Texas Supreme Court Interprets Religious Services Clause of State Consitution

As previously reported, in a suit by members of the Lipan Apache tribe challenging improvements to a park that destroyed  their ability to use a sacred site for certain religious ceremonies, the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals certified to the Texas Supreme Court a question on the meaning of a 2021 amendment to the Texas Consitution that prohibits the government from interfering with religious services. In Perez v. City of San Antonio,(TX Sup. Ct., June 13, 2025), the Texas Supreme Court in an 8-1 opinion said in part:

When the Texas Religious Services Clause applies, its force is absolute and categorical, meaning it forbids governmental prohibitions and limitations on religious services regardless of the government’s interest in that limitation or how tailored the limitation is to that interest, but the scope of the clause’s applicability is not unlimited, and it does not extend to governmental actions for the preservation and management of public lands. We express no opinion on whether the Free Exercise Clause or the Texas RFRA protect the religious liberties Perez asserts, and we leave it to the federal courts to apply our answer in the underlying case.

Justice Sullivan filed a dissenting opinion, saying in part:

With deepest respect for my esteemed friends on the Fifth Circuit and on our Court, I would decline this expansive invitation to issue an advisory opinion on a “new provision” of our Bill of Rights that “[n]o Texas court has construed.”

Washington Bishops Sue Challenging Expanded Child Abuse Reporting Law

Last week, the Catholic bishops in Washington state filed suit challenging the constitutionality of a recently adopted amendment to the state's mandatory child abuse reporting law. The amendment requires clergy to report child abuse or neglect when they have reasonable cause to believe that it has occurred, even when a priest learns of the abuse or neglect in a confessional. The complaint (full text) in Etienne v. Ferguson, (WD WA, filed 5/29/2025) alleges in part:

1. Consistent with the Roman Catholic Church’s efforts to eradicate the societal scourge of child abuse, the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Seattle and the Dioceses of Yakima and Spokane have each adopted and implemented within their respective dioceses policies that go further in the protection of children than the current requirements of Washington law on reporting child abuse and neglect....

3. Yet despite these self-imposed reporting policies—policies that go beyond what Washington law requires—Washington is targeting the Roman Catholic Church in a brazen act of religious discrimination.  Without any basis in law or fact, Washington now puts Roman Catholic priests to an impossible choice: violate 2,000 years of Church teaching and incur automatic excommunication or refuse to comply with Washington law and be subject to imprisonment, fine, and civil liability....  Washington has done so at the same time that it expanded exemptions from mandatory reporting requirements for certain non-clergy.  The object of this law is clear: subject Roman Catholic clergy to dictates of the state. 

4. Putting clergy to the choice between temporal criminal punishment and eternal damnation, interfering with the internal governance and discipline of the Catholic Church, and targeting religion for the abrogation of all privileges, is a patent violation of both the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and a violation of Article I, Section 11 of the Washington Constitution.

The Pillar reports on the lawsuit.

Suit Challenges Display of Statues of Saints on Public Safety Building

Suit was filed yesterday in a Massachusetts state trial court seeking to enjoin the city of Quincy and its mayor from installing statues of two Catholic saints, St. Michael and St. Florian, on the facade of its new public safety building.  The city has already spent over $760,000 for creation of the statues. The suit also seeks to bar additional expenditures. The complaint (full text) in Fitzmaurice v. City of Quincy, (MA Super., filed 5/27/2025), alleges that the decision to acquire the statues was made by the city's mayor without notice to the public. Only some members of City Council knew of the plan before it was disclosed in a February 2025 news article. The complaint alleges that installation and display of the statues will violate Art. III of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights.

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

Michigan Court Invalidates 3 Abortion Restrictions

In Northland Family Planning Center v. Nessel, (Ct. Cl., May 13, 2025), the Michigan Court of Claims held that three abortion restrictions currently in Michigan law are unconstitutional under the Reproductive Freedom for All amendment to Michigan's Constitution that was approved in 2022.  The court invalidated the 24-hour mandatory waiting period, the informed consent requirement and the ban on nurse practitioners, midwives and physician assistants performing abortions.  The court said in part:

The Court agrees with intervening defendant that the ostensible goal of the challenged laws is to protect patient health.  The inquiry, however, does not stop there.  In order to survive the constitutional challenge, the challenged laws must achieve the purpose of protecting patient health, by the least restrictive means, and be consistent with accepted clinical standards of practice and evidence-based medicine.  This is where intervening defendant’s argument unravels.   

Against the mountain of expert opinions and citation of accepted clinical standards and medical literature submitted by plaintiffs establishing that the challenged laws do not protect patient health and are contrary to accepted clinical standards..., intervening defendant has produced two witnesses deeply entrenched in the national anti-abortion movement who have frequently and widely testified in favor of complete abortion bans.  These witnesses believe abortion is murder and an offense to God.  Dr. Wubbenhurst’s testimony was based on theologically skewed studies from journals known to support anti-abortion views.  Dr. Wubbenhurst’s testimony also made clear that she interpreted the findings of studies in ways the studies’ authors cautioned against.

However, the court upheld the coercion screening requirements of Michigan law, finding that they do not burden a patient's access to abortion care.

Petition Seeks to Stop Latest Effort to Get Bibles in Oklahoma School Classrooms

 As previously reported, the Oklahoma Supreme Court has issued an order staying any work by the Oklahoma Office of Management and Enterprise Services on any new request by the Oklahoma State Department of Education (OSDE) for the purchase of Bibles for distribution to public school classrooms. However, the Department of Education has announced a new "Bibles Back in School" Campaign in which it has partnered with singer Lee Greenwood in asking members of the public to purchase copies of the "God Bless the USA" Bible and donate them to OSDE for it to distribute to classrooms. The website through which purchase may be made says in part:

The God Bless The USA Bible makes a strong visual connection of the KJV translation (red letter edition) along with our nation’s Founding Father Documents – The US Constitution, The Bill of Rights, The Declaration of Independence, and The Pledge of Allegiance – providing a profound visible teaching asset for all. This special Bible will help our next generation of leadership to carry on the future of America as we’ve known it.

Yesterday, the petitioners in Walke v. Walters, (OK Sup. Ct., filed 3/12/2025), filed a Supplemental Petition (full text) with the Oklahoma Supreme Court asking it to issue an injunction prohibiting OSDE from proceeding with the Campaign, arguing that OSDE lacks authority to distribute Bibles to school districts and that the Bibles Back to School Campaign violates provisions of the Oklahoma state Constitution (Art. 1 Sec. 2 and Art. 2 Sec 5)which prohibit public money from being used to support any system of religion. The Petition says in part:

To be sure, private parties are free to offer donations of items-- including Bibles-- to school districts, but state officials cross the constitutional line when they organize, promote, and participate in a campaign to distribute donated copies of a particular religious text to schools.

Americans United issued a press release announcing the filing of the Supplemental Petition.

North Carolina Supreme Court Upholds Window for Bringing Time-Barred Child Sex Abuse Claims That Were Not Previously Adjudicated

The North Carolina Supreme Court last week decided four cases raising the constitutionality and reach of the SAFE Child Act. In McKinney v. Goins, (NC Sup. Ct., Jan. 31, 2025), the North Carolina Supreme Court upheld against attacks under the state constitution a provision that created a two-year window during which victims of child sexual abuse could bring tort claims that were previously barred by existing statutes of limitation. The Court held that neither the "Law of the Land" Clause not the Ex Post Facto Clause of the North Carolina Constitution bar the challenged provision. The Court also rejected a substantive due process claim. Justice Earls filed an opinion concurring in the result but strongly disagreeing with the majority's method of constitutional interpretation which he labels "extreme originalism".

In Cohane v. Home Missioners of America, (NC Sup. Ct., Jan 31, 2025), the Court held that the SAFE Child Act revived suits against those who enabled the abuse, as well as against the abusers. The Court said in part:

The issue here is whether the General Assembly meant to distinguish between abusers who personally harmed the plaintiff and those organizations, institutions, and parties that employed or supervised the abuser or otherwise condoned, ratified, or facilitated the abuse (enablers). Defendants would have us hold not only that the revival provision distinguished between the two types of potential defendants but also that it authorized suits against abusers and not against enablers, in contravention of background tort law principles. We conclude that such a distinction does not follow from the plain text of the provision, nor does it find support in the SAFE Child Act or related statutory provisions read as a whole.

However, in two cases consolidated for decision, John Doe 1K v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Charlotte and John Doe v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Charlotte, (NC Sup. Ct., Jan. 31, 2025), the Court said in part:

Plaintiffs in this case are alleged victims of child sexual abuse in the 1970s and 1980s. The SAFE Child Act would have revived plaintiffs’ time-barred claims except for one glaring problem— plaintiffs already brought those claims over a decade ago and courts already entered final judgments dismissing those claims with prejudice because they were time barred. 

... [T]he General Assembly does not have the power to set aside a final judgment of the judicial branch.

AP reports on the decisions. [Thanks to Thomas Rutledge for the lead.]

Maine Supreme Court Invalidates Retroactive Removal of Limitation Period for Child Sex Abuse Claims

In Dupuis v. Roman Catholic Bishop of Portland, (ME Sup. Ct., Jan. 28, 2025), Maine's Supreme Judicial Court, in a 4-2 decision, held that Maine's Constitution bars legislative revival of a cause of action after it has been extinguished by a pre-existing statute of limitations. In the case, the Maine legislature removed any limitation period for sexual acts toward minors.  Numerous plaintiffs sued the Roman Catholic Bishop of Portland for damages for sexual abuse by the Bishop's clergy that took place while plaintiffs were children. The claims were barred by the previous statute of limitations before the removal of limitation periods was enacted. The majority said in part:

... [A]s early as our founding and many times thereafter, we have interpreted our constitutional text to reject retrospective legislation impairing vested rights....

There can be no doubt that we as a society have gained a new understanding of the effect of trauma and the delays that it can cause in the ability of a victim to pursue a cause of action.  Such evolved knowledge provides support for the elimination of any statute of limitations for torts involving sexual assaults.  But the issue here is not the propriety of the elimination of a statute of limitations but rather the revival of a claim after the relevant existing statute of limitations has expired....

Justice Douglas, joined by Justice Lawrence, filed a dissenting opinion, saying in part:

The question here is not whether a duly enacted statute of limitations is constitutional.  Rather, the question is whether the Constitution bars the Legislature from reviving a claim after rebalancing competing policies in light of an evolved understanding of the dynamics of childhood sexual abuse that may have prevented victims from asserting their claims earlier.

Portland Press Herald reports on the decision. [Thanks to Thomas Rutledge and Scott Mange for the lead.]

Suit Challenges Wisconsin Tax Exemption as Violation of State Constitution's Ban on Preference to Religious Establishments

Suit was filed last week in a Wisconsin state trial court by the Freedom from Religion Foundation and three individual property owners challenging a Wisconsin property tax exemption tailored to only benefit two apartment buildings serving students at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. The buildings are owned by the Presbyterian Student Center Foundation and by a Catholic parish. The complaint (full text) in Gaylor v. City of Madison, (WI Cir. Ct., filed 1/14/2025), alleges that the exemption violates the equal protection and uniformity clauses of the Wisconsin state constitution, the state constitution's provision on private bills and the prohibition in Article I, section 18 of the Wisconsin Constitution which prohibits legislation that gives a preference to any religious establishment or mode of worship. Christian Post reports on the lawsuit.

Suit Challenges State Grant to Catholic College

Suit was filed this week in a West Virginia state trial court challenging a $5 million grant made by the West Virginia Water Development Authority to a Catholic college located in Ohio just across the Ohio River from West Virginia. The grant largely supports projected projects in West Virginia or the education of West Virginia students. The suit alleges that the grant violates the West Virginia state constitution's Establishment Clause.  The complaint (full text) in American Humanist Association v. West Virginia Water Development Authority, (WV Cir. Ct., filed 1/13/2025), alleges in part:

28.  Through the awarding of this grant, the State of West Virginia, through the West Virginia Water Development Authority, requires taxpayers to fund the work of this Catholic Institution, which states “the mission of St. Joseph the Worker is to serve the Church and to serve our country through providing our society with such workers.” 

29.   In so doing, the State of West Virginia has impermissibly violated the anti-establishment provision of the State Constitution guaranteeing the right to freedom of religion. 

ACLU of West Virginia issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Court Enjoins Most of Missouri's Abortion Restrictions, But Clinics Still Impeded from Reopening

In Comprehensive Health of Planned Parenthood Great Plains v. State of Missouri, (Cir. Ct., Dec. 20, 2024), a Missouri state trial court issued a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of many of Missouri's abortion restrictions. The court found that many of the state's restrictive laws, including the state's total ban, gestational age ban and reasons ban, to be unenforceable under the Right to Reproductive Freedom constitutional amendment approved by Missouri voters in November. However, the court refused to enjoin certain existing abortion regulations, finding that plaintiffs had not shown a likelihood of success in challenging these. Among the provisions that remain in effect are the abortion facility licensing requirements, the requirement for in-person appointments and the requirement that only physicians perform abortions. In a press release, Planned Parenthood said that some of the restrictions that remain in effect preclude it from beginning to again offer abortion services, saying in part:

... [T]he practical effect of the decision is that no health center in the state can restart abortion services because none has an abortion license, or can get one under the state’s draconian requirements. The vast majority of Planned Parenthood health centers cannot comply with the medically irrelevant size requirements for hallways, rooms, and doors—and no health centers are able to comply with an equally irrelevant, invasive vaginal exam for patients seeking medication abortion. Plaintiffs will continue to fight to see that these restrictions are enjoined.

[Thanks to Thomas Rutledge for the lead.]

Christian Haven for Sex Trafficking Victims Sues to Receive Federal Funding

Gracehaven, a Christian organization that cares for young survivors of sex trafficking, filed suit this week in an Ohio federal district court challenging the county's refusal to contract with it to receive federal Title IV-E funding for foster care services.  The complaint (full text) in Gracehaven, Inc. v. Montgomery County Department of Job and Family Services, (SD OH, filed 12/9/2024), says in part:

12.  Because Gracehaven is a Christian ministry that requires all employees to share and live out its religious beliefs, it told Montgomery County that it was not waiving or surrendering its right to employ only those who share its faith by signing the contract, and that it would sign the contract “as is.”  

13. The County responded that it would no longer “move forward with the renewal” of the contract with Gracehaven because of the ministry’s religiously based employment practices.  ...

15. But Defendants’ position conflicts with federal law, which expressly allows religious organizations to prefer members of their own faith as employees. 

18. The United States Supreme Court has clearly established—indeed, has held three times in the past seven years—that the government “violates the Free Exercise Clause when it excludes religious observers from otherwise available public benefits.”

The complaint also alleges that the county's action violates its freedom of expressive association and its religious freedom rights under the Ohio Constitution. ADF issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Texas Supreme Court Hears Arguments on Interpretation of "Religious Service Protections" Constitutional Amendment

Last Wednesday, The Texas Supreme Court heard oral arguments (video of full oral arguments) in Perez v. City of San Antonio. The court is being asked to respond to a certified question from the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in a case in which members of the Lipan Apache Native American Church claim that improvements to a park that include tree removal and rookery management destroy their ability to use a sacred site in the park for certain religious ceremonies. The certified question involves interpretation of a provision in the Texas state Constitution that was adopted in response to restrictions imposed during the Covid pandemic.  The constitutional provision prohibits the state and localities from placing limits on religious services, without specifying whether the ban applies even in cases of a compelling governmental interest in doing so. (See prior posting.) The certified question reads:

Does the “Religious Service Protections” provision of the Constitution of the State of Texas—as expressed in Article 1, Section 6-a—impose a categorical bar on any limitation of any religious service, regardless of the sort of limitation and the government’s interest in that limitation?

The Texas Supreme Court has links to pleadings and briefs (including amicus briefs) filed in the case. Oral argument for appellants was presented by a faculty member from the University of Texas College of Law, Law and Religion Clinic. Religion News Service reports on the oral arguments.

Missouri AG Issues Opinion on Which Abortion Restrictions Remain Enforceable After Reproductive Freedom Amendment

Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey has issued Opinion Letter No. 22-2024, (Nov. 22, 2024) outlining the extent to which the state's restrictive abortion laws are still enforceable after voter adoption of a state constitutional amendment protecting abortion rights. The Opinion Letter was requested by Missouri Governor-Elect Mike Kehoe. The Attorney General's Opinion Letter reads in part:

... Amendment 3 was adopted-- just barely-- by a margin of 3%. In a contest where the "yes:" side was able in effect to rewrite the ballot summary language, receive tens of millions of dollars in funding from out of state, and outspent the "no" side 6 to 1, this tight margin suggests the result may be very different if a future constitutional amendment is put up for a vote.

Nevertheless, until and unless voters have an opportunity to vote again ..., Amendment 3 will render some statutes unenforceable.... Missouri statutes entirely prohibit elective abortions-- i.e., abortions other than those performed because of a medical emergency.... Amendment 3 ... will generally prohibit ... officials from enforcing these provisions....

... [T]here will remain some circumstances where these five statutes are enforceable....

First, under the express terms of the amendment, the government may still protect innocent life after viability....

Second, the Attorney General will continue to enforce these statutes in circumstances where parents do not consent to an adolescent minor obtaining an abortion. Under the U.S. Constitution, parents have a "fundamental right ... to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children."... This includes the "right to refuse unwanted medical treatment."... Amendment 3 cannot displace that federal constitutional right....

... [W]hen the Supreme Court reversed the Roe line of cases, ... the court restored longstanding parental rights.

Third... [t]he right of parents to forbid minors from obtaining abortions should not be misunderstood to somehow imply a right to force abortion on minors.

The same is true for adults coerced into abortion.... Amendment 3 does not give abortion clinics a right to perform abortions on women who have been coerced....

Missouri Independent reports on the Attorney General's Opinion Letter. [Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]

Denial of Historic Preservation Grants to Churches Violates 1st Amendment

In The Mendham Methodist Church v. Morris County, New Jersey, (D NJ, Nov. 27, 2024), a New Jersey federal district court held that Rule 5.6.4 of New Jersey's Historic Preservation Grant program violates the 1st Amendment's Free Exercise Clause. Rule 5.6.4 bars grants for "property currently used for religious purposes or functions."  The Rule was based on the state constitution's Religious Aid Clause which says in part: "[n]o person shall . . . be obliged to pay . . . taxes ... for building or repairing any church or ... place ... of worship....." In granting a preliminary injunction against denial of grants to plaintiff churches, the court said in part:

The Religious Aid Clause does not "zero in on any particular 'essentially religious' aspect of funding.... Therefore, Rule 5.6.4 is not narrowly tailored. It states that "[a]ny property that is currently used for religious purposes or functions is ineligible for Historic Preservation grant funding."... Plaintiff Mendham was informed in 2022 that it was ineligible for grant funding from the Fund because the application involved "the principle [sic] church building that is currently used for religious purposes."... Rule 5.6.4 does not limit funding to religious institutions to secular aspects of repair. Instead, it excludes the institutions from eligibility wholesale because they are religious institutions. Rule 5.6.4, as currently written and construed, therefore, likely violates the Free Exercise Clause.

The current construction of Rule 5.6.4 does not mean, however, that Locke [v. Davey] is not still good law, nor that any restriction on taxpayer funding of religious institutions is unconstitutional. Without deciding the issue, the Court notes that a different version of Rule 5.6.4 restricting mandated taxpayer funding of purely religious iconography or purposes may still survive under Locke. However, such a hypothetical, narrower provision is not before the Court.

State Trial Court Strikes Down Wyoming Abortion Bans

In Johnson v. State of Wyoming, (WY Dist. Ct., Nov. 18, 2024), a Wyoming state trial court held that two Wyoming statutes barring abortions violate the Wyoming Constitution. One of the statutes bans all abortions with narrow exceptions. The other is a ban on prescribing or selling medication abortion drugs. The court said in part:

Under the Life Act and the Medication Abortion Ban, the State has enacted laws that impede the fundamental right to make health care decisions for an entire class of people, pregnant women. Wyoming Constitution, article 1, section 38 provides all individuals with the fundamental right to their own personal autonomy when making medical decisions. The Defendants have not established a compelling governmental interest to exclude pregnant women from fully realizing the protections afforded by the Wyoming Constitution during the entire term of their pregnancies, nor have the Defendants established that the Abortion Statutes accomplish their interest. The Court concludes that the Abortion Statutes suspend a woman's right to make her own health care decisions during the entire term of a pregnancy and are not reasonable or necessary to protect the health and general welfare of the people.

The court entered a permanent injunction, thus extending the temporary restraining orders that it had previously issued. Buckrail reports on the decision and reports that Wyoming Governor Mark Gordon has indicated that the decision will be appealed to the state Supreme Court.   [Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]

Suit Challenges Kentucky Abortion Bans

A class action lawsuit was filed last week in a Kentucky state trial court challenging the constitutionality under the Kentucky state constitution of two separate abortion bans found in Kentucky statutes. The complaint (full text) in Poe v. Coleman, (KY Cir. Ct., filed 11/12/2024), alleges that both the six-week ban, and the near total ban violate the right to privacy and the right to self-determination protected by the individual liberty guarantees of Sections 1 and 2 of the Kentucky Constitution.  The complaint alleges in part:

92. The constitutional right to privacy protects against the intrusive police power of the state, putting personal and private decision-making related to sexual and reproductive matters beyond the reach of the state. The right to privacy thus protects the right of a pregnant individual to access abortion if they decide to terminate their pregnancy. ...

98. The constitutional right to self-determination guards every Kentuckian’s ability to possess and control their own person and to determine the best course of action for themselves and their body. An individual who is required by the government to remain pregnant against her will— a significant physiological process affecting one’s health for 40 weeks and culminating in childbirth—experiences interference of the highest order with her right to possess and control her own person. The right to self-determination thus protects Kentuckians’ power to control whether to continue or terminate their own pregnancies.

The Kentucky ACLU issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit. [Thanks to Thomas Rutledge for the lead.]

Court Enjoins Disciplining of Doctors Performing Certain Abortions in Tennessee

In Blackmon v. State of Tennessee, (TN Chanc. Ct., Oct. 17, 2024), a Tennessee state Chancery Court issued a temporary injunction barring the state from instituting disciplinary proceedings against plaintiff physicians for performing abortions in any of four specified medical situations. The court found that plaintiffs are likely to succeed in their challenges under the right to life, liberty or property and the equal protection clauses of the state constitution and in their vagueness challenge. The court said in part:

The question remains ... whether the Medical Necessity Exception, as currently written, serves a compelling state interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that goal.  Given the range of interpretations proffered through the expert declarations ..., the Court finds that the issue of which conditions, and the timing of when they present and escalate to life-threatening conditions, constitute medical emergencies within the Medical Necessity Exception is demonstrably unclear, notwithstanding the “reasonable medical judgment’ of the physician standard set forth in the Exception.  This lack of clarity is evidenced by the confusion and lack of consensus within the Tennessee medical community on the circumstances requiring necessary health- and life-saving abortion care.  The evidence presented underscores how serious, difficult, and complex these issues are and raises significant questions as to whether the Medical Necessity Exception is sufficiently narrow to serve a compelling state interest....

Plaintiff Patients, as pregnant women, claim they are similarly situated to non-pregnant women who seek and are in need of emergency medical care.  Yet because of the criminal abortion statute, pregnant women are treated differently than non-pregnant women because their access to emergency medical care is restricted....

While the court enjoined disciplinary proceedings, it held that it lacked jurisdiction to enjoin enforcement of the state's criminal abortion statute. The Hill reports on the decision. [Thanks to Thomas Rutledge for the lead.]

Florida Voters Sue Claiming Invalid Signatures on Abortion Rights Amendment Petitions

Suit was filed last week in a Florida state trial court against election supervisors in 12 Florida counties, as well as against the Secretary of State, other state officials and the sponsors of Amendment 4, a proposed abortion rights amendment that appears on the November Florida ballot. The complaint, brought by four Florida voters, alleges illegal and fraudulent petition signature-gathering efforts. Plaintiffs rely in large part on the Office of Election Crimes and Security's October 2024 Interim Report to Legislature on Initiative Petition Fraud Related to the Abortion Initiative.  The complaint (full text) in Hoffman v. Barton, (FL Cir. Ct., filed 10/16/2024), includes 348 pages of exhibits and alleges in part:

186, Because FPF submitted signatures collected on a pay-per-signature basis, the petition process was substantially infected by fraud and corruption. The substantial fraud and corruption that permeated the election process constitutes a basis for the Court to decertify and strike Amendment 4 from the 2024 General Election Ballot or—if this case is not resolved before the election—to enjoin the State Defendants from counting the votes or, if passed, to enjoin the State Defendants from giving effect to votes cast in favor of Amendment 4.   

187. Although the Secretary of State has issued a certificate of ballot placement, the certificate does not cure the fraud and corruption that infected the petition process. Moreover, if the 2024 General Election occurs prior to the resolution of this action, passage will similarly not cure the fraud and corruption that resulted in Amendment 4’s passage. 

In October, the ACLU responded to the Interim Report, saying in part:

The Secretary of State’s unprecedented and suspiciously-timed report makes nonsensical claims about a few hundred petitions, which would have had no effect on the campaign meeting the statutory requirements. Importantly, the state had an opportunity to file objections to petitions before April, but did not object to the inconsequential petitions for which it is now attempting to sanction and publicly chastise the campaign.

Liberty Counsel issued a press release last week announcing the filing of last week's lawsuit.

Suit Challenges Oklahoma Bible Education Mandate and Purchase of Bibles

Suit was filed this week by public-school parents, their minor children, teachers, and clergy challenging Oklahoma's recently imposed requirement for all public schools to incorporate the Bible in their curricula. The suit was filed in the Oklahoma Supreme Court asking it to assume original jurisdiction because of the importance and time-sensitiveness of the case. The suit seeks a declaratory judgment, injunction and writ of mandamus providing that the Bible Education Mandate is invalid and unenforceable and seeks orders preventing the purchase of Bibles under the RFP issued by the state. (See prior posting.) The complaint (full text) in Walke v. Walters, (OK Sup. Ct., filed 10/17/2024), alleges in part:

The planned $3 million in spending on Bibles would unlawfully support an invalid rule.  The spending is also illegal for a number of other reasons.  No statutory or other legislative authority exists for Respondents to spend state funds on curricular materials that they select; rather, their authority is limited to providing state funds to individual school districts that the districts can then spend on texts of their own choice.  Respondents intend to spend on the Bibles funds that were designated for other purposes and have not been lawfully reallocated.  The Request for Proposal to supply Bibles violates state procurement requirements because it is gerrymandered to favor two particular providers.  And religious freedom provisions of Oklahoma’s Constitution—specifically Section 5 of Article II and Section 2 of Article I—prohibit spending state funds on the Bibles, because they are religious items and the spending would support one particular religious tradition.

AP reports on the lawsuit.

Georgia Supreme Court Reinstates 6-Week Abortion Ban While Appeal Is Heard

Yesterday in State of Georgia v. Sistersong Women of Color Reproductive Justice Collective, (GA Sup. Ct., Oct. 7, 2024), the Georgia Supreme Court in a brief order reinstated Georgia's 6-week abortion ban while an appeal of a trial court's injunction is litigated. Last week a state trial court had enjoined enforcement of the abortion ban, finding it unconstitutional under the state constitution. (See prior posting.) Supreme Court Justice Ellington filed an opinion dissenting from the Supreme Court's order, saying in part:

In its motion, the State fails to show any reason for urgency that goes beyond their underlying arguments in favor of allowing the State to prevent women from deciding whether to terminate a pregnancy after embryonic cardiac activity can be detected and before a fetus is viable....

Fundamentally, the State should not be in the business of enforcing laws that have been determined to violate fundamental rights guaranteed to millions of individuals under the Georgia Constitution. The “status quo” that should be maintained is the state of the law before the challenged laws took effect.

The state Supreme Court did not stay the trial court's injunction against a provision making health records of women obtaining abortions available to the district attorney.  ACLU issued a press release announcing the decision. AP reports on the decision.