Texas County Grand Jury Clears Planned Parenthood, Indicts Sting Videographers

Houston Chronicle and the New York Times report that a Harris County, Texas grand jury that was investigating a Planned Parenthood clinic in Houston has cleared the clinic of charges of illegal conduct and instead indicted two of the anti-abortion activists involved in making widely publicized, highly-edited videos involving the clinic. (Press release by Harris County District Attorney.)  Yesterday the grand jury handed down no indictments against Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast that had been charged by the anti-abortion group Center For Medical Progress with illegal sale of fetal tissue to researchers. However it indicted undercover videographers David Daleiden and Sandra Merritt on charges of tampering with a governmental record.  Apparently these charges stem from their use of false government identifications (false documents resembling California drivers' licenses) to obtain access to private areas and record private conversations.  Daleiden was also charged on a misdemeanor count under the law prohibiting the purchase and sale of human organs.  Apparently the grand jury found that he likely crossed the line into offering to buy fetal tissue in his efforts to get Planned Parenthood personnel to admit to selling fetal tissue.

Daleiden said that they were merely using the same techniques that investigative journalists have typically used.  In a statement reacting to the grand jury's action, Texas governor Greg Abbott said:

The Health and Human Service Commission’s Inspector General and the Attorney General’s office have an ongoing investigation into Planned Parenthood’s actions. Nothing about today’s announcement in Harris County impacts the state’s ongoing investigation. The State of Texas will continue to protect life, and I will continue to support legislation prohibiting the sale or transfer of fetal tissue.

Earlier this month, Planned Parenthood filed a civil RICO action against Center for Medical Progress. (See prior posting.) [Updated]

Texas Bar Committee Backs Off Refusal To Certify Christian Ethics CLE Course

As reported by Catholic Education Daily, the State Bar of Texas Minimum Continuing Legal Education Committee last week backed off of its controversial refusal last November (see prior posting) to certify a religious-themed continuing legal education program for "Legal Ethics/ Professional Responsibility" credit.  Texas Gov. Greg Abbott had charged the Committee with religious discrimination after it refused to approve a St. Mary's law school professor's CLE program on "Christian Ethical Perspectives: Faith and Law Today" for ethics credit.  In its January 12 letter (full text) to the professor, Bill Piatt, the Committee said in part:

It has become clear that the November 4 letter conveyed an unintended and incorrect impression regarding the MCLE Committee's position regarding the provision of credit for courses containing moral or religious content.  We take responsibility for and regret the miscommunication.

Texas Gov. Abbott Accuses State Bar's CLE Committee of Religious Discrimination

Texas Lawyer reported yesterday that Texas Governor Greg Abbott has now weighed in on a refusal by the State Bar's Minimum Continuing Legal Education Committee to certify a law professor's continuing legal education program for "Legal Ethics/ Professional Responsibility" credit.  Under Texas MCLE rules, all lawyers must take 15 hours per year of continuing legal education, 3 hours of which must be in legal ethics/ professional responsibility.  The State Bar's Accreditation Standards provide:

"Legal Ethics and Legal Professional Responsibility" shall include, but not be limited to the accreditation of those topics involving disciplinary rules of professional conduct, rules of disciplinary procedure, and the use and availability of alternative dispute resolution and pro-bono services....

"Legal Ethics and Legal Professional Responsibility" shall not include programs or topics that deal with government or business ethics, individual religious or moral responsibilities, training in personal organizational skills, general office skills, time management, leadership skills or stress management.

Applying these standards, the State Bar's MCLE Committee refused to approve St. Mary's law school professor Bill Piatt's CLE program on "Christian Ethical Perspectives: Faith and Law Today" for ethics credit. Sponsors of the program are appealing to the State Bar of Texas board of directors.  Gov. Abbott's general counsel has written to the State Bar president urging a change in the definition of "legal ethics" in the MCLE rules, contending that the current definition is "based on a shallow and impoverished understanding of legal ethics and an unduly narrow view of legal education."  He suggested that the refusal to accredit could be seen as religious discrimination against the program sponsors.  A week later, Gov. Abbott posted a blunter statement on his Facebook page:

I'm accusing Texas State Bar of religious discrimination for denying continuing education credit for Christian legal ethics programs. The Texas State Bar leaders should be compelled to read my winning arguments upholding the Ten Commandments and "One Nation Under God."

The parties are meeting next week to try to work out a solution before the Jan. 21 appeal hearing.

FFRF's Secular Nativity Display Removed From Texas Capitol After It Provokes Ire of Governor

The Texas State Preservation Board has a policy that allows displays in public areas of the Capitol upon filing of an appropriate application and a letter of sponsorship from the governor, lieutenant governor or a member of the state legislature.  Receiving approval of its application, on December 18 the Freedom From Religion Foundation put up a Bill of Rights Nativity display which it describes as:

featur[ing] Founding Fathers Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and George Washington gathered in reverence before the Bill of Rights, overseen by the Statue of Liberty. In addition to the "nativity," the display also features a sign celebrating the Winter Solstice.

However, three days later the exhibit was removed after Governor Greg Abbott expressed strong opposition to it.  In a letter (full text) to the Executive Director of the State Preservation Board, the governor (who is Chairman of the Board) contended that the display did not meet the requirement that approved displays promote a "public purpose."  He wrote in part:

[T]he exhibit deliberately mocks Christians and Christianity. The Biblical scene of the newly born Jesus Christ lying in a manger in Bethlehem lies at the very heart of the Christian faith. Subjecting an image held sacred by millions of Texans to the Foundation’s tasteless sarcasm does nothing to promote morals and the general welfare. To the contrary, the Foundation’s spiteful message is intentionally designed to belittle and offend....

This is not an exhibit that spreads a secular message in an effort to educate the public about nonreligious viewpoints; it instead denigrates religious views held by others.... [T]he exhibit promotes ignorance and falsehood insofar as it suggests that George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson worshipped (or would worship) the bill of rights in the place of Jesus.

City Will Sue Church Over Ownership of Land On Which Religious Welcome Sign Stands

In Hawkins, Texas, on a 50' x 45' parcel of land between two roads, visitors are greeted with a sign reading "Jesus welcomes you to Hawkins".  In June, the Freedom From Religion Foundation wrote the city objecting to the sign (see prior posting), and in September city council voted to remove it. Tuesday's Tyler Morning Telegraph recounts what happened next. Almost immediately after the vote, members of the Jesus Christ Open Altar Church cordoned off the site on which the welcome sign stands, and had members guarding the site at all hours of the day and night. The Church then purported to buy the land and sign from two funeral homes.  But the city attorney says that the funeral homes did not own the land, so that their deeds to the church conveyed nothing.  On Tuesday, City Council voted to sue the Church and the funeral homes to establish the city's ownership of the property, even though Hawkins' mayor disagrees with City Council's decision.

Texas State Trooper Sues Over Religious Harassment By Co-Workers

According to the Austin Statesman, Texas state trooper Patsy Jones, assigned to work at the state Capitol, has filed a religious discrimination lawsuit alleging that her colleagues harassed her about being religious because she often reads her Bible at work.  She says that when she complained, her supervisor at the Texas Department of Public Safety suggested mediation with fellow-employees. When she declined, she was ordered to work from home for 6 months, and was then assigned to the night shift.

Supreme Court Grants Review Of Texas Restrictions On Abortion Clinics

The U.S. Supreme Court today granted certiorari in the Texas abortion law case, Whole Woman’s Health v. Cole, (Docket No. 15-274, cert. granted 11/13/2015). (Order List.) Links to the 5th Circuit's opinion in the case, the petition for certiorari, the reply brief and amicus briefs are available at SCOTUSblog. According to USA Today:

The justices will decide whether tough new restrictions placed on abortion clinics and doctors in Texas constitute an "undue burden" on women seeking legal abortions and should be struck down.

The restrictions -- forcing doctors to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals and requiring clinics to meet standards for outpatient surgery centers -- threaten to leave the state with only 10 clinics clustered in four population centers and along the Mexican border. 

Scientology Cannot Get Dismissal of Harassment Suit Under Texas Anti-SLAPP Statute

In Sloat v. Rathbun, (TX App., Nov. 6, 2015), a Texas appellate court held that the Church of Scientology and its officials cannot invoke the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA) to obtain dismissal of a lawsuit against them alleging intentional infliction of emotional distress, invasion of privacy and tortious interference with contract. TCPA is designed to allow rapid dismissal of unmeritorious lawsuits challenging individuals' exercise of their rights of speech, petition or association.  Here plaintiff, the wife of a former high ranking Scientology official who spoke out against Scientology, claims that the Scientology defendants subjected her to relentless abuse, harassment and surveillance.  The court held that defendants have not shown that the alleged activities relate to the exercise of free speech or the rights of association or petition:

[With one exception]  the Scientology Defendants do not directly address the specific conduct Rathbun complains of, which includes following her while she went to and from work, shopping, out to dinner with friends, and walking her dog. Nor do they explain how alleged visits to Rathbun’s family members, friends, and coworkers during which they allegedly gave warnings about Rathbun’s personal safety while married to Marty Rathbun, constitute conduct covered by the TCPA. Moreover, other than deny having done so, the Scientology Defendants do not address Rathbun’s allegations that they sent a sex toy to her at work and sent flowers with a “romantic” message purportedly from her to a female co-worker.

Courthouse News Service reports on the decision.

Texas AG Opinion OK's "In God We Trust" On Police Cars

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton last week issued Opinion No. KP-0042 (Nov. 4, 2015)  concluding that a police department or sheriff's office may display the national motto, "In God We Trust," on its patrol cars without violating the Establishment Clause.  The Attorney General's Opinion says in part:

[D]isplaying "In God We Trust" on police vehicles is a passive use of a motto steeped in our nation's history that does not coerce Citizen approval or participation.

AP reported on the Opinion.

Houston Voters Reject Anti-Discrimination Law In Focus On Transgender Rights

Texas Tribune reports that in Houston, Texas yesterday voters rejected the city's Equal Rights Ordinance by a vote of 61% to 39%.  The Ordinance (full text) barred discrimination on the basis of sex, race, color, ethnicity, national origin, age, familial status, marital status, military status, religion, disability, sexual orientation, genetic information, gender identity, or pregnancy.  In a campaign centered in churches to obtain a referendum on the measure (see prior posting), opponents of the measure focused on its sexual orientation and gender identity provisions.  Republican leaders in the state, including the governor and lieutenant governor, supported repeal of the Ordinance.  Yesterday Lt. Governor Dan Patrick, reflecting the predominate theme of the anti-Ordinance campaign, said:

The voters clearly understand that this proposition was never about equality – that is already the law. It was about allowing men to enter women’s restrooms and locker rooms — defying common sense and common decency.

 After the vote, Houston Mayor Annise Parker, the first openly gay mayor of a major U.S. city, said:

Unfortunately, I fear that this will have stained Houston’s reputation as a tolerant, welcoming, global city.  And I absolutely fear that there will be a direct economic backlash as a result of this.

Replica of Removed Oklahoma 10 Commandments Given To Oklahoma Governor [Corrected]

AP reports that on Friday, 11 riders from a Texoma Cowboy Church in Wichita Falls, Texas delivered to Oklahoma governor Mary Fallin a replica of the Ten Commandments monument which a court ordered moved from the Oklahoma statehouse grounds. (See prior posting.)  Rev. John Riggs, leader of the church, told the governor:

We're riding for the law of God today. We fully believe that this country was founded upon the principles of God's word. It breaks our hearts to see where this country is headed and to see the removal of the law of God from our land, from our buildings.

Fallin said she will place the replica in her office. [Corrected--an earlier version of this posting incorrectly said the replica was delivered to the governor of Texas.]

Constable Applicant Can Sue Over Religious and Ideological Questions In Job Interview

In Texas, County Constable is an elected position, but where a sitting Constable resigns more than a year before the next scheduled election county commissioners may appoint a new constable to serve until the next election.  In Lloyd v. Birkman, (WD TX, Sept. 2, 2015), a Texas federal district court in a 106-page opinion held that one of the unsuccessful candidates for appointment as County Constable in Williamson County, Texas could pursue various claims against the county and individual commissioners because of the questions asked during the interview process for the position. According to the court:

During the interviews, the candidates received questions on their positions on abortion and same-sex marriage, their political affiliations, the churches that they attended, and their political ideology.

While dismissing some of plaintiff's claims, the court permitted plaintiff to move ahead with his claim that the County committed an unlawful employment practice under Title VII and Texas Commission on Human Rights Act by refusing to hire him because of his religious association, moral views, and ethical beliefs. The court held that the "elected official" exemption does not apply. The court also permitted plaintiff to move ahead against the county and individual defendants on his First Amendment retaliation, freedom of expression and association claims; his 14th Amendment Equal Protection claims; and Texas Constitutional claims. The court rejected plaintiff's violation of privacy claims.

Texas Supreme Court Rules On Houston Equal Rights Referendum Ballot Language

In yet another ruling on the referendum calling for the repeal of Houston, Texas' controversial Equal Rights Ordinance, the Texas Supreme Court yesterday in In re Williams and Woodfill, (TX Sup. Ct., Aug. 19, 2015), ruled on proper ballot language. It held that the vote must be on whether or not to approve the Ordinance, not on whether or not to approve its repeal. The Court also held that the city did not abuse its discretion by referring in the ballot language to the "Houston Equal Rights Ordinance." Houston Chronicle reports on the decision. (See prior related posting.)

Houston Pastors' Group Sues Mayor For Legal Fees and Damages In Fight Over Equal Rights Ordinance

Now that the Texas Supreme Court has ordered the city of Houston to place a referendum on the ballot that seeks to repeal Houston's Equal Rights Ordinance (HERO) (see prior posting), the Houston Area Pastors Council announced last week that it has filed a lawsuit in state court against Houston, Texas mayor Annise Parker to recover legal fees and damages it incurred in the litigation.  Much of the opposition to HERO came from pastors who objected to its protection of transgender rights, and the mayor created particular controversy by initially subpoenaing the pastors' sermons and other documents  relating to their support of the ordinance. (See prior posting.) Houston Chronicle and the Houston Memorial Examiner report on this latest lawsuit which accuses Mayor Parker with interfering with citizens' right to vote.

Do State RFRAs Apply To Eminent Domain Proceedings?

The Daily Signal this week reports on a lawsuit in Houston, Texas making innovative use of the state's Religious Freedom Restoration Act to challenge an eminent domain proceeding.  The Houston Housing Authority is seeking to take two empty parcels of land belonging to the Latter Day Deliverance Revival Center as part of an urban renewal project.  The church says it acquired the parcels as part of a future expansion plan for the church, and that it uses the land for ministry activities. The church filed suit arguing that the Housing Authority must meet the compelling interest/ least restrictive means tests of RFRA before it may take the property which the church refuses to sell. Applying RFRA standards would make its acquisition extremely difficult.

Sportscaster Sues Fox Sports Claiming Religious Discrimination

Yesterday former NFL player and sportscaster Craig James filed suit in a Texas state court against Fox Sports and various of its affiliates claiming religious discrimination in violation of the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act and breach of contract.  The complaint (redacted full text) in James v. Fox Sports, Inc., (TX Dist. Ct., filed 8/3/2015), claims that James' firing in September 2013, just days after he was hired by Fox, was "due to a short Christianity-focused statement" opposing same-sex marriage on Biblical grounds that he made during a political debate when he ran unsuccessfully for United States Senate some 18 months earlier. Liberty Institute has more information on the case along with links to depositions, the demand letter and media coverage.  According to The Wrap yesterday, Fox Sports issued a statement saying in part:

... Craig James is a polarizing figure in the college sports community and the decision not to use him in our college football coverage was based on the perception that he abused a previous on-air position to further a personal agenda.  The decision had nothing to do with Mr. James’ religious beliefs and we did not discriminate against Mr. James in any way.

James, in 2009 while at ESPN, was involved in a controversy stemming from his comments about the Texas Tech coach Mike Leach's treatment of James' son. (Background.) James resigned from ESPN in Dec. 2011 to run for the U.S. Senate. [This paragraph has been corrected. An earlier more cryptic version gave an incorrect impression.]

Texas Supreme Court OK's Referendum Petitions On Houston's Equal Rights Ordinance

As previously reported, in May 2014 the Houston, Texas City Council passed an Equal Rights Ordinance that attracted significant opposition because of its ban on discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. Opponents circulated petitions to get a repeal referendum on the ballot.  The City Secretary certified that there were sufficient signatures on the petitions, but the City Attorney disputed that conclusion and City Council refused to move ahead with the reconsideration of the Ordinance that is required when a valid referendum petition is filed. (See prior posting.) Litigation ensued in various courts.  In In re Jared Woodfill, et. al.,  (TX Sup. Ct., July 24, 2015), the Texas Supreme Court conditionally granted a writ of mandamus to proponents of the referendum, holding:

The Charter ... gives the City Council no discretion to reevaluate the petition; instead, it requires “immediate[]” action by the City Council following the City Secretary’s certification....

The City Council is directed to comply with its duties, as specified in the City Charter, that arise when the City Secretary certifies that a referendum petition has a sufficient number of valid signatures. Any enforcement of the ordinance shall be suspended, and the City Council shall reconsider the ordinance. If the City Council does not repeal the ordinance byAugust 24, 2015, then by that date the City Council must order that the ordinance be put to popular vote during the November 2015 election. The writ will issue only if the City Council does not comply.

Josh Blackman's Blog has more on the decision, as does the Houston Chronicle.

Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine Does Not Require Dismissal of Breach of Contract Claim

In Shannon v. Memorial Drive Presbyterian Church U.S., (TX App., July 21,2015), a Texas state appeals court held that the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine is not applicable to a claim by former Church Elementary Ministries Director Jessica Shannon that the Church breached a confidential separation agreement she had signed. The agreement involved payment to her of $25,000 to settle her claim that she had been dismissed for making sexual harassment allegations against a Church elder. As part of the agreement, the Church and Shannon each agreed not to "disparage" the other. After Shannon was hired by the Austin Presbyterian Theological Seminary as a development officer, it called the Church for references and was told by officials that the Church would not rehire Shannon and that she would not be able to raise funds anywhere in Houston. This led the Seminary to fire Shannon on the grounds that she had misrepresented the circumstances surrounding her departure from the Church.

Shannon sued the Church, claiming among other things that it violated the non-disparagement provision. The court held in part:

We may interpret a contract in a civil law controversy in purely secular terms when doing so does not require us to rely on religious precepts or resolve a religious controversy.... Making the determination of whether the Church disparaged Shannon merely involves interpreting the contract as a matter of law and applying the facts as found by the fact finder. Moreover, under these circumstances, we are not required to intervene in the hiring, firing, discipline, or administration of the Church’s clergy, address the Church’s standards of morality, or address any other matters traditionally held to involve religious doctrine.... We conclude that this lawsuit, revolving around the Church’s purported disparagement of Shannon in violation of the Agreement, is a civil law controversy in which Church officials happen to be involved.... Accordingly, the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine does not apply.

The court also concluded that the trial court had erred in invoking several other grounds for dismissing Shannon's claims. It affirmed only the trial court's dismissal of Shannon's intentional infliction of emotional distress claim.

UPDATE: On Sept. 1, 2015, the court denied a motion for rehearing and filed a Substitute Opinion: 2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 9312.

Court Dismisses Native American Challenge To San Antonio Revitalization Efforts

In Rocha v. City of San Antonio, (WD TX, July 2, 2015), a Texas federal district court rejected a vast variety of statutory and constitutional challenges to San Antonio's redevelopment efforts at several historical sites including the Hemisfair Historical Park, Alamo Plaza, the Alamo and La Villita.  Plaintiff, who claims to be a direct lineal descendant of the Yanaguana tribes, claims that the city is desecrating historical archaeological sites and Native American burial grounds.  Plaintiff's original complaint, dismissed by the court in this decision, alleged that the city was violating the U.S. Constitution, the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act,  the Archaeological Resources Protection Act, the American Indian Religious Freedom Act, the Texas Parks and Wildlife Code, and San Antonio’s Unified Development Code.  The court also refused to permit plaintiff to amend his complaint to add free exercise claims, claims under eleven sections of the Texas Constitution, and under Title II of the federal Civil Rights Act.

Texas AG, Critical of Obergefell, Issues Opinion On Religious Accommodation For Clerks and Judges

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton issued a strong statement (full text) on Friday criticizing the U.S. Supreme Court's decision on same sex marriage, saying in part:

Today’s ruling by five Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court marks a radical departure from countless generations of societal law and tradition. The impact of this opinion on our society and the familial fabric of our nation will be profound. Far from a victory for anyone, this is instead a dilution of marriage as a societal institution.

What is most disturbing is the extent to which this opinion is yet another assault on the actual text of the U.S. Constitution and the rule of law itself....  The truth is that the debate over the issue of marriage has increasingly devolved into personal and economic aggression against people of faith who have sought to live their lives consistent with their sincerely-held religious beliefs about marriage.

Then on Sunday, Paxton issued an Attorney General's Opiinion (full text) on the right of public officials to assert religious objections to issuing marriage licenses or performing same-sex marriages. His statement (full text) accompanying the issuance of the opinion is a good deal more strident than the full opinion itself.  Paxton's statement says in part:

A ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court is considered the law of the land, but a judge-made edict that is not based in the law or the Constitution diminishes faith in our system of government and the rule of law.

Now hundreds of Texas public officials are seeking guidance on how to implement what amounts to a lawless decision by an activist Court while adhering both to their respective faiths and their responsibility to uphold and defend the U.S. Constitution. Here is where things currently stand:

Pursuant to the Court’s flawed ruling, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas issued an injunction against the enforcement of Texas marriage laws that define marriage as one man and one woman and therefore those laws currently are enjoined from being enforced by county clerks and justices of the peace. There is not, however, a court order in place in Texas to issue any particular license whatsoever – only the flawed direction by the U.S. Supreme Court on Constitutionality and applicable state laws.

Importantly, the reach of the Court’s opinion stops at the door of the First Amendment and our laws protecting religious liberty

Paxton's opinion itself carefully provides that religious accommodation "may" be permitted:

A county clerk has a statutory right to delegate a duty to a deputy clerk, including theissuance of same-sex marriage licenses that would violate the county clerk's sincerely held religious beliefs. Regarding deputy clerks and other employees, state and federal employment laws allow them to seek reasonable accommodation for a religious objection to issuing same-sex marriage licenses. And under the Religious Freedom Restoration Acts, deputy clerks and other employees may have a claim that forcing the employee to issue same-sex marriage licenses over their religious objections is not the government's least restrictive means of ensuring a marriage license is issued, particularly when available alternatives would not impose an undue burden on the individuals seeking a license.... Importantly, the strength of any claim under employment laws or the Religious Freedom Restoration Acts depends on the particular facts of each case....

Factual situations may arise in which the county clerk seeks to delegate the issuance of same-sex marriage licenses due to a religious objection, but every employee also has a religious objection to participating in same-sex-marriage licensure. In that scenario, were a clerk to issue traditional marriage licenses while refusing to issue same-sex marriage licenses, it is conceivable that an applicant for a same-sex marriage license may claim a violation of the constitution.

If instead, a county clerk chooses to issue no marriage licenses at all, it raises at least two questions. First, a clerk opting to issue no licenses at all may find himself or herself in tension with the requirement under state law that a clerk "shall" issue marriage licenses to conforming applications.

Moving then to the question of whether judges and justices of the peace may refuse on religious grounds to conduct same-sex marriage ceremonies, Paxton says in part:

Under the Religious Freedom Restoration Acts, justices of the peace and judges may claim that the government forcing them to conduct a same-sex wedding ceremony over their religious objection, when other authorized individuals have no objection, is not the least restrictive means of the government ensuring that the ceremonies occur, assuming that is compelling governmental interest. Again, the strength of any such claim depends on the particular facts.

The Houston Chronicle reports on developments.