Texas Supreme Court: Enforceability Of Islamic Pre-Nup Must Be Decided Before Ordering Arbitration

In In re Ayad, (TX Sup. Ct., Sept. 23, 2022), the Texas Supreme Court held that the trial court should determine the validity and enforceability of an Islamic Pre-Nuptial Agreement before, rather than after, ordering the parties to arbitration by a Fiqh Panel pursuant to the agreement. In a divorce proceeding, the wife challenged the enforceability of the agreement on various grounds, including that the term "Islamic Law" is too indefinite and that the Agreement is void as violating public policy. Volokh Conspiracy discusses the decision. [Thanks to Steven H. Sholk for the lead.]

Religious Discrimination Claims Against Child Protective Services Meet Procedural Hurdles

In Gautreaux v. Masters, (WD TX, Aug. 29, 2022), a Texas federal magistrate judge recommended that the court dismiss some or all of the free exercise and due process claims brought by foster parents who were accused by the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (DFPS) of child abuse. The opinion describes plaintiffs' allegations:

[DFPS] asked the couple to identify their religion during the application process, and they identified themselves as practicing members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latterday Saints.... Gautreaux alleges that DFPS demonstrated "hostility toward the Gautreauxes' religion" at their initial interview, while their follow-up interview "exclusively concerned the Gautreauxes' religious practices and beliefs."...

... DFPS informed Gautreaux that the department had found there was "reason to believe" she had committed the alleged abuse, resulting in Gautreaux being placed on the DFPS central registry "as a child abuser." ... Gautreaux alleges that DFPS's decision was motivated by religious "animus" and that there was no evidence of abuse to support the finding....

Gautreaux alleges that she is unable to practice her religion as a result of her placement on the DFPS central registry. Specifically, Gautreaux alleges that she cannot participate in her "calling" - an assignment made by Church leaders - which is to "teach singing to children in her local church."

In a lengthy opinion, the Magistrate Judge recommended either that all the claims be dismissed under the Younger abstention doctrine, or alternatively that most of plaintiffs' free exercise claims be dismissed because of 11th Amendment sovereign immunity. Under the alternative recommendation, the court could move ahead on  claims challenging DFPS's policies of considering religious beliefs and practices as a concern in abuse investigations and its disregarding of inconsistent court rulings.

5th Circuit Approves Injunction Shielding Religious Organizations From Mandate On Transgender Medical Care

In Franciscan Alliance, Inc. v. Becerra, (5th Cir., Aug. 26, 2022), the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, invoking RFRA, upheld a Texas federal district court's issuance of a permanent injunction barring the government from interpreting or enforcing provisions of the Affordable Care Act to require religious organizations, in violation of their religious beliefs, to perform or provide insurance coverage for gender-reassignment surgeries or abortions. At issue is the interpretation of the ACA's ban on discrimination on the basis of sex. The court however held that an alternative claim based on the Administrative Procedure Act was moot. Becket issued a press release announcing the decision.

Court Enjoins Enforcement In Texas Of HHS Emergency Abortion Guidance

In State of Texas v. Becerra, (ND TX, Aug. 23, 2022), a Texas federal district court issued a preliminary injunction prohibiting enforcement in Texas of the Department of Health and Human Services' guidance to hospitals (and accompanying letter) which, relying on the federal Emergency Medical Treatment & Labor Act, requires hospital emergency rooms to perform certain abortions even when they violate Texas law. According to the Guidance, when an abortion is the stabilizing treatment necessary to resolve an emergency medical condition, EMTALA requires emergency rooms to perform it. The court's 67-page opinion said in part:

Texas law already overlaps with EMTALA to a significant degree, allowing abortions in life-threatening conditions and for the removal of an ectopic or miscarried pregnancy. But in Dobbs’s wake and in an attempt to resolve any potential conflict with state law, the Department of Health and Human Services issued Guidance purporting to remind providers of their existing EMTALA obligations to provide abortions regardless of state law. That Guidance goes well beyond EMTALA’s text, which protects both mothers and unborn children, is silent as to abortion, and preempts state law only when the two directly conflict. Since the statute is silent on the question, the Guidance cannot answer how doctors should weigh risks to both a mother and her unborn child. Nor can it, in doing so, create a conflict with state law where one does not exist. The Guidance was thus unauthorized. In any event, HHS issued it without the required opportunity for public comment.

Reuters reports on the decision.

Fire Department Chaplain Dismissed Because Of His Blog Posts Files Suit

An ordained Christian minister who has been a volunteer fire department chaplain in Austin, Texas filed suit in a Texas federal district court yesterday alleging that his free speech and free exercise rights were violated when the fire department terminated him as a chaplain because of his social media posts.  The complaint (full text) in Fox v. City of Austin, (WD TX, filed 8/18/2022), alleges in part:

Dr. Andrew K. Fox ... helped start Austin’s fire chaplaincy program and served as its lead chaplain—a volunteer position—for eight years. That abruptly changed when Dr. Fox posted something on his personal blog that Austin officials considered unacceptable: his religious belief that men and women are created biologically distinct and his view that men should not compete on women’s sports teams. After Austin officials demanded that Dr. Fox recant and apologize for expressing these beliefs and Dr. Fox refused, they terminated him....

Under the City’s standard, no one who openly holds historic Christian beliefs about the immutable differences between men and women can serve as a chaplain or in any other fire department position.... When the government can needlessly punish people for professing views outside of work on matters of ongoing public debate, that chills everyone’s speech and discourages democratic participation.

ADF issued a press release announcing the lawsuit.

5th Circuit Upholds Qualified Immunity Defense Of Prison Officials Who Confiscated Hijab

In Taylor v. Nelson, (5th Cir., Aug. 2, 2022), the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals held that Texas prison authorities who confiscated a female inmate's hijab that exceeded the size permitted by prison policies can claim qualified immunity in a suit for damages against them. The court held that plaintiff failed to identify a clearly established right that officials violated and reasonable officials would not have understood that enforcing the policy on size of hijabs was unconstitutional.

Texas Sues Feds Over Abortion Guidance Given To Hospital Emergency Rooms

On Thursday, the state of Texas filed suit against the Biden administration challenging HHS's guidance to hospitals that the Emergency Medical Treatment & Labor Act requires hospital emergency rooms to perform an abortions when an abortion is the stabilizing treatment necessary to resolve an emergency medical condition. The complaint (full text) in State of Texas v. Becerra, (ND TX, filed 7/14/2022) alleges in part:

The Biden Administration’s response to Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Org.... which ended the terrible regime of Roe v. Wade, is to attempt to use federal law to transform every emergency room in the country into a walk-in abortion clinic.

The suit contends that the guidance exceeds statutory authority and violates various constitutional provisions. The Texas attorney general issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Texas Must Grant Execution Chamber Religious Accommodations

 AP reports that on July 5 the federal district court for the Southern District of Texas in Gonzales v. Collier issued a temporary injunction barring the execution of death row inmate Ramiro Gonzales unless authorities grant all of his requested religious accommodations. According to AP:

Gonzales, 39, has asked that when he is executed, his spiritual adviser be allowed in the death chamber so she can pray aloud, hold his hand and place her other hand on his chest.

“...The specific physical contact I have requested is vitally important to me as I am making my spiritual transition into the paradise of God,” Gonzales said in court documents filed last month.

... [O]fficials have argued allowing the hand holding could be a security risk as the adviser would be too close to the IV lines that deliver the lethal injection and the adviser would be in a location that would block the view of authorities and witnesses.

Court Enforcement Of Divorce Agreement Involving Acceptance of "Gett" Creates No Free Exercise Problem

In Mishler v. Mishler, (TX App., June 30, 2022), a Texas state appellate court held that there is no state or federal free exercise problem with a divorce decree, based on the parties prior agreement, that certain property would be delivered by the husband to the wife only upon the wife's acceptance of a "Gett" (Jewish divorce document that the wife must accept in order for the divorce to be valid under Jewish religious law).

Prosecutor's Ethical Objection To Death Penalty Was Not Reason To Withdraw Execution Warrant

Texas Tribune reports that yesterday a Texas state trial court judge rejected a request submitted jointly by the prosecutor and the defense attorney to withdraw a warrant setting the execution date for convicted murderer John Ramirez for October 5. The request to withdraw the execution date came two days after the court set it. District Attorney Mark Gonzalez said that he is ethically opposed to the death penalty and did not want the death penalty imposed on any prisoner while he is in office. An assistant district attorney had filed the request to set the execution date without conferring with Gonzalez. An appeal is planned. Ramirez was the petitioner in a RLUIPA case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court last year holding that he was entitled to a preliminary injunction barring Texas from proceeding with his execution without permitting his pastor, during the execution, to lay hands on the him and audibly pray with him. (See prior posting.)

5th Circuit Hears Oral Arguments In Texas Courtroom Prayer Case

On Tuesday, the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments in Freedom From Religion Foundation v. Mack. (Audio of full oral arguments). In the case, a Texas federal district court held that a program devised by a Justice of the Peace under which his court sessions are opened with a prayer from a volunteer chaplain violates the Establishment Clause. (See prior posting.)  Last July, the 5th Circuit granted a stay pending appeal of the Texas district court's declaratory judgment order. (See prior posting.)

Ban On Proselytizing At City Farmers Market Violates Free Speech Rights

In Denton v. City of El Paso, (WD TX, March 29, 2022), a Texas federal magistrate judge concluded that plaintiff's free speech rights were violated by a policy of the city whose Museums and Cultural Affairs Department refused to allow Plaintiff to proselytize at the Downtown Art and Farmers Market.  The city's policy barred First Amendment expression and religious proselytizing within and during the Market. The magistrate judge recommended granting of nominal damages and injunctive relief.

Supreme Court Says Pastor Should Be Allowed To Pray Audibly And Lay Hands On Prisoner Being Executed

In Ramirez v. Collier, (Sup.Ct., March 24, 2022), the U.S. Supreme court in n 8-1 decision held that a death row prisoner was likely to succeed in his RLUIPA lawsuit challenging limits on his pastor's activities in the execution chamber.  The Court held that petitioner is entitled to a preliminary injunction barring Texas from proceeding with his execution without permitting his pastor, during the execution, to lay hands on the prisoner and audibly pray with him. Chief Justice Roberts majority opinion said in part:

First, prison officials say that absolute silence is necessary in the execution chamber so they can monitor the inmate’s condition through a microphone suspended overhead. They say that audible prayer might impede their ability to hear subtle signs of trouble or prove distracting during an emergency.... But respondents fail to show that a categorical ban on all audible prayer is the least restrictive means of furthering their compelling interests....

Second, prison officials say that if they allow spiritual advisors to pray aloud during executions, the opportunity “could be exploited to make a statement to the witnesses or officials, rather than the inmate.” ... But there is no indication in the record that Pastor Moore would cause the sorts of disruptions that respondents fear...

Respondents’ categorical ban on religious touch in the execution chamber fares no better.... Under Texas’s current protocol, spiritual advisors stand just three feet from the gurney in the execution chamber.... A security escort is posted nearby, ready to intervene if anything goes awry.... We do not see how letting the spiritual advisor stand slightly closer, reach out his arm, and touch a part of the prisoner’s body well away from the site of any IV line would meaningfully increase risk.

Justices Sotomayor and Kavanaugh each filed a concurring opinion.  Justice Thomas filed a 23-page dissent, saying in part:

Petitioner John Henry Ramirez stabbed Pablo Castro 29 times during a robbery that netted $1.25. Castro bled to death in a parking lot. Since that day, Ramirez has manufactured more than a decade of delay to evade the capital sentence lawfully imposed by the State of Texas. This Court now affords yet another chance for him to delay his execution. Because I think Ramirez’s claims either do not warrant equitable relief or are procedurally barred, I respectfully dissent.

CNN reports on the decision.

Idaho Governor Signs A Heartbeat Abortion Ban

Yesterday, Idaho Governor Brad Little signed Senate Bill 1309, the Fetal Heartbeat Preborn Child Protection Act (full text). While news media report that the law is modeled on Texas SB8, there are differences between the two laws. Like the Texas law, SB 1309 prohibits abortions after a fetal heartbeat can be detected-- generally 6 weeks, and provides for private enforcement. However the Idaho law has an exception for rape or incest (if reported to law enforcement authorities) or for medical emergencies. The Texas law only excepts medical emergency. Under the Idaho law, a private enforcement action may be brought only by the father, grandparent, sibling, aunt or uncle of the pre-born child. They may sue for actual damages plus statutory damages of $20,000. Under the Texas law, anyone (other than a state or local official) may sue. Under the Idaho law, criminal penalties and license suspensions for health care professionals who violate the law are triggered "thirty (30) days following the issuance of the judgment in any United States appellate court case in which the appellate court upholds a restriction or ban on abortion for a pre-born child because a detectable heartbeat is present on the grounds that such restriction or ban does not violate the United States constitution."

Defamation Suit Dismissed On Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine

In Heras v. Diocese of Corpus Christie, (TX App, March 10, 2022), a Texas state appellate court affirmed the dismissal on ecclesiastical abstention grounds of defamation suits by two priests who were included on the diocese's list of clergy who have been credibly accused of sexually abusing a minor. The court said in part:

[W]e hold appellants’ defamation suits are barred by the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine because the substance and nature of the appellants’ claims against appellees are inextricably intertwined with appellees’ internal directive for openness and transparency.... More specifically, appellants’ claims are inextricably intertwined with appellees’ decision to release the list incompliance with an internal church directive....

Texas Supreme Court Effectively Ends Challenge To Heartbeat Abortion Ban

The Texas Supreme Court, answering a question of state law certified to it by the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, has effectively prevented abortion providers from challenging Texas "heartbeat" abortion law.  In Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson, (TX Sup.Ct., March 11, 2022), the court concluded:

Texas law does not grant the state-agency executives named as defendants in this case any authority to enforce the Act’s requirements, either directly or indirectly.

CNN reports on the decision. 

Legal Responses Continue To Texas Ban On Gender Transition For Minors

 As previously reported, last month Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton in an Attorney General Opinion concluded that a number of procedures used to treat gender dysphoria, i.e. assist transgender individuals in their gender transitions, can amount to child abuse under Texas law. Building on this opinion, Governor Greg Abbott sent a letter to the head of the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, instructing them to promptly investigate cases covered by the Attorney General's Opinion. As those investigations began, numerous legal developments followed.

On March 2, the Office for Civil Rights of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services issued a Guidance on Gender Affirming Care which read in part:

Section 1557 protects the right of individuals to access the health programs and activities of recipients of federal financial assistance without facing discrimination on the basis of sex, which includes discrimination on the basis of gender identity.... [I]f a parent and their child visit a doctor for a consultation regarding or to receive gender affirming care, and the doctor or other staff at the facility reports the parent to state authorities for seeking such care, that reporting may constitute violation of Section 1557 if the doctor or facility receives federal financial assistance.

In response, the state of Texas filed an amended complaint (full text) in its pending lawsuit against the federal government (State of Texas v. EEOC, ND TX filed 3/9/2022)  challenging this Guidance.

Meanwhile, in Jane Doe v. Abbott, (TX Dist. Ct., March 2, 2022), a Texas state trial court granted a temporary restraining order providing: "Defendants are immediately enjoined and restrained from taking any actions against Plaintiffs based solely on the Governor’s letter and DFPS statement ... as well as Attorney General Paxton’s Opinion...." The state Court of Appeals in Abbott v. Jane Doe, (TX App., March 9, 2022), held that the TRO was not an appealable order. Texas Tribune reports on some of these developments.

Court Issues TRO Preventing Enforcement Of Texas Governor's Order On Gender Transition Treatment For Minors

As reported in an ACLU press release, earlier this week a Texas state trial court in Jane Doe v. Abbott, (TX Dist. Ct., March 2, 2022), issued a temporary restraining order barring enforcement against the named plaintiffs of Texas Gov. Greg Abbott's order to investigate for child abuse parents who facilitate gender reassignment treatment for minors. (See prior posting.) The court said in part:

[T]he Court finds Plaintiffs will suffer irreparable injury unless Defendants are immediately restrained.... Jane Doe has been placed on administrative leave at work and is at risk of losing her job and ... Jane, John and Mary Doe face the imminent and ongoing deprivation of their constitutional rights, the potential loss of necessary medical care, and the stigma attached to being the subject of an unfounded child abuse investigation.... [I]f placed on the Child Abuse Registry, Jane Doe could lose the ability to practice her profession and both Jane and John Doe could lose their ability to work with minors and volunteer in their community.

The Court further finds that Plaintiff Mooney could face civil suit by patients for failing to treat them in accordance with professional standards and loss of licensure for failing to follow her professional ethics if she complies with Defendants’ orders and actions. If she does not comply with Defendants’ orders, Dr. Mooney could face immediate criminal prosecution, as set forth in the Governor’s letter.

The court set a temporary injunction hearing for March 11.

Texas AG and Governor Say Gender Transition Of Minors Can Constitute Child Abuse

On Feb. 18, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton in Attorney General Opinion No. KP-401 concluded that a number of procedures used to treat gender dysphoria, i.e. assist transgender individuals in their gender transitions, can amount to child abuse under Texas law.  The 13-page Opinion states in part:

To the extent that these procedures and treatments could result in sterilization, they would deprive the child of the fundamental right to procreate, which supports a finding of child abuse under the Family Code....

Where, as a factual matter, one of these procedures or treatments cannot result in sterilization, a court would have to go through the process of evaluating, on a case-by-case basis, whether that procedure violates any of the provisions of the Family Code—and whether the procedure or treatment poses a similar threat or likelihood of substantial physical and emotional harm....

To the extent the specific procedures about which you ask may cause mental or emotional injury or physical injury within these provisions, they constitute abuse.

Further, the Legislature has explicitly defined “female genital mutilation” and made such act a state jail felony.... While the Legislature has not elsewhere defined the phrase “genital mutilation”, nor specifically for males of any age, the Legislature’s criminalization of a particular type of genital mutilation supports an argument that analogous procedures that include genital mutilation—potentially including gender reassignment surgeries—could constitute “abuse” under the Family Code’s broad and nonexhaustive examples of child abuse or neglect.

On Feb. 22, Texas Governor Greg Abbott sent a letter (full text) to the head of the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, instructing them to promptly investigate cases covered by the Attorney General's Opinion.  the Governor said in part:

Texas law imposes reporting requirements upon all licensed professionals who have direct contact with children who may be subject to such abuse, including doctors, nurses, and teachers, and provides criminal penalties for failure to report such child abuse.... There are similar reporting requirements and criminal penalties for members of the general public....

Texas law also imposes a duty on DFPS to investigate the parents of a child who is subjected to these abusive gender-transitioning procedures, and on other state agencies to investigate licensed facilities where such procedures may occur.

Washington Post and Axios report on these developments.

Part Of Texas Anti-BDS Law Held Unconstitutional

In A & R Engineering and Testing, Inc. v. City of Houston, (SD TX, Jan. 28, 2022), a Texas federal district court held unconstitutional a portion of the Texas statute requiring companies entering contracts with governmental entities to certify that they do not, and will not during the term of the contract, boycott Israel. The court said in part:

[Plaintiff] denies any anti-Jewish motivation and testified that his desire to boycott has nothing to do with Jewish people (American or Israeli) but is focused on the acts of the Israeli government.... Nevertheless, the legislation at issue did not originate in an historical vacuum.... [A]nyone with a basic knowledge of modern history knows that one of the first anti-Jewish acts taken by the Nazis after they took power in Germany was the boycott of Jewish businesses in 1933.

The court found a portion of the law unobjectionable:

[T]he court agrees that the mere refusal to engage in a commercial/ economic relationship with Israel or entities doing business in Israel is not "inherently expressive" and therefore does not find shelter under the protections of the First Amendment.

However the court went on to find a First Amendment problem with the provision in the statute that requires businesses also to refrain from "otherwise taking any action that is intended to penalize, inflict economic harm on, or limit commercial relations" with Israel or Israeli entities.  The court said in part:

[A]ctions intended to penalize or inflict economic harm on Israel could include conduct protected by the First Amendment, such as giving speeches, nonviolent picketing outside Israeli businesses, posting flyers, encouraging others to refuse to deal with Israel or Israeli entities, or sponsoring a protest which encourages local businesses to terminate business activities with Israel.

The court issued a preliminary injunction limited to this plaintiff, refusing a state-wide injunction or one covering other businesses.  Arab News reports on the decision.