Feds Settle Suit Brought by Native American Tribes Over Destruction of Sacred Site

 A settlement between several federal agencies and Native American tribes in Oregon was reached last week in a case challenging the government's destruction of a small sacred site near Mount Hood when it widened a highway.  (See prior related posting.) The 9th Circuit had dismissed the case as moot, and plaintiffs filed an appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court.  Last week the parties filed a Joint Stipulation to Dismiss (full text) in Slockish v. U.S. Department of Transportation, (Sup. Ct, Oct. 5, 2023). Under the settlement, the government is to construct a tree or plant barrier to protect the site, allow access to an existing quarry for ceremonial and cultural uses, and allow plaintiffs to rebuild a stone altar on the site. [Note that the filed stipulation appears to be erroneously dated "2022" instead of "2023". The Supreme Court docket for the case confirms that 2023 is the correct date.] Oregon Capital Chronicle  and AP report on the settlement.

Supreme Court Opens Fall Term

The U.S. Supreme Court today opened its Fall 2023 Term today by issuing the typically long first-day-of-term Order List. The Court denied review in hundreds of cases.  Among the interesting cases were Truong v. Stitt, (Docket No. 22-7743) and Truong v. Dewine, (Docket No. 22-7800), in which a pro se plaintiff sued a lengthy list of defendants-- including five U.S. Supreme Court Justices-- challenging, among other things, Oklahoma's (10th Circuit opinion) and Ohio's (district court opinion) laws restricting abortions. In disposing of the cases, the Supreme Court said:

Because the Court lacks a quorum, 28 U. S. C. §1, and since the qualified Justices are of the opinion that the case cannot be heard and determined at the next Term of the Court, the judgment is affirmed under 28 U. S. C. §2109, which provides that under these circumstances "the court shall enter its order affirming the judgment of the court from which the case was brought for review with the same effect as upon affirmance by an equally divided court." Justice Thomas, Justice Alito, Justice Gorsuch, Justice Kavanaugh, and Justice Barrett took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.

Yesterday, before the start of the new term, the traditional Red Mass was held at the Cathedral of St. Matthew the Apostle in Washington, D.C.  Catholic Standard, reporting on the Mass, said that Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Barrett; and retired Justice Kennedy were in attendance.

Coach Kennedy Resigns After One Post-Game Prayer

Last year, in a widely publicized Supreme Court decision, Bremerton, Washington high school football coach Joe Kennedy won the right to offer a personal prayer on the 50-yard line immediately after football games. After his Supreme Court win, Kennedy was reinstated as coach.  AP now reports that on Wednesday, after one game back at which he offered a brief post-game prayer, Kennedy resigned his coaching position and returned to Florida where he had been living full time. Kennedy posted a statement on his personal website, saying in part: "I believe I can best continue to advocate for constitutional freedom and religious liberty by working from outside the school system so that is what I will do."

5th Circuit Says FDA Improperly Reduced Abortion Pill Restrictions, But Prior Supreme Court Order Keeps FDA Rules In Effect During Appeals

In Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. U.S. Food & Drug Administration, (5th Cir., Aug. 16, 2023), the U.S. 5th circuit Court of Appeals upheld the portions of a Texas federal district court's orders that stayed actions taken by the FDA in 2016 and 2021 regarding the administration and distribution of the abortion pill mifepristone. The 2016 action increased the gestational age when the drug can be used from 49 to 70 days. It also lightened certain other dosage and prescribing restrictions. In 2021, in connection with the Covid epidemic, the FDA removed the in-person prescribing requirement for mifepristone, allowing it to be sent by mail. The court found that doctors have standing to challenge these actions, among other things citing conscience injuries to objecting doctors.  Challenges to two other FDA actions on mifepristone were rejected on standing and statute of limitations grounds.

The court concluded that plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their Administrative Procedure Act challenges that the FDA's actions were arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion or otherwise not in accordance with law. This was the case as to the 2016 action because the FDA did not consider the cumulative effect of the changes it was proposing. They were likely to succeed on their challenge to the 2021 action because the FDA did not adequately study adverse event data.

However, as the court recognized, the U.S. Supreme Court has already ordered a stay of all the district court's orders until federal appeals are completed. Thus the 5th Circuit's action does not reinstate the district court's bans. 

Judge Ho concurred in part and dissented in part, saying tht he would also hold that the initial approval of mifepristone in 2000 should be set aside.

NPR reports on the decision.

Certiorari Granted in Case on Interpretation of Title VII

On Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court granted review in Muldrow v. St. Louis, MO, (Docket No. 22-193, certiorari granted 6/30/2023) (Order List), a Title VII employment discrimination case. The grant of certiorari was limited to the question of:

Does Title VII prohibit discrimination in transfer decisions absent a separate court determination that the transfer decision caused a significant disadvantage?

At issue is a Title VII sex discrimination claim by a female police sergeant who was transferred from the St. Louis police department's Intelligence Division to work in the city's Fifth District and was subsequently denied a transfer to the Second District. The Court of Appeals in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, (8th Cir., April 4, 2022), held that absent a showing of harm resulting from a transfer, there has been no adverse employment action for purposes of Title VII. The Court's decision will impact religious discrimination in employment cases under Title VII as well as sex discrimination cases. Here is SCOTUSblog's case page with links to all the filings in the Supreme Court in the case.

Supreme Court GVR's Case on Bakers' Refusal To Design Cake For Same-Sex Wedding

On Friday, in Klein v. Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries, (Docket No. 22-204, GVR'd June 30, 2023) (Order List) the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari, vacated the lower court's judgment and remanded the case to the Oregon Court of Appeals for further consideration in light of the Supreme Court's decision the same day in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis. At issue in Klein was a finding by the state Bureau of Labor and Industries that the owners of Sweetcakes bakery violated Oregon's public accommodation law when they refused on religious grounds to design and create a wedding cake for a same-sex wedding. (See prior posting.)

Supreme Court Denies Review in Christian College's Challenge to Fair Housing Act Enforcement

The U.S. Supreme Court yesterday denied review in The School of the Ozarks v. Biden, (Docket No. 22-816, certiorari denied, 6/20/2023). (Order List). In the case, the U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals held in a 2-1 decision that a Christian college lacks standing to challenge a memorandum issued by an acting assistant secretary of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. The memorandum directs the HUD office that enforces the Fair Housing Act to investigate all discrimination complaints, including discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. The school's religiously-inspired Code of Conduct specifies that biological sex determines a person's gender. The school maintains single-sex residence halls and does not permit transgender individuals to live in residence halls that do not match their biological sex. (See prior posting.)

Supreme Court GVR's South Carolina Planned Parenthood Defunding Case

In Kerr v. Planned Parenthood, (Sup. Ct., Docket No. 21-1431, June 20, 2023) (Order List), the Supreme Court remanded for further consideration South Carolina's appeal of a 4th Circuit decision that barred South Carolina from terminating Medicaid funding to Planned Parenthood. The Court's action today granted certiorari, vacated the judgment below and remanded the case in light of the Court's June 8, decision in Health and Hospital Corporation of Marion Cty. v. Talevski. That case held that 42 USC §1983 may be used to enforce rights created by statutes enacted under Congress' spending power, a holding consistent with the 4th Circuit's decision below in Kerr. Here is the SCOTUSblog's case page for the Kerr case, with links to all the pleadings and briefs in the case. Reuters reports on today's Supreme Court ruling.

Supreme Court Denies Cert. In Two Ministerial Exception Cases

The U.S. Supreme Court yesterday denied review in two cases which held that interlocutory appeals from denial of a ministerial exception defense are not allowed. (Order List).

Faith Bible Chapel International v. Tucker, (Docket No. 22-741, certiorari denied 6/12/2023), involves a former high school teacher and administrator/ chaplain who contends that he was fired for opposing alleged racial discrimination by a Christian school. In the case, the 10th Circuit denied en banc review. (See prior posting).

Synod of Bishops v. Belya, (Docket No. 22-824, certiorari denied 6/12/2023) involves a suit in which plaintiff contends that he was defamed when defendants publicly accused him of forging a series of letters regarding his appointment as Bishop of Miami in the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia. In the case, the 2nd Circuit denied en banc review. (See prior posting).

Supreme Court Denies Cert. In Challenge to Indiana Fetal Remains Law

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday denied review in Jane Doe No. 1 v. Rokita, (Docket No. 22-951, certiorari denied 5/1/2023) (Order List). In the case, the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected 1st Amendment challenges to an Indiana statute that requires abortion providers to dispose of fetal remains either by burial or by cremation. (See prior posting.) The case Docket with links to filings in the Supreme Court is here.  AP reports on the Court's action.

Supreme Court Stays District Court's Order That Invalidated FDA's Approval of Abortion Pill

The U.S. Supreme Court yesterday evening in Danco Laboratories, LLC v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, (Sup. Ct., April 21, 2023), and in a companion case in which the FDA was a party, granted stays of a Texas federal district court's order that had found the FDA's approval of the abortion drug mifepristone to be invalid. The stays will remain in effect while appeals work their way through the courts. Justice Thomas indicated that he would have denied the applications for stays.  Justice Alito filed an opinion dissenting from the grant of the stays, saying that the applicants have not shown that they would suffer irreparable harm if the stays were not granted. SCOTUSblog has additional reporting on the Supreme Court's action.

Additional Administrative Stay Issued By Supreme Court In Abortion Pill Case

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito today (April 19) in Food & Drug Administration v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine issued an Order (full text) extending the Court's April 14 administrative stay until Friday April 21. At issue is a Texas federal district court's decision invalidating the FDA's approval of the abortion drug mifepristone. Previously the Supreme Court had stayed the district court's order only until today. (See prior posting.) CNBC reports on Justice Alito's action.

Supreme Court Hears Oral Arguments Today In Title VII Religious Accommodation Case

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments today in Groff v. DeJoy, an important religious liberty case testing the extent to which Title VII requires accommodation of employees' religious practices. In the case, the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision, held that accommodating a Sunday sabbath observer by allowing him not to report for work on Sunday would cause an "undue hardship" to the U.S. Postal Service.  Thus, failure to grant that accommodation did not violate Title VII. (See prior posting.) In the case, petitioners are asking the Supreme Court to revisit and reject the "more than de minimis" test for "undue hardship" announced in TWA v. Hardison. SCOTUSblog has a Case Preview with more details on the parties' arguments. The SCOTUSblog Case Page has links to the filings by the parties as well as to the more than 50 amicus briefs that have been filed. The arguments will be streamed live from the Supreme Court today at 10:00 AM here. The transcript and audio of the full oral arguments will be available later today here on the Supreme Court's website.

Supreme Court Review Sought in Challenge to Conversion Therapy Ban

On March 27, a petition for certiorari (full text) was filed with the U.S. Supreme Court in Tingley v. Ferguson. In the case, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals denied an en banc rehearing of a 3-judge panel's decision rejecting free speech, free exercise and vagueness challenges to Washington state's ban on practicing conversion therapy on minors. Conversion therapy encourages change in sexual orientation or gender identity. (See prior posting). SCOTUSblog  reports on the petition for review.

Supreme Court Grants 5-Day Administrative Stay of Texas District Court's Abortion Pill Order

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito this afternoon in Food & Drug Administration v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, (Docket No. 22A902, April 14, 2023), granted a 5-day administrative stay of a Texas federal district court's order invalidating the FDA's approval of the abortion drug mifepristone. Any response to the application for a lengthier stay must be filed by 11:59 pm April 18. Any response to that filing must be submitted by noon the next day. CNN reports on developments.

UPDATE: Here is the White House's reaction to the Court's stay.

Supreme Court Asked to Stay Abortion Pill Rulings

Today both the FDA and the manufacturer of the abortion drug mifepristone filed with the U.S. Supreme Court applications for a stay of the Texas federal district court's Order invalidating the FDA's approval of the drug. The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals allowed part of the district court's order to remain in effect. Today's Applications for a Stay were filed with Justice Alito, the Justice assigned by the Court to receive emergency applications from the 5th Circuit.  Here is the filing by Danco Laboratories, and here is the Solicitor General's filing on behalf of the FDA.  Axios reports on the filings.

5th Circuit Allows Part of Stay on Abortion Pills To Remain; U.S. Will Appeal to Supreme Court

 In Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. Food & Drug Administration,(5th Cir., April 12, 2023), the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals granted a partial stay of a Texas federal district court's decision invalidating the FDA's approval of the abortion drug mifepristone. The appeals court held that the statute of limitations barred a challenge to the FDA's initial approval of the drug in 2000. However, the court refused to stay the district court's disapproval of changes the FDA made in 2016.  Those changes significantly reduced prior restrictions on the administration and use of the drug. The court said in part:

Here, applicants have failed to carry their burden at this preliminary stage to show that FDA’s actions were not arbitrary and capricious. We have two principal concerns in that regard. First, FDA failed to “examine the relevant data” when it made the 2016 ... changes.... That’s because FDA eliminated ... safeguards based on studies that included those very safeguards....

Second, the 2016 ... Changes eliminated the requirement that non-fatal adverse events must be reported to FDA. After eliminating that adverse-event reporting requirement, FDA turned around in 2021 and declared the absence of non-fatal adverse-event reports means mifepristone is “safe.”... This ostrich’s-head-in-the-sand approach is deeply troubling.... It’s unreasonable for an agency to eliminate a reporting requirement for a thing and then use the resulting absence of data to support its decision.

Reuters reports on the decision. 

Earlier today, the Justice Department announced that it would seek emergency relief from the U.S. Supreme Court.

Certiorari Denied in Catholic School Teacher's Suit Against His Union

The U.S. Supreme Court yesterday denied review in Jusino v. Federation of Catholic Teachers, Inc., (Docket No. 22-662, certiorari denied 3/27/2023). (Order List). In the case, the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals held  that the National Labor Relations Act does not apply to a Catholic parochial school teacher's duty-of-fair-representation claim against his union.

Certiorari Denied in Challenge by Preacher to University's Speaker Permit Rule

The U.S. Supreme Court today denied review in Keister v. Bell, (Docket No. 22-388, certiorarari dened, 3/20/2023). (Order List.) In the case, the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected a challenge to the University of Alabama's policy that requires a permit in order for a speaker to participate in expressive conduct on University grounds, with an exception for “casual recreational or social activities.” The challenge was brought by a traveling evangelical preacher who, with a friend, set up a banner, passed out religious literature and preached through a megaphone on a campus sidewalk. (See prior posting.) Links to filings with the Supreme Court in the case are available here.  Reuters reports on the Court's action. [Thanks to Thomas Rutledge for the lead.]

Certiorari Denied in Challenge to Police Department Prayer Vigil

The U.S. Supreme Court today denied review in City of Ocala, Florida v. Rojas, (Docket No. 22-278, certiorari denied 3/6/2023) (Order List.) In the case the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals vacated and remanded a district court's Establishment Clause decision that had relied on the now-repudiated Lemon test. The district court had granted summary judgment to plaintiffs who challenged a prayer vigil co-sponsored by the Ocala police department held in response to a shooting spree that injured several children. (See prior posting.) Justices Gorsuch and Thomas filed separate opinions (full text). Justice Gorsuch, while agreeing with the denial of certiorari, contended that the district court should also reconsider the question of plaintiffs' standing as "offended observers," saying in part:

"... [M]ost every governmental action probably offends somebody. No doubt, too, that offense can be sincere, sometimes well taken, even wise. But recourse for disagreement and offense does not lie in federal litigation. Instead, in a society that holds among its most cherished ambitions mutual respect, tolerance, self-rule, and democratic responsibility, an ‘offended viewer’ may ‘avert his eyes’ or pursue a political solution."

Justice Thomas dissented from the denial of review, saying in part:

[W]e should have granted certiorari to review whether respondents had standing to bring their claims. Standing is an antecedent jurisdictional requirement that must be established before a court reaches the merits....

I have serious doubts about the legitimacy of the “offended observer” theory of standing applied below.