Christian Counselor Challenges City's Conversion Therapy Ban

Suit was filed yesterday in a Wisconsin federal district court challenging the city of La Crosse's ordinance that prohibits medical and mental health professionals from engaging in conversion therapy with anyone under 18 years of age. The complaint (full text) in Buchman v. City of La Crosse, (WD WI, filed 10/13/2022), alleges that the ban on counseling minors to change their sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression or behaviors violates free speech and free exercise rights of plaintiff, a licensed counselor who approaches counseling through "a Christ-centered lens". It also alleges that the ban is unconstitutionally vague and violates the Wisconsin Constitution's protection of the right of conscience. The complaint says in part:

The Ordinance thus interferes with Ms. Buchman’s ability to decide matters of faith and doctrine for herself and to then infuse her work with these religious beliefs. It attempts to dictate and influence Ms. Buchman’s resolution of those matters. It forces her to choose between her faith and government penalty.

Wisconsin Spotlight reports on the lawsuit.

Anti-Abortion Sidewalk Counselor Challenges Sign Permit Requirement

Suit was filed this week in a Maryland federal district court alleging that Baltimore's sign permit ordinance violates plaintiff's free speech and free exercise rights. The complaint (full text) in Roswell v. City of Baltimore, (D MD, filed 10/10/2022), seeks a preliminary injunction to prevent the city from requiring plaintiff to obtain permits in order to use A-frame signs when engaging in religiously-motivated sidewalk anti-abortion counseling at a Planned Parenthood facility. Thomas More Society issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Pre-School Teacher Sues After Being Fired For Her Stance On Same-Sex Marriage

A child-care employee who was fired by her employer for refusing to read to her pre-schoolers books that celebrate same-sex relationships has filed suit alleging religious discrimination, wrongful termination, harassment and retaliation. The complaint (full text) in Parisenkova v. Bright Horizons Children's Center, LLC, (CA Super. Ct., filed 10/13/2022), filed in a California state trial court, alleges that plaintiff's Christian religious beliefs prevent her from promoting messages that support same-sex marriage. After an initial informal accommodation, the school's director, who took personal offense at plaintiff's religious beliefs, refused to grant plaintiff a formal religious accommodation.  As a prelude to her dismissal, plaintiff was forced to leave the school building mid-day in extremely hot weather.  Plaintiff was terminated after she refused the requirement that she receive diversity awareness training. Thomas More Society issued a press release announcing the filing of the law suit.

Religious Questioning Of Muslim Travelers By Border Officers Upheld

In Kariye v. Mayorkas, (CD CA, Oct. 12, 2022), three Muslim plaintiffs sued the Department of Homeland Security alleging that border officers routinely and intentionally single out Muslim-American travelers to demand they answer religious questions. The court, in a 71-page opinion in its official format, first dismissed plaintiffs' Establishment Clause challenge. Applying the Supreme Court's test articulated in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, the court said in part:

The court finds substantial legal authority supporting the government's historically broad authority to implement security measures at the border.... Additionally, the court finds substantial authority holding that maintaining border security is a compelling government interest.

The court rejected plaintiffs' free exercise claim, finding that plaintiffs had not sufficiently alleged a substantial burden on their religious exercise. It additionally concluded that even if there was a substantial burden, officers' questioning was narrowly tailored to advance a compelling governmental interest in protecting borders and preventing potential terrorism.

The court also rejected freedom of association, retaliation, equal protection and RFRA challenges to practices of border officers.

Vaccine Objector Loses Challenge

In Marte v. Montefiore Medical Center, (SD NY, Oct. 12, 2022), a New York federal district court dismissed claims by a former Medical Center employee who sued after the Medical Center refused to provide her a reasonable accommodation when she refused to receive a COVID-19 vaccine which was required for all employees.  The court rejected her Title VII claim saying in part:

Plaintiff does not allege that she informed Defendant that she had a religious objection to the COVID-19 vaccination, or even that Defendant was aware that she has a religious objection to the vaccine; she pleads only that she told her employer she did not want the vaccine and asked for "a reasonable accommodation as defined by law." ... Defendant could not have discriminated against Plaintiff on the basis of her religious beliefs if Defendant was unaware of those beliefs....

Even if Plaintiff had pleaded a prima facie claim for religious discrimination, her argument is foreclosed by the Second Circuit's decision in We The Patriots. Defendant correctly argues that Plaintiff's requested accommodation would qualify as an undue hardship because it required Defendant to violate the law.

The court also rejected her free exercise, equal protection and other challenges.

8th Circuit: City Food Ordinance Did Not Violate Pastor's Free Speech Rights

In Redlich v. City of St. Louis, (8th Cir., Oct. 12, 2022), the U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of a suit brought by a Christian pastor and his assistant challenging a city ordinance that required a permit to distribute potentially hazardous food. Plaintiffs had previously been cited for distributing bologna sandwiches to hungry people they encountered in St. Louis. They contended that as applied to them, the ordinance violated their free speech rights. The court held that even assuming plaintiffs' actions amounted to expressive conduct, the ordinance furthers a substantial governmental interest and is narrowly tailored to that interest. It said in part:

Appellants would be required to pay a $50 fee for the permit at least two days in advance of their food-sharing activities and notify the City of both the time and place where the food would be distributed. These provisions ensure that health inspectors have an opportunity to determine whether the temporary food establishment is complying with the Ordinance.

Courthouse News Service reports on the decision.

New York Yeshivas Sue Over Substantial Equivalency Guidelines

In New York, a group of yeshivas and two organizations have sued challenging the state Board of Regents recently adopted guidelines implementing NY Education Law §3204(2) which requires instruction in nonpublic schools to be at least "substantially equivalent" to that in public schools in the same city or district. The complaint (full text) in In re Parents for Educational and Religious Liberty in Schools, (Albany County Sup. Ct., filed 10/9/2022), alleges in part:

... [T]he New York State Education  Department... has spent the last half decade seeking to impose greater requirements and heightened oversight on these schools than are imposed on other schools in New York, whether public or private....

First, the New Regulations violate the New York State Administrative Procedures Act ... because the public comment process was a sham.... Here, NYSED received more than 300,000 comments in opposition to the proposed regulations but did not truly consider them and did not make any substantive revisions....

Second, the New Regulations violate SAPA by imposing on yeshivas obligations and restrictions not found in other schools. Only yeshivas ... will be prohibited from offering instruction ... in a student’s home language....

Third, the New Regulations create an impermissible de facto licensing requirement through the review and determination process....

The New Regulations frustrate the Petitioners’ constitutionally protected rights to the free exercise of religion and free speech, and violate their due process rights and right to equal protection. 

Hamodia reports on the lawsuit.

Physician Assistant Sues Hospital That Fired Her Over Treatment Of Transgender Patients

 A suit was filed on Tuesday in a Michigan federal district court by a woman who had worked as a physician assistant for 17 years, but was then fired for refusing, on religious grounds, to refer patients for gender transitioning drugs and procedures and to use pronouns that correspond to a patient's gender identity rather than their biological sex. In a claim denied by the fired employee, it was also claimed she altered template pronouns on medical records.  The complaint (full text) in Kloosterman v. Metropolitan Hospital, (WD MI, filed 10/11/2022), alleges in part:

9. By exhibiting open hostility toward Ms. Kloosterman’s religious beliefs, University of Michigan Health-West officials violated the Free Exercise Clause.... 

10. By accommodating secular preferences while refusing to grant a religious accommodation to Ms. Kloosterman, University of Michigan Health-West’s actions trigger and fail strict scrutiny under the Free Exercise Clause.... 

11. By seeking to compel Ms. Kloosterman to speak biology-obscuring pronouns that would violate her conscience and her medical judgment, as doing so could cause patients to miss potentially life-saving screenings, University of Michigan Health-West also violated the Free Speech Clause.... 

12. When it engaged in the aforementioned actions and fired Ms. Kloosterman, University of Michigan Health-West also violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, as well as Article I, §§ 2, 4, and 5 of the Michigan Constitution and the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act of 1976....

First Liberty issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Certiorari Denied In Fetal Personhood Case

The U.S. Supreme Court today denied review in Doe v. McKee,  (Docket No. 22-201, certiorari denied 10/11/2022) (Order List). The certiorari petition  asked the Supreme Court to review a decision of the Rhode Island Supreme Court that held unborn fetuses do not have due process and equal protection rights under the U.S. Constitution and do not have standing to challenge Rhode Island's Reproductive Privacy Act which granted the right to abortions consistent with Roe v. Wade. CNN reports on the Court's action. [Thanks to Thomas Rutledge for the lead.]

Suit Challenges Kentucky Abortion Bans As Violating Jewish Religious Beliefs

Suit was filed last Thursday in a Kentucky state trial court by three Jewish women who contend that Kentucky's strict abortion bans violate their religious freedom rights. The complaint (full text) in Sobel v. Cameron, (KY Cir. Ct., filed 10/6/2022), alleges that Kentucky law might be read to make it a capital offense to discard excess embryos created in the process of in vitro fertilization. The complaint alleges in part:

35. Under Jewish law, a fetus does not become a human being or child until birth. Under no circumstances has Jewish law defined a human being or child as the moment that a human spermatozoon fuses with a human ovum.

36. The question of when life begins for a human being is a religious and philosophical question without universal beliefs across different religions....

39. Plaintiff’s religious beliefs demand that they have more children through IVF, yet the law forces Plaintiffs to spend exorbitant fees to keep their embryos frozen indefinitely or face potential felony charges. This dilemma forces Plaintiffs to abandon their sincere religious beliefs of having more children by limiting access to IVF and substantially burdens their right to freely exercise these sincerely held religious belief....

51. Kentucky's contemporary Abortion Law is focused on preservation of ova and blastocysts on the basis of a religious understanding of fetal personhood.....

The complaint alleges that Kentucky abortion laws are void for vagueness and unintelligibility; violate the Kentucky Religious Freedom Restoration Act; and violate the Kentucky Constitution by giving preference to sectarian Christianity and diminishing Plaintiffs' privileges, rights, and capacities on account of their Jewish faith and beliefs. Los Angeles Times reports on the lawsuit.

Recent Articles of Interest

 From SSRN:

• Hiram Sasser & Lea Patterson, The Religious Liberty Solution to Big Tech Censorship: How the Religious Freedom Restoration Act Limits Section 230 , (26 Tex. Rev. L. & Pol. 607 (2022)).
• Elizabeth Sepper & James David Nelson, Adolf Berle's Corporate Conscience, (45 Seattle University Law Review 97 (2021)).
• Björn Hoops & Karlijn van der Voort, Demolitions of Homes and Seizures of Land of the Bahá’í Minority in Iran: A (Constitutional) Property Law and International Law Perspective, (August 25, 2022).
• Gibson Ikanone, The Pathway to Religious Tolerance in Nigeria  (August 4, 2022).
• Roger Paul Alford, On Foxes and Hedgehogs: John Nagle’s Many Means to One Great End, (97 Notre Dame L. Rev. Reflection 87 (2022)).
• Nausica Palazzo, Comprehensive Security and LGBTQ Rights,  (Review of Faith and International Affairs, Vol. 20, 2022, Forthcoming).
• Peter J. Oliver, What Fundamental Rights, if Any, Should Companies Enjoy? A Comparative Perspective, (Revue européenne du droit, Issue 4 • Summer 2022).
• Pnina Lifshitz Aviram & Yehezkel Margalit, From Roe v. Wade to Dobbs v. Jackson – Between Women's Rights Discourse and Obligations Discourse, (Forthcoming, Health Matrix: Journal of Law-Medicine, Vol. 33, 2023).
• Imran A. Nyazee, Corporate Personality in Fiqh (Islamic Law),  October 4, 2022).

From SmartCILP:

• Jennifer Allison & Jonathan S. Hack, Yehi Shalom Be'Heylekh Shalvah Be'Armenotayikh': Beit Din Arbitration as a Model for Wholistic Dispute Resolution, 51 Cumberland Law Review 395-418 (2021).
• Yanay Israeli, The Requerimiento in the Old World: Making Demands and Keeping Records in the Legal Culture of Late Medieval Castile, 40 Law & History Review 37-62 (2022).
• Justin Marceau, Book Review. God's Law and Order: The Politics of Punishment in Evangelical America, by Aaron Griffith, [Abstract], 40 Law & History Review 167-170 (2022).

City's Harassment Of Private Prayer Services In Rabbi's Home Violated 1st Amendment

In Congregation 3401 Prairie Bais Yeshaya D'Kerestir, Inc. v. City of Miami, (SD FL, Oct. 6, 2022), a Florida federal district court refused to dismiss claims that city officials' harassment of a rabbi's home that hosted daily minyans (prayer services) for invited guests violated the 1st Amendment.  Private groups worshiping in a person's home are permitted in residential areas under the city's zoning code. The court said in part:

Defendant, wielding the City Code "like a club" ... issued multiple erroneous citations against Plaintiff for zoning code violations...; sent City personnel to the Property a staggering 126 times...; installed a surveillance camera that monitors only the Property ...; conducted at least one warrantless search...; and otherwise singled Plaintiffs out for harassment.... These events have had "a chilling effect on Plaintiff[s'] First Amendment Rights."... . Defendant's conduct, at least as alleged, could certainly "chill a person of ordinary firmness from exercising his or her First Amendment rights."  [Quote updated.]

Physicians Ask Arizona Court To Reconcile Competing Abortion Laws

In Arizona, a physician and the Arizona Medical Association have filed a declaratory judgment action in an Arizona trial court asking the court to clarify which of two competing laws on abortion is in effect in the state. The complaint (full text) in Isaacson v. State of Arizona, (AZ Super. Ct., filed 10/3/2022), explains:

3. Most recently, the Legislature passed, and Governor Ducey signed, a law permitting physicians to provide abortions through 15 weeks of pregnancy.... 

4. Since the Dobbs decision was issued on June 24, overturning Roe v. Wade, ... there has been significant confusion around the status of Arizona’s abortion laws, and specifically whether a near total criminal ban on abortion, A.R.S. § 13-3603 (the “Territorial Law”), that was enacted in 1901 but can be traced back to 1864, preempts dozens of existing abortion laws, including the 15-Week Law, and criminalizes otherwise legal, physician-provided abortion care. State officials with enforcement power have either refused to state which abortion laws take precedence or have taken inconsistent positions on the matter.

5. On July 13, 2022, the Arizona Attorney General filed a Rule 60(b) motion in the Pima County Superior Court seeking to lift an injunction of the Territorial Law that had been in place since 1973. On September 23, 2022, the Pima County Superior Court granted the Attorney General’s motion solely based on the decision in Dobbs overruling Roe v. Wade. The court declined to reconcile how the Territorial Law is to operate in harmony with Arizona’s more recent and much more robust statutory scheme governing physician-provided abortion care....

[Thanks to Courthouse News Service for the lead.]

Texas Federal District Court Invalidates HHS and EEOC Guidance On Application Of Bostock Decision

In State of Texas v. EEOC, (ND TX, Oct. 1, 2022), a Texas federal district court held that Guidance documents issued by the EEOC and by the Department of Health and Human Services are unlawful. It vacated and set aside the Guidance documents. At issue are the HHS and EEOC applications of the Supreme Court's Bostock decision. Bostock held that sex discrimination in Title VII includes discrimination because of sexual orientation or gender identity. The HHS Guidance interprets the Affordable Care Act, the Rehabilitation Act and the ADA to prohibit denial of gender-affirming care by healthcare providers. The Texas federal district court says that Bostock  only bars discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity status, and does not extend to discrimination based on conduct related to those statuses. The court concluded that the HHS Guidance is arbitrary and capricious because it misstates the law (in part by suggesting that gender dysphoria is a disability under the ADA) and does not detail what went into the Department's decision making. The court held that the EEOC violated procedural rules in issuing its Guidance. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton issued a press release reacting to the decision. Texas Tribune reports on the decision.

Alternatives For Employees With Religious Exemptions From Vaccination Are Not Discriminatory

In Dollar v. Goleta Water District, (CD CA, Oct. 3, 2022), a California federal district court held that the COVID vaccination policy for employees of the Goleta Water District did not discriminate on the basis of religion against employees who obtained a religious exemption. Plaintiffs contended that the District's policy is discriminatory because it imposes special mask and testing requirements and requires authorization to enter certain buildings for plaintiffs because they have a religious exemption. The court said in part:

[P]laintiffs have not alleged that employees who receive exemptions on religious grounds are treated any differently from employees who receive exemptions on non-religious grounds. Instead, plaintiffs have only alleged that the policy treats them differently from other employees because of their vaccination status, not because of their religion.

School Counselor's Employment Agreement Sufficient To Invoke Ministerial Exception Doctrine

In Fitzgerald v. Roncalli High School, Inc., (SD IN Sept. 30, 2022), an Indiana federal district court invoked the ministerial exception doctrine to dismiss a suit brought by Michelle Fitzgerald, a Catholic high school guidance counselor who was fired after the school and the church that oversaw it learned that she was in a same-sex marriage. The court said in part:

Fitzgerald argues that Roncalli never entrusted her with religious teaching duties by raising numerous genuine factual disputes over what exactly she did at the school. She contends the record demonstrates that Roncalli entrusted her in description alone. She never engaged in religious teaching, nor did Roncalli expect her to....

[However,] Fitzgerald's employment agreement and Roncalli's description of Fitzgerald's expected duties are, alone, sufficient to resolve this case because those documents make clear that Roncalli entrusted Fitzgerald to teach the Catholic faith and carry out Roncalli's religious mission....

All this indicates Roncalli entrusted guidance counselors like Fitzgerald to convey the Church's message in addition to their secular duties. And under Seventh Circuit precedent, Fitzgerald's non-performance of these entrusted duties makes her "an underperforming minister" who may be removed pursuant to the ministerial exception.

Washington Examiner reports on the decision.

5th Circuit Hears Oral Arguments On Alabama COVID Limits On Religious Gatherings

 On Oct. 3, the 5th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals heard oral arguments (audio of full arguments) in Spell v. Edwards. Former Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice and U.S. Senate candidate Roy Moore argued for appellant. In the case, a Louisiana federal district court dismissed a challenge to a now expired COVID Order limiting the size of religious gatherings. The district court dismissed because the challenged restrictions had already expired, and defendants had qualified immunity in the claim for damages. (See prior posting.) AP reports on the oral arguments.

5th Circuit: Confiscation Of Prisoner's Religious Material Upheld

 In DeMarco v. Bynum, (5th Cir., Oct. 4, 2022), the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal of a suit brought by an inmate who contended that confiscation of his religious material violated his First Amendment rights. The court said in part:

DeMarco concedes that he did not store his religious materials as required by AD-03.72. And this court has previously indicated that TDCJ policies regarding storage of personal property do not infringe on a prisoner’s right to free exercise of religion....

Bynum’s confiscation of DeMarco’s religious materials was reasonably related to a legitimate penological objective.... There is also an alternative way for DeMarco to exercise his First Amendment rights, by accessing religious reading materials through the prison chaplain. The impact of accommodating DeMarco’s constitutional rights on other prisoners, guards, and prison resources could be great, given the management and safety concerns underlying the policy....

Moreover, even if Bynum had violated DeMarco’s constitutional rights, the district court correctly found that Bynum was entitled to qualified immunity because his actions were objectively reasonable.

Court Rejects Religious Defense To Illegal Possession Of Firearm Charges

In United States v. Harper, (ND IA, Sept. 30, 2022), an Iowa federal district court refused to dismiss indictments charging defendant with  possession of a firearm by a felon and unlawful drug user.  Defendant argued that he is a Muslim who practices Sharia Law which calls for armed self-defense, including the possession of a firearm. The court, accepting the Report and Recommendation [Lexis link] of a magistrate judge, said in part:

There is no less restrictive means to achieve the Government’s compelling interest in uniformly applying gun laws for public safety than prosecuting Harper.

Michigan Ban On Use Of State Funds For Private And Religious Schools Upheld

In Hile v. State of Michigan, (WD MI, Sept. 30, 2022), a Michigan federal district court dismissed free exercise and equal protection challenges to a provision in the Michigan Constitution that prohibits the use of state funds, tax benefits or vouchers to aid "any private, denominational or other nonpublic, pre-elementary, elementary, or secondary school" or student attendance at such schools. Plaintiffs contend that the provision reflects an anti-religious and anti-Catholic sentiment. Plaintiffs base their challenge on the unavailability of Michigan's Section 529 savings plan for them to use to send their children to private religious schools. The state, however, argues that its Plan is not available for any private high school tuition. Plaintiffs argue that the state is misinterpreting its own legislation.  The court said in part:

The court is satisfied that principles of comity preclude merits consideration of plaintiffs’ First Amendment Challenges because they would require this court to disregard the State’s own interpretation and consistent application of its own tax law, neither of which raises First Amendment concerns. Plaintiffs can take the issue up with Michigan tax authorities in the ordinary administration of the Michigan income tax collection process. But unless and until Michigan changes the interpretation and application of its own tax law, and replaces it with the version Plaintiffs say it should have, there is no First Amendment issue.

The court also rejected plaintiffs' equal protection challenge, saying that it is unwilling to expand the "political process" doctrine. Plaintiffs had argued that by placing the limits on use of state funds in the state Constitution, the state had burdened their ability to seek changes in the law. Bridge Michigan reports on the decision.