President Trump Declares Jan. 22 As National Sanctity of Human Life Day

Yesterday, President Donald Trump issued a Proclamation (full text) declaring January 22, 2021 as National Sanctity of Human Life Day. The Proclamation reads in part:

Every human life is a gift to the world.  Whether born or unborn, young or old, healthy or sick, every person is made in the holy image of God.  The Almighty Creator gives unique talents, beautiful dreams, and a great purpose to every person.  On National Sanctity of Human Life Day, we celebrate the wonder of human existence and renew our resolve to build a culture of life where every person of every age is protected, valued, and cherished.

This month, we mark nearly 50 years since the United States Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision.  This constitutionally flawed ruling overturned State laws that banned abortion, and has resulted in the loss of more than 50 million innocent lives....

The United States is a shining example of human rights for the world.  However, some in Washington are fighting to keep the United States among a small handful of nations — including North Korea and China — that allow elective abortions after 20 weeks.  I join with countless others who believe this is morally and fundamentally wrong, and today, I renew my call on the Congress to pass legislation prohibiting late-term abortion....

President Proclaims National School Choice Week

President Trump yesterday issued a Proclamation (full text) declaring January 24-30 as National School Choice Week. The Proclamation reads in part:

In the land of the free, a child’s zip code should never determine their future....

I renew my call to the Congress to pass the Education Freedom Scholarships and Opportunity Act, so we can finally take a giant step towards true liberty for students.  This landmark legislation would give more than 1 million children the freedom to attend the school that best fits their needs, and would create more than $5 billion in annual tax credits for those who donate to local scholarship funds, empowering more families to choose the best educational setting for their children.

I also call on the Congress to pass the School Choice Now Act, which will ensure every State can fund elementary and high school scholarship programs, so that students do not lose access to their school of choice because of economic disruptions.

Martin Luther King, Jr. Federal Holiday Proclamation Issued

Today is Martin Luther King, Jr. Day and President Trump earlier this week issued the annual Proclamation (full text) declaring today a federal holiday. This year's Proclamation reads in part:

In the face of tumult and upheaval, Dr. King reminded us to always meet anger with compassion in order to truly “heal the hurts, right the wrongs and change society.”  It is with this same spirit of forgiveness that we come together to bind the wounds of past injustice by lifting up one another regardless of race, gender, creed, or religion, and rising to the first principles enshrined in our founding documents.

No Free Exercise Infringement When Court Allocates Vaccination Decision-Making Between Parents

 In In re Marriage of Crouch, (CO App., Jan. 14, 2021), a Colorado state appellate court remanded a trial court's refusal to modify the allocation of medical decision-making by divorced parents for their children. Originally both parents had agreed, largely for religious reasons, that their children should not be vaccinated. Subsequently the father changed his mind and sought to have them vaccinated.  The appeals court held that the trial court improperly imposed on the father an added burden in order to overcome the mother's right to free exercise of religion.  The court said in part:

A parent’s free exercise rights are not implicated by a court’s allocation of decision-making responsibility between parents.

Grand Junction Daily Sentinel reports on the decision.

Recent Articles of Interest

 From SSRN:

• Craig S. Wright, Establishing Meaning in the First Amendment,  (October 25, 2020).
• Margo A. Bagley, Irene Calboli & Maria Lillà Montagnani, Exploring Intellectual Property Through the Lens of Religious Thought,  (Handbook on Intellectual Property Research, Oxford University Press (2020, Forthcoming)).
• Mohammad Fadel, DNA Evidence and the Islamic Law of Paternity in Light of Maqāṣid Al-Sharīʿa, (December 31, 2020).
• Maximilian Lakitsch, Understanding Conflicts with Religious Dimensions in their Transnational Interrelations, (Graz Law Working Paper No 02-2021).
• Rachel Slepoi, Bostock's Inclusive Queer Frame, (107 Virginia Law Review Online (Forthcoming 2021)).
• Mohammad Fadel, International Law in General in the Medieval Islamic World, (The Cambridge History of International Law, Volume VIII: International Law in the Islamic World, Part I: International Law in the Medieval Islamic World (622-1453) (Forthcoming)).
• Chokri Kooli & Riadh Abadli, The Relevance and Impact of Laws Regulating Premarital Screenings in the Muslim Arab Countries,  (Journal of Sharia and Islamic Studies. 35(120), Pages 281-332, 2018).
• Natalie Silver & Renate Buijze, Tax Incentives for Cross-Border Giving in an Era of Philanthropic Globalization: A Comparative Perspective, (Canadian Journal of Comparative and Contemporary Law, 6(1), 2020, pp.109-150).

From SmartCILP:

• Sunny Dharod, Responding to "Stealth Theocracy": Propositions for India's Civil Courts, 32 Geogetown Journal of Legal Ethics 503-524 (2019).

Restrictions On Sex Offenders Survives Free Exercise Challenge

Tennessee Code §40-39-211(d)(1)(B) prohibits violent sexual offenders from remaining within 1000 feet of any playground. In State of Tennessee v. Colllier, (TN Ct. Crim. App., Jan. 14, 2021), Tennessee state appellate court rejected a free exercise challenge to this provision:

Defendant argues that the statute is overbroad because if “playground” includes both public and private playgrounds, the statute would prevent the Defendant from attending church services, as most churches have a playground.... The Free Exercise Clause does not protect all conduct associated with religious practice.... Conduct remains subject to regulation for the protection of society.”...  The Defendant remains free to hold whatever beliefs he may choose and privately practice religion as he wishes. However,... [t]he State’s “paramount” interest in “protect[ing] the public from [sexual] offenders” allows it to “define” and limit the extent of the Defendant’s “freedom to act.”

Religious Freedom Day Presidential Proclamaton

President Trump issued a Proclamation (full text) this week declaring December 16 as Religious Freedom Day. The date, commemorated annually, marks the anniversary of Virginia's adoption of the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom in 1786. President Trump's Proclamation is largely a catalogue of steps taken by his administration to further religious freedom, saying in part:

Over the past 4 years, my Administration has worked tirelessly to honor the vision of our Founders and defend our proud history of religious liberty.  From day one, we have taken action to restore the foundational link between faith and freedom and promote a culture of religious liberty.  My Administration has protected the rights of individual religious believers, communities of faith, and faith-based organizations.  We have defended religious liberty domestically and around the world.

2nd Circuit: Vermont May Not Exclude Religious School Students From Dual Enrollment Program

In A.H. v. French, (2d Cir., Jan. 15, 2021), the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals held that a preliminary injunction should issue to allow funding of a high school student's college enrollment under Vermont's Dual Enrollment Program. Vermont statutes pay for high schoolers in public schools to take two college courses. Students in private high schools are eligible to take advantage of the Dual Enrollment Program only if their high school tuition is publicly funded. Under a separate program-- the Town Tuition Program-- school districts that do not have high schools are to fund students' tuition in either out-of-district public high schools or secular private high schools. In this case, a student was denied participation in the Dual Enrollment Program because her high school was religious and thus was denied public funding under the Town Tuition Program. the court said in part: 

In these circumstances, the State’s reliance on the “publicly funded” requirement as a condition for DEP eligibility imposes a “penalty on the free exercise of religion.”...

Judge Menashi filed a concurring opinion. ADF issued a press release announcing the decision.

8th Circuit Hears Oral Arguments In Missouri Vaccination Exemption Case

On Tuesday, the U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments (audio of full arguments) in two cases consolidated for argument-- B.W.C. v. Williams and G.B. v. Crossroads Academy. In the cases, a Missouri federal district court rejected constitutional challenges by parents to the form that Missouri requires to be completed in order to claim a religious exemption for a school child from vaccination requirements. The form contains language strongly encouraging parents to obtain vaccinations for their children. (See prior posting.) Courthouse News Service reports on the oral arguments. [Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]

Apache Leaders Sue To Prevent Forest Service Transfer of Religious Site

Suit was filed this week in an Arizona federal district court on behalf of traditional Apache religious and cultural leaders seeking to prevent the U.S. Forest Service from transferring to mining companies a parcel of land used by the Western Apache Peoples for traditional religious ceremonies. The complaint (full text) in Apache Stronghold v. United States, (D AZ, filed 1/12/2021) alleges in part:

The deliberate and direct effect of the Defendants’ publicly stated plans and planned actions is to illegally annihilate the religious freedom rights of the Western Apache Peoples at a sacred and actively utilized religious place and traditional Western Apache cultural property known to the Apache since time immemorial as Chi’chil Biłdagoteel [or] as it is commonly known: “Oak Flat.” ***

[T]he Forest Service ... has suddenly publicly stated for the first time its intent to publish a Final Environmental Impact Statement ... on ... January 15, 2021.  That ... will immediately enable the Forest Service to attempt to convey a 2,422-acre parcel of “Forest Service land” to an entity owned entirely by foreign mining corporations, pursuant to a mandate in Section 3003 of the “Cromnibus” National Defense Authorization Act of 2015 ... slipped in at the 11th hour with a total federal government operational shutdown looming....

Apache Stronghold issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit. 

DOL Says That Ministerial Exception Allows Non-Compliance With FLSA For Religious Teachers

The U.S. Department of Labor has released a January 8, 2021, Wage and Hour Opinion Letter (full text) concluding that the "ministerial exception" doctrine can create an exemption to the Fair Labor Standards Act's requirements. The letter concludes that a private religious day care and pre-school may pay its teachers on a salary basis that would not otherwise conform to the wage-and-hour requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act if the teachers qualify as "ministers" for purposes of the ministerial exception. [Thanks to Heather Kimmel for the lead.]

8th Circuit Hears Arguments In College's Deregistration of Christian Student Group

The U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday heard oral arguments in InterVarsity Christian Fellowship USA v. University of Iowa. (Audio of full oral arguments.)  In the case,  an Iowa federal district court held that the University of Iowa and three of its administrators violated the free speech and free exercise rights of a Christian student organization when it revoked its registered student organization status. The University's action was taken because Intervarsity Christian Fellowship required its leaders to affirm the group's Christian statement of faith. The court also denied defendants' claim of qualified immunity. (See prior posting.) Becket Law has a press release with links to some of the documents in the case.

New Law Elevates Anti-Semitism Monitor To Rank of Ambassador

Yesterday President Trump signed HR 221, Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism Act (full text). The new law elevates the Special Envoy to the rank and status of ambassador.

National Association of Realtors Bans Hate Speech By Its Members

In a previously little-noticed change to its Code of Ethics, the National Association of Relators has instituted a ban on hate speech by its 1.4 million members. The changes (full text) were adopted Nov. 13, 2020. Some of the changes became effective immediately and others became effective January 1, 2021. New Standard of Practice 10-5 provides:

REALTORS® must not use harassing speech, hate speech, epithets, or slurs based on race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, national origin, sexual orientation, or gender identity.

The Association has posted an FAQ document to explain the new policies.  KULR News yesterday reported on the changes:  

The sweeping prohibition applies to association members 24/7, covering all communication, private and professional, written and spoken, online and off. Punishment could top out at a maximum fine of $15,000 and expulsion from the organization.

NAR’s decision, allowing any member of the public to file a complaint, has alarmed other real estate agents, and also some legal and ethics experts, who say the hate speech ban’s vagueness is an invitation to censor controversial political opinions, especially on race and gender....

Some real estate agents fear the new speech code will be used to censor agents who express disapproval of affirmative action, gay marriage, transgender pronouns, Black Lives Matter, undocumented immigrants or other politicized issues.

Among those caught up in the uncertainty are real estate agents who are Christian preachers or Sunday school teachers, or anyone who expresses traditional religious views on gender and sexuality that are out of vogue in some circles today.

Supreme Court Allows Enforcement of FDA Rule On Medical Abortions While Appeals Are Pending

The U.S. Supreme Court in Food & Drug Administration v. American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists, (US Sup. Ct., Jan 12, 2021), stayed a Maryland federal district court's injunction pending appeal of an FDA rule on access to medical abortions. The FDA requires mifepristone, one of two drugs necessary for a medical abortion, to be picked up in person by the patient at a hospital, clinic or medical office.  The district court had continued to enjoin that requirement during the COVID epidemic, even though in October the Supreme Court had sent the case back for further consideration by the district court.  Now, in a case on its so-called "shadow docket" (cases seeking emergency relief without full oral argument) the Supreme Court in an unsigned opinion has granted a stay of the injunction pending disposition of appeals in the 4th Circuit and Supreme Court.

Chief Justice Roberts filed a brief concurring opinion, stating in part:

The question before us is not whether the requirements for dispensing mifepristone impose an undue burden on a woman’s right to an abortion as a general matter. The question is instead whether the District Court properly ordered the Food and Drug Administration to lift those established requirements because of the court’s own evaluation of the impact of the COVID–19 pandemic. Here as in related contexts concerning government responses to the pandemic, my view is that courts owe significant deference to the politically accountable entities with the “background, competence, and expertise to assess public health.”

Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justice Kagan, filed a dissenting opinion, saying in part:

Due to particularly severe health risks, vastly limited clinic options, and the 10-week window for obtaining a medication abortion, the FDA’s requirement that women obtain mifepristone in person during the COVID–19 pandemic places an unnecessary and undue burden on their right to abortion....

What rejoinder does the Government have to the possibility that refusing to suspend the FDA’s in-person requirements for mifepristone during the COVID–19 pandemic will cause some women to miss the 10-week window altogether? No cause for concern, the Government assures this Court, because even if the FDA’s in-person requirements cause women to lose the opportunity for a medication abortion, they can still seek out a surgical abortion. What a callous response.

Justice Breyer dissented without filing or joining an opinion.  SCOTUSblog has further coverage of the decision.

Colorado Supreme Court: Same-Sex Common Law Marriages Before Obergefell Are Valid

In In re Marriage of LaFleur & Pyfer, (CO Sup. Ct., Jan. 11, 2021), the Colorado Supreme Court held that a court may recognize as a common law marriage a relationship entered into by same-sex couples before the U.S. Supreme Court's Obergefell decision that legalized same-sex marriages. Chief Justice Boatright concurred in part. Justice Samour dissented. In In re Marriage of Hogsett & Neale, decided at the same time, the Colorado Supreme Court refined the test for common law marriages in Colorado.

Supreme Court Will Hear Arguments Today In College Speech Policy Case

The U.S. Supreme Court hears oral arguments this morning in Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski. The case grows out of a challenge to Georgia Gwinnett College's speech policies that led to a student being stopped from distributing religious literature on campus. Subsequently, the school changed its policies.  The U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals held that the change mooted plaintiff's claim for nominal damages. (See prior posting.) The 10:00 am oral arguments may be viewed live at this link. I will update this post to include a link to the written transcript of the arguments when it becomes available later today. SCOTUSblog's case page contains links to all the briefs filed in the case. Colorado Politics reports on the decisions.

UPDATE: Here are links to the transcript and audio of the oral arguments.

DOE Says Bostock Decision Does Not Apply To Title IX

 As reported by Education Week, the U.S. Department of Education has released a Jan. 8, 2021 Memorandum (full text) on the impact of the U.S. Supreme Court's Bostock decision on Title IX. While Bostock held that the ban on sex discrimination in Title VII includes discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, the DOE Memo concludes that Bostock does not apply to Title IX, saying in part:

[T]he Department’s longstanding construction of the term “sex” in Title IX to mean biological sex, male or female, is the only construction consistent with the ordinary public meaning of “sex” at the time of Title IX’s enactment.

The memo goes on to provide that some kinds of discrimination based on a person's homosexuality or transgender status may violate Title IX because the discrimination takes into account the person's biological sex.  Examples are employment discrimination and sexual harassment. However, in other educational situations, Title IX does not protect against sexual orientation or gender identity discrimination:

We believe the ordinary public meaning of controlling statutory and regulatory text requires a recipient providing separate athletic teams to separate participants solely based on their biological sex, male or female, and not based on transgender status or homosexuality, to comply with Title IX.

Under Title IX and its regulations, a person’s biological sex is relevant for the considerations involving athletics, and distinctions based thereon are permissible and may be required because the sexes are not similarly situated.

Disagreeing with two Circuit Court opinions, the memo states:

[W]e believe the plain ordinary public meaning of the controlling statutory and regulatory text requires a recipient providing “separate toilet, locker room, and shower facilities on the basis of sex” to regulate access based on biological sex.

The Memorandum also recognizes that religious exemptions under Title IX and RFRA still apply.

Supreme Court Denies Review In Discrimination Suit By Muslim Flight Attendant

The U.S. Supreme Court today denied review in Stanley v. ExpressJet Airlines, Inc., (Docket No. 20-495, certiorari deied 1/11/2021). (Order List.) In the case, the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals held that a Muslim flight attendant's religious discrimination claim should have been submitted to arbitration. It also rejected her retaliation claim. The flight attendant sought a religious accommodation so that she would not need to prepare or serve alcohol during flights. At issue in the case was the scope of the Railway Labor Act's mandatory arbitration provisions.

Supreme Court Denies Review In Clinic Buffer Zone Case

The U.S. Supreme Court today denied review in Bruni v. City of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, (Docket No. 19-1184, certiorari denied 1/11/2021). (Order List [scroll to pg. 25]). In the case, the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a Pittsburgh ordinance that creates a 15-foot buffer zone outside any health care facility, including a Planned Parenthood clinic. Congregating, patrolling, picketing and demonstrating in such areas are banned. (See prior posting.) Justice Thomas added a statement to his vote to deny review, saying that in an appropriate case the Court should re-examine whether intermediate scrutiny is the correct test in buffer zone cases. ADF issued a press release on the denial of certiorari.