Amicus Briefs In SCOTUS Gay and Transgender Title VII Discrimination Cases Now Available

Dozens of amicus briefs have been filed with the U.S. Supreme Court and are now available from the SCOTUSblog case page in R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes, Inc. v. EEOC. At issue is whether Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rightts Act prohibits discrimination against transgender people based on their transgender status or on a "sex stereotyping" theory.  The 6th Circuit held that discrimination on the basis of transgender status violates Title VII. (See prior posting.) the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the case on Oct. 8.

Similarly, numerous amicus briefs are available in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, (consolidated with Altitude Express, Inc. v. Zarda) which will also be argued on Oct. 8. These cases raise the question of whether Title VII prohibits sexual orientation discrimination. The 2nd Circuit in Altitude Express  held that Title VII does cover such discrimination. (See prior posting.) In the Clayton County case, the 11th Circuit held that Title VII does not ban sexual orientation discrimination.

Cert Filed In Challenge To Exclusion of Foster Care Agencies That Reject Same-Sex Couples

A petition for certiorari (full text) was filed this week in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, (cert. filed 7/22/2019).  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.)  Becket issued a press release announcing the filing of the petition.

Justice John Paul Stevens Dies At Age 99

New York Times reports that Justice John Paul Stevens who served on the U.S. Supreme Court for 35 years (1975- 2010) died on Tuesday at the age of 99.  The First Amendment Encyclopedia summarizes Justice Stevens' church-state jurisprudence:

Stevens was a consistent defender of church-state separation in freedom of religion cases.  He wrote the Court’s decision in Wallace v. Jaffree (1985), invalidating an Alabama moment of silence law.  Stevens reasoned that the Alabama legislature had a clear religious purpose of bring prayer back into the public schools. Stevens also authored the Court’s decision in Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe (2000), invalidating a Texas high school district’s practice of announcing prayers over the loudspeakers at football games. 

For lengthier discussions of Justice Stevens views on 1st Amendment religion issues, see:

• Andrew M. Koppelman, Justice Stevens, Religious Enthusiast, (2012).
• Gregory P. Magarian, Justice Stevens, Religion, and Civil Society, (2011).
• Michael Kessler, The Religious Neutrality of Justice John Paul Stevens, (2010).
• Christopher L. Eisgruber, Justice Stevens, Religious Freedom, and the Value of Equal Membership (2006).
• Robert F. Nagel, Justice Stevens' Religion Problem, (2003).

SCOTUS Amicus Briefs Supporting Title VII Coverage of LGBTQ Discrimination Now Available

As previously reported, on Oct. 8 the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in three cases posing the question of whether Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. Wednesday was the deadline for amicus briefs supporting the parties asserting that Title VII bars such discrimination. More than 40 amicus briefs have been filed, and may be found through links to them on the SCOTUSblog case pages: here. here and here. Amicus briefs supporting the position of the employers in the cases are due Aug. 23.

Supreme Court Denies Review In Abortion Case, But Thomas Urges Future Action

Last Friday, the U.S. Supreme court denied certiorari in Harris v. West Alabama Women's Center, (Docket No. 18-837, certiorari denied 6/28/2019). In the case, the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals struck down Alabama's ban on dilation and evacuation abortions (referred to in the Alabama statute as "dismemberment abortions").  Justice Thomas filed a separate opinion concurring in the denial of review, but making a strong plea for the Court to revisit its abortion decisions.  He said in part:

The notion that anything in the Constitution prevents States from passing laws prohibiting the dismembering of a living child is implausible. But under the “undue burden” standard adopted by this Court, a restriction on abortion—even one limited to prohibiting gruesome methods—is unconstitutional if “the ‘purpose or effect’ of the provision ‘is to place a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion before the fetus attains viability.’” ...

This case serves as a stark reminder that our abortion jurisprudence has spiraled out of control....  Although this case does not present the opportunity to address our demonstrably erroneous “undue burden” standard, we cannot continue blinking the reality of what this Court has wrought.

Supreme Court GVR's Case On Cross In Public Park

Today the U.S. Supreme Court granted the petition for certiorari in Pensacola, Florida v. Kondrat'yev (Docket No. 18-351, GVR 6/28/2019) (Order List), summarily vacated the judgment and remanded the case to the 11th Circuit for further consideration in light of American Legion v. American Humanist Assn. decided earlier this month. (See prior posting.) In the remanded case, the 11th Circuit reluctantly ffirmed a Florida district court's Establishment Clause decision ordering Pensacola to remove a 34-foot Latin cross from a public park. (See prior posting.)

Supreme Court Grants Review In School Aid Case

The U.S. Supreme Court today granted certiorari in Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue,(Docket No. 18-1195, cert. granted 6/28/2019). (Order List).  In the case, the Montana Supreme Court held that Montana's tax credit program for contributions to student scholarship organizations is unconstitutional under Montana Constitution Art. X, Sec, 6 which prohibits state aid to sectarian schools. The question presented by the Petition for Certiorari is:

Does it violate the Religion Clauses or Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution to invalidate a generally available and religiously neutral student-aid program simply because the program affords students the choice of attending religious schools?

Here is the SCOTUSblog case page with links to all the petitions and briefs.

Supreme Court Says Ban on Immoral or Scandalous Trademarks Violates 1st Amendment

The U.S. Supreme Court today in Iancu v. Brunetti, (US Sup. Ct., June 24, 2019), held that the Lanham Act’s ban on registration of "immoral" or "scandalous" trademarks violates the First Amendment's free expression provisions.  The court's opinion written by Justice Kagan, and joined by Justices Thomas, Ginsburg, Alito, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, concluded that the ban amounts to viewpoint discrimination.  In the case, the PTO had refused to register the trademark "FUCT" as the brand name for a line of clothing. Justice Kagan gave examples of the discriminatory manner in which the Act has been applied, including the following:

[T]he PTO refused to register trademarks associating religious references with products (AGNUS DEI for safes and MADONNA for wine) because they would be “offensive to most individuals of the Christian faith” and “shocking to the sense of propriety.” ... But once again, the PTO approved marks—PRAISE THE LORD for a game and JESUS DIED FOR YOU on clothing—whose message suggested religious faith rather than blasphemy or irreverence.

Justice Alito also filed a concurring opinion, stating in part:

Our decision does not prevent Congress from adopting a more carefully focused statute that precludes the registration of marks containing vulgar terms that play no real part in the expression of ideas. The particular mark in question in this case could be denied registration under such a statute. The term suggested by that mark is not needed to express any idea and, in fact, as commonly used today, generally signifies nothing except emotion and a severely limited vocabulary.

Three separate opinions dissenting in part were filed-- one by Chief Justice Roberts, one by Justice Breyer and one by Justice Sotomayor joined by Justice Breyer.  They all argued that while the ban on "immoral" trademarks violates the First Amendment, the ban on "scandalous" marks can be given a narrow construction that would save the provision. They contend it should be read to ban only obscene, vulgar or profane marks.  CNN reports on the decision.

Supreme Court Asks SG For Views On Catholic Diocese Pension Case

The U.S. Supreme Court today called for the Solicitor General to file a brief expressing the views of the United States in Archdiocese of San Juan v. Feliciano, (Docket No. 18-921). (Order List.)   The case poses the question of whether Puerto Rico courts can get to the assets of numerous related Catholic entities in Puerto Rico to satisfy pension obligations to Catholic school employees. The petition describes the question presented as: "Whether the First Amendment empowers courts to override the chosen legal structure of a religious organization and declare all of its constituent parts a single legal entity subject to joint and several liability." Here is the SCOTUSblog case page for the case linking to all the filings in the case.

Early Analysis of Supreme Court's Bladensburg Cross Ruling

Here are some early commentaries on yesterday's U.S. Supreme Court decision in American Legion v. American Humanist Association:

• Amy Howe, Justices Allow "Peace Cross" To Stand
• Harvey Weiner, The Cross May Stand, Though It Offends
• Ira Lupu and Robert Tuttle, A Splintered Court Leaves the Bladensburg Cross Intact
• Adam Bonin, Supreme Court Effectively Grandfathers In Most Older Religious Displays On Public Land

Supreme Court Allows Bladensburg Cross To Remain In Flurry of Opinions

The U.S. Supreme Court today, in a case generating seven separate opinions spanning 87 pages, rejected an Establishment Clause challenge to the 94-year old Bladensburg Cross that serves as a Veterans War Memorial on public land in Maryland.  In American Legion v. American Humanist Association, US Sup. Ct., June 20, 2019), Justice Alito delivered an opinion for the Court that was joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Breyer, Kagan and Kavanaugh. As summarized by the Court's syllabus, the majority held:

At least four considerations show that retaining established, religiously expressive monuments, symbols, and practices is quite different from erecting or adopting new ones. First, these cases often concern monuments, symbols, or practices that were first established long ago, and thus, identifying their original purpose or purposes may be especially difficult.... Second, as time goes by, the purposes associated with an established monument, symbol, or practice often multiply.... Even if the monument’s original purpose was infused with religion, the passage of time may obscure that sentiment and the monument may be retained for the sake of its historical significance or its place in a common cultural heritage. Third, the message of a monument, symbol, or practice may evolve.... Familiarity itself can become a reason for preservation. Fourth, when time’s passage imbues a religiously expressive monument, symbol, or practice with this kind of familiarity and historical significance, removing it may no longer appear neutral, especially to the local community. The passage of time thus gives rise to a strong presumption of constitutionality.

Another portion of Justice Alito's opinion was joined only by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Breyer and Kavanaugh. They explicitly rejected the notion that the Lemon test should be applied to all Establishment Clause challenges, saying that instead the Court has sometimes used other approaches.

Justice Breyer filed a separate concurrence joined by Justice Kagan, saying:

The case would be different, in my view, if there were evidence that the organizers had “deliberately disrespected” members of minority faiths or if the Cross had been erected only recently, rather than in the aftermath of World War I.... Nor do I understand the Court’s opinion today to adopt a “history and tradition test” that would permit any newly constructed religious memorial on public land.

Justice Kavanaugh wrote a concurring opinion in which he said that the majority was applying a "history and tradition" test.

Justice Kagan also filed a concurring opinion, explaining why the portions of Justice Alito's opinion which she did not join go too far in rejecting the Lemon test.

Justice Thomas filed an opinion concurring only in the judgment, and taking the position that the Establishment Clause applies only to the federal government and is not incorporated by the 14th Amendment to apply to the states. He went on to contend that even if the Establishment Clause does apply to the states, the Bladensburg Cross is constitutional.

Justice Gorsuch wrote a separate opinion concurring in the judgment, joined by Justice Thomas.  He argues that the American Humanist Association lacks standing, and rejects the "offended observer" theory of standing.

Justice Ginsburg, joined by Justice Sotomayor, wrote a 20-page dissent, saying in part:

As I see it, when a cross is displayed on public property, the government may be presumed to endorse its religious content....

The Commission urges in defense of its monument that the Latin cross “is not merely a reaffirmation of Christian beliefs”; rather, “when used in the context of a war memorial,” the cross becomes “a universal symbol of the sacrifices of those who fought and died.”... The Commission’s “[a]ttempts to secularize what is unquestionably a sacred [symbol] defy credibility and disserve people of faith.”

AP reports on the decision. SCOTUSblog has further analysis of the decision.

FFRF Foregoes Cert Petition In Challenge To Parsonage Allowance

In a press release last week, the Freedom From Religion Foundation explained why it had not sought Supreme Court review of the 7th Circuit's decision in Gaylor v. Mnuchin.  In the case, the circuit court rejected an Establishment Clause challenge to Internal Revenue Code Sec. 107(2) which excludes from taxable income housing allowances paid to members of the clergy. (See prior posting.)  FFRF said in part:

After “counting heads,” we concluded that any decision from the current court would put the kibosh on challenging the housing allowance for several generations.

We began this challenge years ago, when the composition of the Supreme Court was very different. We have (secular) faith that someday the Supreme Court composition will again favor the Establishment Clause and be willing to scrutinize this preferential code and declare it unconstitutional. By ending our challenge at this time, the Freedom From Religion Foundation is making it possible for another challenge to be taken in the future, and we hope to be part of that.

Certiorari Denied In Contraceptive Mandate Case

The U.S. Supreme Court today denied review in Little Sisters of the Poor v. California, (Docket No. 18-1192, certiorari denied 6/17/2019). (Order List).  In the case, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 decision affirmed in part a preliminary injunction issued by a California federal district court against enforcement of the Trump Administration's Interim Final Rules expanding religious and moral exemptions to the Affordable Care Act Contraceptive Coverage Mandate. (See prior posting.) The Interim Rules have now been replaced by Final Rules. (See prior posting.)

Supreme Court Vacates and Remands Same-Sex Wedding Cake Case

The U.S. Supreme Court today granted certiorari, vacated the judgment of the Oregon Court of Appeals and remanded for further consideration the case of Klein v. Bureau of Labor & Industries, (Docket No. 18-547, 6/17/2019). (Order List). In the case, the Oregon Court of Appeals agreed with the state Bureau of Labor and Industries that Sweetcakes bakery violated the state's public accommodation law when it refused to design and create a wedding cake for a same-sex wedding. (See prior posting.)  The Supreme Court ordered reconsideration in light of its decision in Masterpiece Cakeshop last year.

Cert. Petition Filed In Challenge To Restrictions On Abortion Clinic Sidewalk Counseling

Last week (June 7), a petition for certiorari (full text) was filed in Price v. City of Chicago. In the case, the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals (full text of decision) upheld Chicago's floating "bubble zone" ban on sidewalk counseling outside abortion clinics. The 7th Circuit relied on a 2000 U.S. Supreme Court decision which has not been overruled. However the 7th Circuit said that the 2000 case has been "unsettled" by later Supreme Court decisions. Thomas More Society issued a press release announcing the filing of the petition seeking Supreme Court review.

Cert. Denied In Challenge To "In God We Trust" On Currency

Yesterday the U.S. Supreme Court denied review in New Doe Child #1 v. United States, (Docket No. 18-1297, certiorari denied 6/10/2019). (Order List). In the case, the U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals in interesting opinions rejected a constitutional challenge to the placement of the motto "In God We Trust" on U.S. coins and currency.  (See prior posting.) Washington Times reports on the decision.

Supreme Court Denies Cert In Challenge To Bus Ad Restrictions

The U.S. Supreme Court today denied review in American Freedom Defense Initiative v. Washington Metropolitan Transit Authority, (Docket No. 18-1000, certiorari denied 6/3/2019) (Order List).  In the case, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals remanded  a challenge to WMATA's guidelines on advertising that may be displayed on buses and in rail stations.  At issue is the constitutionality of a ban on "advertisements intended to influence members of the public regarding an issue on which there are varying opinions." AFDI wanted to rent space to display ads that decry supposed Sharia adherent Islamists who want to enforce Islamic blasphemy laws in the United States. (See prior posting.)

Supreme Court Denies Stay Sought By Presbyterian Church In Defamation Suit

Today the U.S. Supreme Court in Presbyterian Church v. Edwards, (Docket No. 18A1126, June 3, 2019) (Order List) denied an application to stay enforcement while a petition for certiorari is filed of an order by the Kentucky Supreme Court (see prior posting).  The Kentucky Supreme Court allowed discovery to proceed in a defamation suit against the Presbyterian Church to the extent necessary to determine if the church is entitled to ecclesiastical immunity. The Church claims that the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine precludes this.

Supreme Court Says Title VII Charge-Filing Prerequisite Is Not Jurisdictional

In Fort Bend County v. Davis, (US Sup. Ct., June 3, 2019) today the U.S. Supreme Court in a Title VII religious discrimination case held unanimously that the statutory requirement that an EEOC claim be filed before commencing suit in court is not jurisdictional.  Therefore defendant may forfeit this defense through undue delay in asserting it. Courthouse News Service reports on the decision.

Certiorari Denied In Challenge To Kaporos Ritual

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday denied review in Alliance to End Chickens as Kaporos v. New York City Police Department, (Docket No. 18-1322, certiorari denied 5/28/2019). (Order List.)  In the case, New York state's highest court agreed that a petition for a writ of mandamus to require enforcement of public health and animal cruelty laws against the Jewish pre-Yom Kippur ritual of kaporos should be denied. (See prior posting).