family homes could be opened for religious activities, subject to additional parking requirements. This facilitated small-scale worship services often used by Orthodox Jews who for religious reasons cannot drive on the Sabbath and holidays. The court said in part:

Plaintiffs claim the new zoning amendments “target religious uses with special favorable treatment over secular uses.” (Id.) However, Plaintiffs have not identified any injury, nonetheless a particularized and concrete one. The law is clear that generalized grievance is insufficient to establish standing....

Individual Plaintiffs claim they have direct exposure standing because the New Zoning Law was rushed into law and gives preferential treatment to OJC and religious uses over secular uses, such that “the construction of an untold number of houses of worship” will serve as “constant reminders of the law and its endorsement of religion.” ... This is an insufficient basis ... for finding direct exposure standing....

11th Circuit: Muslim Prison Chaplain Loses Suit Over Exclusions From Execution Chamber

In Maisonet v. Commissioner, Alabama Department of Corrections, (11th Cir., Sept. 16, 2022), the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of a suit by a Muslim volunteer Chaplain who claimed that his free exercise rights were infringed when he was prevented from being in the execution chamber when two inmates to whom he ministered were executed. The court held that the chaplain lacked standing to obtain declaratory or injunctive relief because he did not identified any death row inmate whose execution he will be unable to attend in the future. Alabama now allows chaplains in the execution chamber. The court concluded that the chaplain did have standing to pursue his claim for damages in the cases of the two inmates whose executions he was unable to attend previously. However qualified immunity shields defendants from liability.

9th Circuit: High School Must Recognize Fellowship of Christian Athletes

In Fellowship of Christian Athletes v. San Jose Unified School District Board of Education, (9th Cir., Aug. 29. 2022), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision, ordered reinstatement of the Fellowship of Christian Athletes as an official student club at San Jose high schools.  The majority said in part:

This case pits two competing values that we cherish as a nation: the principle of non-discrimination on the one hand, and the First Amendment’s protection of free exercise of religion and free speech on the other hand.

The Fellowship of Christian Athletes (FCA) requires students serving in leadership roles to abide by a Statement of Faith, which includes the belief that sexual relations should be limited within the context of a marriage between a man and a woman. The San Jose Unified School District ... revoked FCA’s status as an official student club at its high schools, claiming that FCA’s religious pledge requirement violates the School District’s non-discrimination policy.

... Under the First Amendment, our government must be scrupulously neutral when it comes to religion: It cannot treat religious groups worse than comparable secular ones. But the School District did just that.

The School District engaged in selective enforcement of its own non-discrimination policy, penalizing FCA while looking the other way with other student groups. For example, the School District blessed student clubs whose constitutions limited membership based on gender identity or ethnicity, despite the school’s policies barring such restricted membership. The government cannot set double standards to the detriment of religious groups only.

Judge Lee filed a concurring opinion, saying in part:

One schoolteacher called the Fellowship of Christian Athletes’ (FCA) beliefs “bullshit” and sought to ban it from campus. Another described evangelical Christians as “charlatans” who perpetuate “darkness” and “ignorance.”...

This is not, to put it mildly, neutral treatment of religion. More than a whiff, a stench of animus against the students’ religious beliefs pervades the Pioneer High School campus. I write separately to highlight the depth of that animus and explain why it is yet another reason why the School District violated the Free Exercise Clause.

Judge Christen dissented, saying in part:

My colleagues are correct that the competing values at issue in this case are cherished by our nation and enshrined in our Constitution. The plaintiffs will surely have their day in court for their claims of past harm. Once they do, the court will have to consider both the plaintiffs’ rights and the rights of those they would exclude. Notably, the majority offers no limiting principle to the permission it grants allowing one club to discriminate. In the meantime, we are not free to contort our standing jurisprudence in order to prematurely reach the merits and we ought not do so in a case of this magnitude before the record has been developed and tested.

Religious Objections To Air Force COVID Mandate Dismissed For Lack of Standing and Ripeness

In Miller v. Austin, (D WY, Aug. 22, 2022), a Wyoming federal district court dismissed on standing and ripeness grounds a suit by two Air Force sergeants who face discharge because of their refusal on religious grounds to receive the COVID vaccine.  The court said in part:

Defendants correctly point out "Plaintiffs have filed this lawsuit to avoid the possibility of involuntary separation."... Furthermore, due to the pending class action, Defendants confirmed Miller's August 25, 2022 separation hearing has been paused.... There is no current threat of separation. Plaintiffs have not yet suffered a concrete, particularized, actual injury in fact because Plaintiffs have not been separated from the USAF. Plaintiffs do not have standing to bring this issue.

More damning to Plaintiffs' case, however, is the fact that the religious exemption is still subject to administrative review within the USAF.

Michigan's Pre-Roe Abortion Ban May Now Be Enforceable By County Prosecutors

As previously reported, in May Michigan Court of Claims issued a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of the state's 1931 pre-Roe abortion ban while a challenge to that law under the Michigan state constitution is being litigated. In response, two county prosecutors and two anti-abortion organizations filed a complaint with the state Court of Appeals seeking an Order of Superintending Control that would require the state Court of Claims to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction. (See prior posting.) Today in In re Jarzynka, (MI App., Aug. 1, 2022), the Michigan Court of Appeals dismissed that suit for lack of standing. It held that the anti-abortion groups have not suffered a sufficient injury by the Court of Claims decision to give them standing to challenge it.  As to the prosecuting attorneys, the Court of Appeals held that the Court of Claims injunction applies only to the state Attorney General's office and does not apply to county prosecutors. As reported by the Detroit News, this holding would seem to now allow county prosecutors to file criminal charges under the 1931 statute against abortion providers. State Attorney General Dana Nessel says that Democratic prosecuting attorneys have committed to not enforcing the 1931 ban.

UPDATE: AP reports that just hours after the Court of Appeals decision, an Oakland County judge, at the request of Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer, issued a temporary restraining order against prosecutors in counties with abortion providers barring enforcement of the 1931 law.  He scheduled a hearing for Wednesday.

8th Circuit: Christian School Lacks Standing To Challenge HUD Memo On Sex Discrimination In Housing

 In The School of the Ozarks, Inc. v. Biden, (8th Cir., July 27, 2022), the U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals held in a 2-1 decision that a Christian college lacks standing to challenge a memorandum issued by an acting assistant secretary of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. The memorandum directs the HUD office that enforces the Fair Housing Act to investigate all discrimination complaints, including discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. The school's religiously-inspired Code of Conduct specifies that biological sex determines a person's gender. The school maintains single-sex residence halls and does not permit transgender individuals to live in residence halls that do not match their biological sex. The majority said in part:

The Memorandum does not, as the College presupposes, require that HUD reach the specific enforcement decision that the College’s current housing policies violate federal law. The Memorandum, for example, says nothing of how the Religious Freedom Restoration Act or the Free Exercise Clause may limit enforcement of the Fair Housing Act’s prohibition on sex discrimination as applied to the College....

The College’s alleged injury also lacks imminence because it is speculative that HUD will file a charge of discrimination against the College in the first place.... [T]he agency has never filed such a charge against a college for sex discrimination based on a housing policy that is specifically exempted from the prohibition on sex discrimination in education under Title IX....

Judge Grasz dissented, arguing in part that the school has already suffered an injury-- the right to notice and comment on proposed rules. He said: "In my view, HUD’s Memorandum is an interpretative rule."

Challenges To New Jersey's Assisted Suicide Act Are Rejected

In Petro v. Platkin, (NJ App., June 10, 2022), a New Jersey state appellate court dismissed constitutional challenges to New Jersey's Medical Aid in Dying for the Terminally Ill Act.  It held the plaintiffs-- a terminally ill resident, a physician and a pharmacist-- lack standing because their participation in the procedures permitted by the Act are completely voluntary.  The court also rejected claims that the statute violates the "single object" requirement of the state constitution or state constitutional provisions on the right to enjoy and defend life. It also rejected 1st Amendment free exercise claims, finding that the statute is a neutral law of general applicability.

School Lacks Standing To Sue For Students' and Parents' Distress From Anti-Abortion Pickets

In Nicdao v. Two Rivers Public Charter School, (DC Ct. App., June 9, 2022), the District of Columbia's local Court of Appeals held that a school's suit for intentional infliction of emotional distress should be dismissed for lack of standing.  At issue was intrusive protests by three individuals who were opposing the construction of a Planned Parenthood clinic next door to the school.  The court held that the school lacked third-party standing to sue on behalf of parents and students who were injured. Financial hurdles making it difficult for the injured parties to sue are insufficient here justify third-party standing. The court also dismissed plaintiff's private nuisance and conspiracy claims. Liberty Counsel issued a press release announcing the decision.

Parents Can Move Ahead With Challenge To School's Transgender Transition Policy

 In T.F. v. Kettle Moraine School District, (WI Cir. Ct., June 1, 2022), a Wisconsin state trial court held that parents could proceed with their action challenging a school district's policy to honor minor students’ requests to transition to a different gender identity at school without parental consent. One set of plaintiffs withdrew their child from the school after the school insisted on using the name and pronouns favored by the student. The court held that they could still proceed with a claim for nominal damages. As to other plaintiffs whose children were in the school but were not presently impacted by the policy, the court said in part:

[Parents] need not wait for potential harm from Kettle Moraine’s policy to occur for their children before they are entitled to seek declaratory relief on whether the policy violates their parental rights.

ADF issued a press release announcing the decision. 

6th Circuit: Suit Over Marriages By Clergy Ordained Online Can Move Ahead In Part

In Universal Life Church Monastery Storehouse v. Nabors, (6th Cir., May 27, 2022), the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals allowed claims against a portion of the original defendants to move ahead in the Universal Life Church's challenge to a Tennessee law that prohibits persons receiving online ordination from solemnizing marriages.  Various defendants asserted standing and sovereign immunity defenses. Summarizing its holding, the court said in part:

No plaintiff has standing to seek relief against Governor Lee, Attorney General Slatery, District Attorney General Helper, or County Clerks Crowell, Anderson, and Knowles.... As a result, those portions of the district court’s preliminary injunction that purport to bind [them] ... are VACATED. By contrast, however, we AFFIRM the district court’s determination that plaintiffs have standing to sue District Attorneys General Dunaway, Pinkston, and Jones, along with County Clerk Nabors. We also AFFIRM the district court’s denial of these officials’ sovereign immunity at the motion-to-dismiss stage, and so we do not disturb those portions of the preliminary injunction binding [them].... Last, we REMAND what remains of this suit to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

University's Vaccine Mandate Did Not Violate Free Exercise Rights Of Students

In America's Frontline Doctors v. Wilcox, (CD CA, May 5, 2022), a California federal district court dismissed the associational plaintiff for lack of standing and rejected individual plaintiffs' free exercise challenge (as well as their other challenges) to the University of California Riverside's COVID vaccine mandate. The court said in part:

Plaintiffs contend that Defendants' enforcement of the Policy violates their right to free exercise of religion. The SAC alleges that Defendants "coerc[e] students to make an unnatural choice...either quickly injecting themselves...[with a COVID-19 vaccine] ... or ...disclosing under duress their religious beliefs to Defendants' religious exemption approval panels."... They also contend that Defendants "prejudicially segregate religious people in order to subject them to...testing."... Plaintiffs have religious exemptions from the Policy. Even so, Plaintiffs contend that testing and masks "substantially interfere with students' religious practices of prayer, speech, and deed."...

The Policy is a neutral and generally applicable. It applies to all students, professors, and staff at the University of California and seeks to protect public health and safety. Defendants offer exemptions for religious beliefs, medical reasons, and disability.... The Policy's exemptions pass constitutional muster.... Plaintiffs allege that they requested religious exemptions under "duress" but fail to explain how their decisions to voluntarily submit a one-page exemption form were executed under "duress." Plaintiffs also fail to describe how masks and testing interfere with the students' religious practices of prayer, speech, and deed. Plaintiffs are only required to mask while indoors—a restriction that also applied to vaccinated students at the time the SAC was filed. Presumably Plaintiffs would be indoors to attend class, so it is unclear how the Policy interferes with religious practices.

Plaintiff Lacks Standing To Challenge No-Fault Divorce Law Under 1st Amendment

 In King v. State of New York, (2d Cir., May 9, 2022), the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals held that plaintiff lacked standing to challenge New York's no-fault divorce law on free exercise or Establishment Clause grounds. The court said in part:

Ms. King alleges that this law and the resulting divorce violated her Free Exercise and Establishment Clause rights by requiring her to become divorced despite her religious belief in marriage until death..... Because Ms. King alleges only the termination of a civil contract, she has not plausibly alleged that the civil judgment of divorce entered against her “sever[ed] the holy marriage covenant made before God,” ... or “chang[ed] her status under . . . the laws of God”....

10th Circuit Affirms Dismissal Of Churches Challenge To Colorado COVID Restrictions

In Denver Bible Church v. Polis, (10th Cir., Jan. 24, 2022), the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a district court's denial of a preliminary injunction in a free exercise challenge by two churches and one of their pastors to COVID restrictions imposed by the state of Colorado.  It similarly affirmed the dismissal of a challenge to the federal government's award of COVID relief aid to the state.  The court dismissed most of the claims against the state on mootness grounds, finding that changes in state restrictions have lifted all COVID limits on churches. The facial challenge to the state's emergency disaster statute was dismissed because the statute is neutral and generally applicable.  The court then dismissed for lack of standing plaintiffs' claim that the federal government violated RFRA by distributing COVID relief aid to Colorado while the state was violating plaintiffs' free exercise rights.

Faith-Based Homeless Shelter Denied Injunction Against Alaska City's Anti-Discrimination Laws

In Downtown Soup Kitchen v. Municipality of Anchorage, (D AK, Dec. 20, 2021), an Alaska federal district court refused to grant injunctive relief to a faith-based homeless shelter for women that objected to Anchorage's newly revised public accommodation and housing anti-discrimination laws. The shelter refuses to house transgender women. The court concluded that the faith-based shelter failed to show a credible threat of enforcement of either the public accommodation or the housing sections of the new law. The city takes the position that the provisions do not apply to the shelter and disclaims any intent to prosecute. However the court held that the shelter does have standing to sue for damages for the nearly 3-month period before the city disclaimed any intent to prosecute under the housing provisions. Anchorage Daily News reports on the decision. 

6th Circuit Hears Arguments In Challenge To Ban On Marriage Ceremonies By Clergy Ordained Online

The U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments on Thursday in Universal Life Church Monastery v. Nabors. (Audio of full oral arguments). In the case, a Tennessee federal district court held that the Universal Life Church and two of its ministers have standing to challenge Tennessee's ban on solemnization of marriages by clergy who received online ordination. It also held that the state Attorney General, District Attorney Generals and County Clerks cannot claim sovereign immunity and are proper defendants. (See prior posting.)  Courthouse News Service reports on the arguments. [Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]

Texas State Court Holds That SB8-- Heartbeat Abortion Law-- Is Unconstitutional

In Van Stean v. Texas Right To Life, (TX Dist. Ct., Dec. 9, 2021), a Texas state trial court issued a declaratory judgment concluding that SB8, the Texas "heartbeat" abortion law, is unconstitutional under the Texas state constitution as well as the 14th Amendment. In a 48-page opinion, it concluded:

A. Standing for uninjured person. SB 8's grant of standing to "any person" to be awarded "no less than $10,000" and a mandatory injunction without showing harm to himself, taken from a person who has not harmed him, violates the Texas Constitution's "open courts" provision and is unconstitutional.

B. Punishment without due process. SB 8's mandate that trial courts "shall" award "no less than $10,000" to an unharmed claimant from a defendant who did him no harm is punishment and not compensation that will deprive persons of property without due process of law as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

C. Delegation of executive power to private persons. SB 8's grant of enforcement power to "any person" is an unlawful delegation of power to private persons that violates the Texas Constitution's separation of powers provision and is unconstitutional.

Volokh Conspiracy reports on the decision.

School's Vaccine Mandate Without Religious Exemptions Upheld

In Doe v. San Diego Unified School District, (SD CA, Nov. 18, 2021), a California federal district court denied a temporary restraining order in a suit by a high school student and her parents objecting to the school district's COVID vaccine mandate which did not provide for religious exemptions. The court held that the scope of the injunction sought by plaintiff created standing issues, but regardless of that:

In light of the overwhelming weight of authority upholding vaccination requirements in response to free exercise challenges, the Court finds that Plaintiffs are not likely to succeed on the merits of their claim.

Thomas More Society has more background on the case.

European Court Dismisses Challenges To Irish Constitution's Religious Oaths

In Shortall v. Ireland, (ECHR, Nov. 18, 2021), the European Court of Human Rights dismissed as inadmissible a suit filed by several politicians in Ireland complaining that the Irish Constitution requires the President and members of the Council of State to take oaths containing religious language, without a secular alternative.  The court concluded that none of the litigants were directly affected by the challenged provisions:

[N]one of the applicants have so far been invited to serve on the Council of State, and none claimed that such an appointment was under consideration....

[T]he applicants have not provided any evidence – or even sought to argue – that they could secure the nomination required to stand for election as President.... [T]he applicants ... are seeking to have their victim status accepted, not in the context of a clear, immediate and compelling factual matrix which would allow them to adduce reasonable and convincing evidence that they are at a real risk of being adversely affected by the impugned measure, but rather as a hypothetical outcome, without addressing the very many challenges they would potentially have to overcome to secure that office.

The Court also issued a press release summarizing the decision.