Battle Over Congregations' Disaffiliations Dismissed on Ecclesiastical Abstention Grounds

 In United Methodist Rio Conference Board of Trustees v. Alice First Methodist Church, (TX App., Oct. 29, 2025), a Texas state appeals court affirmed the dismissal of a suit by the United Methodist Church parent body challenging attempts by some two dozen local Texas congregations to disaffiliate from the United Methodist Church. The disaffiliation attempts were triggered by the General Conference's decision to allow ordination of gay and lesbian pastors. Plaintiff claimed that the local congregations did not comply with the proper procedures in their attempts to disaffiliate. The court said in part:

... [T]he Conference contends the trial court has jurisdiction over this lawsuit because the questions of whether the local churches are bound by the Discipline’s disaffiliation provisions and properly disaffiliated from the UMC can be determined by interpreting the Discipline using neutral principles of law. We disagree....

... This suit does not involve a dispute over who owns the real property currently occupied by the local churches. This is a dispute over whether the local churches are bound to follow the Discipline and the specific provisions providing for disaffiliation from the UMC. Although our supreme court has held courts may apply neutral principles of law to issues “such as . . . corporate formation, governance, and dissolution” when a religious entity has chosen to establish itself under Texas corporations law, ... it has rejected parties attempts to have the courts resolve disputes under church governing documents and regulations because such an inquiry would “intrude upon internal affairs of church governance and autonomy.”...  As such, ... the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine— and broader church autonomy doctrine— precludes courts from interpreting religious documents that dictate church governance....

In its second issue, the Conference contends that even if the trial court is divested of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine, the court nevertheless has jurisdiction to enforce the Conferences’ position because it is the higher ecclesiastical authority.  It appears the Conference contends we look to neutral principles of law to resolve issues involving religious entities when possible but must defer to the higher ecclesiastical authority if the court determines it does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute.

In Southern Methodist University, the supreme court recently rejected this argument from a regional conference within the UMC.  See S. Methodist Univ., 716 S.W.3d at 483.  The supreme court held that “if courts could not decide the case without resolving a religious question or impeding the church’s authority to manage its own affairs, the result would be dismissal for lack of jurisdiction, not rendition of judgment granting the Conference (or any other party) affirmative relief.”

Texas Judicial Conduct Rules Changed To Allow Judges To Refuse To Perform Same-Sex Marriages

On Oct.24, the Texas Supreme Court added a Comment (full text) to Canon 4 of the Texas Code of Judical Conduct. The New Comment reads:

It is not a violation of these canons for a judge to publicly refrain from performing a wedding ceremony based upon a sincerely held religious belief.

Canon 4, among other things, requires that judges conduct their extra-judicial activities in a manner that does not cast reasonable doubt on the judge's capacity to act impartially as a judge. See prior related posting.

KERA News reports on these developments.

Court Refuses to Dismiss Case on Misappropriation of Tithed Funds Under Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine

 In Leach v. Gateway Church, (ED TX, Sep. 17, 2025), a Texas federal district court refused to dismiss a class action suit on behalf of Gateway Church members and tithers alleging misappropriation of tithed funds. The court said in part:

Plaintiffs allege Defendants induced Plaintiffs to donate money to Gateway by falsely representing fifteen percent (15%) of all donations would be distributed to global missions and Jewish ministry partners... [and that] Defendants guaranteed Plaintiffs a refund of their donated funds if Plaintiffs were dissatisfied with Gateway’s use of such funds.... Plaintiffs’ efforts to seek transparency and substantiation for Gateway’s use of Plaintiffs’ donations or to otherwise recover any allegedly misappropriated tithe funds have not been successful....

Because Gateway’s membership exceeds 100,000 members since its founding, Plaintiffs allege the proposed class will consist of “tens of thousands of persons,” including members that do not reside in Texas....

The court held that it was not required to abstain from hearing the case on the basis of the Class Action Fairness Act which directs class actions to state courts when there is minimal diversity of citizenship between members of the class and defendant.  

The court also refused to dismiss the case on ecclesiastical abstention grounds. The court said in part:

Defendants argue neutral principles of law cannot resolve Plaintiffs’ claims because “Plaintiffs’ claims necessarily touch on the religious doctrine and practice of tithing and intrude in Gateway’s internal affairs and administration”... 

At this stage ... Defendants have not established the disputed financial expenditures from Plaintiffs’ tithes were approved by a committee or governing body based on Gateway’s religious doctrine.... Second, Defendants have not pointed to any church policy outlining that its contested expenditures were justified by Gateway’s religious teachings.... Third, the Parties have not alleged they have differing definitions of “Jewish ministry partners” or any other term at issue....  

... Plaintiffs’ claims seemingly address Defendants’ non-religious conduct: acts of concealment; discrepancies in the reconciliation of donated funds balances; unaccounted for donations; financial irregularities; and lack of transparency or substantiations for Gateway’s use of Plaintiffs’ donations.... The Court acknowledges the act of tithing is a religious act, but Plaintiffs do not dispute their tithing; rather, Plaintiffs allege their tithes were fraudulently allocated and Defendants misrepresented critical facts to Plaintiffs before tithing....

Ministry Watch reports on the decision.

Another Suit Challenges Texas' Law Requiring 10 Commandments in Classrooms

On August 20 a Texas federal district court issued a preliminary injunction barring 11 Texas school districts from complying with Texas SB 10 that requires posting of a particular version of the Ten Commandments in every classroom. Five days later, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton in a press release directed the school districts that were not defendants in the litigation to comply with SB 10. (See prior posting.) Today, plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against 14 more of Texas' 1207 school districts seeking an injunction barring those districts from complying with SB 10. The 67-page complaint (full text) in Ringer v. Comal Independent School District, (WD TX, filed 9/22/2025) alleges in part:

... [P]ermanently posting the Ten Commandments in every public-school classroom—rendering them unavoidable—will unconstitutionally harm the Plaintiffs. The displays will pressure students, including the minor-child Plaintiffs, into religious observance, veneration, and adoption of the state’s favored religious scripture. The displays will also send the harmful and religiously divisive message that students who do not subscribe to the Ten Commandments—or, more precisely, to the specific version of the Ten Commandments that S. B. 10 requires—do not belong in their own school community, pressuring them to refrain from expressing any faith practices or beliefs that are not aligned with the state’s religious preferences. And the displays will substantially interfere with and burden the right of the parents-Plaintiffs, who are Jewish, Christian, Hindu, Baha’i, Humanist, or nonreligious, to direct their children’s education and upbringing when it comes to religious questions and matters.

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

Texas Governor Signs Ban on Mail-Order Abortion Drugs

On Sept. 17, Texas Governor Greg Abbott signed House Bill 7 (full text), a complex 20-page law aimed at preventing the shipment from out-of-state of abortion-inducing drugs. The key section of the law provides:

... [A] person may not: (1) manufacture or distribute an abortion-inducing drug in this state; or (2) mail, transport, deliver, prescribe, or provide an abortion-inducing drug in any manner to or from any person or location in this state....

The law then sets out lengthy lists of exceptions, including any action taken by a pregnant woman in attempting to induce an abortion.

The ban is enforceable through a qui tam action by any person, with certain exceptions. To deal with plaintiff's standing, the Act provides:

An action brought under this section must be brought in the name of the qui tam relator, who is an assignee of this state’s claim for relief. Notwithstanding any other law, the transfer of this state’s claim to the qui tam relator is absolute, with the state retaining no interest in the subject matter of the claim.

An action may not be brought against a pharmaceutical manufacturer, distributor or common carrier unless it is shown that the defendant failed to adopt and implement a policy to comply with the law.

If a plaintiff is successful, the court is to award not less than $100,000. If the plaintiff is the woman who was pregnant or a relative of the unborn child, plaintiff is to retain the entire award.  If the suit is brought by someone else, plaintiff is to retain $10,000 and the remainder is to be placed in trust for a charitable organization selected by plaintiff.

Reuters reports on the governor's action.

Texas AG Urges Introducing the Lord's Prayer in Classrooms

As previously reported, in May 2025 the Texas legislature passed Senate Bill 11. The bill took effect on September 1. The new law creates an elaborate structure that school districts may adopt to provide for a daily period of prayer and reading of the Bible or other religious text in each school, with parental consent for students to participate. On Monday, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton issued a press release recommending that schools adopt a policy that calls for recitation of the Lord's Prayer.  The press release said in part:

“In Texas classrooms, we want the Word of God opened, the Ten Commandments displayed, and prayers lifted up,” said Attorney General Paxton. “Twisted, radical liberals want to erase Truth, dismantle the solid foundation that America’s success and strength were built upon, and erode the moral fabric of our society. Our nation was founded on the rock of Biblical Truth, and I will not stand by while the far-left attempts to push our country into the sinking sand.”...

... [Senate Bill 11] directs the Office of the Attorney General to defend any school district or charter school that adopts such a policy. In addition, the Attorney General is empowered to recommend best practices for implementation.

For Texas students considering how to best utilize this time, Attorney General Paxton encourages children to begin with the Lord’s Prayer, as taught by Jesus Christ.

The press release then sets out the text of the Lord's Prayer as it appears in the King James Version of Matthew 6:9-13.  Texas Tribune reports on Paxton's action. [Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]

Texas AG Tells School Districts That Were Not Enjoined to Comply with Statute Ordering Posting of 10 Commandments In Classrooms

As previously reported, on August 20 a Texas federal district court issued a preliminary injunction barring 11 Texas school districts from complying with Texas SB 10 that requires posting of a particular version of the Ten Commandments in every classroom. Yesterday, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton in a press release (full text) directed the school districts that were not defendants in the litigation to comply with SB 10. He said in part:

From the beginning, the Ten Commandments have been irrevocably intertwined with America’s legal, moral, and historical heritage. Schools not enjoined by ongoing litigation must abide by S.B. 10 and display the Ten Commandments. The woke radicals seeking to erase our nation’s history will be defeated. I will not back down from defending the virtues and values that built this country.

As reported by the Houston Chronicle, there is some confusion as to whether the Attorney General's instructions to comply include two major school districts-- Houston and Austin. On Aug. 19, the Austin District was dismissed as a defendant on the condition that it would be bound by any injunction issued in the case against the remaining defendants. (Full text of Order.) The Houston District, on its motion, was excused from participating in the hearing on the preliminary injunction. In a version of the Attorney General's press release posted on X and on Facebook, neither Austin nor Houston was listed among the districts that Paxton said were excused from complying with SB 10. However, in the version posted on the Attorney General's website, both Austin and Houston were listed as districts affected by the injunction and thus excused from compliance.

The Attorney General's instructions follow an Aug. 21 letter (full text) from the ACLU, Americans United and FFRF sent to superintendents in Texas districts that were not defendants in the lawsuit, saying in part:

Even though your district is not a party to the ongoing lawsuit, all school districts have an independent obligation to respect students’ and families’ constitutional rights. Because the U.S. Constitution supersedes state law, public-school officials may not comply with S.B. 10. 

The organizations threaten possible litigation against districts that comply with S.B. 10.

Court Enjoins Compliance with Texas Law Requiring Posting of 10 Commandments in Classrooms

In Nathan v. Alamo Heights Independent School District, (WD TX, Aug. 20, 2025), a Texas federal district court in an unusual 55-page opinion that defies brief summarization issued a preliminary injunction barring 11 Texas school districts from complying with Texas SB 10 that requires posting of a particular version of the Ten Commandments in every classroom. The court said in part:

... [T]o succeed on the merits under Kennedy, Plaintiffs must show that the practice at issue–permanently displaying the Ten Commandments in public school classrooms–does not “fit within” and is not “consistent with” a broader tradition existing at the time of the founding....

The Court heard from and is very appreciative of the testimony of Dr. Steven Green and Dr. Mark Hall, which was an extensive augmentation of the Court’s 20 years of Methodist Sunday School and theology, political philosophy and constitutional history courses at Texas Lutheran University.  The Court finds Dr. Green’s opinions concerning the intent of the Founders regarding the First Amendment to be more persuasive than Dr. Hall’s testimony....

The court's conclusionary section provides a flavor of the opinion:

Ultimately, in matters of conscience, faith, beliefs and the soul, most people are Garbo-esque. They just want to be left alone, neither proselytized nor ostracized, including what occurs to their children in government run schools.      

Even though the Ten Commandments would not be affirmatively taught, the captive audience of students likely would have questions, which teachers would feel compelled to answer.  That is what they do.  Teenage boys, being the curious hormonally driven creatures they are, might ask: “Mrs. Walker, I know about lying and I love my parents, but how do I do adultery?”  Truly an awkward moment for overworked and underpaid educators, who already have to deal with sex education issues, ... and a classic example of the law of unintended consequences in legislative edicts.

Notwithstanding the sausage making process of legislation, to avoid religious rancor and legal wrangling the Texas Legislature alternatively could require the posting of:

1. Multiple versions of lessons of behavior from many cultures melded into the American motto of “E pluribus unum,” a concept currently in decline.  For example, the Five Moral Precepts of Buddhism: abstain from killing, stealing, engaging in sexual misconduct, lying and intoxicants; or

2. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.  Be kind.  Be respectful.; or

3.  All I Really Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarten: “Share everything.  Play Fair.Don’t hit people. . . . Clean up your own mess.  Don’t take things that aren’t yours.  Say you’re sorry when you hurt somebody. . . . Live a balanced life. . . . When you go out into the world, . . . hold hands, and stick together.” 

CBS News reports on the decision.

5th Circuit Allows San Antonio Park Development To Move Ahead Over Religious Objections of Lipan-Apache

In Perez v. City of San Antonio, (5th Cir., Aug. 13, 2025), the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 decision affirmed a trial court's refusal to enjoin San Antonio's development plan for a city park.  Plaintiffs are members of the Lipan-Apache Native American Church. Certain of their religious ceremonies can take place only at a particular river bend in the park and require the presence of cormorants in the trees there. The development plans involve removing and relocation of trees and modifying bird habitats to deter birds from nesting in highly urbanized areas of the park. Plaintiffs claim that removal of trees and the bird deterrence program violate their religious freedom protected by the 1st Amendment, the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and the Texas Constitution.  In a prior opinion, the 5th Circuit certified to the Texas Supreme Court a question on the meaning of a 2021 amendment to the Texas Constitution that prohibits the government from interfering with religious services. In response, the Texas Supreme Court said that the constitutional provision does not extend to governmental actions for the preservation and management of public lands.

In this week's decision, the majority, refusing to grant an injunction pending further appeal, held that the project did not violate the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act, saying in part:

... [T]he City’s development plan only indirectly impacts Appellants’ religious conduct and expression. Appellants continue to have virtually unlimited access to the Park for religious and cultural purposes. The record shows that, regardless of the rookery management program, no cormorants, due to their migration patterns, inhabit the area for extended periods of time each year....

Appellants did not meet their burden to show that they are likely to succeed on their claim that the plan constitutes a substantial burden of their religious exercise. Even if they did, that would not change the outcome of this appeal because the City’s plan advances a compelling interest through the least restrictive means—and thus survives strict scrutiny.

The majority also held that the city's program did not violate the 1st Amendment, saying in part:

The parties’ dispute under the Free Exercise Clause centers on which standard of constitutional review applies to the instant case, rational basis or strict scrutiny. Appellants argue that the City’s plans for tree removal and rookery management measures are not neutral and generally applicable and, therefore, must be analyzed under the more exacting strict scrutiny standard. The City contends that its planned Park improvements are neutral and generally applicable and that the more deferential rational basis standard of review applies. Assuming strict scrutiny applies, we conclude that the challenged government action in this case withstands Appellants’ Free Exercise challenge, as illustrated infra in the TRFRA claim analysis.

Judge Higginson dissented in part, saying in part:

Despite my respect for the majority’s analysis, I continue to think that Appellants’ religious exercise is substantially burdened and that the City of San Antonio ... failed to accommodate Appellants’ religious beliefs in the least restrictive manner.  I would therefore hold that the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act (“TRFRA”) requires the City to accommodate Appellants’ religious beliefs across two “items of relief” requested in the complaint: the City’s tree-removal (“Item 2”) and anti-nesting (“Item 3”) measures....

Appellants’ testimony shows that services at the riverbend would be “meaningless” without the trees or the cormorants, and that disruption to either will “unravel” the land’s spiritual ecology—a sine qua non for Church members’ religious exercise.  Just as importantly, Appellants’ testimony confirms that these services cannot “be performed anywhere else.”...

To the extent the majority suggests that Appellants can obtain  spiritual fulfilment by exercising their religious beliefs in a manner contrary to their testimony, such reasoning is forbidden.

Secular Officiants Lack Standing to Bring Pre-Enforcement Challenge to Texas Law Barring Them from Performing Weddings

McCutchan v. Nicholson, (ND TX, July 2, 2025), involves a challenge to the Texas statute that sets out who may conduct marriage ceremonies in the state.  The statute limits officiants to judges, Christian clergy, Jewish rabbis or "a person who is an officer of a religious organization and who is authorized by the organization to conduct a marriage ceremony." The Center for Inquiry that certifies secular marriage celebrants along with one of its certified celebrants brings the challenge, seeking to have secular officiants recognized.  However, the state Attorney General intervened in the case and took the position that the Center for Inquiry qualifies as a "religious" organization as that term is used in the Texas statutes and that its officiants are therefore already permitted to officiate at marriages. The Attorney General argued:

CFI is not secular because it adopts clear, specific, and overt religious beliefs, namely that it “denies that a supernatural source is required for life to have and for people to be guided by values and ethics.” The rejection of God and the supernatural is a religious belief; a truly secular organization would take no stance on the issue....

However, the Court disagreed, concluding that CFI is neither a religious organization nor a religion, saying in part:

At oral argument, the Attorney General discarded the history and tradition of the Texas law, stating that Satanism and Atheism were “religion[s]” and “religious organization[s]” under the Texas Family Code. Interpreting the terms “religion” and “religious organization” to cover Satanism and Atheism not only ignores history and tradition but distorts their plain meaning and risks setting a dangerous precedent.

The court went on, though, to hold that plaintiffs lack standing to bring a pre-enforcement action against the District Attorney (one of the defendants in the case), saying in part:

Individual Plaintiff provides no examples of past enforcement, no public statements regarding enforcement of the statute, and no facts about how the District Attorney could know a secular celebrant violated the law.

This led to the court's final conclusion:

Even if the Court rules on behalf of Individual Plaintiff against Defendant Nicholson, thereby enjoining the County Clerk, his injuries would not be redressed without a favorable judgment against the District Attorney. A ruling in Individual Plaintiff’s favor, thus, would not amount to “relief that directly redresses the injury suffered.”... Accordingly, the Court rules that Individual Plaintiff’s action is DISMISSED without prejudice.

Because individual members of CFI lack standing, so does the organization.

Another Suit Challenges Texas Law Mandating 10 Commandments in Every Classroom

Suit was filed yesterday in a Texas federal district court challenging the constitutionality of Senate Bill 10 which requires a copy of the Ten Commandments to be posted in every public-school classroom. The complaint (full text) in Nathan v. Alamo Heights Independent School District, (WD TX, filed 7/2/2025), alleges in part:

S.B. 10 is not neutral with respect to religion. By design, it expressly requires the display of religious scripture—the Ten Commandments—in every public-school classroom. It also requires that schools post a specific, state-approved version of that scripture that is associated with certain Protestant faiths, taking sides on theological questions regarding the correct content and meaning of the Ten Commandments and enshrining in state law an official denominational preference....

As a result of the displays mandated by S.B. 10, students who do not subscribe to the state’s official version of the Ten Commandments or whose faith tenets and values are otherwise contradicted by the displays—including the minor-child Plaintiffs—will be pressured into religious observance, veneration, and adoption of this religious scripture....

Houston Public Media reports on the lawsuit. This is the second lawsuit that has been filed challenging the constitutionality of SB 10. (See prior posting.)

Suit Challenges Texas Requirement for 10 Commandments in Classrooms

Suit was filed last week in a Texas federal district court challenging the constitutionality of a recently enacted Texas law that requires the display of the Ten Commandments in every public-school classroom. The complaint (full text) in Alexander v. Morath, (ND TX, filed 6/24/2025) alleges in part:

Senate Bill 10 ... is not religiously neutral, as it mandates the display of a specific version of the Ten Commandments in every public-school classroom. This requirement inherently takes a theological stance on the correct content and meaning of the scripture....

The version mandated by S.B. 10 mostly aligns with a Protestant rendition but does not match any version found in the Jewish tradition, notably omitting key language and context from the Torah. Furthermore, it does not match the version followed by most Catholics, as it includes a prohibition against "graven images" which could be offensive given the role of iconography in the Catholic faith....

84. As a result of the Ten Commandments displays mandated by S.B. 10, Texas students—including minor-child Plaintiffs—will be unconstitutionally coerced into religious observance, veneration, and adoption of the state’s favored religious scripture, and they will be pressured to suppress their personal religious beliefs and practices, especially in school, to avoid the potential disfavor, reproach, and/or disapproval of school officials and/or their peers. ...

85. In addition, by mandating that one version of the Ten Commandments be displayed in public educational institutions and prescribing an official religious text for school children to venerate, S.B. 10 adopts an official position on religious matters, violating the Establishment Clause’s prohibition against taking sides in questions over theological doctrine and violating the “clearest command” of the Establishment Clause that “one religious denomination cannot be officially preferred over another.” Larson v. Valente, 456 U.S. 228, 244 (1982).

86. There is no longstanding historical practice or tradition of prominently and permanently displaying any version of the Ten Commandments in American public-school classrooms. On the contrary, the Supreme Court unambiguously held in Stone that such a practice is proscribed by the Constitution.

Texas Tribune reports on the lawsuit.

Texas Enacts Requirement That Schools Offer Released-Time Programs

On June 20, Texas Governor Gregg Abbott signed SB 1049 (full text) which requires all public and charter schools to permit students to attend released-time religious classes for up to five hours per week. The student must assume responsibility for any school assignments issued during his attendance at religious classes. ADF issued a press release endorsing the new law.

Texas Enacts Law Requiring Ten Commandments In Every Classroom

The Texas legislature has passed, and on June 20 Governor Gregg Abbott signed, SB10 (full text) which requires that:

a public elementary or secondary school shall display in a conspicuous place in each classroom of the school adurable poster or framed copy of the Ten Commandments...

The law requires that a poster or framed copy at least 16x20 in size include only the text of the Ten Commandments set out in the law. It must be posted "in a size and typeface that is legible to a person with average vision from anywhere in the classroom...."

Texas Tribune reports on the new law. A similar Louisiana law was just found to be unconstitutional by the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals which also has jurisdiction over Texas. (See prior posting.)

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.”

Texas Supreme Court: AG May Begin Proceedings to Close Down Catholic Refugee Agency for Harboring Illegal Migrants

In Paxton v. Annunciation House, Inc., (TX Sup. Ct., May 30, 2025), the Texas Supreme Court held that a state trial court was in error in refusing to allow the state Attorney General to file a quo warranto action as a first step in his attempt to revoke the corporate charter of a Catholic agency serving migrants and refugees in El Paso. The Attorney General claims that the agency is sheltering migrants who have entered the country illegally. The Supreme Court observed:

Bound up in the dispute are a host of serious questions: What kind of conduct constitutes unlawfully harboring illegal aliens?  Has Annunciation House engaged in such conduct?  Under what conditions may the attorney general demand access to Annunciation House’s records?  Can harboring illegal aliens provide a valid basis for the attorney general to file a quo warranto action?  Does Texas law that protects religious liberty forbid the attorney general from proceeding against Annunciation House under these circumstances?  And more still.

Ordinarily, before this Court addresses such significant issues, the parties would have developed a full record.... This case, however, comes to the Court as a direct appeal because, very early in the litigation, the trial court held that several Texas statutes are unconstitutional.  We accordingly must address this dispute far earlier than we typically would. 

Among other defenses, Annunciation House invoked the state's Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Rejecting that defense, the Supreme Court said in part:

... [T]he relevant government action for purposes of applying RFRA here is not the charter revocation that may or may not arrive, but only the filing of the quo warranto information.  Engaging in litigation is generally not itself the sort of burden that RFRA forecloses— RFRA purposefully provides a tool to be deployed within litigation.  In this case, it has been invoked as an affirmative defense focusing not on the mere existence of the litigation but on a potential end result of that litigation.  Undoubtedly, RFRA can be powerful however it is deployed, and its potency often may be felt quite early.  But it is not a tool to convert a proceeding focused on whether litigation may even commence into one that reaches and resolves ultimate issues.  Were we to say more about RFRA at this stage, we would have to reach issues that go well beyond the narrow question of the attorney general’s authority to file a quo warranto counterclaim—and to do so without the benefit of a sufficiently developed record or even the refining that ordinarily comes through the usual litigation and appellate process.

Here are links to the pleadings and numerous amicus briefs filed in the case. Here is a link to video of oral arguments in the case. El Paso Times reports on the decision.

Texas Passes 3 Bills Promoting Religion in Public Schools

In addition to the much-publicized Ten Commandments bill (see prior posting), the Texas legislature this week gave final passage to three other bills relating to religion in public schools:

S.B. 11 (full text) (legislative history) creates an elaborate structure that school districts may adopt to provide for a daily period of prayer and reading of the Bible or other religious text in each school. The daily ceremony is to be open to both students and employees but must be outside the hearing of those who are not participants. Also, it may not be a substitute for instructional time. To participate, a student's parent must sign a consent form that includes a waiver of a right to bring an Establishment Clause claim to challenge the prayer/ Bible reading policy. For an employee to participate in the daily sessions, they must sign a similar consent and waiver. Districts may not broadcast the prayer or Bible reading over the school's public address system.

SB 965 (full text) (legislative history) provides:

The right of an employee of a school district ... to engage in religious speech or prayer while on duty may not be infringed on by the district or school or another state governmental entity, unless the infringement is: (1) necessary to further a compelling state interest; and (2) narrowly tailored using the least restrictive means to achieve that compelling state interest.

SB 1049 (full text) (legislative history) requires all public schools to adopt policies that provide for students, at their parents' request, to attend for 1 to 5 hours per week off-premises released time programs operated by private entities and which offer religious instruction. Under the mandated policy, students remain responsible for any schoolwork issued during the student's absence.

Texas Legislature Passes Bill to Require Ten Commandments in Every Classroom

The Texas legislature this week gave final approval to SB10 (full text) which requires public schools to post a copy of the Ten Commandments in every classroom. The bill sets out the language of the version of the Ten Commandments that must be used. Schools must accept privately donated posters or framed copies that meet the requirements of the Act and may also use school district funds to buy posters or copies. Three civil liberties groups yesterday announced that they will sue Texas to challenge the new law once it is signed by Governor Gregg Abbott.

New York County Clerk Refuses to File Texas Default Judgment Against Doctor Who Sent Abortion Pills to Texas Woman

New York state's Shield Law (EXECUTIVE 837-x) provides in part:

No state or local government employee ... shall cooperate with ... any out-of-state individual or out-of-state agency or department regarding any legally protected health activity in this state, or otherwise expend or use time, moneys, facilities, property, equipment, personnel or other resources in furtherance of any investigation or proceeding that seeks to impose civil or criminal liability or professional sanctions upon a person or entity for any legally protected health activity occurring in this state... 

Invoking this provision, an Ulster, New York County Clerk yesterday refused a request by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton to enforce in New York a Texas default civil judgment against a New York physician charged with providing abortion medication to a woman in Texas. Ulster County Clerk Taylor Bruck's statement (full text) reads in part:

Today, I informed Texas State Attorney General Ken Paxton that the Ulster County Clerk’s Office will not be filing a summary judgment against a New Paltz physician who is facing charges in Texas for providing mifepristone via telehealth to a Texas resident. The judgment in question seeks a civil penalty exceeding $100,000 due to the doctor’s failure to appear in court. 

As the Acting Ulster County Clerk, I hold my responsibilities and the oath I have taken in the highest regard. In accordance with the New York State Shield Law, I have refused this filing and will refuse any similar filings that may come to our office...

The case will provide an interesting test of the extent of exceptions to the federal Constitution's "full faith and credit" clause which generally requires one state to enforce judgments of another state's courts.

Texas Tribune Reports on these developments.

Texas Supreme Court Hears Arguments on State Closure of Catholic Agency Serving Migrants

On January 13, the Texas Supreme Court heard oral arguments (video of full oral arguments) in Paxton v. Annunciation House, Inc. (Links to documents and briefs in the case.) At issue is an attempt by the Texas Attorney General to shut down Annunciation House, a Catholic agency serving migrants and refugees in El Paso. The Attorney General claims that the agency is sheltering migrants who have entered the country illegally. A Texas state trial court held that Texas statutes which bar harboring migrants to induce them to stay illegally in the U.S. are pre-empted by federal law and cannot be used as the basis for a quo warranto action to revoke the agency's registration to operate in Texas. Also at issue is the state's subpoena for records of Annunciation House. (See prior posting.) Annunciation House contends that the attempt to close it down violates the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Reform Austin reports on the oral arguments.