Transcripts and Audio of Today's Same-Sex Marriage Arguments In Supreme Court Are Now Available

The Supreme Court this morning heard oral arguments in four same-sex marriage cases. It first heard 90 minutes of argument on the question "Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex?" Here is the full transcript and the audio recording of arguments on that question.  The Court then heard 60 minutes of arguments on the question "Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state?" Here is the full transcript and the audio recording of arguments on that question.  A New York Times report on the oral arguments is titled "Gay Marriage Arguments Divide Supreme Court Justices."

UPDATE: Lyle Denniston at SCOTUSBlog has an excellent analysis of the oral argument.

Supreme Court GVR's Another Non-Profit Contraceptive Mandate Challenge

The U.S. Supreme Court yesterday in Michigan Catholic Conference v. Burwell, (Docket No. 14-701) (Order List) granted certiorari, vacated the judgment below and remanded the case to the 6th Circuit for further consideration in light of Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.  In the case, the 6th Circuit denied preliminary injunctions to several Catholic non-profit entities that object to the Affordable Care Act contraceptive coverage accommodation.  The accommodation allowed non-profits with religious objections to opt out of furnishing contraceptive coverage to their employees by completing a form and sending it to their insurer or third party administrator which would then furnish contraceptive coverage directly. (See prior posting.) Subsequently the accommodation for non-profits has been further modified to allow notice to be sent to the federal government rather than the insurer or administrator. (See prior posting.) The Court's GVR order in the case follows a similar one issued last month in Notre Dame University's challenge to the same regulations. (See prior posting.) Becket Fund issued a press release on the Court's action yesterday.

Some Background For Tomorrow's Same-Sex Marriage Arguments At the Supreme Court

Tomorrow, the U.S. Supreme Court hears oral arguments in Obergefell v. Hodges and three related cases raising the question of whether states may constitutionally refuse to authorize same-sex marriages and, even if they may, whether a state may refuse to recognize a same-sex marriage validly performed in another state. Lyle Denniston at SCOTUSBlog has an excellent summary of the legal issues involved. The New York Times last week profiled lead plaintiff James Obergefell and traces the changes in attitude toward marriage equality in Obergefell's home town of Cincinnati, Ohio. And CNN profiles the lawyers who will argue the cases. SCOTUSBlog will live blog the oral arguments beginning at 10:45 am. at this link.  For those who want in depth background material, SCOTUSBlog's case page has links to all the briefs, other relevant legal documents and additional legal analysis. The Supreme Court will release both audio tapes and the written transcript of oral arguments later tomorrow.  CBS News reports that a line began forming Friday afternoon for the limited number of seats available for spectators in the courtroom.

Supreme Court Grants Certiorari In Title VII Constructive Discharge Case

The U.S. Supreme Court today granted certiorari in Green v. Donahoe, (Docket No. 14-613, review granted 4/27/2015) (Order List.) The petition for certiorari in the case frames the question presented:

Under federal employment discrimination law, does the filing period for a constructive discharge claim begin to run when an employee resigns, as five circuits have held, or at the time of an employer’s last allegedly discriminatory act giving rise to the resignation, as three other circuits have held? 

In the case, the 10th Circuit (full text of opinion) held that the filing period begins to run at the date of the last discriminatory act. It said in part:

No policy reason, certainly not the policy behind recognition of constructive discharge claims as a means to provide appropriate relief to employees, commends itself as a ground for postponing the accrual of constructive-discharge claims until the employee leaves work...

SCOTUSBlog's case page links to filings in the case. While the case in which review was granted involves alleged racial discrimination. the Supreme Court's decision will also impact cases in which religious discrimination led to a constructive discharge.

Supreme Court Denies Review In RLUIPA Land Use Case

The U.S. Supreme Court today denied review in Lichtfield Historic District Commission v. Chabad Lubavitch of Litchfield County, Inc., (Docket No. 14-1001, cert. denied 4/20/2015) .(Order List). In the case, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals held that the district court had applied erroneous legal standards in deciding whether a refusal to allow a Jewish group to expand a building in Lichtfield's Historic District violates RLUIPA’s substantial burden and nondiscrimination provisions. (See prior posting.) AP reports on the Supreme Court's denial of review.

Justice Alito Stays 3rd Circuit's Non-Profit Contraceptive Mandate Decision

Late on Wednesday, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito issued an order (full text) temporarily staying the Third Circuit's mandate in Zubik v. Buwell. In the case, the 3rd Circuit upheld the Obama Administration's rules accommodating the Affordable Care Act contraceptive coverage mandate to religious non-profits. (See prior posting.)  Religious non-profits contend that the accommodation is inadequate. A response by the government is due to Justice Alito by April 20.  The 3rd Circuit opinion covered four separate lawsuits involving a variety of claimants, both for-profit and non-profit.  Justice Alito's order applies only to two of the cases that involve the Catholic Diocese of Erie and the Catholic Diocese of Pittsburgh along with affiliated charities and schools in the two dioceses. National Law Journal reports on the decision.

Over 140 Amicus Briefs Filed In Upcoming SCOTUS Same-Sex Marriage Cases

Oral arguments before the U.S. Supreme Cout in the same-sex marriage cases are scheduled for April 28.  The Court has received over 140 amicus briefs in the cases-- with slightly more supporting petitioners than respondents.  Links to the full text of almost all the amicus briefs are available here from SCOTUSblog.

Supreme Court Denies Cert. In Bronx Household of Faith Case

The U.S. Supreme Court yesterday denied certiorari in Bronx Household of Faith v. Board of Education of the City of New York, (Docket No. 14-354, cert. denied 3/30/2015). (Order List).  In the widely watched case, the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision held that the Board of Education of the City of New York did not violate the free exercise clause when in 2007 it changed its rules to bar the use of school facilities by churches for religious worship services. (See prior posting.)  The New York Times, reporting on the denial of review, says:

The decision permits Mayor Bill de Blasio to expel immediately dozens of religious organizations that have been holding worship services in city school buildings after hours and on weekends. But consistent with a pledge the mayor made during his campaign to lift the prohibition, a spokesman said on Monday that the city remained committed to allowing churches to use the schools on the same grounds as other organizations.

“Now that litigation has concluded, the city will develop rules of the road that respect the rights of both religious groups and nonparticipants,” the spokesman, Wiley Norvell, said in a statement. “While we review and revise the rules, groups currently permitted to use schools for worship will continue to be able to worship on school premises.”

Supreme Court Hears Oral Arguments On Specialty Plates and Free Speech

The U.S. Supreme Court yesterday heard oral arguments in Walker v. Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans, Inc. (Full transcript of oral arguments).  In the case, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals held in a 2-1 decision that messages on state specialty license plates are private speech, not government speech.  The 5th Circuit majority also concluded that Texas engaged in unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination when it rejected, as offensive, a specialty plate design that included the Confederate battle flag. (See prior related posting.)  SCOTUSblog reports on the oral arguments, saying in part:

From the moment that a state lawyer stood up in the Supreme Court to argue that messages on license plates are government speech, it seemed that the Justices went forward for the rest of the hour assuming that it was not — at least not always.  A strange hearing thus unfolded on when the First Amendment puts curbs on government regulation of expression, and how tight those curbs can be.

New York Times also reports on the arguments.

Justice Ginsburg Co-Authors A Passover Essay

Religion News Service reported yesterday on the essay written recently by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg along with Washington, D.C. Rabbi Lauren Holtzblatt as part of American Jewish World Service’s Chag v’Chesed (“Celebration and Compassion”) series in anticipation of Passover. Titled The Heroic and Visionary Women of Passover, the essay focuses on several women in the Passover story who defied Pharaoh to save Moses' life as an infant. Rabbi Holtzblatt's husband is one of Justice Ginsburg's law clerks.

Amicus Brief Targets Scalia and Thomas In Linking Same-Sex Marriage and Campaign Finance Equality

Dozens of amicus briefs have been filed in Obergefell v. Hodges and its companion cases-- the same-sex marriage cases that are set for oral argument before the U.S. Supreme Court on April 28. (Links to all briefs from SCOTUS blog). One of the most interesting (full text) is the brief of the Liberty Education Forum (a non-profit organization with ties to the Log Cabin Republicans), filed March 6, which focuses on the special treatment that contributions by married couples receive under state campaign finance laws. For example, each spouse can make campaign contributions up to the individual limit, even though only one of them brings income into the household.  The brief argues:

Respondents’ same-sex marriage prohibitions, when viewed together with their campaign finance laws, result in similarly situated couples having unequal rights to engage in the political process through political contributions. A state’s differential treatment with regard to core First Amendment rights violates the Fourteenth Amendment.

In a press release, Liberty Education Forum says that the brief is

targeted specifically at Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.... No two Justices on the Supreme Court have been more vocal about their opposition to curtailments of the First Amendment that exist because of restrictions on campaign contributions than Justices Scalia and Thomas.

BNA Daily Report for Executives (subscription required) reports on the brief.

Supreme Court GVRs Notre Dame's Appeal In Contraceptive Mandate Challenge

As previously reported, in October Notre Dame University filed a petition for certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court in its challenge to the Affordable Care Act contraceptive coverage mandate as applied to religious non-profits.  However instead of seeking full review of the 7th Circuit's decision, the petition asked the Court to issue a so-called GVR order. Today the Supreme Court did just that.  In University of Notre Dame v. Burwell, (Docket No. 14-392) (Order List), the Court issued the following order:

The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit for further consideration in light of Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 573 U. S. ___ (2014). 

[Thanks to Marty Lederman vial Religionlaw for the lead.]

Supreme Court Denies California Prop 8 Backers Review of Contribution Disclosure Law

The U.S. Supreme Court today denied certiorari in ProtectMarriage.com v. Padilla, (Docket No. 14-434, cert. denied 3/2/2015) (Order List).  In the case, the 9th Circuit in a 2-1 decision (full text) rejected a challenge by backers of California's Proposition 8 to the state's campaign contribution disclosure requirements. Challengers had argued that contributors to the campaign against same-sex marriage had been harassed.

Transcript Available For SCOTUS Arguments In Abercrombie & Fitch

The full transcript of this morning's Supreme Court arguments in EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores is now available from the Court's website. AP reports on the oral arguments in the Title VII religious accommodation case, saying that the Justices seemed to support prospective employee Samantha Elauf's position. At issue is the kind of notice that is needed to be given to an employer before its obligation to try to accommodate religious exercise is triggered.

SCOTUS Will Hear Oral Arguments Today In Abercrombie & Fitch Religious Accommodation Case

The U.S. Supreme Court this morning will hear oral arguments in EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. (Docket No. 14-86).  In the case,  the 10th Circuit held that there is a strict notice requirement before an employer is required under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act to accommodate religious beliefs. Merely wearing  hijab to an employment interview did not give notice that a job applicant wore it for religious purposes or needed religious accommodation because of its conflict with Abercrombie's clothing policy. (See prior posting.)  More than a dozen amicus briefs have been filed in the case. Links to all the briefs, as well as to a preview of the arguments, are available from SCOTUSblog.

Cert Filed In RLUIPA Zoning Case

AP reported yesterday that a petition for certiorari has been filed with the U.S. Supreme Court in Chabad Lubavitch of Litchfield County, Inc. v. Litchfield Historic District Commission,  In the case, the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals held that the district court had applied erroneous legal standards in deciding whether a refusal to allow a Jewish group to expand a building in Litchfield's Historic District violates RLUIPA’s substantial burden and nondiscrimination provisions. (See prior posting).

Supreme Court Denies Stay Of Alabama Same-Sex Marriage Decision

The U.S. Supreme Court today in Strange v. Searcy refused to grant a stay of an Alabama federal district court order invalidating Alabama's ban on same-sex marriage, allowing same-sex marriages to begin in the state today. (See prior related posting.) Justice Thomas, joined by Justice Scalia, dissented from the denial of a stay, saying in part:

Today’s decision represents yet another example of this Court’s increasingly cavalier attitude toward the States. Over the past few months, the Court has repeatedly denied stays of lower court judgments enjoining the enforcement of state laws on questionable constitutional grounds.... It has similarly declined to grant certiorari to review such judgments without any regard for the people who approved those laws in popular referendums or elected the representatives who voted for them. In this case, the Court refuses even to grant a temporary stay when it will resolve the issue at hand in several months.

Reuters reports on the Court's action.

Supreme Court Remands Native American Prisoner Free Exercise Case

In the wake of its decision on allowing prisoners to wear beards for religious reasons, the U.S. Supreme Court today sent a prisoner religious free exercise case back to the 11th Circuit for reconsideration.  In Knight v. Thompson, (Docket No. 13-955, vac. and remanded 1/26/2015) (Order List) the Court held:

The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit for further consideration in light of Holt v. Hobbs, 574 U. S. ___ (2015).

In the case the 11th Circuit rejected several Native American inmates' RLUIPA challenges to Alabama prison system grooming rules that prohibit them from wearing long hair as required by their religion. (See prior posting.)

Supreme Court Hears Arguments In Fair Housing Act Disparate-Impact Case

The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments today in Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project, Inc.  At issue in the case is whether disparate-impact claims are cognizable under the Fair Housing Act, or whether there must be a showing of intentional discrimination.  While this case involves claims of racially discriminatory impact, the Court's decision will apply to cases involving religious discrimination as well.  The transcript of full oral arguments is available from the Supreme Court's website. SCOTUSblog's case page contains links to all the briefs in the case as well as to the 5th Circuit's decision below.  SCOTUSblog also reports on today's arguments.

Some Thoughts On Today's Supreme Court Decision In Holt v. Hobbs

Today's Supreme Court decision in Holt v. Hobbs (see prior posting) is likely to lead to a dramatic increase in resources that federal district courts must devote to the dozens-- if not hundreds-- of prisoner RLUIPA cases that are filed each year.  Federal courts, under 28 USC Sec. 1915A, are required to conduct an early preliminary screening of prisoner lawsuits in order to dismiss those that have no chance of success.  It has been common for district courts to dismiss cases at this preliminary stage on the ground that the inmate has failed to show a "substantial burden" on his or her religious exercise.  Often courts have reached that conclusion on the basis that, while an inmate was denied the ability to carry out some particular religious ritual or requirement, the inmate had a number of other ways to practice his or her faith.  Today the Supreme Court rejected that approach, saying:

[T]he District Court erred by concluding that the grooming policy did not substantially burden petitioner’s religious exercise because “he had been provided a prayer rug and a list of distributors of Islamic material, he was allowed to correspond with a religious advisor, and was allowed to maintain the required diet and observe religious holidays.”... In taking this approach, the District Court improperly imported a strand of reasoning from cases involving prisoners’ First Amendment rights. See, e.g., O’Lone v. Estate of Shabazz, 482 U. S. 342, 351–352 (1987); see also Turner v. Safley, 482 U. S. 78, 90 (1987). Under those cases, the availability of alternative means of practicing religion is a relevant consideration, but RLUIPA provides greater protection. RLUIPA’s “substantial burden” inquiry asks whether the government has substantially burdened religious exercise (here, the growing of a 1⁄2-inch beard), not whether the RLUIPA claimant is able to engage in other forms of religious exercise.

So courts will now need to concentrate on the "compelling interest" and "least restrictive means" prongs of RLUIPA in initial screening of complaints.  More cases are likely to survive initial screening when those elements are the focus.  In prison contexts, generally one of two sorts of compelling interests are asserted-- (1) prison security or (2) budgetary concerns in accommodating prisoner religious practices.  In Holt, security and safety were asserted, and the Court conceded that those are compelling interests. However it suggested that budgetary concerns (such as those asserted when inmates seek religious diets) pose a more difficult question, saying:

Congress stated that RLUIPA “may require a government to incur expenses in its own operations to avoid imposing a substantial burden on religious exercise.” §2000cc–3(c). See Hobby Lobby.... 

When it comes to evaluating whether the government has shown that its restriction on religious exercise is the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling governmental interest, the Court emphasized that the inquiry must be narrowly focused:

The Department argues that its grooming policy represents the least restrictive means of furthering a “‘broadly formulated interes[t],’” ... namely, the Department’s compelling interest in prison safety and security. But RLUIPA, like RFRA, contemplates a “‘more focused’” inquiry and “‘requires the Government to demonstrate that the compelling interest test is satisfied through application of the challenged law “to the person”––the particular claimant whose sincere exercise of religion is being substantially burdened.’”... RLUIPA requires us to “‘scrutiniz[e] the asserted harm of granting specific exemptions to particular religious claimants’” and “to look to the marginal interest in enforcing” the challenged government action in that particular context....

How far must this individualization go?  Must authorities consider how likely it is that the particular claimant will create a security risk?  Should the evaluation of alternatives depend, for example, on whether the particular inmate seeking to grow a beard has a history of attempting to smuggle contraband? The more individualized the determination must be, the fewer cases that will be able to be disposed of at the preliminary screening stage.

Finally one additional portion of the Court's opinion adds complexity to the question of when a religious exemption from a prison rule must be granted. The Court said:

[T]he District Court went astray when it relied on petitioner’s testimony that not all Muslims believe that men must grow beards. Petitioner’s belief is by no means idiosyncratic....  But even if it were, the protection of RLUIPA, no less than the guarantee of the Free Exercise Clause, is “not limited to beliefs which are shared by all of the members of a religious sect.”

Those who follow Religion Clause's weekly summary of prisoner free exercise cases know that inmates professing a wide variety of religious beliefs seek religious accommodations relating to grooming, clothing, possession of religious items, worship space, congregate religious services, religious dietary restrictions, and more.  The Supreme Court has now reaffirmed the conclusion of most courts that an inmate may invoke RLUIPA to require accommodation of a totally idiosyncratic belief-- so long as it is sincerely held. Religious visions shared by no one else apparently still qualify.