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.)

Moorish-American Religious Defense To False Identity Charge Fails

Thomas v. Commonwealth, (VA App., Aug. 16, 2016), involved an appeal by defendant of his conviction for providing a law enforcement officer a false identity with intent to deceive.  Defendant, who was driving with a suspended license, told police during a traffic stop that his name was "Barry Thomas-El." Police were unable to locate information on anyone with that name from the Department of Motor Vehicles, and only later identified him as "Barry Nelson Thomas, Jr."  At the trial court level, defendant attempted to raise a religious free exercise defense, arguing that use of the suffix "El" was an exercise of his religious beliefs as a Moorish-American national. The trial court excluded evidence relating to this defense.  The Virginia Court of Appeals affirmed, largely on procedural grounds, saying in part:

At the motion in limine hearing, appellant’s counsel argued that adding the suffix “El” to appellant’s name was an act of free exercise noting his “rebirth” within the Moorish American community.... However, appellant’s counsel failed to properly proffer what appellant’s testimony would have been at trial.

The court also upheld the trial court's exclusion of several documents relating to defendant's claim of Moorish-American citizenship, saying:

As the documents are political, rather than religious, in nature, they lack any tendency to make the existence of a religious imperative more or less probable. As such, they are irrelevant and thus not admissible.

4th Circuit: Title IX Requires School Rest Room Access On Basis of Gender Identity

In a 2-1 decision today, 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.  The school board adopted the policy in order to overturn accommodations made by a high school for the student, and which had been implemented for 7 weeks without incident.  The school board policy called instead for alternative private facilities for transgender students. Citizens speaking in favor of the school board policy at a meeting considering it expressed fears about privacy, and even expressed concern that "non-transgender boys would come to school wearing dresses in order to gain access to the girls’ restrooms."

In G.C. v. Gloucester County School Board, (4th Cir., April 19, 2016), the majority opinion written by Judge Floyd held that the U.S. Department of Education's interpretation of its own regulations is entitled to deference. A DOE interpretation concluded that when schools separate students on the basis of gender, generally schools must treat transgender students consistent with their gender identity.  A concurring opinion by Judge Davis suggested that the appeals court should have entered a preliminary injunction against the school board instead of remanding the case to the trial court.  Judge Niemeyer dissenting argued in part:

This unprecedented holding overrules custom, culture, and the very demands inherent in human nature for privacy and safety, which the separation of such facilities is designed to protect. More particularly, it also misconstrues the clear language of Title IX and its regulations. And finally, it reaches an unworkable and illogical result.

AP reporting on the decision quotes North Carolina Law Professor Maxine Eichner who says that the decision also impacts North Carolina's recently enacted law regulating the use of public school rest rooms by transgender individuals.  North Carolina is in the 4th Circuit.

Virginia Legislature Passes Bill To Protect Clergy and Religious Groups That Object To Same-Sex Marriage; Governor Threatens Veto

Yesterday the Virginia General Assembly gave final passage to S.41 (full text) that protects clergy, religious and religiously affiliated organizations and their employees and volunteers acting in the scope of their employment from being required to participate in the solemnization of any marriage or from receiving adverse treatment of any kind by the state because the person acted on the basis of a sincere religious or moral belief that marriage should be only the union of one man and one woman. As reported by the Washington Blaze, Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe has said he would veto the bill.  It should be noted that the language of the bill requires careful reading to avoid misinterpreting it as being broader than it is.  Section B. of the bill applies its protection to any "person," but that is limited by the narrow definition of "person" in Section A. The president of the Family Foundation of Virginia accurately, albeit not totally objectively, described the scope of the bill:

This legislation balances the recently discovered right to whatever definition of marriage you want with our nation’s longstanding principle of religious free exercise by ensuring that the heavy hand of government cannot penalize clergy or religious charities simply because of beliefs about marriage.

4th Circuit: Variance Denial For Church Does Not Violate RLUIPA

In Andon, LLC v. City of Newport News Virginia, (4th Cir., Feb. 9, 2016), the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the argument that a Board of Zoning Appeals' refusal to grant a zoning variance amounted to a substantial burden on religious exercise under RLUIPA. Seeking to use a building that did not meet zoning requirements as a church facility, Reconciling People Together in Faith Ministries entered a lease of it contingent on obtaining a variance. The court held:

Because the plaintiffs knowingly entered into a contingent lease agreement for a non-conforming property, the alleged burdens they sustained were not imposed by the BZA’s action denying the variance, but were self-imposed hardships....  A self-imposed hardship generally will not support a substantial burden claim under RLUIPA, because the hardship was not imposed by governmental action altering a legitimate, pre-existing expectation that a property could be obtained for a particular land use.

[Thanks to Will Esser via Religionlaw for the lead.]

Suit Challenges Virginia School's Addition of Gender Identity To Non-Discrimination Rules

As reported by the Washington Post, last week a suit was filed in state court in Virginia challenging the Fairfax County School Board's addition of "gender identity" to its non-discrimination policy.  The change was made to comply with federal interpretation of Title IX of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.  The complaint (full text) (Liberty Counsel press release) in Lafferty v. School Board of Fairfax County, (VA Cir. Ct., filed 12/21/2015), contends that the change violates a Virginia statute that prohibits local jurisdictions from enacting broader anti-discrimination protections than are accorded by state law. A state Attorney General's Opinion, however, had concluded that school boards do have the power to bar discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.

The suit was brought by the head of the Traditional Values Coalition and by an anonymous high school student identified in the complaint as Jack Doe.  The suit contends:

Because the new policy and code of conduct are not sufficiently defined, Jack Doe has no way of knowing whether he can, for example, question someone who appears to be a girl using the boys’ restroom or locker room, refer to someone by a certain pronoun or even compliment someone on his/her attire without being subject to discipline for “discrimination.”...

Jack Doe is terrified of the thought of having to share intimate spaces with students who have the physical features of a girl, seeing such conduct as an invasion of his privacy, invasion of fellow students’ privacy and a violation of the though[t] patterns and understanding about male and female relationships which are part of his cultural values. 

Virginia Jury Awards Muslim Cabbie $350,000 in Religiously Motivated Assault Case

Washington Post reports that a Fairfax County, Virginia civil jury yesterday awarded $100,000 in compensatory damages and $250,000 in punitive damages to a Muslim cab driver who was suffered a broken jaw in an assault by a passenger after the passenger engaged in a diatribe against the Muslim religion. The assault by Ed Dahlberg, a Fairfax County businessman, on cab driver Mohamed Salim was captured in part on video.  The jury found that Dahlberg's actions were motivated by animosity toward Salim's religion.

District Court Modifies, But Will Not Dissolve, Injunction Barring Sectarian Invocations

In Hudson v. Pittsylvania County, Virginia, (WD VA, May 28, 2015), a Virginia federal district court modified, but refused to dissolve, its prior injunction (issued before the Supreme Court's Town of Greece decision) barring sectarian prayer at Pittsylvania County's Board of Supervisors meetings. The court said in part:

By opening its meetings with prayers led by Board members, the Supervisors of Pittsylvania County determined the content of the prayers offered at Board meetings and did so by consistently referencing the tenets of one denomination. In so doing, the Board involved itself “in religious matters to a far greater degree” than was the case in Town of Greece.... Moreover, by delivering the prayers to the assembled public and asking them to stand for the prayers, the Board members “directed the public to participate in the prayers.”... Finally, because the Board itself determined the content of the Pittsylvania County prayers, persons of other faiths had no opportunity to offer opening prayers in their faith traditions. As such, the Supreme Court’s decision in Town of Greece was decided on very different facts, and its decision does not alter the conclusion that the prayer practice of the Board of Supervisors of Pittsylvania County violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.

While the injunction in this case will be modified to eliminate any suggestion that legislative prayer must be nonsectarian, the Board’s exclusive practice of determining the content of and leading the citizens of Pittsylvania County in prayer associated with one faith tradition at the opening of Board meetings will remain enjoined.

Last August the district court had issued an opinion expressing a similar conclusion (see prior posting), but refused to modify the injunction then because it concluded  it did not have jurisdiction to do so until the 4th Circuit to which the case had been appealed granted at least a limited remand. In December, the 4th Circuit dismissed the appeal finding that it was untimely. (See prior posting.)

4th Circuit: Appeal of Injunction Against Sectarian County Board Prayer Fails On Procedural Grounds

In Hudson v. Pittsylvania County, Virginia, (4th Cir., Dec. 17, 2014), the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed on procedural grounds an appeal from a district court's injunction against opening County Board meetings consistently with Christian invocations.  The appeals court held that a notice of appeal filed 175 days after the district court entered summary judgment for plaintiff was untimely.  The appeals court also affirmed the district court's later post-trial award of some $53,000 in attorneys' fees. Chatham Star Tribune reports on the decision.

While this appeal was pending, the U.S. Supreme Court decided the Town of Greece case. Pittsylvania County quickly asked the district court to dissolve its injunction.  As previously reported, the district court held however that "unlike in Town of Greece, where invited clergy and laypersons offered the invocations, the Board members themselves led the prayers in Pittsylvania County."  The district court said it was willing to modify the injunction to make it consistent with the holding in Town of Greece, but it did not have jurisdiction to do so until the 4th Circuit to which the case had been appealed granted at least a limited remand.  Yesterday's affirmance of the attorneys' fee award and dismissal of the remainder of the appeal presumably does not amount to a limited remand.                                                          

4th Circuit Hears Oral Arguments In County Board Invocation Policy

Tuesday's arguments (audio of full arguments) in Hudson v. Pittsylvania County, Virginia are now available on the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals' website.  In the case, a Virginia federal district court held that the prayer policy of Pittsylvania County differed from the policy upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Town of Greece case. (See prior posting.)  Much of Tuesday's 4th Circuit arguments focused on the timeliness of the appeal and liability for legal fees. Go Dan River reports on the oral arguments.

Virginia Governor Says Same-Sex Married Couples Can Now Adopt

Last week, Virginia's Department of Social Services (at the direction of Governor Terry McAuliffe) issued a Bulletin (full text) to its local offices informing them that court decisions legalizing same-sex marriage mean that now married same-sex couples are eligible to adopt children under Va. Code Sec. 63.2-1225. Same-sex couples in civil unions or domestic partnerships (rather than marriages) are not eligible to adopt. Reporting on the Governor's action, Metro Weekly yesterday said that, according to the ACLU, married same-sex couples with children born before same-sex marriage was legalized on Oct. 6, 2014 should be able to get an amended birth certificate listing both spouses as a legal parent.  A same-sex spouse should now also be able to adopt a spouse's child so long as the child does not have another legal parent.

Supreme Court Issues Stay In Virginia Same-Sex Marriage Case

Yesterday the U.S. Supreme Court issued an order (full text) in McQuigg v. Bostic, staying the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals order that invalidated Virginia's ban on same-sex marriage. (See prior posting.)  The order delays the 4th Circuit's mandate until a petition for Supreme Court review is disposed of.  SCOTUS Blog reports on the stay..

4th Circuit Refuses Stay In Invalidation of Virginia's Same-Sex Marriage Ban

By a 2-1 vote yesterday, the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals issued an Order (full text)  in Bostic v. Schaeffer refusing to delay the mandate in its decision last month invalidating Virginia's ban on same-sex marriage. (See prior posting.)  SCOTUSblog reports that attorneys representing the county clerk who is defending the same-sex marriage ban on appeal say they will seek a stay from the Supreme Court before the 4th Circuit's mandate takes effect next Wednesday. A petition for certiorari has already been filed seeking Supreme Court review of the underlying decision. (See prior posting.) Washington Post has more on the plans to seek a Supreme Court stay.

More Same-Sex Marriage Developments-- 4th Circuit Oral Arguments; Idaho's Laws Invalidated By District Court

The U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday heard oral arguments (audio of arguments) in Bostic v. Schaefer. In the case, a Virginia federal district court held that Virginia's constitutional and statutory provisions barring same-sex marriage and prohibiting recognition of lawful same-sex marriages performed elsewhere are unconstitutional. (See prior posting.) Reporting on the oral arguments, the Washington Post said: "The sharply opposing viewpoints of two of the jurists suggested that the third, independent-minded Circuit Judge Henry F. Floyd, might hold the deciding vote."

Also yesterday, an Idaho federal magistrate judge struck down Idaho's statutory and constitutional provisions barring same-sex couples from marrying in the state or having their marriages performed elsewhere recognized in Idaho.  In Latta v. Otter, (D ID, May 13, 2014), the court concluded that Idaho's marriage laws violate same-sex couples' rights under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the 14th Amendment. The court issued a permanent injunction, effective May 16. Idaho Statesman reports on the decision and on Idaho Governor Butch Otter's written statement after the decision saying that he will continue to defend the will of the people to limit marriage to the union of a man and a woman.  UPDATE: AP reports that on May 14 the magistrate judge refused to stay her order pending appeal, writing that the appeal is unlikely to succeed.

Virginia Settles Suit Challenging Limits On Student Preaching On Campus In Wake of New Law Assuring Speech Rights

The Hampton Roads (VA) Pilot reports that a proposed consent decree was filed in Virginia federal district court last Friday in Parks v. Members of the State Board  of the Virginia Community College System. In the suit, a student who wished to preach on campus challenged the rules at Thomas Nelson Community College that allow students to speak in open, outdoor areas of campus only if they are members of student organizations, and then only if they register their activity 4 days in advance. (See prior posting.) Under the consent decree, which still requires court approval, students will be allowed to speak freely on campus without joining a recognized student organization or registering in advance. Also colleges will not unreasonably limit the outdoor areas in which students can speak.

This development comes the same day that Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe signed HB 258 (full text) which bars public colleges in Virginia from imposing restrictions on student speech in outdoor areas of campus unless they are reasonable, content-neutral and narrowly tailored to serve a significant interest and leave open ample alternative channels for communication.

Class Action Challenge To Virginia's Same-Sex Marriage Ban Stayed As Plaintiffs Intervene In Appeal of Parallel Case

In Harris v. Rainey, (WD VA, March 31, 2014), Virginia federal district judge has cut through the procedural complexity of competing challenges to Virginia's ban on same-sex marriage by staying proceedings in one case while a separate challenge works its way through the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals.  In February, a different Virginia federal district court in Bostic v. Rainey issued a preliminary injunction striking down Virginia's ban on same-sex marriage, but stayed the injunction pending appeal. (See prior posting.) Just before the court handed down its decision in Bostic, Virginia's attorney general filed a Notice of Change of Legal Position with the court indicating that he will not defend the constitutionality of Virginia's ban. This However left two clerks of court who were also defendants to carry the case forward. (Attorney General's FAQ page on the case.) However in the Harris case-- a class action on behalf of 14,000 same sex couples filed by the ACLU (links to pleadings)-- no defendant was willing to defend the state's ban. Meanwhile the plaintiffs in Harris petitioned the 4th Circuit for, and on March 14 were granted, the right to intervene as a plaintiffs in the Bostic appeal (Legal Times), despite opposition to their intervening by the original lawyers of plaintiffs in Bostic. They preferred that the Harris plaintiffs merely file an amicus brief. (National Law Journal.) [Thanks to How Appealing for the lead.]

Virginia Legislature Passes Student Religious Expression Bill; Veto Expected

As reported by Metro Weekly, yesterday the Virginia General Assembly gave final passage to SB 236 which protects student religious expression in public schools. The vote was 20-18 in the Senate and 64-34 in the House of Delegates.  The bill would protect voluntary student prayer and prayer gatherings before, during and after school; wearing of clothing or jewelry displaying religious messages; and expression of religious viewpoints by neutrally selected student speakers at graduation and similar events. As reported in Tuesday's Roanoke Times, Gov. Terry McAuliffe's office has said that the governor will veto the bill out of concern for its constitutionality and its unintended consequences.

UPDATE: The Washington Post reports, as expected, that Gov. McAuliffe vetoed the bill on April 4.  [Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]

Federal District Court Strikes Down Virginia's Ban on Same-Sex Marriages; Delays Injunction To Allow Appeal

Yesterday in Bostic v. Rainey, (ED VA, Feb. 13, 2014), a Virginia federal district court concluded that Virginia's constitutional and statutory provisions that bar same-sex marriage and prohibit recognition of lawful same-sex marriages performed elsewhere are unconstitutional under the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment:

The Court is compelled to conclude that Virginia's Marriage Laws unconstitutionally deny Virginia's gay and lesbian citizens the fundamental freedom to choose to marry.  Government interests in perpetuating traditions, shielding state matters from federal interference, and favoring one model of parenting over others must yield to this country's cherished protections that ensure the exercise of the private choices of the individual citizen regarding love and family.

The court began its opinion with a quotation from Mildred Loving, one of the plaintiffs in the 1967 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Loving v. Virginia that struck down Virginia's laws barring interracial marriage and established the modern doctrine of marriage as a "fundamental right." However the court yesterday also stayed the effectiveness of its preliminary injunction to give the parties time to appeal its decision to the 4th Circuit. Washington Post reports on yesterday's decision.

UPDATE: An amended opinion (full text) was issued on Feb. 14 correcting a reference in the first paragraph of Judge Allen's opinion.  The sentence that originally read: "Our Constitution declares that "all men" are created
equal." was corrected to read: "Our Declaration of Independence recognizes that "all men" are created equal." Politico reports on the change. [Thanks to Mirror of Justice for the lead.]

Virginia's Attorney General Will Not Defend State's Ban On Same-Sex Marriage

In an NPR interview, Virginia's newly-elected Attorney General, Mark Herring, says that his office will no longer defend the state's ban on same-sex marriage. He has concluded that the ban violates the federal equal protection clause. The state's solicitor general will tell a federal court next week that the state is joining the plaintiffs in Bostic v. Rainey, a case challenging the constitutionality of Virginia's same-sex marriage ban. According to the Washington Post, defendants in the case include two county clerks who are represented by separate counsel, so there will still be a defense of the Virginia law presented.