Supreme Court Rejects Suit Against 2 US Companies Charging Abetting Child Slavery Abroad

Under the Alien Tort Statute, suits may be brought in U.S. courts by non-citizens to recover damages for human rights abuses that violate international law, if conduct relevant to the statute’s focus occurred in the United States.  The U.S. Supreme Court this morning in Nestle USA, Inc. v. Doe, (Sup. Ct., June 17, 2021), by an 8-1 vote, dismissed an Alien Tort Statute suit, finding insufficient conduct in the United States.  The Court summarized plaintiffs' allegations:

Petitioners Nestlé USA and Cargill are U. S.-based companies that purchase, process, and sell cocoa. They did not own or operate farms in Ivory Coast. But they did buy cocoa from farms located there. They also provided those farms with technical and financial resources—such as training, fertilizer, tools, and cash—in exchange for the exclusive right to purchase cocoa. Respondents allege that they were enslaved on some of those farms.

Respondents sued Nestlé, Cargill, and other entities, contending that this arrangement aided and abetted child slavery.

The Court, in an opinion by Justice Thomas, held:

The Ninth Circuit ... let this suit proceed because respondents pleaded as a general matter that “every major operational decision by both companies is made in or approved in the U. S.”... But allegations of general corporate activity—like decision making—cannot alone establish domestic application of the ATS.

Justices Thomas, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh would have also held that the ATS is merely jurisdictional, and no private right of action has been created by Congress for this conduct.

Justice Gorsuch filed a concurring opinion, joined in parts by Justices Alito and Kavanaugh. Justice Sotomayor, Joined by Justices Breyer and Kagan filed an opinion concurring in part. Justice Alito filed a dissenting opinion.

AP reports on the decision.

Supreme Court Sides With Catholic Social Services In Its Refusal To Certify Same-Sex Couples As Foster Parents

The U.S. Supreme Court today in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia,  (Sup. Ct., June 17, 2021), held unanimously that Philadelphia has violated the free exercise rights of Catholic Social Services by refusing to contract with CSS to provide foster care services unless it agrees to certify same-sex couples as foster parents.  Chief Justice Roberts wrote the opinion of the court which was joined by five other justices, avoiding the question of whether to overrule Employment Division v. Smith. The Court said in part:

Smith held that laws incidentally burdening religion are ordinarily not subject to strict scrutiny under the Free Exercise Clause so long as they are neutral and generally applicable.... CSS urges us to overrule Smith, and the concurrences in the judgment argue in favor of doing so.... But we need not revisit that decision here. This case falls outside Smith because the City has burdened the religious exercise of CSS through policies that do not meet the requirement of being neutral and generally applicable....

Government fails to act neutrally when it proceeds in a manner intolerant of religious beliefs or restricts practices because of their religious nature....

[S]ection 3.21 incorporates a system of individual exemptions, made available in this case at the “sole discretion” of the Commissioner. The City has made clear that the Commissioner “has no intention of granting an exception” to CSS.... But the City “may not refuse to extend that [exemption] system to cases of ‘religious hardship’ without compelling reason.” Smith, 494 U. S., at 884....

The question, then, is not whether the City has a compelling interest in enforcing its non-discrimination policies generally, but whether it has such an interest in denying an exception to CSS. 

Once properly narrowed, the City’s asserted interests are insufficient.

Justice Barrett filed a concurring opinion, joined by Justice Kavanaugh and (except for one paragraph) by Justice Breyer, saying in part:

In my view, the textual and structural arguments against Smith are more compelling. As a matter of text and structure, it is difficult to see why the Free Exercise Clause—lone among the First Amendment freedoms—offers nothing more than protection from discrimination.

Yet what should replace Smith? The prevailing assumption seems to be that strict scrutiny would apply whenever a neutral and generally applicable law burdens religious exercise. But I am skeptical about swapping Smith’s categorical antidiscrimination approach for an equally categorical strict scrutiny regime, particularly when this Court’s resolution of conflicts between generally applicable laws and other First Amendment rights—like speech and assembly—has been much more nuanced.

Justice Alito, joined by Justices Thomas and Gorsuch filed a 77-page opinion concurring in the judgment, arguing that the Smith case should be overruled. Justice Gorsuch, joined by Justices Thomas and Alito also filed an opinion concurring in the judgment and contending that Smith should be overruled.

CNBC reports on the decision. 

Cert. Denied In Unification Church Leadership Dispute

The U.S. Supreme Court today denied review in Moon v. Moon,   (Docket No. 20-1415, certiorari denied 6/14/2021). (Order List) (Links to pleadings.) In the case, the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in a Nov. 5, 2020 decision (full text) applied the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine to refuse to adjudicate a dispute over who is the true leader of the Unification Church.

Supreme Court Grants Cert. In Challenge To Surveillance of Muslims

The U.S. Supreme Court today granted review in Federal Bureau of Investigation v. Fagazi, (Docket No. 20-828, certiorari granted 6/7/2021). (Order List). In the case, a 3-judge panel of the 9th Circuit held that three Muslim plaintiffs may move ahead with many of their claims growing out of an FBI investigation that they allege involved unlawful searches and anti-Muslim discrimination. Subsequently the panel filed an amended opinion and the 9th Circuit denied en banc review. However, ten judges joined all or most of an opinion dissenting from the denial of en banc review. At issue is the relationship between the provisions of FISA and the state secrets privilege. Here is the SCOTUSblog case page with links to all the filings in the case. Politico has additional background.

Justice Gorsuch Denies "Shadow Docket" Injunction Pending Appeal Sought By Two Churches

In a little-noticed order on the Supreme Court's "shadow docket", earlier this week Justice Gorsuch, without referring the petition to the entire Court, denied an emergency application for an injunction pending appeal filed by two churches who oppose Colorado's COVID-19 executive orders and public health orders. In Denver Bible Church v. Polis, (US Sup. Ct., application denied 6/1/2021), the churches sought an injunction while appeals are pending to prohibit the state from issuing future disaster emergency or public health orders against houses of worship and from enforcing against them any current orders issued since the beginning of the COVID pandemic. (Full text of application and brief in support). SCOTUSblog has more on the action. Here are links to other filings in the case.

Another Church Seeks Emergency Injunction Against COVID Limits From Supreme Court

Last Friday, a Maine church filed a motion with the U.S. Supreme Court seeking an injunction while its petition for certiorari is pending to prevent Maine from enforcing its COVID-19 capacity restrictions on worship services. The petition (full text) in Calvary Chapel of Bangor v. Mills, (Sup. Ct. filed 5/21/2021), says in part:

For 381 days, Respondent Governor Janet Mills ... has been imposing unconstitutional restrictions on Calvary Chapel’s religious worship services while exempting myriad other activities from similar restrictions. Every religious worship gathering of Calvary Chapel from March 2020, to the present has been and is “illegal” under the Governor’s Orders. Maine imposes the most severe restrictions in the country on churches and places of worship.

Liberty Counsel issued a press release announcing the filing of the motion. 

Supreme Court Dismisses Cert. Grants On Title X Rule As HHS Considers Repeal

As previously reported, in February the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in three related cases challenging a Trump Administration rule promulgated by the Department of Health and Human Services in March 2019. Among other things, the rule imposes new restrictions on abortion referrals by health care providers receiving Title X family planning funds. It effect was to cut off millions of federal dollars to Planned Parenthood. In April, however, the Biden Administration issued a proposed rule that would reverse the Trump Administration change in policy. (See prior posting.) In light of that, and the Government's assurance that it will continue to enforce the Trump Administration rules until they are changed (except in Maryland where an injunction is in force), the Supreme Court yesterday, by a vote of 6-3, dismissed the certiorari petitions. (American Medical Association v. Becerra, Docket No. 20-429, Becerra v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, Docket No. 20-454, Oregon v. Becerra, Docket No. 20-539, cert. dismissed 5/17/2021) (Order List.) Justices Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch would not have dismissed the petitions. SCOTUSblog reports on the Court's action.

Supreme Court Grants Review In Mississippi Abortion Ban Case

Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court granted review in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Center, (Docket No. 19-2392, certiorari granted 5/17/2021). (Order List). In the case, the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals struck down a Mississippi statute that prohibits abortions, with limited exceptions, after 15 weeks' gestational age. The Supreme Court limited its grant of review to Question 1 presented in the petition for certiorari:

Whether all pre-viability prohibitions on elective abortions are unconstitutional.

Here is the SCOTUSblog case page with all the filings in the case. NPR reports on the Court's grant of review.

Cert. Petition Filed In Challenge To New York's Abortion Coverage Requirement

A petition for certiorari (full text) was filed with the U.S. Supreme Court last week in Roman Catholic Diocese of Albany v. Lacewell, (cert. filed 4/22/2021). In the case, a New York state appellate court rejected a challenge by several religious organizations and other plaintiffs to a New York administrative regulation  requiring health insurance policies in New York to provide coverage for medically necessary abortion services. (See prior posting.) According to the petition for review, the New York regulation "exempts religious entities whose 'purpose' is to inculcate religious values and who 'employ' and 'serve' primarily coreligionists. But religious organizations must cover abortions if they have a broader religious mission (such as service to the poor)or if they employ or serve people regardless of their faith." New York's highest state court denied leave to appeal. Becket Fund issued a press release announcing the filing of the petition for review.

Certiorari Denied In Suit Over California Curriculum On Hinduism

The U.S. Supreme Court today denied review in California Parents for the Equalization of Educational Materials v. Torlakson, (Docket No. 20-1137, certiorari denied 4/26/2021). (Order List). In the case, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal of a suit claiming that California's History-Social Science Standards and Framework incorrectly describe Hinduism and treat it negatively in relation to the treatment of other religions.

Supreme Court GVR's Challenge To California Limits On Indoor Worship

In February, the U.S. Supreme Court in South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom, (US Sup. Ct., Feb. 5, 2021), enjoined while a petition for certiorari is pending a portion of California's restrictions on indoor worship services. (See prior posting.) Today in the case (Docket No. 20-746, April 26, 2021) the Supreme Court granted certiorari, summarily vacated the 9th Circuit's judgment upholding the restrictions, and remanded for further consideration in light of Tandon v. Newsom. (Order List).

Supreme Court Hears Oral Arguments Today In Challenge To California's Required Disclosure of Donors To Non-Profits

The U.S. Supreme Court this morning will hear consolidated oral arguments in Thomas More Law Center v. Rodriquez (SCOTUSblog case page) and Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Rodriquez (SCOTUSblog case page). At issue is a California administrative rule requiring non-profit organizations that wish to solicit tax deductible contributions in the state to file an annual report that includes an unredacted IRS Form 990 Schedule B. That Schedule contains the names and contributions of significant donors. Petitioners argue that disclosure subjects donors to dangers of hate mail and retaliation.  Thomas More Law Center describes its mission, in part, as preserving America’s Judeo-Christian heritage and defending the religious freedom of Christians. This post will be updated with a link to the transcript of the oral arguments when it becomes available later today.

Here are links to the audio and transcript of the full arguments.

Texas Will Now Allow Spiritual Advisor In Execution Chamber With Prisoner

 AP and Texas Tribune report that Texas prisons will now allow any inmate being executed to have his personal religious adviser with him in the execution chamber so long as the adviser is verified and passes a background check. This change in policy follows the U.S. Supreme Court's questioning of earlier Texas policies which first limited inmates to having the prison's Christian chaplain and then excluded all spiritual advisors. (See prior posting.) The policy change was signed on Wednesday by director of the Correctional Institutions Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. [Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]

Supreme Court Enjoins, Pending Appeals, California Limits On In-Home Worship Services

Late Friday night, in another case on its so-called "shadow docket", the U.S. Supreme Court in Tandon v. Newsom,  (Sup. Ct., April 9, 2021), granted an injunction preventing enforcement during the appeal process of California's COVID-19 order limiting religious gatherings in homes to three households. In a 5-4 decision, the majority in a 4-page per curiam opinion outlined important principles to be applied in deciding free exercise claims, saying in part:

First, government regulations are not neutral and generally applicable, and therefore trigger strict scrutiny under the Free Exercise Clause, whenever they treat any comparable secular activity more favorably than religious exercise....

Second, whether two activities are comparable for purposes of the Free Exercise Clause must be judged against the asserted government interest that justifies the regulation at issue....

California treats some comparable secular activities more favorably than at-home religious exercise, permitting hair salons, retail stores, personal care services, movie theaters, private suites at sporting events and concerts, and indoor restaurants to bring together more than three households at a time.

Justice Kagan filed a 2-page dissent, joined by Justices Breyer and Sotomayor. They said in part:

The First Amendment requires that a State treat religious conduct as well as the State treats comparable secular conduct. Sometimes finding the right secular analogue may raise hard questions. But not today. California limits religious gatherings in homes to three households. If the State also limits all secular gatherings in homes to three households, it has complied with the First Amendment. And the State does exactly that: It has adopted a blanket restriction on at home gatherings of all kinds, religious and secular alike. California need not, as the per curiam insists, treat at-home religious gatherings the same as hardware stores and hair salons—and thus unlike at-home secular gatherings, the obvious comparator here.

Chief Justice Roberts also dissented, without filing an opinion. Volokh Conspiracy blog has more on the decision.

Supreme Court Denies Review In Cases Seeking To Overturn Hardison's Interpretation Of Title VII

The U.S. Supreme Court today denied review in two Title VII religious discrimination cases. (Order List). In both, petitioners were asking the Supreme Court to overturn its 1977 decision in Trans World Airlines v. Hardison which, interpreting the statutory term "undue hardship", allows an employer to refuse to accommodate an employee's religious requirements if doing so would impose  anything more than a de minimis cost. In Dalberiste v. GLE Associates, Inc. (Docket No. 19-1461, certiorari denied 4/5/2021), a Seventh Day Adventist sought a religious accommodation for his Sabbath observance. (SCOTUSblog case page.)  In Small v. Memphis Gas, Light & Water, (Docket No. 19-1388, certiorari denied      4/5/2021), a Jehovah's Witness employee sought scheduling accommodations that would allow him to attend church services. (SCOTUSblog case page). 

Justice Gorsuch, joined by Justice Alito, dissented from the denial of certiorari in the Small case, saying that the statutory interpretation involved there is out of step with subsequently adopted federal civil rights laws in other areas. Their opinion contends in part:

... Title VII’s right to religious exercise has become the odd man out. Alone among comparable statutorily protected civil rights, an employer may dispense with it nearly at whim. As this case illustrates, even subpar employees may wind up receiving more favorable treatment than highly performing employees who seek only to attend church.

Reuters reports on the Court's actions.

Certiorari Denied In Church's Challenge To Illinois COVID Restrictions

The U.S. Supreme Court today denied review in Elim Romanian Church v. Pritzker, (Docket No. 20-569, certiorari denied, 3/29/2021). (Order List).  In the case, the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected a church's challenge to Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker's COVID-19 orders which restrict-- or in their latest form urge restriction-- on the size of worship services. (See prior posting.)

Supreme Court Will Decide If State AG Can Intervene To Defend Abortion Statute

The U.S. Supreme Court today granted review in Cameron v. EMW Women’s Surgical Center, P.S.C., (Docket No. 20-601, certiorari granted 3/29/2021). (Order List). In the case, the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals refused to allow the state attorney general to intervene to defend the constitutionality of a Kentucky statute which banned D&E abortions prior to fetal demise. EMW Women's Surgical Ctr., P.S.C. v. Friedlander, 831 Fed. Appx. 748 (LEXIS link). The AG sought to intervene after the 6th Circuit held the statute unconstitutional and no state official would seek a rehearing or an appeal. The certiorari petition raises the issue of whether intervention should be allowed. Here is the SCOTUSblog's discussion of the grant of review and its case page on the case.

Cert. Petition Filed In Maine Church's Challenge To COVID Limitations

A petition for certiorari (full text) was filed on Monday with the U.S. Supreme Court in Calvary Chapel of Bangor v. Mills. In the case, the U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed a church's interlocutory appeal of the denial of a temporary restraining order against enforcement of the Maine governor's COVID Orders. Those orders, which have been amended since the 1st Circuit's decision, continue to limit the number of persons that can gather at a faith-based event. (See prior posting.) Liberty Counsel issued a press release announcing the filing of the petition for review.

In Campus Religious Speech Case, Supreme Court Says Nominal Damage Claim Can Support Standing

The U.S. Supreme Court today decided Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski, (Sup. Ct., March 8, 2021), potentially opening the courts to a larger number of civil rights complaints.  The case involves a challenge to Georgia Gwinnett College's speech policies that led to a student being stopped from distributing religious literature and proselytizing on campus. Subsequently, the school changed its policies, but that did not moot the students' claim for nominal damages. At issue in the case as it reached the Supreme Court is whether a claim for nominal damages satisfies the requirement that for standing a plaintiff must show, among other things, that the remedy will redress the constitutional violation alleged. In an 8-1 decision, through an opinion written by Justice Thomas, the Court said in part:

Because nominal damages were available at common law in analogous circumstances, we conclude that a request for nominal damages satisfies the redressability element of standing where a plaintiff’s claim is based on a completed violation of a legal right.

The dissent worries that after today the Judiciary will be required to weigh in on legal questions “whenever a plaintiff asks for a dollar.” ... But petitioners still would have satisfied redressability if instead of one dollar in nominal damages they sought one dollar in compensation for a wasted bus fare to travel to the free speech zone....

This is not to say that a request for nominal damages guarantees entry to court. Our holding concerns only redressability. It remains for the plaintiff to establish the other elements of standing (such as a particularized injury)....

Justice Kavanaugh filed a concurring opinion. 

Chief Justice Roberts dissented, saying in part:

Today’s decision risks a major expansion of the judicial role. Until now, we have said that federal courts can review the legality of policies and actions only as a necessary incident to resolving real disputes. Going forward, the Judiciary will be required to perform this function whenever a plaintiff asks for a dollar. For those who want to know if their rights have been violated, the least dangerous branch will become the least expensive source of legal advice....

The best that can be said for the Court’s sweeping exception to the case-or-controversy requirement is that it may itself admit of a sweeping exception: Where a plaintiff asks only for a dollar, the defendant should be able to end the case by giving him a dollar, without the court needing to pass on the merits of the plaintiff ’s claims.

ABC News reports on the decision.

Supreme Court Allows California Churches To Hold Indoor Services While Appeals Continue

The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday night in Gateway City Church v. Newsom, (Sup. Ct., Feb. 26, 2021) issued an injunction that will allow petitioner churches to hold indoor worship services while their appeal is disposed of by the 9th Circuit and a petition for certiorari is filed and acted upon by the Supreme Court. In the case, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals refused to enjoin enforcement, while the appeal is ongoing, of a Santa Clara County, California COVID-19 Order that prohibits all indoor gatherings, including worship services. (See prior posting.) In granting an injunction, the Supreme Court said:

The Ninth Circuit’s failure to grant relief was erroneous. This outcome is clearly dictated by this Court’s decision in South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom, 592 U. S. ___ (2021).

Justice Kagan, joined by Justices Breyer and Sotomayor dissented. 

SCOTUSblog reports on the Court's order, pointing out that the county had informed the Court that the current ban will soon be lifted and indoor gatherings with capacity restrictions will be allowed.