Supreme Court Hears Arguments On Suits Over Nazi Confiscation of Jewish-Owned Property

The U.S. Supreme Court today heard oral arguments in two cases involving suits to recover the value of Jewish-owned property confiscated by governments in Hungary and Germany during World War II. In Republic of Hungary v. Simon (links to transcript and audio of full oral arguments), the Court was asked to decide on whether principles of international comity could be invoked by the district court to abstain from deciding the case under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. The case was brought by surviving Hungarian nationals seeking to recover on behalf of a worldwide class the value of property taken from them during the Holocaust.

In an amicus brief, the United States government argued:

The United States has a paramount interest in ensuring that its foreign partners establish appropriate domestic redress and compensation mechanisms for Holocaust victims, and therefore seeks to prevent litigation in U.S. courts that could undermine that objective.

SCOTUSblog case page has links to all the filing in the case. 

In Federal Republic of Germany v. Philipp (links to transcript and audio of full oral arguments), the Court, in addition to the comity question, is asked to decide whether the expropriation exception to sovereign immunity in the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act covers the taking of property in the Holocaust in violation of human rights provisions of international law. The suit seeks recovery for the forced sale at a fraction of its actual value of a collection of medieval reliquary art that had been purchased in 1929 by a consortium of Jewish art dealers in Germany.

SCOTUSblog case page has links to all the filing in the case.

AP reports on the arguments in both cases.

SCOTUS Denies Review In Transgender Bathroom Case

The U.S. Supreme Court today denied review in Parents for Privacy v. Barr, (Docket No. 20-62, certiorari denied 12/7/2020). (Order List). In the case, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld an Oregon school district's policy of allowing transgender students to use school bathrooms, locker rooms and showers that correspond to their gender identity. (See prior posting.) The petition for certiorari had raised privacy, religious and parental rights, and Title IX claims.

Funeral Home Settles Transgender Employment Discrimination Claim After SCOTUS Loss

In June, the U.S. Supreme Court's Bostock decision held that Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act which prohibits discrimination in employment "because of sex" protects gay, lesbian and transgender individuals. The decision covered three separate employment discrimination cases, one of which was R. G. & G. R. Harris Funeral Homes, Inc. v. EEOC. That case involved a discrimination claim by a transgender employee.  Yesterday the Detroit News reported that a Michigan federal district court has approved a settlement in the case:

U.S. District Judge Sean Cox on Monday approved the terms of the settlement between the estate of Stephens, who died in May, and her former employer, R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes, which going forward is prohibited from firing employees on the basis of transgender status.

Under the terms of the agreement, Harris Homes is to pay $130,000 to Stephens' estate, including $63,724 in back pay with interest and $66,276 in damages.

The consent decree also says Harris Homes, which operates three funeral homes in southeast Michigan, must pay another $120,000 to the ACLU Foundation for costs and plaintiff attorney fees.

The settlement also contains other remedial provisions.

Justice Alito Refuses To Enjoin Louisiana's COVID Restrictions On Churches

On Nov. 10, in Spell v. Edwards, a Louisiana federal district court dismissed a suit by megachurch pastor Tony Spell challenging the state's COVID-19 limits on worship services. Plaintiff filed an Emergency Application for an Injunction Pending Appeal with Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, contending:

This case presents a threshold question that other applicants did not present to this Court in prior religious liberty challenges: Whether the First Amendment places the decision of whether to assemble solely within the jurisdiction of the Church and not the State.

 On Nov. 27, Justice Alito, without referring the Application to the full court, denied the Application. Law & Crime reports on Justice Alito's action.

Supreme Court Enjoins, Pending Appeal, New York's COVID-19 Capacity Limits On Houses of Worship

The U.S. Supreme Court late last night, in a 5-4 decision, enjoined-- while appeals are pending-- New York's 10 and 25 person occupancy limits on houses of worship in red and orange zones of high COVID infections. In Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn, New York v. Cuomo, (Sup. Ct., Nov. 25, 2020), in a decision that also applies to Agudath Israel of America v. Cuomo, the Court's per curiam opinion said in part: 

[S]tatements made in connection with the challenged rules can be viewed as targeting the “ ‘ultra-Orthodox [Jewish] community.’ ”... But even if we put those comments aside, the regulations cannot be viewed as neutral because they single out houses of worship for especially harsh treatment.

In a red zone, while a synagogue or church may not admit more than 10 persons, businesses categorized as “essential” may admit as many people as they wish. And the list of “essential” businesses includes things such as acupuncture facilities, camp grounds, garages, as well as many whose services are not limited to those that can be regarded as essential, such as all plants manufacturing chemicals and microelectronics and all transportation facilities....

[T]here are many other less restrictive rules that could be adopted to minimize the risk to those attending religious services. Among other things, the maximum attendance at a religious service could be tied to the size of the church or synagogue....

Members of this Court are not public health experts, and we should respect the judgment of those with special expertise and responsibility in this area. But even in a pandemic, the Constitution cannot be put away and forgotten. The restrictions at issue here, by effectively barring many from attending religious services, strike at the very heart of the First Amendment’s guarantee of religious liberty.

Justice Gorsuch filed a concurring opinion, stating in part:

The only explanation for treating religious places differently seems to be a judgment that what happens there just isn’t as “essential” as what happens in secular spaces. Indeed, the Governor is remarkably frank about this: In his judgment laundry and liquor, travel and tools, are all “essential” while traditional religious exercises are not. That is exactly the kind of discrimination the First Amendment forbids....

Even if the Constitution has taken a holiday during this pandemic, it cannot become a sabbatical.

Chief Justice Roberts filed a dissenting opinion arguing that while the restrictions pose serious concerns, the Court should not rule on them because the houses of worship before the Court are no longer in red and orange zones. He also criticized Justice Gorsuch's attack on the dissenters in the case.

Justice Kavanaugh filed a concurring opinion, explaining why he disagrees with Chief Justice Roberts' approach.

Justice Breyer, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Kagan, dissented, pointing out that the houses of worship are no longer under the challenged capacity limits and saying in part:

The nature of the epidemic, the spikes, the uncertainties, and the need for quick action, taken together, mean that the State has countervailing arguments based upon health, safety, and administrative considerations that must be balanced against the applicants’ First Amendment challenges.

Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justice Kagan, filed a dissenting opinion, saying in part:

It is true that New York’s policy refers to religion on its face. But as I have just explained, that is because the policy singles out religious institutions for preferential treatment in comparison to secular gatherings, not because it discriminates against them....

Finally, the Diocese points to certain statements by Governor Cuomo as evidence that New York’s regulation is impermissibly targeted at religious activity—specifically, ... New York’s Orthodox Jewish community.... The Diocese suggests that these comments supply “an independent basis for the application of strict scrutiny.”... I do not see how.... Just a few Terms ago, this Court declined to apply heightened scrutiny to a Presidential Proclamation limiting immigration from Muslim-majority countries, even though President Trump had described the Proclamation as a “Muslim Ban,”....

 New York Times reports on the decision.

Church Seeks Supreme Court Relief Against California COVID-19 Restrictions

As reported by Pasedena Now, Harvest Rock Church last Saturday filed an Emergency Application for an Injunction pending appeal (full text) with the U.S. Supreme Court. The Pasadena, California church is challenging Gov. Gavin Newsom's COVID-19 restrictions.

In the case, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 decision refused to issue a preliminary injunction against Governor Newsom’s Orders that restrict in-person worship services. (See prior posting). Liberty Counsel issued a press release announcing the filing of the petition.

Supreme Court Denies Cert. In Satanic Temple Challenge To Abortion Law

The U.S. Supreme Court today denied review in Doe v. Parson, (Docket No. 20-385, certiorari denied 11/23/2020). (Order List.) In the case the U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected claims by a member of the Satanic Temple that Missouri's abortion informed consent law violates her 1st Amendment rights. (See prior posting.)

Supreme Court Denies Review In RLUIPA Standing Case

The U.S. Supreme Court today denied review in Rabbinical College v. Pomona, NY, (Docket No. 20-14, certiorari denied 11/23/2020). (Order List.) In the case, the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in a 104-page opinion affirmed in part the judgment in favor of those supporting construction of a rabbinical school in a New York village, but held that the College lacks standing to pursue some of its claims. (See prior posting.)  The College sought Supreme Court review on the issue of when a property owner has standing to assert a RLUIPA challenge to a zoning law that prohibits a particular land use.

Early Supreme Court Review Sought In Church's Challenge To Nevada COVID-19 Limits

In July, the U.S. Supreme Court by a 5-4 vote refused to grant an injunction pending appeal to a church that was challenging Nevada Governor Steve Sisolak's COVID-19 Order limiting worship services to no more than 50 people with social distancing. (See prior posting). A Nevada federal district court had upheld the governor's Order. Arguments are scheduled next month in the church's appeal to the 9th Circuit. However, last week the church filed a petition (full text) asking the U.S. Supreme Court to grant review in the case before it is heard by the 9th Circuit. Calvary Chapel Dayton Valley v. Sisolak, (certiorari filed, 11/5/2020). ADF issued a press release announcing the filing.

Certiorari Denied In Challenge To "So Help Me God" In Citizenship Oath

 Yesterday the United States Supreme Court denied review in Perrier-Bilbo v. United States, (Docket No. 20-349, certiorari denied 11/9/2020). (Order List.) In the case, the U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals rejected constitutional challenges to the inclusion of "so help me God" at the end of the oath of allegiance administered at naturalization ceremonies. (See prior posting.)  Friendly Atheist reports on the Supreme Court's action.

Supreme Court Will Hear Oral Arguments Today In Catholic Foster Care Agency Case

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia. In the case,  the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals upheld against 1st Amendment challenges the City of Philadelphia's policy of refusing to contract with foster care agencies, such as Catholic Social Services, that will not place children with same-sex married couples. (See prior posting.) Links to pleadings and briefs filed in the case, as well as to commentary on the case, are at the SCOTUSblog case page. When the transcript and/or recording of oral arguments become available later today, I will post a link to them.

UPDATE: Here is the transcript of the oral arguments, and here is the audio of the arguments.

Amy Coney Barrett's Views On 1st Amendment Religion Issues Examined

Tuesday was Day 2 of the hearings on Amy Coney Barrett's nomination for the U.S. Supreme Court. Don Byrd at BJC has posted video clips of the exchanges between Barrett and members of the Senate Judiciary Committee on church-state and religious liberty issues. Earlier this week BJC submitted a letter to the Committee (full text) reviewing Barrett's limited record on church-state and religious liberty matters.

Amy Coney Barrett's Scholarly Writings

Hearings began yesterday on the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett to the United States Supreme Court.  Here is a transcript of her opening statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee.  Before becoming a federal judge, Barrett wrote widely on issues of constitutional interpretation and the Supreme Court.  Here is a fairly comprehensive list of her scholarly writings (with links to the full text of most of them):

• Congressional Insiders and Outsiders, U.Chi. L. Rev. (forthcoming 2017).
• Originalism and Stare Decisis, 92 Notre Dame L. Rev. 1921 (2017).
• Congressional Originalism, 19 U. Penn. J. of Const. L. 1 (2017) (with John Copeland Nagle).
• Commencement Address, (2016).
• Statutory Interpretation in The Encyclopedia of American Governance, (2016).
• Federal Court Jurisdiction in The Encyclopedia of American Governance, (2016).
• Countering the Majoritarian Difficulty, 31 Const. Comm. 61 (2017).
• Suspension and Delegation,99 Cornell L. Rev. 251 (2014).
• Precedent and Jurisprudential Disagreement, 91 Texas L. Rev. 1710 (2013).
• Substantive Canons and Faithful Agency, 90 B.U. Law Rev. 109 (2010).
• Federal Jurisdiction in Encyclopedia of the Supreme Court of the United States. (2010).
• Introduction: Stare Decisis and Nonjudicial Actors, 83 Notre Dame Law Review 1147 (2008).
• Procedural Common Law, 94 Virginia L. Rev. 813-88 (2008).
• The Supervisory Power of the Supreme Court, 103 Colum. L. Rev. 324 (2006).
• Commencement Address, (2006).
• Statutory Stare Decisis in the Courts of Appeals, 73 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 317 (2005).
• Stare Decisis and Due Process, 74 U. Colo. L. Rev. 1011 (2003).
• Catholic Judges in Capital Cases, 81 Marquette L.Rev. 303 (1998) (with John H. Garvey).

Supreme Court Sends Case On Medical Abortion Access Back To District Court

In Food and Drug Administration v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, (Sup. Ct., Oct. 8, 2020), the U.S. Supreme Court decided to hold in abeyance pending further District Court review the FDA's motion to stay an injunction that had been issued against it.  In the case, a Maryland federal district court issued a preliminary injunction against enforcement during the COVID-19 public health emergency of Maryland's in-person requirements that bar women seeking a medical abortion from obtaining mifepristone through a mail-order or retail pharmacy or to receive the medication by mail from their healthcare provider. The 4th Circuit refused to stay the injunction pending appeal. (See prior posting.) The Supreme Court said: 

The Government argues that, at a minimum, the injunction is overly broad in scope, given that it applies nationwide and for an indefinite duration regardless of the improving conditions in any individual State. Without indicating this Court’s views on the merits of the District Court’s order or injunction, a more comprehensive record would aid this Court’s review. The Court will therefore hold the Government’s application in abeyance to permit the District Court to promptly consider a motion by the Government to dissolve, modify, or stay the injunction, including on the ground that relevant circumstances have changed. ...  The District Court should rule within 40 days of receiving the Government’s submission.

Justice Alito, joined by Justice Thomas, dissented, saying in part:

In response to the pandemic, state and local officials have imposed unprecedented restrictions on personal liberty, including severe limitations on First Amendment rights. Officials have drastically limited speech, banning or restricting public speeches, lectures, meetings, and rallies. The free exercise of religion also has suffered previously unimaginable restraints, and this Court has stood by while that has occurred.

SCOTUSblog reports on the decision.

Transcript and Audio Are Available of Supreme Court Arguments In RFRA Damages Case

This morning the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Tanzin v. Tanvir. (Transcript of oral arguments) (Audio of oral arguments.)  In the case, a 3-judge panel of the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals held that under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, a plaintiff may sue federal officials in their individual capacities and may recover monetary damages from them. The holding comes in a lawsuit by three Muslims who claim that their names were placed on the "No Fly List" in retaliation for their refusal to serve as government informants. (See prior posting). The SCOTUSblog case page has links to the briefs of the parties, amicus briefs and other filings in the case.

UPDATE: Deseret News reports on the oral arguments.

Cert. Denied In Appeal By Kim Davis Who Refused To Issue Same-Sex Marriage Licenses

The U.S. Supreme Court today denied certiorari in Davis v. Ermold, the case involving former Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis who refused on religious grounds to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.  Justice Thomas, joined by Justice Alito, concurred in the denial of review, but issued a four page statement critical of the Court's same-sex marriage precedent. (Order List, scroll to page 55.) In the case, the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals held that Davis may be sued in her individual capacity and is not entitled to qualified immunity. (See prior posting). Justice Thomas wrote in part:

In Obergefell v. Hodges ... the Court read a right to same-sex marriage into the Fourteenth Amendment, even though that right is found nowhere in the text. Several Members of the Court noted that the Court’s decision would threaten the religious liberty of the many Americans who believe that marriage is a sacred institution between one man and one woman. If the States had been allowed to resolve this question through legislation, they could have included accommodations for those who hold these religious beliefs.... The Court, however, bypassed that democratic process. Worse still, though it briefly acknowledged that those with sincerely held religious objections to same-sex marriage are often “decent and honorable,” ... the Court went on to suggest that those beliefs espoused a bigoted worldview....

The Hill reports on the case.

Five Cases of Interest Already On Supreme Court's Docket As Term Opens

The U.S. Supreme Court's October Term opens today with five religious liberty-related cases already on the docket from grants of review last term. The cases are:

Tanzin v. Tanvir: Availability of money damages in suits under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The suit involves claims by three Muslims who allege that they were placed on the no-fly list as retaliation for their refusal to act as government informants. (See prior posting.) Links to pleadings in the case are at the SCOTUSblog case page. The case is set for argument on Oct. 6.

Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: In the case,  the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals upheld against 1st Amendment challenges the City of Philadelphia's policy of refusing to contract with foster care agencies, such as Catholic Social Services, that will not place children with same-sex married couples. (See prior posting.) Links to pleadings in the case are at the SCOTUSblog case page. The case will be argued on Nov. 4.

Republic of Hungary v. Simon and Federal Republic of Germany v. Philipp: Whether claims under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act may be brought in these cases of taking of Jewish property during World War II.  (SCOTUS blog case pages: Simon,   Philipp. The cases will be argued Dec. 7.

Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski: Challenge to Georgia Gwinnett College's speech policies that led to a student being stopped from distributing religious literature on campus. (See prior posting.) (SCOTUSbog case page.) Argument date is not yet set.

The Court may announce additional grants of review later today.

Religion, Law and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg-- A Tribute

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's body will lie in repose at the Supreme Court on Wednesday and Thursday of this week (Supreme Court press release), and then will lie in state on Friday at the U.S. Capitol. (NBC News). The Supreme Court courtroom has been draped in black in accordance with Supreme Court custom. According to the Supreme Court's press release announcing her death, a private burial service will take place at Arlington National Cemetery. Here are the statements of other Supreme Court justices on Justice Ginsburg's death.  Justice Breyer began his statement: "I heard of Ruth’s death while I was reciting the Mourner’s Kaddish at the Rosh Hashanah service." Interesting insights into Justice Ginsburg's life are found in an RNS article titled Ruth Bader Ginsburg Was Shaped by Her Minority Faith.

During her 27 years on the Court, Justice Ginsburg authored a number of opinions on church-state and religious liberty issues, including:

• Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v. Pennsylvania, 591 U.S. ___ (2020)- (dissenting opinion).
• Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, 591 U.S. ___ (2020)- (dissenting opinion).
• American Legion v. American Humanist Association, 588 U.S. ___ (2019)- (dissenting opinion).
• Fort Bend County v. Davis, 587 U.S. ___ (2019)- (opinion of the Court).
• Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, 584 U.S. __ (2018)- (dissenting opinion).
• Holt v. Hobbs, 574 U.S. 352 (2015)- (concurring opinion).
• Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 573 U.S. 682 (2014)- (dissenting opinion).
• Christian Legal Soc. Chapter of Univ. of Cal., Hastings College of Law v. Martinez, 561 U.S. 661 (2010)- (opinion of the Court).
• Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709 (2005)- (opinion of the Court).
• Agostini v. Felton, 521 U.S. 203 (1997)- (dissenting opinion).
• Capitol Square Review and Advisory Bd. v. Pinette, 515 U.S. 753 (1995)- (dissenting opinion).

An interesting liturgical tribute to Justice Ginsburg was developed by Rabbi Marc Katz and Cantor Meredith Greenberg of Temple Ner Tamid, Bloomfield, NJ.

FDA Asks SCOTUS To Stay Injunction On Medical Abortion Access

Yesterday the federal government filed with the U.S. Supreme Court an Application For A Stay of An Injunction (full text) in American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists v. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. In the case, a Maryland federal district court issued a preliminary injunction against enforcement during the COVID-19 public health emergency of Maryland's in-person requirements that bar women seeking a medical abortion from obtaining mifepristone through a mail-order or retail pharmacy or to receive the medication by mail from their healthcare provider. The 4th Circuit refused to stay the injunction pending appeal. (See prior posting.) In its Application, the FDA argued in part:

Given that surgical methods of abortion remain widely available, the enforcement of longstanding safety requirements for a medication abortion during the first ten weeks of pregnancy does not constitute a substantial obstacle to abortion access, even if the COVID-19 pandemic has made obtaining any method of abortion in person somewhat riskier.

 The Hill reports on the Application. [Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]

Supreme Court, 5-4, Refuses To Enjoin Pending Appeal Nevada Limits On Worship Services

By a 5-4 vote, the U.S. Supreme Court on Friday refused to grant an injunction pending appeal to a church that is challenging Nevada Governor Steve Sisolak's COVID-19 Order limiting worship services to no more than 50 people with social distancing. A Nevada federal district court upheld the Nevada Order. ( See prior posting). The 9th Circuit denied an emergency motion for injunctive relief pending appeal. In Calvary Chapel Dayton Valley v. Sisolak, (US Supreme Court, July 24, 2020), while the majority did not file an opinion explaining their vote, the four dissenting Justices did. Justice Alito filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Thomas and Kavanaugh, finding free speech and free exercise violations, saying in part:

The Constitution guarantees the free exercise of religion. It says nothing about the freedom to play craps or blackjack, to feed tokens into a slot machine, or to engage in any other game of chance. But the Governor of Nevada apparently has different priorities. Claiming virtually unbounded power to restrict constitutional rights during the COVID–19 pandemic, he has issued a directive that severely limits attendance at religious services. A church, synagogue, or mosque, regardless of its size, may not admit more than 50 persons, but casinos and certain other favored facilities may admit 50% of their maximum occupancy—and in the case of gigantic Las Vegas casinos, this means that thousands of patrons are allowed.

That Nevada would discriminate in favor of the powerful gaming industry and its employees may not come as a surprise, but this Court’s willingness to allow such discrimination is disappointing.

Justice Gorsuch filed a brief dissent, saying in part:

The world we inhabit today, with a pandemic upon us, poses unusual challenges. But there is no world in which the Constitution permits Nevada to favor Caesars Palace over Calvary Chapel.

Justice Kavanaugh also filed a separate dissent, laying out a broad framework for approaching religion cases. He says in part:

The definitional battles over what constitutes favoritism, discrimination, equality, or neutrality can influence, if not decide, the outcomes of religion cases. But the parties to religion cases and the judges deciding those cases often do not share a common vocabulary or common background principles. And that disconnect can muddy the analysis, build resentment, and lead to litigants and judges talking past one another.

In my view, some of the confusion and disagreement can be averted by first identifying and distinguishing four categories of laws: (1) laws that expressly discriminate against religious organizations; (2) laws that expressly favor religious organizations; (3) laws that do not classify on the basis of religion but apply to secular and religious organizations alike; and (4) laws that expressly treat religious organizations equally to some secular organizations but better or worse than other secular organizations. As I will explain, this case involving Nevada’s reopening plan falls into the fourth category.