Michigan Supreme Court Affirms Narrow Reading of "No-Aid" Clause

In Council of Organizations and Others for Education About Parochiaid v. State of Michigan, (MI Sup. Ct., Dec. 28, 2020), the Michigan Supreme Court by an evenly divided 3-3 decision affirmed a state Court of Appeals decision holding that there are no state or federal constitutional bars to state reimbursement of private and parochial schools for the costs they incur in complying with state health, safety, and welfare mandates such as state asbestos regulations and vehicle inspections. At issue was whether the no-aid provision of Art. 8 Sec. 2 of the Michigan Constitution only bars aid for educational services, or whether it also covers other reimbursements to non-public schools. Detroit News reports on the decision.

2nd Circuit Invalidates New York's Fixed Capacity Limits For Houses of Worship

Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court in a widely noted decision enjoined while appeals are pending New York's 10 and 25 person occupancy limits on houses of worship in red and orange zones of high COVID infections. (See prior posting.) Now the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals has come down with a decision in that pending appeal.  In Agudath Israel of America v. Cuomo, (2nd Cir., Dec. 28, 2020), (in a decision that also covers the suit brought by the Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn), the court held that these limits imposed on houses of worship are subject to strict scrutiny, and that they are not narrowly tailored to stem the spread of COVID-19. It remanded the cases to the district court, instructing it to issue a preliminary injunction. It also ordered the district court to determine in the first instance whether alternative limits in the governor's Order of 25% and 33% of capacity can satisfy strict scrutiny. In reaching its conclusion, the court said in part:

[T]he [Governor's] Order does not impose generally applicable public-health guidelines, like requiring masks and distancing or limiting capacity by time. Instead, the Governor has selected some businesses (such as news media, financial services, certain retail stores, and construction) for favorable treatment, calling them “essential,” while imposing greater restrictions on “non-essential” activities and religious worship. That lack of general applicability is also subject to strict scrutiny.

Further, although the Governor asserts that “all” activities not restricted by the Order present lesser risks of COVID-19 transmission than religious worship, he has never claimed that the unrestricted category of “essential” activities was created based on transmission risk. Instead, “[t]he only explanation for treating religious places differently seems to be a judgment that what happens there just isn’t as ‘essential’ as what happens in secular spaces.”

Reuters reports on the decision.

Indiana Fetal Tissue Disposition Law Challenged Again

Suit was filed last week in an Indiana federal district court challenging the constitutionality of Indiana's statutes that require healthcare facilities to dispose of embryonic and fetal tissue from abortions and miscarriages by burial or cremation, regardless of patients’ wishes. The complaint (full text) in Jane Doe No. 1. v. Attorney General of Indiana, (SD IN, filed 12/21/2020), alleges in part:

The Tissue Disposition Laws violate fundamental tenets of the First and Fourteenth Amendments by compelling abortion and miscarriage patients—and their healthcare providers— to act in accordance with the State’s view of personhood—namely, that an embryo is the ontological and spiritual equivalent of a person—regardless of their own opinions about the status of developing human life. Indiana’s effort to create orthodoxy on a deeply polarizing issue that implicates the most profound aspects of religion, culture, and ideology is constitutionally prohibited.

The U.S. Supreme Court in 2019 (without hearing oral argument) upheld the Indiana tissue disposition laws in a case which did not raise the constitutional challenges put forward in this complaint. (See prior posting.) Christian Headlines reports on last week's filing.

Court Refuses To Enjoin Mask Requirement For Religious School Students

In Resurrection School v. Gordon, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 242315 (WD MI, Dec. 16, 2020), a Michigan federal district court refused to issue a preliminary injunction sought by parents of Catholic school children to eliminate the COVID face covering requirement for children attending K through Grade 5 at religious schools. Parents contend that the requirement interferes with the free exercise of the students' religion. Rejecting that claim, the court said in part:

The order is clear: individuals over the age of five must wear a mask when they are out in public. Therefore, given the near-universal mask requirement, the Court finds nothing in the contours of the order at issue that correlate to religion, and finds that the order "cannot be plausibly read to contain even a hint of hostility towards religion." ... The Court finds that the challenged face-mask requirement is neutral and generally applicable. Any burden on Plaintiffs' religious practices is incidental, and therefore, the orders are not subject to strict scrutiny.... Plaintiffs have failed to establish a liklihood of success on the merits of their First Amendment claim.

Recent Articles of Interest

 From SSRN:

• Alberto Alemanno & Nicolas Michel de Sadeleer, Humanising Animal Slaughter Need Not Infringe Religious Freedom (Amicus Curiae Brief in C-336/19 Centraal Israëlitisch Consistorie Van België and Others),(October 21, 2020).
• Daniel Figueroa, Diminishing Religious Liberties: COVID Under the First Amendment, (December 22, 2020).
• Alexandre Godoy Dotta, Vulnerability of Public Policies to the LGBT+ Community and Judializaction of Fundamental Rights Guaranteed by the Constitution of the Federative Republic of Brazil 1988, (November 25, 2020).
• Laura D. Hermer, COVID-19, Abortion, and Public Health in the Culture Wars, (Mitchell Hamline Law Review, Vol. 47 (2020)).
• Leonore Carpenter, Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, and its Effect on Pennsylvania's LGBTQ Community, (91 Pa. B.A. Q. 103 (2020)).
• Michael Kopel & Marco A. Marini, Mandatory Disclosure of Managerial Contracts in Nonprofit Organizations, (FEEM Working Paper No. 26 (2020)).

From SmartCILP:

• Robert F. Cochran, Jr., Lawyers, Religious Faith, and Virtues: Reflections on Tom and Nancy Shaffer, (10 St. Mary's Journal on Legal Malpractice & Ethics xviii-xxvii (2019)).
• Russell G. Pearce, A Jewish Perspective on Tom Shaffer: Zecher Tzadik Livracha (May the Memory of the Righteous Be a Blessing), 10 St. Mary's Journal on Legal Malpractice & Ethics liv-lxii (2019).
• Rene Reyes, Masterpiece Cakeshop and Ashers Baking Company: A Comparative Analysis of Constitutional Confections, 16 Stanford Journal of Civil Rights & Civil Liberties 113-146 (2020).
• Frank S. Ravitch, Complicity and Discrimination, [Abstract], 69 Syracuse Law Review 491-542 (2019).
• Emilie Kao & Monica G. Burke, Masterpiece Cakeshop and Authentic Pluralism in a Post-Obergefell World, 24 Texas Review of Law & Policy 97-134 (2019).

Top 10 Religious Liberty and Church State Developments of 2020

Each year in December, I attempt to pick the most important church-state and religious liberty developments of the past year-- including developments internationally in the mix.  My choices are based on the importance of the pick to law or policy, regardless of whether the development has garnered significant media attention. The selection of top stories obviously involves a good deal of subjective judgment, and I welcome e-mail comment from those who disagree with my choices.  So here are my Top Ten picks-- as one of the most unusual years we have all experienced comes to an end:

(1) Challenges by houses of worship and religious schools to the  limits imposed on them by COVID-19 health orders dominated much of the year. Numerous state and federal courts, including the Supreme Court were called upon to balance free exercise rights against the life and health of community members.

(2) The death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and confirmation of Justice Amy Coney Barrett to take her seat on the Supreme Court promised to continue the Court's movement toward expanded free exercise rights.

(3) The U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia held that the provision of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act which prohibits discrimination in employment "because of sex" protects gay, lesbian and transgender individuals.

(4) The Supreme Court in Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, held that Montana's exclusion of religious schools from its scholarship tax credit program violates the Free Exercise clause of the U.S. Constitution.

(5)  In June Medical Services L.L.C. v. Russo, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Louisiana's law that requires doctors at abortion clinics to hold active admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of the clinic.

(6) The Court of Justice of the European Court upheld a law enacted in Belgium's Flemish region that effectively bans Halal and Kosher Slaughter.

(7) The U.S. Supreme Court in Tanzin v. Tanvir held that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act permits suits for damages against federal officials in their individual capacities.

(8) The Department of Health and Human Services adopted a final rule that rolled back health care anti-discrimination coverage in federally supported services. The prior rules protected transgender individuals and those who had accessed abortion services.

(9) In Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru, the U.S. Supreme Court held that two elementary school teachers in separate Catholic schools are covered by the "ministerial exception" so that they cannot sue for employment discrimination.

(10) The U.S. Supreme Court in Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v. Pennsylvania rejected challenges to the Trump Administration's expanded conscience exemptions from the Affordable Care Act's contraceptive coverage mandate.

President and First Lady Issue Christmas Greetings Via Video

President Trump and First Lady Melania Trump issued Christmas greetings in a video posted to the President's Twitter account yesterday.

Universal Life Church Can Move Ahead In Challenge To Tennessee Ban On Marriages By Those Ordained Online

 In Universal Life Church Monastery Storehouse v. Nabors, (MD TN, Dec. 22. 2020), a Tennessee federal district court held that the Universal Life Church and two of its ministers have standing to challenge Tennessee's ban on solemnization of marriages by clergy who received online ordination. It also held that the state Attorney General, District Attorney Generals and County Clerks (but not the Governor) are proper defendants.

Appellate Court Upholds New York City Measles Vaccination Order

 In C.F. v. New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, (App. Div., Dec. 23, 2020), a New York state appellate court upheld New York City's 2019 Order requiring everyone residing in certain areas of Brooklyn to be vaccinated against measles. An outbreak of the disease had occurred in that area. The court said in part:

The resolution was within the authority of the Board of Health of the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene to make and the resolution itself did not violate any right of the petitioners, including their freedom of religion....

The petitioners profess to hold religious beliefs that hold that a healthy body should not assimilate foreign objects, including vaccine ingredients...

While there are recent decisions of the United States Supreme Court which have reflected a greater solicitude to claims for religious exemptions from neutral, generally applicable laws than had previously been articulated (see e.g. Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter & Paul Home v Pennsylvania...; Burwell v Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc....), those cases were not decided under the First Amendment, but under the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993....

The petitioners rely on language from Justice Gorsuch's concurrence in Masterpiece Cakeshop, joined by Justice Alito, which characterized the Smith rule as "controversial in many quarters".... While it is certainly conceivable that the United States Supreme Court may, in some future case, reconsider the standard for addressing a religious objector's challenge to neutrally applicable laws, we are bound to apply the constitutional principles as they now exist, rather than engage in a projection as to what principles may evolve in the future....

We believe that the Free Exercise Clause does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a valid and neutral law of general applicability, even if the law has the incidental effect of burdening a particular religious practice.

Court Again Refuses To Enjoin California's COVID Limits On Church Services

In a case in which the U.S. Supreme Court previously refused to grant injunctive relief, a California federal district court again denied a preliminary injunction against California's COVID orders to a church seeking to hold indoor services. In South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom, (SD CA, Dec. 21, 2020), the court said in part:

In drawing this difficult balance between religious liberty and public health, the Court must follow the higher courts’ precedents, when the precedents seem to change course as quickly as the various pandemic restrictions. Admittedly, this has been a rapidly evolving—and escalating—pandemic. And in this very case, the Supreme Court declined to intervene after the Court refused to enjoin California’s prior regulation. Now, by all measures, the pandemic is worse and more out of control in Southern California than when that decision was made. Nevertheless, the Court is tasked with deciding whether Chief Justice Roberts’ rationale for not intervening in this case has now “expired,” as Justice Gorsuch’s recent concurrence in another case suggests. See Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo...

California has carefully designed the different exemptions to match its goal of reducing community spread, based on a neutral, seven-factor risk analysis. The Court does not find that California’s Regional Stay at Home Order is underinclusive as to exceed the boundaries drawn by the First Amendment. Therefore, based on the record before the Court, Plaintiffs are not likely to show that the Regional Stay at Home Order restricts more than is necessary to advance the California’s compelling interest in reducing community spread.

Fox5 News reports on the decision.

1st Circuit: Church's Appeal of TRO Denial Is Dismissed

 In Calvary Chapel of Bangor v. Mills, (1st Cir., Dec. 22, 2020), the U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed a church's interlocutory appeal of the district court's denial of a temporary restraining order against enforcement of the Maine governor's COVID Orders that prohibited the gathering of more than ten people for faith-based events. The court concluded that denial of a temporary restraining order-- before the district court rules on a preliminary injunction request-- here is not appealable, even though both parties contended that this case fell within an exception to that rule.  The court said in part:

The Chapel contends that the district court's decision to deny it a temporary restraining order functionally precluded any possibility of a preliminary injunction. This contention elevates hope over reason....

... [T]he absence of immediate appealability — like the denial of the temporary restraining order itself — will not cause serious harm. Given the gravity of the situation and the fact that events remained in flux, we discern no sufficient basis for finding that the Chapel can satisfy the second of the three requirements for immediate appealability of a temporary restraining order. In this regard, we deem it important that the Chapel retained other means to organize worship services for its congregants, including the sponsorship of online worship services, the holding of drive-in services, and the hosting of gatherings of ten or fewer people.

6th Circuit Refuses Injunction Pending Appeal Of Religious School Closure Order

 In Pleasant View Baptist Church v. Beshear, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 40077 (6th Cir., Dec. 21, 2020), the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals refused to issue a preliminary injunction pending appeal of a COVID Order by the Kentucky governor which, among other things, barred in-person instruction in  religious schools until January 4. The court said that the Order was about to expire of its own terms. Judge Donald filed a concurring opinion which expressed concern with one of plaintiff's arguments:

Fundamental to Christian School Plaintiffs' argument in this emergency appeal is that under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, EO 2020-969 burdens their "hybrid rights." That is, the order burdens both their Free Exercise rights and other constitutional rights, a combination that, they contend, triggers an exception to Smith and subjects even neutral laws of general applicability to strict scrutiny....

We have had no reason to re-consider our view that Smith's discussion of "hybrid rights" was anything but dicta.

The Constitution is not a mixing bowl for rights that when considered in the aggregate are entitled to a higher level of scrutiny compared to when those exact same rights are viewed in isolation.

... I provide the foregoing analysis ... to highlight what I see as a troubling trend in the use of the Court's emergency docket....

I do not see an emergency appeal as the proper forum to advocate for abrupt and sweeping change to well-settled federal law.

On Remand From SCOTUS, California COVID Limits On Worship Services Again Upheld

In Harvest Rock Church, Inc. v. Newsom, (CD CA, Dec. 21, 2020), a California federal district court, in a case on remand from the U.S. Supreme Court, upheld California's COVID restrictions on houses of worship. The Supreme Court had called for reconsideration in light of its recent decision in Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo. The district court, distinguishing both Supreme Court and 9th Circuit cases, said in part:

The law remains that courts must first assess whether a law is “neutral or generally applicable.” Smith, 494 U.S. at 881. The Court finds that California’s Blueprint is. The Blueprint offers something the New York and Nevada Orders did not: the ability to legally congregate in unlimited numbers for worship—so long as that worship occurs outside. In so doing, the Blueprint treats religious activity better than comparable secular activity and even better than essential services. This is distinct from both the New York and Nevada restrictions and compels the conclusion that the Blueprint is neutral....

California’s Blueprint is also painstakingly tailored to address the risks of Covid-19 transmission specifically....

The First Amendment has not taken a sabbatical. Californians may still worship, attend services, pray, and otherwise exercise their religious freedoms. They just may not do so in ways that significantly increase the likelihood of transmission of a virus which has claimed more than three hundred thousand American lives in less than one year. The Constitution is not a suicide pact. The First Amendment may not be used to make it one.

Courthouse News Service reports on the decision.

UPDATE: Over the objection of Judge O'Scannlain, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in Harvest Rock Church, Inc. v. Newsom, (9th Cir., Dec. 23, 2020), set a briefing schedule for the Church's motion for an injunction pending appeal that failed to grant temporary relief by Christmas.

New Hampshire Supreme Court Says State Constitution Requires Strict Scrutiny of Free Exercise Infringements

In State of New Hampshire v. Mack, (NH Sup. Ct., Dec.  22, 2020), the New Hampshire Supreme Court held that the state Constitution's elaborate guarantee of free exercise of religion so long as one does not "disturb the public peace" should be read to require strict scrutiny.  The court vacated a trial court's refusal to dismiss a drug prosecution brought against defendant who was a member of the Oklevueha Native American Church. Defendant was convicted of possession of psilocyn and psilocybin for use in religious rituals. The court concluded that the state constitution gives greater free exercise protection against burdens from neutral generally applicable laws than does the U.S. Constitution under the Smith case. The court said in part:

We ... conclude that when religious practices violate a generally applicable law, our State Constitution ... demands that “there . . . be a balancing of [the] competing interests.” ...  [W]e choose to adhere to our traditional formulation of strict judicial scrutiny — requiring the State to demonstrate that its action is “necessary to achieve a compelling governmental interest and narrowly tailored to meet that end.” ... Accordingly, under Part I, Article 5, once an individual establishes that the government action substantially burdens his or her sincere religious practice, ... the burden shifts to the State to show both that the government action is necessary to achieve a compelling government interest, and is narrowly tailored to meet that end....

The Union Leader reports on the decision.

Catholic Schools' Suit Against COVID Closings Is Moot

In Michigan Association of Non-Public Schools v. Gordon, (WD MI, Dec. 21, 2020), a Michigan federal district court dismissed as moot a challenge to Michigan's COVID-19 Order temporarily closing all high schools to in-person learning. The suit, brought by a group of Catholic schools, claimed that the Order violated their 1st and 14th Amendment rights. That Order expired on Dec. 20 and a new Order now allows high schools to reopen. Detroit Free Press reports on the decision.

Massive Tax and Spending Bill Passed By Congress Includes Issues of Interest on Religion

As reported by the Washington Post, the House and Senate yesterday evening both passed a wide-ranging 5,593-page government funding and pandemic economic relief bill after Congressional leaders finally reached a compromise on the legislation. The bill now goes to the President for his signature.

Here is the full text of the bill, titled Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021. Demonstrating the vast array of topics included in the bill are two unrelated provisions of particular interest to those who follow law and religion issues. The first makes it clear that churches and religious organizations can be eligible to participate in the Paycheck Protection Program Loans program:

SEC. 311. PAYCHECK PROTECTION PROGRAM SECOND DRAW LOANS ...

c) ELIGIBLE CHURCHES AND RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS

(1) SENSE OF CONGRESS.—It is the sense of Congress that the interim final rule of the Administration entitled ‘‘Business Loan Program Temporary Changes; Paycheck Protection Program’’ (85 Fed. 11 Reg. 20817 (April 15, 2020)) properly clarified the eligibility of churches and religious organizations for loans made under paragraph (36) of section 7(a) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 636(a)).

(2) APPLICABILITY OF PROHIBITION.—The prohibition on eligibility established by section 120.110(k) of title 13, Code of Federal Regulations, or any successor regulation, shall not apply to a loan under paragraph (36) of section 7(a) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 636(a)).

The second provision of interest is Subtitle E, Tibetan Policy and Support Act of 2020, which among other things focuses on religious persecution in Tibet. It provides in part:

SEC. 342. STATEMENT OF POLICY REGARDING THE SUCCESSION OR REINCARNATION OF THE DALAI LAMA....

(b) STATEMENT OF POLICY.—It is the policy of the United States that—

(1) decisions regarding the selection, education, and veneration of Tibetan Buddhist religious leaders are exclusively spiritual matters that should be made by the appropriate religious authorities within the Tibetan Buddhist tradition and in the context of the will of practitioners of Tibetan Buddhism;

(2) the wishes of the 14th Dalai Lama, including any written instructions, should play a key role in the selection, education, and veneration of a future 15th Dalai Lama; and

(3) interference by the Government of the People’s Republic of China or any other government in the process of recognizing a successor or reincarnation of the 14th Dalai Lama and any future Dalai Lamas would represent a clear abuse of the right to religious freedom of Tibetan Buddhists and the Tibetan people.

(c) HOLDING CHINESE OFFICIALS RESPONSIBLE FOR RELIGIOUS FREEDOM ABUSES TARGETING TIBETAN BUDDHISTS.—It is the policy of the United States to take all appropriate measures to hold accountable senior officials of the Government of the People’s Republic of China or the Chinese Communist Party who directly interfere with the identification and installation of the future 15th Dalai Lama of Tibetan Buddhism, successor to the 14th Dalai Lama, including by—

(1) imposing sanctions pursuant to the Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act (22 U.S.C. 2656 note); and

(2) prohibiting admission to the United States under section 212(a)(2)(G) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(2)(G)).

Recent Articles and Books of Interest

 From SSRN:

• Daniel Peterson, The Majelis Ulama Indonesia and its Role in the Ahok Conviction, (Australian Journal of Asian Law, Vol. 21, No. 1, Article 6, 2020).
• Steven K. Green, No Aid, No Agency, (William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal, Forthcoming).
• Steven K. Green, The 'Irrelevance' of Church-State Separation in the Twenty-First Century, (Syracuse Law Review, Vol. 69, 2019).
• Steven K. Green The Legal Ramifications of Christian Nationalism, (Roger Williams University Law Review, Forthcoming).
• Christopher R. Green, What Has Athens to Do With Philadelphia,(September 30, 2020).
• Gary J. Simson, The Uncertain Good of Overruling Employment Division v. Smith, (Emory University Canopy Forum on the Interactions of Law and Religion, 2020).
• Jennifer Levi & Kevin M. Barry, Transgender Tropes & Constitutional Review, (Yale Law & Policy Review, Vol. 37, p. 589, 2019).
• Ferry Muhammadsyah Siregar & Oman Fathurohman, Religious Leader, Tafsir, and Salafism in Indonesia: The Role of Religious Leader in the Study of Tafsir in Pesantren Salafi in Java, (September 18, 2020).

From SmartCILP:

• Nancy J. Whitmore, Extending the Roberts Court's Affirmation of Individual Expressive Rights to the First Amendment Claim in Masterpiece Cakeshop, [Abstract], 12 Elon Law Review 105-136 (2020).

Recent and Forthcoming Books:

• Robert F. Cochran, Jr. & Michael P. Moreland, Christianity and Private Law, (Routledge, Nov. 22, 2020) (Reviewed at Canopy Forum).
• Jack N. Rakove, Beyond Belief, Beyond Conscience-- The Radical Significance of the Free Exercise of Religion, (Oxford University Press, Aug. 3, 2020).
• Dvora Hacohen, To Repair a Broken World-- The Life of Henrietta Szold, Founder of Hadassah, (Harvard University Press, May 11, 2021).

Federal Court Refuses To Enjoin State COVID Enforcement Proceedings Against Church

In Calvary Chapel San Jose v. Cody, (ND CA, Dec. 18, 2020), a California federal district court, applying the Younger abstention doctrine, refused to issue a temporary restraining order against state court proceedings enforcing a state court's preliminary injunction against a church. The church "blatantly flouted" COVID restrictions on worship service, continuing to hold indoor services for large numbers of worshipers without effectively enforcing mask or social distancing requirements. In refusing the TRO, the court said in part:

Our Federalism properly places this dispute in the more-than-capable hands of the Santa Clara County Superior Court.

Courthouse News Service reports on the decision.

Suit By Fired Parish Office Manager Dismissed On Ecclesiastical Abstention Grounds

In Napolitano v. St. Joseph Catholic Church, (FL App., Dec. 18, 2020), a Florida state appellate court dismissed on ecclesiastical abstention grounds a suit by a church parish's office manager. At issue was whether a new parish priest could fire the office manager after the prior priest, just before his ouster, had on behalf of the parish entered a 4-year contract with the office manager. In affirming the trial court's dismissal of the case, the court said in part:

At the heart of the dispute between Napolitano and the Church Defendants is whether Father Brown had the authority under Canon Law to obligate successor administrations of St. Joseph to retain his chosen employees. Simply put, Napolitano has requested that a secular court examine a hierarchical religious organization and determine who has the authority to speak and act on its behalf. Whether based on actual or apparent authority, Napolitano’s request would require a court to impermissibly wade into ecclesiastical polity, in violation of the First Amendment....

Whether Father Brown had the actual or apparent authority to form the employment agreement and bind St. Joseph and the Diocese, even after his removal, is a quintessentially religious controversy—one that would require judicial inquiry into internal church matters—and constitutes a subject matter of which secular courts lack jurisdiction.

DOJ Sues Vermont Hospital For Violating Church Amendments

The Justice Department announced this week that it filed suit in a Vermont federal district court against the University of Vermont Medical Center for violating the Church Amendments that protect medical workers from being required to assist with abortions in violation of their religious or moral convictions. The complaint (full text) in United States v. University of Vermont Medical Center, (D VT, filed 12/16/2020) alleges in part:

Defendant has scheduled conscience objectors, including nurses, to assist with elective abortions despite specific and repeated requests from those personnel not to be assigned to elective abortions because of their religious beliefs or moral convictions. Moreover, Defendant has repeatedly assigned conscience objectors to participate in elective abortions without giving advance notice of the nature of the procedure.