DC Circuit Says In Chaplain Case That Establishment Clause Violation Creates Per Se Irreparable Injury

Yesterday, in Chaplaincy of Full Gospel Churches v. England, (DC Cir., July 7, 2006), the District of Columbia Court of Appeals reversed the trial court and remanded for further findings a suit alleging that the Navy has unconstitutionally maintained a religious quota system for the promotion, assignment, and retention of Navy chaplains that disadvantages chaplains of non-liturgical Protestant faiths (i.e. Baptist, Evangelical, Pentecostal, and Charismatic chaplains.) Plaintiffs had moved for a preliminary injunction, arguing that their evidence demonstrated that Catholic Naval Reserve chaplains were favored and permitted to remain on active duty beyond mandatory separation age limits. This they argued violated the Establishment Clause.

The district court had denied the motion for an injunction, in part because plaintiffs had not demonstrated irreparable injury. The Court of Appeals, however, held that the Navy's violation of the Establishment Clause constituted per se irreparable injury. It remanded the case to the trial court for it to determine whether plaintiffs had also shown the other 3 elements necessary for a preliminary injunction: likelihood of success on the merits, the injunction will not substantially injure other parties and that it will further the public interest.

Cert. Denied In COVID, Chaplaincy and Abortion Cases

Today the U.S. Supreme Court issued its lengthy (66-page) first-day-of-the-Term Order List denying review in several hundred cases. It includes the denial of certiorari in the following:

Calvary Chapel of Bangor v. Mills (Docket No. 20-1346): In the case, the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed a church's interlocutory appeal challenging the Maine governor's COVID Orders limiting attendance at faith-based events. (See prior posting.)

Chaplaincy of Full Gospel v. Department of Navy (Docket No. 20-1794): A case in litigation for over 20 years involving allegations by non-liturgical Protestant chaplains of discrimination against them by selection boards that control promotions and early retirements of Navy chaplains. (See prior posting.)

Schmitt v. Planned Parenthood (Docket No. 21-3): A challenge to Missouri  HB 126 imposing Down Syndrome and Gestational Age limits on abortions. The Supreme Court noted: "After this petition was filed, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit withdrew the panel opinion from which the petition sought certiorari. Accordingly, given the absence of any opinion for our review at this time, the petition is denied  without prejudice to the filing of a new petition by either party following the Eighth Circuit’s final disposition of the case."

Statute of Limitations Not Tolled on Navy Chaplains' Claims

In In re: Naval Chaplaincy, (D DC, Aug. 23, 2023), the D.C. federal district court held that plaintiffs have not shown that the running of the statute of limitations on their free exercise claims should be tolled because of fraudulent concealment. In the case, which has been in litigation for nearly 25 years, non-liturgical Protestant chaplains alleged discrimination against them by selection boards that control promotions and early retirements of Navy chaplains. (See prior posting.)

Muslim Military Chaplains Discuss Their Special Roles

Reuters Faith World yesterday carried an interesting account of a conference held Sunday in Paris at which two Muslim chaplains, one from the U.S. Navy and one from the French National Gendarmerie (which is governed by the Defense Ministry), discussed the special problems dealt with by Muslim imams in military chaplaincy roles. The conference, "Religious Diversity in Everyday Life in France," was sponsored by the U.S.-based Council on International Educational Exchange and the Institute for the Study of Islam and the Societies of the Muslim World in Paris. Among the trickier issues the chaplains face are advice on Ramadan observance while in the military and conscientious objections by Muslim personnel to fighting in Afghanistan. [Thanks to Joel Katz (Relig. & State In Israel) for the lead.]

Military Critic Sues Former Chaplain Alleging Threats

Today's Dallas Morning News reports on a lawsuit filed by Mikey Weinstein, founder of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, against former Navy chaplain Gordon Klingenschmitt, Jim Ammerman and Ammerman's Chaplaincy of Full Gospel Churches. Weinstein says that they are conspiring to encourage violence against him. The complaint (full text) in Weinstein v. Ammerman, (Dallas Co. TX Dist. Ct., filed 9/23/2009), alleges that Klingenschmitt, on behalf of Ammerman and CFGC, is using "imprecatory prayers" -- Biblical code-- to urge his followers to commit acts of violence against Weinstein. It claims that CFGC "is a front for anti-government extremists" who fear the U.S. is planning to turn its sovereignty over to the United Nations. The lawsuit seeks damages and an injunction, alleging violation of Texas Penal Code Sec. 22.07 that bans terroristic threats, and also alleging intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Suit Challenging Harm From Imprecatory Prayers Dismissed

In 2009, Mikey Weinstein, founder of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, filed suit in state court against former Navy chaplain Gordon Klingenschmitt, Jim Ammerman (now deceased) and Ammerman's Chaplaincy of Full Gospel Churches contending that they were conspiring to encourage violence against him through use of "imprecatory prayers." (See prior posting.) Now, according to the Dallas Morning News, on Monday the court issued an oral ruling granting summary judgment to the defendants in the case-- Weinstein v. Ammerman, (Dallas Co. TX Dist. Ct., April 2, 2012). Judge Martin Hoffman did not reach the constitutional question of whether prayers that incite others to violence can be outlawed. Instead he ruled that plaintiffs had shown no connection between the prayers and the threats and vandalism suffered by Weinstein's family. Chaplain Gordon Klingenschmitt's reaction to the ruling was: "I praise God for religious freedom because the judge declared it’s OK to pray imprecatory prayers and quote Psalm 109."