Supreme Court Hears Oral Arguments In ERISA "Church Plan" Cases

The U.S. Supreme Court today heard consolidated oral arguments in three cases raising the question of when pension plans of religiously affiliated health care systems qualify for the "church plan" exemption under ERISA.  The three cases are Advocate Health Care v. Stapleton, St. Peter's Health Care v. Kaplan and Dignity Health v. Rollins. The full transcript of the oral arguments are available from the Supreme court's website.  A fuller explanation of the issues involved is set out in this prior posting.  AP reports on the arguments. Huge dollar amounts of potential underfunding are at stake nationwide.

Supreme Court Remands Transgender Bathroom Case

The U.S. Supreme Court today issued an order (Order List) in Gloucester County School Board v. G.G., (Docket No. 16-273), the high profile Title IX transgender bathroom case, sending the case back to the 4th Circuit.  The Order reads:

The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit for further consideration in light of the guidance document issued by the Department of Education and Department of Justice on February 22, 2017.

In February the Trump Administration withdrew the Guidance document that had been issued by the Obama Administration. (See prior posting).  That withdrawn Guidance document took the position that Title IX requires that students be allowed to use rest rooms and locker rooms consistent with their gender identity. New York Times reports on the Supreme Couirt's action.

Religious Coalitions Take Contrasting Positions As Amici In Transgender Bathroom Case

Broad coalitions of religious groups have, through amicus briefs, now weighed in on opposite sides of the battle over transgender rights and Title IX that will be argued before the U.S. Supreme Court on March 28 in Gloucester County School Board v. G.G.(SCOTUSblog case page).  A brief (full text) filed in January by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops; Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations;  National Association of Evangelicals; Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention; The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints; The Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod; and Christian Legal Society argues in part:

Major religious traditions—including those represented by amici—share the belief that a person’s identity as male or female is created by God and immutable. That belief is contradicted by the U.S. Department of Education’s interpretation of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. § 1681(a)....

Interpreting Title IX’s prohibition on sex discrimination as an implicit ban on gender identity discrimination would undermine the ability of religious organizations to govern their own institutions consistent with their tenets. Maintaining religious schools, colleges, and universities that reflect the faith of their sponsoring religious organizations would be in jeopardy. But also, because federal civil rights laws for employment and housing contain the same prohibition on sex discrimination as Title IX, a misstep in this case could threaten religious liberty across a broad range of circumstances, including employment, housing, and public accommodations.

Meanwhile, a brief (full text) filed yesterday on behalf of 15 religious organizations (Protestant, Jewish and Muslim) and more than 1800 faith leaders took a different position, arguing in part:

The arguments of religious amici supporting Petitioner are ultimately not about religious freedom at all. A high school boy simply wanting to use the same restroom as his classmates at a public school poses no threat to anyone’s religious exercise or expression. Rather, these religious actors seek to enforce a kind of religious orthodoxy that rejects the fundamental existence and dignity of transgender persons. Permitting such religious views to inform the scope of civil rights law enforcement would violate the Establishment Clause both by enshrining religion in secular law and by favoring particular religious views and the views of particular institutions over those espoused by the undersigned Amici.

Huffington Post has more on this brief.

Supreme Court Clerk Chastises Amici For Wording In Brief On Transgender Rights

Over three dozen amicus briefs have been filed with the U.S. Supreme Court in Gloucester County School Board v. G.G.  At issue is whether Title IX requires schools to allow transgender students to use bathrooms consistent with their gender identity.  Slate reports that letters dated Feb. 24 from the Clerk of the Supreme Court (full text 1, 2) to two amici supporting petitioners have chastised them for referring to the transgender male student involved as "her."  The Clerk wrote Liberty Counsel and Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence saying:

... the covers of your amicus briefs in this case identify the respondent as “G.G., by her next friend and mother, Deirdre Grimm.” In fact, the caption for the case in this Court, as in the lower courts, identifies the respondent as “G.G., by his Next Friend and Mother, Deirdre Grimm.”  (Emphasis added.) Under Rule 34, your cover is to reflect the caption of the case. Please ensure careful compliance with this requirement in this and other cases in the future.

Cert. Denied In Church Retirement Plan Fiduciary Duty Case

The U.S. Supreme Court today denied review in Evangelical Lutheran Church v. Bacon (Docket No. 16-910, cert. denied 2/27/2017). (Order List.)  In the case, a Minnesota state court of appeals held that the First Amendment does not prevent a civil court from adjudicating a challenge to the manner in which the Lutheran Church retirement plans were managed. Plan participants claimed breach of fiduciary duty, breach of trust, and fraud and concealment in the administration and management of the Plans. (See prior posting.)

SCOTUS Sets Oral Arguments In Trinity Lutheran Case For April 19

The U.S. Supreme Court has set oral argument in Trinity Lutheran Church v. Pauley for April 19. (Argument calendar.) In the case, the 8th Circuit rejected arguments that Missouri's Blaine Amendments violate the U.S. Constitution's 1st and 14th Amendments. At issue was the denial by Missouri's Department of Natural Resources of a grant application by Trinity Church for a Playground Scrap Tire Surface Material Grant that would have allowed it to resurface a playground at its day care and preschool facility on church premises. (See prior posting.)  The Court granted certiorari in the case over a year ago.  The delay in setting the case for oral argument has led to speculation that the Justices were hoping to hold off hearing the case until a replacement for the late Justice Scalia brought the Court up to its full complement. They may have succeeded since, as reported by The Hill, the Senate Judiciary Committee has now set March 20 as the date for hearings on Judge Neil Gorsuch's nomination to begin. SCOTUSblog's case page has links to all the briefs filed in the case and to commentary on the case.

Judge Gorsuch's Record On Religious Liberty and Church-State Issues

President Trump has nominated 10th Circuit Judge Neil M. Gorsuch to fill the late Antonin Scalia's seat on the U.S. Supreme Court. Judge Gorsuch, who has been on the 10th Circuit for over ten years, has a lengthy record on church-state and religious liberty issues. Christianity Today describes him as "a favorite pick among Christian conservatives."  RNS has an article entitled 5 faith facts on Trump’s Supreme Court pick, Neil Gorsuch.

Here are religion cases in which Judge Gorsuch either wrote an opinion or served on the panel of the 10th Circuit which decided the case:

⇾In Summum v. Pleasant Grove City, 499 F.3d 1170 (10th Cir. 2007), he joined a dissent from denial of an en banc rehearing in a case in which the 3-judge panel required the city to allow a Seven Aphorisms Monument in a city park. The U.S. Supreme Court eventually reversed the panel's decision. [update]

⇾In Green v. Haskell County Board of Commissioners, 574 F.3d 1235 (2009) he wrote a dissent from the denial of an en banc rehearing in a case in which a 3-judge panel had held that a Ten Commandments display outside a county court house violated the Establishment Clause.

⇾In Abdulhaseeb v. Calbone, 600 F.3d 1301(2010) he joined the unanimous decision holding that there were genuine issues of material fact on the issue of whether the state prison policy regarding halal foods substantially burdened a Muslim inmate's religious exercise. The court decided for the first time in the 10th Circuit the meaning of "substantial burden" under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act.

⇾In American Atheists, Inc. v. Davenport, 637 F.3d 1095 (2010) he wrote a dissent from the denial of an en banc rehearing in a case which held that memorial crosses donated by the Utah Highway Patrol Association and placed on public property to commemorate fallen troopers violate the Establishment Clause.

⇾ In United States v. Quaintance, 608 F.3d 717  (2010) he wrote a unanimous opinion refusing to allow a RFRA defense to drug charges, upholding the district court's conclusion that defendants, founding members of the Church of Cognizance, did not hold sincere religious beliefs regarding the use of marijuana. [Update]

⇾In Williams v. Sibbett, 442 Fed. Appx. 385 (2011) he joined a unanimous opinion that affirmed dismissal of a suit by a Muslim inmate who alleged that members of the Utah Board of Pardon and Parole decided to disfavor Muslims in parole decisions and to favor members of the Mormon church.

⇾Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. v. Sebelius, 723 F.3d 1114 (2013) was the 10th Circuit's en banc decision in the famous Hobby Lobby case holding that two related closely held corporations were likely to succeed on their claim that under RFRA the companies cannot be required to provide health insurance that enables access to contraceptives that they find morally problematic. Judge Gorsuch wrote a concurring opinion emphasizing that the owners of the companies as well as the companies themselves should be entitled to a preliminary injunction.

⇾In Yellowbear v. Lampert, 741 F.3d 48 (2014) he wrote a unanimous opinion vacating a district court's dismissal of a RLUIPA suit by a Native American inmate seeking access to the prison's sweat lodge.

⇾In Ali v. Wingert, 569 Fed. Appx. 562 (2014) he wrote a unanimous opinion upholding a prison regulation that requires inmates wishing to use their religious name on their mail to also use their committed name along with it.

⇾In Little Sisters of the Poor Home for the Aged v. Burwell, 799 F.3d 1315 (2015) he joined a dissent to denial of en banc review of a 3-judge panel's decision that the religious exercise of Little Sisters of the Poor was not substantially burdened by requiring it to execute government forms in order to obtain an exemption from furnishing health insurance that includes contraceptive coverage.

⇾In Planned Parenthood Association of Utah v. Herbert, 839 F.3d 1301 (2016) he dissented from denial of en banc review of a panel decision granting a preliminary injunction to Planned Parenthood to prevent Utah's cutting off the pass-through of federal funds to the organization.

Judge Gorsuch has also written a book titled The Future of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia, published by Princeton University Press. Here is an excerpt from the publisher's description of the book:

After assessing the strengths and weaknesses of arguments for assisted suicide and euthanasia, Gorsuch builds a nuanced, novel, and powerful moral and legal argument against legalization, one based on a principle that, surprisingly, has largely been overlooked in the debate--the idea that human life is intrinsically valuable and that intentional killing is always wrong. At the same time, the argument Gorsuch develops leaves wide latitude for individual patient autonomy and the refusal of unwanted medical treatment and life-sustaining care, permitting intervention only in cases where an intention to kill is present.

[Note: This post will be updated to include other Gorsuch opinions that come to my attention. I invite readers to e-mail me information on any I have omitted.]

Supreme Court Denies Review In Challenge To Utah's Polygamy Laws

The U.S. Supreme Court today denied review in Brown v. Buhman, (Docket No. 16-333, cert. denied 1/23/2017). (Order List).  In the case, the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed on mootness grounds the constitutional challenge to Utah's anti-polygamy laws that had been filed by the polygamous family from the television show "Sister Wives." (See prior posting.) Salt Lake Tribune reports on the denial of certiorari.

In SCOTUS Oral Argument On Trademark Law, Blasphemy Becomes Relevant

The U.S. Supreme Court today heard oral arguments in Lee v. Tam (transcript of full oral argument).  At issue is whether the disparagement provision in the Lanham Act is an unconstitutional restriction on speech. The statute provides that the Patent and Trademark Office may refuse to register a trademark that disparages individuals, institutions, beliefs or national symbols, or brings them into contempt or disrepute.  In the case the PTO refused to register "The Slants" as the name of a rock band on the ground that the name is disparaging to Asians. SCOTUSblog's case page has links to a wealth of primary and secondary material on the case.

In his rebuttal in today's oral argument, Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm Stewart made an interesting reference to trademarks that may constitute illegal insults to religion under the law of a foreign country:

The preparation of the principal register is not just an ancillary consequence of this program. It's the whole point to provide a list of trademarks so other people know what has been approved, what's off limits.

And the consequence of Mr. Connell's position is that the government would have to place on a principal register, communicate to foreign countries the biased racial epithets, insulting caricatures of venerated religious figures. The test for whether the government has to do that can't be coextensive with the test for whether private people can engage in that form of expression.....

... [T]he government, at the very least, has a significant interest in not incorporating into its own communications words and symbols that the public and foreign countries will find offensive.

(See prior related posting.)

Cert. Petition Filed In California Repairative Therapy Ban

A petition for certiorari (full text) has been filed with the U.S. Supreme Court in Welch v. Brown, cert. filed 1/3/2017).  In the case, the 9th Circuit rejected facial free exercise and Establishment Clause challenges to California's ban on state-licensed mental health professionals providing "sexual orientation change efforts" for patients under 18. (See prior posting.) Pacific Justice Institute issued a press release announcing the filing of the petition for review.

Cert. Denied In Buddhist Temple Dispute

The U.S. Supreme Court yesterday denied review in Tung v. China Buddhist Association, (Docket No. 16-450, cert. denied 1/9/2017). (Order List).  In the case, a New York state intermediate appellate court refused to order a Buddhist Temple to hold a membership meeting with a receiver determining those eligible to vote, holding that courts will not intervene in predominantly religious disputes. New York's highest court (Court of Appeals) affirmed in a summary decision. (See prior posting.) [Thanks to Mark Chopko for the lead.]

Amicus Says Trademark Case Impacts Religious Speech

Next month, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Lee v. Tam (SCOTUSblog case page).  The case involves a free speech challenge to the Lanham Act which allows the government to deny trademark registration to a mark "which may disparage * * * persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs,
or national symbols, or bring them into contempt, or disrepute." On Monday the Becket Fund filed an amicus brief in the case focusing on the impact of the disparagement clause on religious speech. The brief argued in part:

Disagreements about deeply important issues such as religion can often be experienced as disparaging.... [I]t would be wrong for the government to punish speech simply because it wants to protect some religious “institutions” and “beliefs” from criticism.

In fact, to its credit, the United States has for many decades led the fight to convince other countries and international bodies to allow disparaging speech, and to resist using the law to punish those who disparage religion or commit blasphemy.

Briefing Change In SCOTUS Transgender Case May Have Substantive Impact

In October, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in Gloucester County School Board v. G.G., a high profile case on bathroom choice by transgender students in schools receiving federal funds. (See prior posting.) Today SCOTUSblog reports that the Court, in an action that will have unusual impact has extended the time for filing briefs in the case.  The extension of time means that it is more likely that Justice Scalia's vacancy on the Court will be filled before the case is argued, eliminating the chance for a 4-4 split.  In addition, according to Amy Howe at SCOTUSblog:

[T]he schedule change ... means that the federal government’s position in the case will be determined by the Trump, rather than Obama, administration. Deference to the Obama administration’s interpretation of federal law has been a central feature of G.G.’s argument, and it was the basis for the lower court’s ruling in G.G.’s favor. The Trump administration will not take office in time to file a brief supporting the school board, but it could nonetheless reverse course before G.G. files his brief. Such a change could substantially alter the arguments that G.G. makes and the justices consider. Indeed, if the Trump administration does rescind the existing Department of Education letter or issue its own guidance on the question, the justices could opt to send the case back to the lower court for reconsideration in light of that new guidance.

Supreme Court Grants Cert. In 3 ERISA Church Plan Cases

Today the U.S. Supreme Court granted review in three cases all posing the question of how to interpret the "church plan" exemption in the Employee Retirement Income and Security Act (ERISA). (Order List, Dec. 2, 2016). The cases are Advocate Health Care v. Stapleton, (Docket No. 16-74) (prior posting on 7th Circuit's decision), St. Peter's Health Care v. Kaplan, (Docket No. 16-86) (prior posting on 3rd Circuit's decision), and Dignity Health v. Rollins, (Docket No. 16-258) (prior posting on 9th Circuit's decision).

At issue are the following provisions in 29 USC 1003(b)(2):

(33)(A) The term “church plan” means a plan established and maintained . . . by a church or by a convention or association of churches....

(C) For purposes of this paragraph— (i) A plan established and maintained for its employees (or their beneficiaries) by a church or by a convention or association of churches includes a plan maintained by an organization ... [which] is controlled by or associated with a church or a convention or association of churches.

The religiously affiliated health care systems in these cases, rather than the churches they are affiliated with, created the retirement plans for their employees.  In 1983 in a General Counsel Memorandum, the Internal Revenue Service took the position that it is sufficient if the retirement plan was is maintained by a religiously affiliated organization, even if it was initially created by that organization and not the "church" it was affiliated with.  In a series of cases filed around the country, plan beneficiaries have attacked that conclusion and in the cases in which the Court today granted certiorari the plan beneficiaries prevailed.  If the Supreme Court affirms these Circuit Court decisions, retirement plans of various religiously-affiliated organizations will be undefunded in total by billions of dollars.

SCOTUSblog has case pages for each of the cases (case page for Advocate Health Care case with links to case pages for other two cases).

Supreme Court Denies Cert. In Ecclesiastical Abstention and RFRA Cases

The U.S. Supreme Court today denied review in Pfeil v. St. Matthews Evangelical Lutheran Church, (Docket No. 16-210, cert. denied 11/28/2016) (Order List).  In the case the Minnesota Supreme Court held that the 1st Amendment's ecclesiastical abstention doctrine prohibits holding a church and its pastors liable in a defamation action for statements made during church disciplinary proceedings seeking to excommunicate plaintiffs. (See prior posting.)

Today the Supreme Court also denied certiorari in Oklevueha Native American Church of Hawaii v. Lynch, (Docket No. 16-418, cert. denied 11/28/2016) (Order List). In the case the 9th Circuit, rejecting a RFRA defense, held that a church and its founder were properly denied an exemption from federal laws that prohibit the possession and distribution of cannabis. (See prior posting.)

Cert. Denied In Kansas Science Curriculum Challenge

On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court denied review in COPE v. Kansas State Board of Education, (Docket No. 16-229, cert. denied 11/14/2016). (Order List.)  In the case, the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed on standing grounds an Establishment Clause challenge to Kansas' curriculum standards for science instruction in grades K-12, saying that "COPE offers only threadbare assertions that the Standards intend to promote a non-religious worldview." (See prior posting.) Topeka Capital-Journal reports on the denial of certiorari.

Supreme Court Denies Review In Prof's Religious Speech Case

The U.S. Supreme Court today denied certiorari in Payne v. University of Southern Mississippi, (Docket No. 16-290, cert. denied 11/14/2016) (Order List).  In the case, a Mississippi federal district court held that the 1st Amendment does not preclude a faculty member at a public university being disciplined for religious speech made as part of his duties as a professor. (See prior posting.) The decision was affirmed at 643 Fed. Appx. 409 (5th Cir., April 12, 2016).

Donald Trump On His SCOTUS Appointment, Abortion Rights and Marriage Equality

Last night, CBS' "60 Minutes" broadcast an hour-long interview (full text and video) by Leslie Stahl with President-elect Donald Trump and with members of his family. Portions of the interview dealt with the impact of his Supreme Court nomination on abortion rights and marriage equality. Here are excerpts from the interview:

Lesley Stahl: One of the things you’re going to obviously get an opportunity to do, is name someone to the Supreme Court. And I assume you’ll do that quickly?

Donald Trump: Yes. Very important.

Lesley Stahl: During the campaign, you said that you would appoint justices who were against abortion rights. Will you appoint-- are you looking to appoint a justice who wants to overturn Roe v. Wade?

Donald Trump: So look, here’s what’s going to happen-- I’m going to-- I’m pro-life. The judges will be pro-life. They’ll be very—

Lesley Stahl: But what about overturning this law--

Donald Trump: Well, there are a couple of things. They’ll be pro-life, they’ll be-- in terms of the whole gun situation, we know the Second Amendment and everybody’s talking about the Second Amendment and they’re trying to dice it up and change it, they’re going to be very pro-Second Amendment. But having to do with abortion if it ever were overturned, it would go back to the states. So it would go back to the states and--

Lesley Stahl: Yeah, but then some women won’t be able to get an abortion?

Donald Trump: No, it’ll go back to the states.

Lesley Stahl: By state—no some --

 Donald Trump: Yeah.

Donald Trump: Yeah, well, they’ll perhaps have to go, they’ll have to go to another state.

Lesley Stahl: And that’s OK?

Donald Trump: Well, we’ll see what happens. It’s got a long way to go, just so you understand. That has a long, long way to go....

***

Lesley Stahl: Well, I guess the issue for [the LGBTQ community] is marriage equality. Do you support marriage equality?

Donald Trump: It-- it’s irrelevant because it was already settled. It’s law. It was settled in the Supreme Court. I mean it’s done.

Lesley Stahl: So even if you appoint a judge that--

Donald Trump: It’s done. It-- you have-- these cases have gone to the Supreme Court. They’ve been settled. And, I’m fine with that.

Cert Denied In Ministerial Exception Case

The U.S. Supreme Court today denied certiorari in Melhorn v. Baltimore-Washington Conference of the United Methodist Church, (Docket No. 16-245, cert. denied 10/31/2016) (Order List.) In the case, the Maryland Court of Special Appeals in an unreported opinion (set out in Appendix 1 to the Petition for Certiorari), applied the ministerial exception doctrine to bar a wrongful discharge suit by a pastor who was fired after refusing to accept the $600,000-plus portion of a bequest for upkeep of a cemetery that the church no longer owned.

Supreme Court Grants Review In Transgender School Bathroom Case

The U.S. Supreme Court today granted certiorari in Gloucester County School Board v. G.G., (Docket No. 16-273, cert. granted 10/28/2016) (Order List). The grant of review was limited to Questions 2 and 3 in the Petition for Certiorari.  In the case, the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals held that a Virginia school board's policy barring a transgender boy (who had not undergone sex-reassignment surgery) from using the boy's rest rooms at his school violates Title IX's ban on discrimination on the basis of sex. (See prior posting.)