Supreme Court Grants Review In Church's Challenge To Sign Ordinance

The U.S. Supreme Court today granted certiorari in Reed v. Gilbert, AZ, (Docket No. 13-502, cert. granted 7/1/2014.) (Order List.) In the case, 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision, upheld an Arizona town's sign ordinance that limits the size, number and time frame in which non-profit groups can display temporary directional signs.  The limits on temporary event signs are stricter than limits placed on various other types of signs, having the effect of favoring political and ideological signs over religious ones.  The ordinance was challenged by a church that placed 17 signs in the area around its place of worship announcing the time and location of its services. (See prior posting.) Here is the petition for certiorari. An ADF press release has more background.

Supreme Court Cleans Up Docket After Hobby Lobby Decision

Today the U.S. Supreme Court did a clean-up of pending Affordable Care Act contraceptive mandate cases brought by for-profit companies now that the Court has handed down its decision in Hobby Lobby. The Court denied certiorari in cases: Department of Health and Human Services v. Gilardi, (Docket No. 13-915); Burwell v. Newland (Docket No. 13-919); and Burwell v. Korte (Docket No. 13-937). In three other pending petitions for review the Supreme Court granted certiorari and summarily vacated the Court of Appeals decisions, remanding each case to the Court of Appeals for further consideration in light of Hobby Lobby.  The cases are: Autocam Corp. v. Burwell, (Docket No. 13-482); Gilardi v. Department of Health and Human Services, (Docket No. 13-567); Eden Foods, Inc. v. Burwell, (Docket No. 13-591). All of these actions are noted in today's Order List.)

Supreme Court Denies Cert. In Reparative Therapy and Mt. Soledad Cross Cases

Nearly lost in the coverage of today's Hobby Lobby decision were two important denials of certiorari by the Supreme Court. (Order List of June 30, 2014).  The court denied review in Pickup v. Brown (Docket No. 13-949) and the related case of Welch v. Brown (Docket No. 13-1281).  The 9th Circuit's consolidated decision in the two cases upheld the constitutionality of California Senate Bill 1172 that bans state-licensed mental health providers from engaging in sexual orientation change efforts with patients under 18. (See prior posting.)

Additionally, the Court denied certiorari in Mount Soledad Memorial Association v. Trunk, (Docket No. 13-1061).  In seeking cert., petitioners were attempting to bypass the 9th Circuit and obtain Supreme Court review of a long-running battle over a 43-foot high cross in the now federally-owned Mt. Soledad Veterans Memorial in California. (See prior posting.) Justice Alito filed a separate statement [scroll to end of Order List] concurring in the denial of review, but mainly because of the very demanding standard to obtain Supreme Court review before the Court of Appeals acts.

Supreme Court Rules RFRA Allows Closely-Held Corporations To Refuse Contraceptive Coverage

In Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., (S.Ct., June 30, 2014), the U.S. Supreme Court today ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby and other closely held corporations whose owners object on religious grounds to providing coverage for contraceptive services. In a majority opinion by Justice Alito, the court held that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act applies to closely-held corporations, and that the government has not shown that the mandate is the least restrictive means of furthering its presumably compelling interest in guraranteeing cost-free access to the four contraceptive methods to which the companies object. Justice Alito said in part:

In fact, HHS has already devised and implemented a system that seeks to respect the religious liberty of religious nonprofit corporations while ensuring that the employees of these entities have precisely the same access to all FDA-approved contraceptives as employees of companies whose owners have no religious objections to providing such coverage. The employees of these religious nonprofit corporations still have access to insurance coverage without cost sharing for all FDA-approved contraceptives; and according to HHS, this system imposes no net economic burden on the insurance companies that are required to provide or secure the coverage.

Although HHS has made this system available to religious nonprofits that have religious objections to the contraceptive mandate, HHS has provided no reason why the same system cannot be made available when the owners of for-profit corporations have similar religious objections. We therefore conclude that this system constitutes an alternative that achieves all of the Government’s aims while providing greater respect for religious liberty. And under RFRA, that conclusion means that enforcement of the HHS contraceptive mandate against the objecting parties in these cases is unlawful.

Justice Alito argues that the majority opinion is narrow:

We do not hold, as the principal dissent alleges, that for-profit corporations and other commercial enterprises can “opt out of any law (saving only tax laws) they judge incompatible with their sincerely held religious beliefs.”

He says that if the same accommodation given to religious non-profits were extended to closely-held corporations, the effect on women "would be precisely zero."

Justice Kennedy filed a concurring opinion as well as joining Justice Alito's majority opinion. Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan dissented in two related dissenting opinions.

Justice Ginsburg's dissenting opinion calls the majority's decision one of "startling breadth." She adds in a section of her dissent joined only by Justice Sotomayor: "Although the Court attempts to cabin its language to closely held corporations, its logic extends to corporations of any size, public or private."

Additional analysis of the decision will follow in separate posts.

Supreme Court Grants Cert. On Whether EEOC's Conciliation Efforts Can Be Reviewed

The U.S. Supreme Court today granted certiorari in Mach Mining, LLC v. E.E.O.C. (Docket No. 13-1019, cert. granted 6/30/2014) (Order List.) The case is one involving alleged gender discrimination-- refusal to hire a woman as a coal miner.  The issue presented, however, will impact religious discrimination claims filed with the EEOC as well.  In the case, the 7th Circuit (full opinion) held that an employer sued by the EEOC for employment discrimination cannot raise as an affirmative defense the EEOC's failure to first engage in conciliation as required by 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(b). The Petition for Certiorari (full text) asserts that the 7th Circuit's decision exacerbated an already exiting conflict among circuits "over whether and how Title VII’s conciliation obligation may be enforced in court."

Supreme Court Strikes Down Massachusetts Abortion-Clinic Buffer Zone Law

The U.S. Supreme Court today in McCullen v. Coakley, (S.Ct., June 26, 2014) struck down the Massachusetts statute that creates a 35-foot buffer zone around abortion clinics. The law prevents anti-abortion sidewalk counselors from entering the buffer zone.  The Court's majority decision written by Chief Justice Roberts struck down the law on narrow free speech grounds. While the state has a legitimate interest in preserving access to clinics, and while this is a neutral statute, it burdens more speech that in necessary to accomplish that purpose.  The Chief Justice explains:

Petitioners wish to converse with their fellow citizens about an important subject on the public streets and sidewalks—sites that have hosted discussions about the issues of the day throughout history. Respondents assert undeniably significant interests in maintaining public safety on those same streets and sidewalks, as well as in preserving access to adjacent healthcare facilities. But here the Commonwealth has pursued those interests by the extreme step of closing a substantial portion of a tradi­tional public forum to all speakers. It has done so without seriously addressing the problem through alternatives that leave the forum open for its time-honored purposes. The Commonwealth may not do that consistent with the First Amendment. 

Justice Scalia's opinion, joined by Justices Kennedy and Thomas, concurring only in the judgment, criticizes the majority's approach:

Today’s opinion carries forward this Court’s practice of giving abortion-rights advocates a pass when it comes to suppressing the free-speech rights of their opponents. There is an entirely separate, abridged edition of the First Amendment applicable to speech against abortion.... The ... Court’s analysis today, invalidat­ing the law at issue because of inadequate “tailoring,” is certainly attractive to those of us who oppose an abortion­ speech edition of the First Amendment. But think again. This is an opinion that ... continues the onward march of abortion-speech-only jurisprudence. 

Justice Alito also wrote a separate opinion concurring only in the judgment. The New York Times reports on the decision.

SCOTUS Securities Law Decision Involves Charitable Fund That Supports Milwaukee Archdiocese

Today the U.S. Supreme Court decided Halliburton Co. v. Erica P. John Fund, Inc., (S. Ct., June 23, 2014) largely rejecting attempts by a corporate defendant to make securities fraud class actions by investors more difficult to pursue. The corporation was unsuccessful in urging the court to overturn the so-called "fraud on the market" theory that creates a rebuttable presumption that investors relied on public misstatements. The 6-3 decision did give a small concession to defendants, allowing them to present certain rebuttal evidence as the class certification stage. The victory for plaintiffs has implications for the Catholic Archdiocese of Milwaukee. Lead plaintiff in the case is a charitable fund that has been an important source of funds-- some $600,000 per year-- for the Archdiocese.  Prior to 2009, the Fund was known as the Archdiocese of Milwaukee Supporting Fund. (See prior posting.) The Milwaukee Archdiocese is in the midst of a bankruptcy reorganization. (See prior posting.)

SCOTUS Review Denied Over Interesting Dissent In Challenge To School Graduations In Churches

The U.S. Supreme Court today denied certiorari in Elmbrook School District v. John Doe 3, (Docket No. 12-755, cert. denied 6/16/2014), but with an unusual opinion dissenting to the denial of review, written by Justice Scalia and joined by Justice Thomas. (Order List, [scroll to end for opinion]). In the case, the 7th Circuit, in a 7-3 en banc decision, held that two Wisconsin high schools violated the Establishment Clause when they regularly held their graduation ceremonies in the sanctuary of a non-denominational evangelical Christian church. (See prior posting.)

Justice Scalia's dissent focuses largely on the Supreme Court's decision earlier this term in Town of Greece, reading that opinion more broadly than many commentators have so far done. Justice Scalia implicitly sees Town of Greece as impacting more than just invocations before legislative bodies, and says almost nothing about the special concern that the Court has shown historically for religious activities in public schools.  He begins his dissent with this summary:

Some there are-- many perhaps-- who are offended by public displays of religion.... I can understand that attitude: It parallels mine toward the playing in public of rock music or Stravinsky. And I too am especially annoyed when the intrusion upon my inner peace occurs while I am part of a captive audience, as on a municipal bus or in the waiting room of a public agency.

My own aversion cannot be imposed by law because of the First Amendment.

Justice Scalia then goes on to argue first that Town of Greece abandons the "endorsement test" under the Establishment Clause, and that, second, it requires coercion amounting to more than mere offense to show an Establishment Clause violation. Lastly he emphasizes that the Establishment Clause should be interpreted according to historical practices and understandings, a consideration absent from the 7th Circuit's majority opinion. [Thanks to Marty Lederman via Rellgionlaw for the lead.]

Supreme Court Review Sought In NY Pregnancy Service Center Case

On Friday, the American Center for Law and Justice filed a petition for certiorari (full text) with the U.S. Supreme Court in Evergreen Association, Inc. v. City of New York.  In the case, the 2nd Circuit upheld a portion of a New York City ordinance requiring pregnancy service centers to make certain disclosures to potential clients in waiting rooms, in advertisements and in telephone conversations.  The Second Circuit in its Jan. 17, 2014 opinion (full text) upheld (by a 2-1 vote) the requirement to disclose whether or not there is a licensed medical provider on staff. The circuit court unanimously struck down the requirements to disclose whether or not the center provides or refers out for abortion, emergency contraception and prenatal care, and a requirement to disclose that the New York health department encourages women who may be pregnant to consult a licensed medical provider.

Minor Historical Error In Kagan's Town of Greece Dissent Has Been Corrected

Yair Rosenberg writing today at Tablet Magazine notes that the previously reported minor error in American religious history that had crept into Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan's dissent in the Town of Greece case earlier this month has now been corrected. The version of the opinion now on the Supreme Court's website correctly refers to Newport, Rhode Island as "one of the first communities of American Jews" rather than as "the first".

Two Less Expected Reactions To Yesterday's Supreme Court Decision On Legislative Prayer

While many of the reactions to yesterday's Supreme Court decision in Town of Greece v. Galloway were predictable, here are two that might be classified as surprises:

• Yair Rosenberg, writing at Tablet Magazine, finds a historical error in Justice Kagan's dissent.  She refers to Newport, Rhode Island as "the home of the first community of American Jews." However that honor goes to New Amsterdam. Newport is home to the oldest standing synagogue in the U.S.
• The American Humanist Association announced that in reaction to the Supreme Court's decision it is launching a program to provide resources for atheists and humanists to deliver secular invocations at legislative meetings. A new website allows governmental entities to identify humanists within their borders who can be invited to deliver invocations.

Supreme Court Denies Review In RLUIPA Zoning Case

Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari in Eagle Cove Camp & Conference Center v. Woodboro, (Docket. No. 13-1099, cert. denied 5/5/2014) (Order List). In the case, the 7th Circuit rejected RLUIPA challenges to county land use regulations that barred petitioner from operating a year-round Bible camp on residentially zoned property. (See prior posting.)

Supreme Court Upholds Sectarian Invocations At City Council Meetings

The U.S. Supreme Court today handed down a 5-4 decision in Town of Greece, New York v. Galloway, (Sup. Ct., May 5, 2014), upholding the constitutionality of non-coercive sectarian invocations at city council meetings. Justice Kennedy's opinion-- minus one section of it-- constituted the opinion of the court.  Chief Justice Roberts, and Justices Alito, Scalia and Thomas joined with Justice Kennedy in making this the prevailing opinion.  Much of the opinion is devoted to refuting respondents' argument that the Establishment Clause requires legislative invocations to be non-sectarian:

An insistence on nonsectarian or ecumenical prayer as a single, fixed standard is not consistent with the tradition of legislative prayer outlined in the Court’s cases.... To hold that invocations must be nonsectarian would force the legislatures that sponsor prayers and the courts that are asked to decide these cases to act as supervisors and censors of religious speech, a rule that would involve government in religious matters to a far greater degree than is the case under the town’s current practice of nei­ther editing or approving prayers in advance nor criticizing their content after the fact....

Respondents argue, in effect, that legislative prayer may be addressed only to a generic God. The law and the Court could not draw this line for each specific prayer or seek to require ministers to set aside their nuanced and deeply personal beliefs for vague and artificial ones. There is doubt, in any event, that consensus might be reached as to what qualifies as generic or nonsectarian....

Prayer that reflects beliefs specific to only some creeds can still serve to solemnize the occasion, so long as the practice over time is not “exploited to proselytize or advance any one, or to disparage any other, faith or belief.” Marsh....

Finally, the majority disagrees with the view taken by the Court of Appeals that the Town of Greece violated the Establishment Clause by inviting predominantly Christian ministers to deliver the invocations:

The town made reasonable efforts to identify all of the congregations located within its borders and represented that it would welcome a prayer by any minister or layman who wished to give one. That nearly all of the congregations in town turned out to be Christian does not reflect an aversion or bias on the part of town leaders against minority faiths. So long as the town maintains a policy of nondiscrimina­tion, the Constitution does not require it to search beyond its borders for non-Christian prayer givers in an effort to achieve religious balancing....

One section of Justice Kennedy's opinion-- Part II-B-- was joined only by Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito.  This section amounts to an extensive argument as to why the city council invocations at issue were not coercive:

The principal audience for these invocations is not, indeed, the public but lawmakers themselves, who may find that a moment of prayer or quiet reflection sets the mind to a higher purpose and thereby eases the task of governing....

The analysis would be different if town board members directed the public to participate in the prayers, singled out dissidents for opprobrium, or indicated that their decisions might be influenced by a person’s acquiescence in the prayer opportunity. No such thing occurred in the town of Greece. Although board members themselves stood, bowed their heads, or made the sign of the cross during the prayer, they at no point solicited similar ges­tures by the public. Respondents point to several occa­sions where audience members were asked to rise for the prayer. These requests, however, came not from town leaders but from the guest ministers, who presumably are accustomed to directing their congregations in this way and might have done so thinking the action was inclusive....

In their declarations in the trial court, respondents stated that the prayers gave them offense and made them feel excluded and disrespected. Offense, however, does not equate to coercion. Adults often encounter speech they find disagreeable; and an Establishment Clause violation is not made out any time a person experiences a sense of affront from the expression of contrary religious views in a legislative forum, especially where, as here, any member of the public is welcome in turn to offer an invocation reflecting his or her own convictions.....

An opinion by Justice Thomas, joined by Justice Scalia, explained their refusal to join Part II-B of Justice Kennedy's opinion. They argued that the Establishment Clause should not be seen as being applicable to the states. The then added that even if the Establishment Clause is seen as incorporated against the states, "the municipal prayers at issue in this case bear no resemblance to the coercive state establishments that existed at the founding." In their view: "to the extent that coercion is relevant to the Establishment Clause analysis, it is actual legal coercion that counts-- not the "subtle coercive pressures" allegedly felt by respondents...."

Justice Kagan wrote a dissent, joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer and Sotomayor, emphasizing the difference between city council meetings and state legislatures, and arguing that the Town of Greece has violated the constitutional requirement of religious equality:

Greece’s town meetings involve participation by ordinary citizens, and the invocations given—directly to those citizens—were predominantly sectarian in content. Still more, Greece’s Board did nothing to recognize religious diversity: In arranging for clergy members to open each meeting, the Town never sought (except briefly when this suit was filed) to involve, accommodate, or in any way reach out to adherents of non-Christian religions. So month in and month out for over a decade, prayers steeped in only one faith, addressed toward members of the public, commenced meetings to discuss local affairs and distribute government benefits. In my view, that practice does not square with the First Amendment’s promise that every citizen, irrespective of her religion, owns an equal share in her government.

Justice Kagan added:

[T]he not-so-implicit message of the majority’s opinion—“What’s the big deal, anyway?”—is mistaken. The content of Greece’s prayers is a big deal, to Christians and non-Christians alike.....  Contrary to the majority’s apparent view, such sectarian prayers are not “part of our expressive idiom” or “part of our heritage and tradition,” assuming the word “our” refers to all Americans.... They express beliefs that are fundamental to some, foreign to others—and because that is so they carry the ever-present  potential to both exclude and divide. The majority, I think, assesses too lightly the significance of these religious differences, and so fears too little the “religiously based divisiveness that the Establishment Clause seeks to avoid.” 

Justice Breyer also filed a separate dissent.  Justice Alito (joined by Justice Scalia) also wrote a concurrence directly responding to Justice Kagan's dissent.  CNN reports on today's decision.

Supreme Court Denies Review In Case of Disciplinary Sanctions On Former Kansas AG For Abortion Clinic Investigations

The Supreme Court today denied certiorari in Kline v. Kansas Disciplinary Administrator, (Docket No. 13-1104, cert. denied 4/28/2014) (Order List). In the case, the Kansas Supreme Court imposed an indefinite suspension of the right to practice law on former state attorney general Phillip Kline for 11 violations of the rules of professional conduct in his investigation of abortion clinics while he served as Attorney General and for his role with a citizen-requested grand jury while he served as Johnson County District Attorney. (See prior posting.)

U.S. Supreme Court Grants Review In Dispute Over Passport Listing of Jerusalem As Place of Birth

The U.S. Supreme Court today granted certiorari in Zivotofsky v. Kerry, (Docket No. 13-628, cert. granted 4/22/2014). (Order List.) This is the second time the case will have been heard by the Supreme Court. In 2012 it ruled that the political question doctrine does not prevent federal courts from ruling in a dispute between Congress and the State Department over whether Americans born in Jerusalem are to have "Jerusalem", not "Israel", listed as their place of birth. (See prior posting.) A congressional statute calls for the State Department to change its policy and list "Israel", but the Executive Branch claims that this statute unconstitutionally interferes with the President's constitutional authority to conduct the country's foreign affairs. In a 2013 decision-- the case which the Supreme Court today agreed to review-- the D.C. Circuit agreed with the Executive Branch that the statute impermissibly intrudes on the President’s exclusive power to decide whether and on what terms to recognize foreign nations. (Zivotofsky v. Secretary of State, (DC Cir., July 232, 2013).

SCOTUS Denies Cert. In 2 Non-Profit Contraceptive Mandate Cases Seeking Review Ahead of Circuit Court Decisions

The U.S. Supreme Court today denied certiorari (Order List) in two cases in which Catholic non-profit organizations are challenging the Affordable Care Act compromise that allows them to opt out of providing their employees contraceptive coverage only if they sign a form that results in the employees receiving coverage directly from the health insurance company or third party administrator.  The two cases in which review was denied today were both ones in which the non-profit organization took the unusual step of seeking Supreme Court review before the appeal of the district court's decision was heard and decided by the Court of Appeals. The first of today's denials was in Roman Catholic Archbishop of Washington v. Sebelius, (Docket No. 13-829, cert. denied 3/31/2014) in which the D.C. federal district court upheld the challenge to the compromise as to one of the plaintiffs that offered a self-insured plan, but not for the others who offered group insurance or church plans. (See prior posting). The second denial was in Priests for Life v. Department of Health and Human Services, (Docket No. 13-891, cert. denied 3/31/2014) in which the D.C. federal district found that no substantial burden was placed on a pro-life group's free exercise by requiring it to complete the self-certification form to opt into the accommodation. (See prior posting.) Reuters reports on the denial of review.

Transcript and Summaries of Hobby Lobby Arguments In Supreme Court Today

The full transcript of the oral arguments earlier today in Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores and Conestoga Wood Specialties v. Sebelius is now available from the Supreme Court's website.  Extensive reports on the oral arguments are available from Lyle Denniston (SCOTUS Blog) and the Washington Post,

UPDATE: Here is the audio of the oral arguments.

Cert. Filed In RLUIPA Land Use Case

Earlier this week a petition for certiorari (full text) was filed with the U.S. Supreme Court in Eagle Cove Camp & Conference Center, Inc. v. Town of Woodsboro, Wisconsin, (cert. filed 3/10/2014).  In the case the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected challenges to county land use regulations which prohibit plaintiff from operating a year-round Bible camp on residentially zoned property. (See prior posting.) The cert. petition asks the Supreme Court to settle conflicts over the interpretation of several provisions of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act.  [Thanks to Art Jaros for the lead.]

Cert. Petition Seeks SCOTUS Review of Latest Mt.Soledad Cross Decision Ahead of 9th Circuit

A petition for certiorari before judgment (full text) was filed yesterday with the U.S. Supreme Court in Mt. Soledad Memorial Association v. Trunk, asking the Court to review the latest decision in the long-running case prior to the 9th Circuit hearing arguments or deciding the latest appeal.  Petitioners are seeking review of a December federal district court order requiring a 43-foot high cross to be removed from the now federally-owned Mt. Soledad Veterans Memorial in California. (See prior posting.) Legal challenges to the cross have worked their way up and down the courts for 25 years. Liberty Institute issued a press release announcing the filing of the petition.

Supreme Court Denies Review In Home School Asylum Case

The U.S. Supreme Court today denied certiorari in Romeike v. Holder, (Docket No. 13-471, cert. den. 3/3/2014)). (Order List.) In the case, which has been widely followed by home school advocates, the 6th Circuit denied asylum to a German evangelical Christian family that sought to remain in the United States based on a fear of persecution in Germany because of Germany's ban on home schooling. (See prior posting.)