Space Force Captain With Religious Objections To Vaccine Mandate Is Denied Injunction

In Creghan v. Austin, (D DC, May 12, 2022), the D.C. federal district court refused to grant a preliminary injunction to a captain in the U.S. Space Force who has religious objections to the military's COVID vaccine mandate,  The military refused to grant her a religious accommodation, but has not taken steps to separate from the military. The court said in part:

As the Court explained in a similar case, requests for religious exemptions from military-mandated medical requirements “raise particularly difficult questions that implicate a storm of colliding constitutional interests.” Navy SEAL v. Austin, 2022 WL 1294486, at *1 (D.D.C. Apr. 29, 2022). Although this case is much closer than Navy SEAL, the Court remains concerned that it lacks the competence to “evaluate the merits of military [epidemiological and tactical] expertise” or to “weigh technical issues of public health and immunology” necessary to resolve the case. Id. at *5. Justiciability is all the more uncertain given the unfixed, evolving science on which this vaccination mandate is based. These concerns permeate the merits of Plaintiff’s claims as well.

Intervenors Say USAF Senior Leaders Told To Deny All Religious Exemptions To Vaccine Mandate

In a Memorandum In Support of a Preliminary Injunction (full text) filed on behalf of 230 intervening plaintiffs in Doster v. Kendall, (SD OH, filed 5/3/2022), plaintiffs allege:

The 2021 CORONA Conference was held at  the United States Air Force Academy. (Id.) Whistleblowers have reported that all Chaplains and all persons other than those MAJCOM commanders responsible for adjudicating accommodation requests to the Air Force’s vaccine mandate, were asked to leave the room, so that the Secretary of the Air Force’s expectations concerning religious accommodation requests could be communicated to Air Force senior leaders....  Upon information and belief, the Secretary of the Air Force and/or his designees, communicated that no religious accommodations could or should be approved for anyone who would be remaining in the Department of the Air Force....

As of the date of the Intervening Complaint, the Department of the Air Force has received thousands of requests for religious accommodation, has only approved 42 – all of them at the end of their careers, who were otherwise eligible for an administrative exemption, and has denied 5,129 initial requests; and 1,692 final appeals, for a total of 6, 821 denials. In the meantime, the Air Force currently has granted 1,013 medical exemptions, and 1,273 administrative exemptions....  As of April 12, the Air Force has administratively separated 261 active-duty Airmen.... The granting of more than two thousand medical and administrative exemptions belies any assertion that vaccination is mission-critical and that no exemptions can be granted....

(See prior related posting.) Coffee or Die Magazine reports on the filing.

Tribe Is Required Party In Challenge To Directive On Repatriation of Native American Remains

 In Weiss v. Perez, (ND CA, May 10, 2022), a California federal district court dismissed a suit brought by a San Jose State University anthropology professor who objects to the University president's directive that denied her access to Native American remains housed at the University. The directive was issued to prepare the remains for repatriation to the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe. Plaintiff, Prof. Elizabeth Weiss is an opponent of repatriation. The court held in part:

The Court finds that the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe is a required party under Rule 19 to adjudication of Professor Weiss’s claims about the Directive. Because the Tribe has sovereign immunity from suit and thus cannot be joined, Professor Weiss’s claims regarding the Directive must be dismissed with prejudice. The Court will, however, give Professor Weiss leave to amend her complaint as to her allegations about retaliation in the form of restricting access to and use of non-Native American remains and retaliation for her protected speech as it may pertain to her teaching and curational responsibilities.

Certiorari Filed On Whether Falun Gong Tables Are Protected Under FACEA

A petition for certiorari (full text) was filed yesterday in Zhang Jingrong v. Chinese Anti-Cult World Alliance, Inc., (Docket No. 21-1429, filed 5/10/2022). In the case, the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals held that five tables on the sidewalk in Flushing, Queens, New York where Falun Gong adherents passed out flyers and displayed posters were not a "place of religious worship" under the Freedom of Access To Clinics Entrances Act that prohibits intentionally injuring, intimidating, or interfering with anyone who is exercising 1st Amendment religious freedom rights “at a place of religious worship.” (See prior posting.) [Thanks to James A. Sonne for the lead.]

Court Enjoins Part Of School's Policy On Transgender Students' Preferred Names

Ricard v. USD 475 Geary County, KS School Board, (D KS, May 9, 2022), is a suit brought by a Christian middle school math teacher who objects on religious grounds the school's policy of requiring teachers to refer to transgender students by their preferred names and pronouns, and requiring teachers not to disclose those names and pronouns to parents without the student's consent. A Kansas federal district court enjoined the school district from from disciplining the teacher for referring to a student by the student’s preferred name and pronouns in communications with the student’s parents in the regular course of the teacher's duties. The parties reached an agreement on the other aspect of the school's policy. The teacher would use students' preferred names, but not their preferred pronouns.

Plaintiff Lacks Standing To Challenge No-Fault Divorce Law Under 1st Amendment

 In King v. State of New York, (2d Cir., May 9, 2022), the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals held that plaintiff lacked standing to challenge New York's no-fault divorce law on free exercise or Establishment Clause grounds. The court said in part:

Ms. King alleges that this law and the resulting divorce violated her Free Exercise and Establishment Clause rights by requiring her to become divorced despite her religious belief in marriage until death..... Because Ms. King alleges only the termination of a civil contract, she has not plausibly alleged that the civil judgment of divorce entered against her “sever[ed] the holy marriage covenant made before God,” ... or “chang[ed] her status under . . . the laws of God”....

Recent Articles Of Interest

From SSRN:

• Faraz Sanei, Reclaiming Establishment: Identity and the ‘Religious Equality Problem’, (71 U. Kans. L. Rev. __ (Forthcoming 2022)).
• Ansley McLellan, A Prayer For The Ministerial Exception: The Need for More Transparency and Less Rigidity in Certain Claims and Definitions, (September 20, 2021).
• Rakesh K. Anand, Reasoning About Faith: On the Religious Lawyer, (16 FIU L. Rev. 259 (2022)).
• Ioan Rotaru, Scientia Moralitas Conference Proceedings, (April 30, 2021).
• Olivia Roat, Free-Exercise Arguments for the Right to Abortion: Reimagining the Relationship Between Religion and Reproductive Rights, (UCLA Women's Law Journal, Vol. 29, No. 1, 2022).
• Philip Hackney, Written Testimony of Philip Hackney for the Hearing on Laws and Enforcement Governing the Political Activity of Tax-Exempt Entities, (U.S. Senate Finance Committee Subcommittee on Taxation and IRS Oversight, May 4, 2022).
• Zalman Rothschild, Individualized Exemptions, Vaccine Mandates, and the New Free Exercise Clause, (131 Yale L.J.F. 1106 (2022)).

From SSRN (Non-U.S. Law):

• Jianlin Chen & Shao Yuan Chong, The Curse of the Lecherous Spiritual Charlatans: Law, Moral Panic and Newspaper Reports of Rape by Religious Fraud in Taiwan, (University of Pennsylvania Asian Law Review, Vol. 17, 89-136 (2022)).
• Samy Ayoub, A Theory of a State? How Civil Law Ended Legal Pluralism in Modern Egypt, (Journal of Law and Religion, Vol. 37, No. 1, 2022).
• James J. Friedberg, States and Laws, Jews and Palestinians: Yadgar's Traditionalist Alternative. A Reflection on Yadgar, Israel's Jewish Identity Crisis (Cambridge, 2020) (Intercultural Human Rights Law Review, Vol. 16 (2021)).
• Muhammad Munir, Consent of the Guardian in Islamic Law and Pakistani Legal System: An Introduction, (April 11, 2022).
• Raphaële  Xenidis, The Concept of Direct Discrimination in European Anti-Discrimination Law: Theory, Practice and Limits, (Forthcoming book chapter in Colm O’Cinneide, Julie Ringelheim, Iyiola Solanke (eds.), Research Handbook on European Anti-Discrimination Law).
• Jaafar Almashaal, Some Reservations by the Islamic States on Major Human Rights Treaties, (April 7, 2022).
• Lyla Latif, FinTech led Tax Justice: Redistribution Using Zakat for the Socio-Economic Improvement of Women, Kardan Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities 4 (2) 44–55 (2021).

From Elsewhere:

• Linda Greenhouse, Should Courts Assess the Sincerity of Religious Beliefs?, The Atlantic, May 5, 2022.

1st Circuit Hears Oral Arguments On Religious Exemption To School's Vaccine Mandate

The U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday heard oral arguments (audio of full arguments) in Harris v. University of Massachusetts, Lowell.  In the case, a Massachusetts federal district court rejected a student's objections to the manner in which her request for a religious exemption from the school's COVID-19 vaccine requirement was handled. (See prior posting.)

Church Cannot Remove Cremated Remains Over Objections Of Families

In Church of the Holy Spirit of Wayland v. Heinrich, (MA App., May 5, 2022), a Massachusetts state appellate court held that a church which had sold its property was not free to relocate cremated remains buried in its churchyard over the objections of families of those buried there. In the case, an Episcopal parish that had ceased operating sold it church building and attached burial ground to a Coptic church.  The Coptic church wanted to develop the land; it also had religious objections to cremation. The court said in part:

[I]n the absence of a governing statute, common law trust principles apply to the disinterment of human remains from a dedicated burial ground until the families of the deceased have abandoned the remains or the burial ground is no longer recognizable as such....

It is uncontested that the Coptic church has a sincerely held opposition to cremation on religious grounds. The next question, however, is whether judicial relief in favor of the families would substantially burden the Coptic church's exercise of its religious beliefs.... [W]e fail to see how a judicial order preventing the Coptic church from removing those remains would constitute government interference with that church's free exercise of religion rights. And it bears noting that the unilateral disinterment of the remains potentially might implicate the families' own free exercise of religion rights.

The court also concluded that allowing two parties who had purchased burial rights for their own remains to be buried in the churchyard next to remains of their families would not infringe the free exercise rights of the Coptic church:

[I]t simply would prevent the Coptic church from interfering with rights that the individuals themselves hold in the property. Nor has the Coptic church demonstrated that such a judicial order could be seen as compelling it to endorse cremation.

Today Is National Day Of Prayer

Yesterday President Biden issued a Proclamation (full text) declaring today to be National Day of Prayer. Federal law, 36 USC §169h, provides:

The President shall set aside and proclaim the first Thursday in May in each year as a National Day of Prayer, on which the people of the United States may turn to God in prayer and meditation at churches, in groups, and as individuals.

The President's Proclamation reads in part:

On this day, we recognize the healing power of prayer, especially as we recover from the trauma and loss of the COVID‑19 pandemic.  Today we find ourselves in a moment of renewal — of lives saved, of new jobs created, and of new hope for rebuilding America.  Today is also a moment of reflection when we are called to address some of the greatest challenges humanity has ever faced — saving our planet from the existential threat of climate change; responding to attacks on democracy at home and abroad; and living up to our Nation’s promise of liberty, justice, and equality for all.

Cert. Filed In Challenge To California's Extension Of Time To Bring Childhood Sex Assault Claims

A petition for certiorari (full text) was filed last month with the U.S. Supreme Court in Roman Catholic Bishop of Oakland v. Superior Court of the State of California,, (Docket No. 21-1377, filed 4/15/2022). In the case, 9 dioceses and archdioceses challenge California legislation that extended the limitation period for suits alleging childhood sexual assault to plaintiff’s 40th birthday or 5 years after discovery; created a 3-year window to bring previously time-barred civil actions for for childhood sexual assault; and provided for treble damages in cover-up cases. National Catholic Register reports on the cert. petition.

Satanic Temple Wants Its Flag To Be Raised At Boston City Hall

In the wake of the Supreme Court's decision earlier this week in Shurtleff v. City of Boston holding that Boston should have allowed Camp Constitution to  briefly fly a Christian flag on a flag pole outside city hall, The Satanic Temple has asked Boston for similar treatment.  AP reports:

The Salem-based group tweeted a request filed Tuesday with the city property management department to raise a flag marking “Satanic Appreciation Week” from July 23-29....

Lucien Greaves, the organization’s co-founder, said in an email Wednesday that the group wants to show that religious liberty must mean respect for “all forms” of religious practice and religious opinion.

Adventist School Sues Over Refusal Of Tournament To Accommodate Its Sabbath Observance

Suit was filed this week in an Alabama federal district court against the Alabama High School Athletic Association (AHSAA) by the Seventh Day Adventist Oakwood Academy that was forced to forfeit its further participation in this year's high school basketball championship tournament because the AHSAA refused to move the time of its game three hours later to permit the school to play without violating its Sabbath. The complaint (full text) in South Central Conference of Seventh Day Adventists v. Alabama High School Athletic Association, (MD AL, filed 5/3/2022), contends that the refusal to accommodate its religious exercise violated the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses of the 1st Amendment. Al.com reports on the lawsuit.

European Court Says Belgium Can Protect Religion and Religious Beliefs Of Employees

In LF v. SCRL, (CJEU, April 28, 2022), the Advocate General of the Court of Justice of the European Union issued a recommended answer to a question referred to it by the Brussels (Belgium) Labor Court.  At issue was whether a provision in Belgian law giving special protection to "religious or philosophical belief" of employees is consistent with European Council Directive 2000/78 on equal treatment in  employment. The Directive allows countries to enact laws that are more protective than those set out in the Directive. The Advocate General concluded that Belgium could give special protection to "religion and religious beliefs" but not just to "religious or philosophical beliefs" since those are not separately protected categories. The question arose in a case in which a Muslim woman was not offered an internship for which she interviewed because she insisted on wearing a hijab or other head covering in violation of the employer's rule that employees not wear clothing that expresses their religious, philosophical or political beliefs. [Thanks to Law & Religion UK for the lead.]

Asatru Inmate Loses RLUIPA and Equal Protection Challenges

In Watkinson v. Alaska Department of Corrections, (9th Cir., May 2, 2022), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held that Alaska did not violate the rights of a prisoner who was a practitioner of Asatru when it prevented him from using firewood purchased through the Prison Welfare Fund (PWF) for religious purposes, and when it did not allow use of the Prison Welfare Fund for inmates to pool funds to purchase juice and honey in bulk. The court said in part:

RLUIPA does not require a state to facilitate or subsidize the exercise of religion or pay for devotional accessories.... ADOC policies do not deny Plaintiff access to any item necessary for his religious ceremonies, and Plaintiff may procure all necessary items without access to the PWF. Defendants’ policies thus did not substantially burden the exercise of Plaintiff’s religious practice...

The court also rejected plaintiff's 1st Amendment claim.  In addition it rejected his Equal Protection claim, even though prison authorities allowed a Native American cultural group to use PWF-purchased firewood at the prison sweat lodge. According to the court:

The prison director testified that the groups are not similarly situated because the sweat lodge is a cultural rather than a religious activity.

Scientology Sued By Plaintiffs Alleging Years Of Abuse As Children

Suit was filed in a Florida federal district court last week under the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act against the Church of Scientology by three plaintiffs who allege that they were abused by Scientology as children.  The 90-page complaint (full text) in Baxter v. Miscavige, (MD FL, filed 4/28/2022), alleges in part:

As children, all three Plaintiffs grew up in, and were raised by Scientology. This was not a peaceful or loving environment; instead, it was a world filled with abuse, violence, intimidation, and fear. Defendants considered Plaintiffs to be possessions, void of any rights, whose sole purpose was to serve Defendants. Plaintiffs were placed on a ship they could not leave and routinely punished by being humiliated, interrogated, and imprisoned, for the sole purpose of ensuring Plaintiffs would continue to perform back breaking free labor for the Defendants.

Wonkette reports on the lawsuit.

Suit Challenges Ohio's Health Care Conscience Law

Suit was filed last week in an Ohio state trial court challenging ORC §4743.10 which allows health care practitioners, hospitals and insurers to refuse to participate any health care service that violates teir conscience as informed by the moral, ethical, or religious beliefs or principles they hold. The suit was filed by a community health care system that provides services to the LGBTQ+ community.  The complaint (full text) in Equitas Health v. State of Ohio, (OH Com. Pl., filed 4/29/2022) contends that the law violates the Ohio constitution in that it is void for vagueness and violates the single-subject rule for legislation.  The provision was inserted into last year's 2400-page budget bill. News5Cleveland reports on the lawsuit.

Preliminary Injunction Denied To Navy SEAL With Religious Objection To COVID Vaccines

 In Navy SEAL 1 v. Austin, (D DC, April 29, 2022), a DC federal district court refused to grant a preliminary injunction to bar discharge or other adverse action against a Navy SEAL who refuses for religious reasons to comply with the military's COVID-19 vaccine mandate.  The court said that plaintiff does not face imminent discharge because another federal district court has issued a class-wide injunction against that. As to other adverse action, the court said in part:

As currently pled, there are a plethora of weaknesses in Plaintiff’s claims that counsel against preliminary relief. First, there appears to be a serious question as to whether Plaintiff’s claims are justiciable, because they require the Court both to evaluate the merits of military expertise and to weigh technical issues of public health and immunology based on novel science that remains unfixed as the current COVID-19 pandemic turns endemic. Second, the Court is concerned that the record as it currently stands does not properly resolve whether mandatory vaccination is the least restrictive means as to Plaintiff to accomplish the Government’s interest in force readiness and national security more broadly. That fault permeates Plaintiff’s RFRA claim, Free Exercise claim, and Equal Protection claim. Taken together, the Court concludes these issues militate against preliminary relief at this early stage of the case.

Draft SCOTUS Opinion Overruling Roe v. Wade Is Leaked To The Press

Benefitting from an apparently unprecedented breach of Supreme Court confidentiality, Politico has obtained and published the first draft of a 67-page (plus Appendix) majority opinion written by Justice Alito in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization.  The draft opinion (full text) overrules Roe v. Wade.  It reads in part:

We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled. The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision, including the one on which the defenders of Roe and Casey now chiefly rely-- the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. That provision has been held to guarantee some rights that are not mentioned in the Constitution, but any such right must be "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition" and "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty."...

The right to abortion does not fall within this category.

The draft opinion goes on to discuss the standards that should apply to challenges of state laws limiting abortion, saying in part:

Under our precedents, rational basis review is the appropriate standard for such challenges.... It must be sustained if there is a rational basis on which the legislature could have thought that it would serve legitimate state interests.... These legitimate interests include respect for and preservation of prenatal life at all stages of development, ... the mitigation of fetal pain; and the prevention of discrimination on the basis of race, sex, or disability.

Unanimous Supreme Court Says Boston Violated Free Speech Clause In Barring Christian Flag Outside City Hall

In Shurtleff v. City of Boston, (Sup.Ct., May 2, 2022), the U.S. Supreme Court held unanimously that Boston violated the free speech rights of Camp Constitution when it refused to allow it to briefly fly a Christian flag on a third flagpole outside city hall which private groups have used to fly flags of their choice for ceremonies. In the past, the city had approved some 50 different flags and had never before refused a request. Boston contended that the flag was government speech and cited Establishment Clause concerns in barring the Christian flag. The Court rejected that contention, saying in part:

We conclude that, on balance, Boston did not make the raising and flying of private groups’ flags a form of government speech. That means, in turn, that Boston’s refusal to let Shurtleff and Camp Constitution raise their flag based on its religious viewpoint “abridg[ed]” their “freedom of speech.”

Justice Breyer wrote the majority opinion which was joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, Kavanaugh and Barrett. Justice Kavanaugh also filed a concurring opinion. Justice Alito, joined by Justices Thomas and Gorsuch filed an opinion concurring only in the judgment, saying in part:

...I cannot go along with the Court’s decision to analyze this case in terms of the triad of factors—history, the public’s perception of who is speaking, and the extent to which the government has exercised control over speech.... [T]reating those factors as a test obscures the real question in government-speech cases: whether the government is speaking instead of regulating private expression.

Justice Gorsuch, joined by Justice Thomas, filed a concurring opinion saying in part:

Not a single Member of the Court seeks to defend Boston’s view that a municipal policy allowing all groups to fly their flags, secular and religious alike, would offend the Establishment Clause.

How did the city get it so wrong? To be fair, at least some of the blame belongs here and traces back to Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U. S. 602 (1971)....

To justify a policy that discriminated against religion, Boston sought to drag Lemon once more from its grave. It was a strategy as risky as it was unsound. Lemon ignored the original meaning of the Establishment Clause, it disregarded mountains of precedent, and it substituted a serious constitutional inquiry with a guessing game. This Court long ago interred Lemon, and it is past time for local officials and lower courts to let it lie.