7th Circuit Denies Preliminary Injunction To Doctor Fired For Refusing Vaccine

In Halczenko v. Ascension Health, Inc., (7th Cir., June 23, 2022), the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction to a pediatric critical care specialist who was fired from his hospital position after he refused, on religious grounds, to comply with the hospital's COVID vaccine mandate. The court concluded that plaintiff had shown neither irreparable injury nor inadequate remedies through a Title VII action. Among other things, the court rejected the argument that the doctor will suffer a deterioration in skills that amounts to irreparable injury.

Department Of Interior Report Includes Role Of Religious Institutions In Indian Boarding School Policies

Last month, the Department of Interior released Volume 1 of an investigative report as part of its Federal Indian Boarding School Initiative designed to explore the legacy of past Indian boarding school policies. The Report (full text) released on May 11 includes a section (pp. 46-50) on The Role of Religious Institutions and Organizations in the Federal Indian Boarding School System, which says in part:

Indian reservations “were distributed among the major religious denominations, which, in an unprecedented delegation of power by the Federal Government to church bodies, were given the right to nominate new agents, and direct educational and other activities on the reservations.” ... [T]he Executive accepted official recommendations by religious institutions and organizations for presidential appointed posts in states and territories.... [T]he U.S. “military was frequently called in to reinforce the missionaries’ orders.

The report quotes an 1886 memo from an Indian School Superintendent to the Secretary of Interior on boarding schools operated by religious institutions:

The Government aid furnished enables them to sustain their missions, and renders it possible … to lead these people, whose paganism has been the chief obstacle to their civilization, into the light of Christianity – a work in which the Government cannot actively engage … They should receive the encouragement and co-operation of all Government employés.

Supreme Court Overrules Roe v. Wade and Casey

In a 5-1-3 opinion today, the U.S. Supreme Court in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, (Sup. Ct., June 24, 2022), overruled Roe v. Wade  and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey.  The majority, in a 108-page opinion written by Justice Alito and joined by Justices Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett said in part:

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. Until the latter part of the 20th century, such a right was entirely unknown in American law....

Stare decisis, the doctrine on which Casey’s controlling opinion was based, does not compel unending adherence to Roe’s abuse of judicial authority. Roe was egregiously wrong from the start. Its reasoning was exceptionally weak, and the decision has had damaging consequences. And far from bringing about a national settlement of the abortion issue, Roe and Casey have enflamed debate and deepened division.

It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives....

In interpreting what is meant by the Fourteenth Amendment’s reference to “liberty,” we must guard against the natural human tendency to confuse what that Amendment protects with our own ardent views about the liberty that Americans should enjoy....

[T]he dissent suggests that our decision calls into question Griswold, Eisenstadt, Lawrence, and Obergefell.... But we have stated unequivocally that “[n]othing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion.”... We have also explained why that is so: rights regarding contraception and same-sex relationships are inherently different from the right to abortion because the latter (as we have stressed) uniquely involves what Roe and Casey termed “potential life.” ... Therefore, a right to abortion cannot be justified by a purported analogy to the rights recognized in those other cases or by “appeals to a broader right to autonomy.”... It is hard to see how we could be clearer....

We must now decide what standard will govern if state abortion regulations undergo constitutional challenge and whether the law before us satisfies the appropriate standard....

Under our precedents, rational-basis review is the appropriate standard for such challenges....

A law regulating abortion, like other health and welfare laws, is entitled to a “strong presumption of validity.”... 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 justify Mississippi’s Gestational Age Act.... The Mississippi Legislature’s findings recount the stages of “human prenatal development” and assert the State’s interest in “protecting the life of the unborn.”.... The legislature also found that abortions performed after 15 weeks typically use the dilation and evacuation procedure, and the legislature found the use of this procedure “for nontherapeutic or elective reasons [to be] a barbaric practice, dangerous for the maternal patient, and demeaning to the medical profession.” ... These legitimate interests provide a rational basis for the Gestational Age Act....

Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion arguing that "'substantive due process' is an oxymoron that 'lack[s] any basis in the Constitution.'" He goes on to say: "in future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell.

Justice Kavanaugh filed a concurring opinion emphasizing that the Court's decision does not threaten or cast doubt on substantive due process decisions on non-abortion issues. He also reiterated: "Because the Constitution is neutral on the issue of abortion, this Court also must be scrupulously neutral."

Chief Justice Roberts filed an opinion concurring only in the judgment and saying in part:

I agree with the Court that the viability line established by Roe and Casey should be discarded under a straightforward stare decisis analysis. That line never made any sense. Our abortion precedents describe the right at issue as a woman’s right to choose to terminate her pregnancy. That right should therefore extend far enough to ensure a reasonable opportunity to choose, but need not extend any further— certainly not all the way to viability. Mississippi’s law allows a woman three months to obtain an abortion, well beyond the point at which it is considered “late” to discover a pregnancy.... I see no sound basis for questioning the adequacy of that opportunity.

But that is all I would say, out of adherence to a simple yet fundamental principle of judicial restraint: If it is not necessary to decide more to dispose of a case, then it is necessary not to decide more....

Here, there is a clear path to deciding this case correctly without overruling Roe all the way down to the studs: recognize that the viability line must be discarded, as the majority rightly does, and leave for another day whether to reject any right to an abortion at all.

Justices Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan filed a 66-page joint dissenting opinion, saying in part:

The majority tries to hide the geographically expansive effects of its holding. Today’s decision, the majority says, permits “each State” to address abortion as it pleases.... That is cold comfort, of course, for the poor woman who cannot get the money to fly to a distant State for a procedure. Above all others, women lacking financial resources will suffer from today’s decision. In any event, interstate restrictions will also soon be in the offing. After this decision, some States may block women from traveling out of State to obtain abortions, or even from receiving abortion medications from out of State. Some may criminalize efforts, including the provision of information or funding, to help women gain access to other States’ abortion services. Most threatening of all, no language in today’s decision stops the Federal Government from prohibiting abortions nationwide, once again from the moment of conception and without exceptions for rape or incest....

Whatever the exact scope of the coming laws, one result of today’s decision is certain: the curtailment of women’s rights, and of their status as free and equal citizens. Yesterday, the Constitution guaranteed that a woman confronted with an unplanned pregnancy could (within reasonable limits) make her own decision about whether to bear a child, with all the life-transforming consequences that act involves. And in thus safeguarding each woman’s reproductive freedom, the Constitution also protected “[t]he ability of women to participate equally in [this Nation’s] economic and social life.”... But no longer. As of today, this Court holds, a State can always force a woman to give birth, prohibiting even the earliest abortions. A State can thus transform what, when freely undertaken, is a wonder into what, when forced, may be a nightmare. Some women, especially women of means, will find ways around the State’s assertion of power. Others—those without money or childcare or the ability to take time off from work—will not be so fortunate. Maybe they will try an unsafe method of abortion, and come to physical harm, or even die. Maybe they will undergo pregnancy and have a child, but at significant personal or familial cost. At the least, they will incur the cost of losing control of their lives. The Constitution will, today’s majority holds, provide no shield, despite its guarantees of liberty and equality for all....

[I]n this Nation, we do not believe that a government controlling all private choices is compatible with a free people. So we do not (as the majority insists today) place everything within “the reach of majorities and [government] officials.”... We believe in a Constitution that puts some issues off limits to majority rule. Even in the face of public opposition, we uphold the right of individuals—yes, including women—to make their own choices and chart their own futures. Or at least, we did once....

Those responsible for the original Constitution, including the Fourteenth Amendment, did not perceive women as equals, and did not recognize women’s rights. When the majority says that we must read our foundational charter as viewed at the time of ratification (except that we may also check it against the Dark Ages), it consigns women to second-class citizenship....

The Framers (both in 1788 and 1868) understood that the world changes. So they did not define rights by reference to the specific practices existing at the time. Instead, the Framers defined rights in general terms, to permit future evolution in their scope and meaning. And over the course of our history, this Court has taken up the Framers’ invitation. It has kept true to the Framers’ principles by applying them in new ways, responsive to new societal understandings and conditions.

[This post was corrected to make it clear that the Dissent was a Joint Dissent, not a dissent by one Justice joined by the others.]

In Dispute Over Frozen Pre-Embryos, Wife's Religious Concerns Do Not Prevail

In In re Marriage of Olsen,(CO App., June 23, 2022), a Colorado state appellate court was called on to settle a dispute between a husband and wife over the disposition of their cryogenically frozen pre-embryos after their divorce. The wife wanted to donate the pre-embryos, now held by a fertility clinic, for implantation to another couple because of her religious belief that they are human lives. The husband wanted to destroy the pre-embryos to avoid procreation. A 2018 Colorado Supreme Court (In re Marriage of Rooks) in a somewhat similar case called for the balancing of various factors. Applying this precedent, the Court of Appeals awarded the pre-embryos to the husband, saying in part:

The district court erred by considering wife’s religious belief that the pre-embryos are human lives when weighting the first Rooks factor — the intended use of the party seeking to preserve the disputed pre-embryos.... 

The first Rooks factor simply asks what the party seeking to preserve the pre-embryos intends to do with them.... Does that party seek to implant the pre-embryos to achieve genetic parenthood or does that party seek to donate them? The first factor is not concerned with why the party prefers to preserve the pre-embryos over discarding them....

Although we are sensitive to wife’s concern that awarding the pre-embryos to husband will force her to participate in their destruction against her religious beliefs, the district court can enter orders to mitigate this concern. The district court can award husband the pre-embryos and authorize him to direct their disposal. Wife need not be involved in the process.... Because the decision will belong to husband, wife will not be compelled to do anything in violation of her religious beliefs, and therefore there is no Free Exercise violation. 

Another Challenge To School District's Vaccine Mandate Fails

 Doe v. San Diego Unified School District, (SD CA, June 21. 2022), is another attempt by parents and students to challenge the school district's COVID vaccine mandate that does not provide for religious exemptions. The 9th Circuit last year ultimately upheld the school district's prior policy, and the Circuit denied en banc review. The court said in part:

Even Plaintiffs concede that substantively, the new COVID-19 vaccinate mandate is largely the same as before, with a new implementation timeline.... Plaintiffs’ new claims in the FAC are still premised on violations of the Free Exercise Clause, just as the claim in the original complaint was. Accordingly, the Court is bound by the law of this case.

8th Circuit Upholds Arkansas Israel Boycott Certification Requirement

The U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals sitting en banc, in a 9-1 opinion, upheld Arkansas' law requiring public contracts to include a certification from the contractor that it will not boycott Israel.  In Arkansas Times LP v. Waldrip, (8th Cir., June 22, 2022), the court held that the the statute's broad definition of "boycott" as including "other actions that are intended to limit commercial relations with Israel, or persons or entities doing business in Israel or in Israeli-controlled territories" is only a prohibition on non-expressive commercial decisions that are not protected under the First Amendment's free speech clause. The court also held that the required certification from the contractor does not amount to "compelled speech". The suit was brought by a newspaper that contracts with a state college.

Judge Kelley dissented, arguing that the statute was broader than the majority found it to be.  He contended that "other actions intended to limit commercial relations with Israel" could encompass more than just commercial activity, including activity that is protected by the First Amendment.  For example, it might include posting anti-Israel signs, donating to causes that promote a boycott of Israel, encouraging others to boycott Israel, or publicly criticizing the anti-boycott statute. (The en banc decision reverses a decision by a 3-judge panel of the 8th Circuit handed down last year.) The Forward reports on the decision.

French High Court Says City Must Ban Burkinis In Municipal Pools

 CNN reports that on Tuesday, France's highest administrative court, the Council of State, held that the city of Grenoble cannot permit Muslim women to wear the full-length "burkini" bathing suit in its municipal swimming pools. The court said that doing so would compromise principles of religious neutrality and "the equal treatment of users." The court went on to say that the city's initial decision to permit burkinis did so to satisfy religious demands. A French anti-separatism law passed last year prohibits actions whose "manifest objective is to give in to sectarian demands with religious aims."

UPDATE: Here is the full text of the Council of State's opinion in the case.

Louisiana Governor Signs Two "Trigger Laws" On Abortion

On June 17, Louisiana Governor John Bel Edwards signed Senate Bill 342 (full text), amending a 2006 law that banned all abortions except to prevent death or permanent impairment of a life-sustaining organ of the pregnant woman, or in cases of unintentional termination because of medical treatment. The law becomes effective if and when Roe is reversed. The Governor's signing letter (full text) explains the changes that SB 342 made to the 2006  "trigger law":

[T]he list of exceptions to the abortion prohibition ... is expanded to include: (1) when a medical procedure is performed with the intent to save the life or preserve the health of an unborn child, (2) when medical procedures are performed after a pregnant woman miscarries, (3) treatment and removal of an ectopic pregnancy, and (4) when a medical procedure is performed to remove an unborn child with an irremediable congenital or chromosomal anomaly that is incompatible with sustaining life after birth. Although the ... Bill ... did not add rape and incest to the two existing exceptions ..., it did clarify that pregnancy and the life of an unborn child begin at implantation, rather than at fertilization ..., and clearly allows for emergency contraception to be administered to victims of rape and incest prior to when a pregnancy can be clinically diagnosed.

On June 17, the Governor also signed Senate Bill 388 (full text) to prohibit prescribing or selling in or into the state drugs for medical abortions.  Again, the bill's effectiveness is triggered by the overruling of Roe v. Wade. ABC News reports on the bills. [Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]

European Court: Turkey's Refusal To Allow Congregational Muslim Prayer In Prison Violated Religious Freedom

In Yalçın v. Turkey, (ECHR, June 14, 2022), the European Court of Human Rights in a Chamber Judgment held that Turkey violated Article 9 (freedom of religion and belief) of the European Convention on Human Rights by refusing to make a room available for congregational Muslim Friday prayers (Jumuah) at a High-Security Prison. The Court said in part:

... high-security prisons, such as the one in which the applicant was placed, are subjected to a stricter set of rules, which may call for a higher degree of restrictions on the exercise of rights under Article 9 of the Convention. Nevertheless, that fact alone should not be construed as excluding any real weighing of the competing individual and public interests but should rather be interpreted in the light of the circumstances of each individual case....

... domestic authorities did not sufficiently assess whether the gathering of a certain number of inmates for Friday prayers may, in the individual circumstances of the case, generate a security risk that they should have been treated differently from the collective gatherings of inmates for cultural or rehabilitative purposes, which were permitted by law....

The Court issued a press release announcing the decision.

Prosecutor's Ethical Objection To Death Penalty Was Not Reason To Withdraw Execution Warrant

Texas Tribune reports that yesterday a Texas state trial court judge rejected a request submitted jointly by the prosecutor and the defense attorney to withdraw a warrant setting the execution date for convicted murderer John Ramirez for October 5. The request to withdraw the execution date came two days after the court set it. District Attorney Mark Gonzalez said that he is ethically opposed to the death penalty and did not want the death penalty imposed on any prisoner while he is in office. An assistant district attorney had filed the request to set the execution date without conferring with Gonzalez. An appeal is planned. Ramirez was the petitioner in a RLUIPA case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court last year holding that he was entitled to a preliminary injunction barring Texas from proceeding with his execution without permitting his pastor, during the execution, to lay hands on the him and audibly pray with him. (See prior posting.)

Japanese Court Upholds Ban On Same-Sex Marriage

NPR reports that in Japan on Monday, the Osaka District Court ruled that the country's ban on same-sex marriage does not violate Japan's Constitution, rejecting plaintiffs' demand for damages of 1 milliion Yen ($7400 (US))

The Osaka court on Monday said freedom of marriage in the 1947 constitution only means male-female unions and does not include those of the same sex, and therefore banning same-sex marriages is not unconstitutional.

Judge Fumi Doi said marriage for heterosexual couples is a system established by society to protect a relationship between men and women who bear and raise children, and that ways to protect same-sex relationships are still undergoing public debate.

The court, however, urged the parliament to seek methods to better protect same-sex relationships, including options to legalize same-sex marriage.

The decision is contrary to a ruling in 2021 by a court in Sapporo.

Supreme Court Says Maine Cannot Exclude Sectarian Schools From Its Tuition Reimbursement Program

In Carson v. Makin, (Sup. Ct., June 21, 2022), in a 6-3 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court held that Maine's program that pays tuition (up to a statutory limit) to out-of-district public or private high schools for students whose districts do not operate a high school, but which requires participating schools to be nonsectarian, violates the Free Exercise Clause. The majority opinion by Chief Justice Roberts says in part:

The State pays tuition for certain students at private schools— so long as the schools are not religious. That is discrimination against religion. A State’s antiestablishment interest does not justify enactments that exclude some members of the community from an otherwise generally available public benefit because of their religious exercise....

Maine’s “nonsectarian” requirement for its otherwise generally available tuition assistance payments violates the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. Regardless of how the benefit and restriction are described, the program operates to identify and exclude otherwise eligible schools on the basis of their religious exercise.

Justice Breyer, joined by Justice Kagan and for the most part by Justice Sotomayor, filed a dissenting opinion which says in part:

Nothing in our Free Exercise Clause cases compels Maine to give tuition aid to private schools that will use the funds to provide a religious education.... [T]his Court’s decisions in Trinity Lutheran and Espinoza prohibit States from denying aid to religious schools solely because of a school’s religious status—that is, its affiliation with or control by a religious organization.... But we have never said that the Free Exercise Clause prohibits States from withholding funds because of the religious use to which the money will be put....

Maine’s decision not to fund such schools falls squarely within the play in the joints between those two Clauses. Maine has promised all children within the State the right to receive a free public education. In fulfilling this promise, Maine endeavors to provide children the religiously neutral education required in public school systems.... The Religion Clauses give Maine the ability, and flexibility, to make this choice. 

Justice Sotomayor also filed a dissenting opinion which says in part:

This Court continues to dismantle the wall of separation between church and state that the Framers fought to build.... 

If a State cannot offer subsidies to its citizens without being required to fund religious exercise, any State that values its historic antiestablishment interests more than this Court does will have to curtail the support it offers to its citizens.

CNN reports on the decision.

Supreme Court Denies Review In Challenge To California Time Extension For Sex Abuse Claims

The U.S. Supreme Court today denied review in Roman Catholic Bishop of Oakland v. Superior Court of the State of California, (Docket No. 21-1377, certiorari denied 6/21/2022). (Order List.) In the case, 9 dioceses and archdioceses challenged 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. Here is the Supreme Court case page.

South Carolina Adopts Law Protecting Conscience Rights Of Health Care Personnel and Institutions

As reported by WPDE News, on Friday South Carolina Governor Henry McMaster signed H4776, the Medical Ethics and Diversity Act (full text). The new law provides in part:

A medical practitioner, health care institutions, and health care payers have the right not to participate in or pay for any health care service which violates the practitioner's or entity's conscience....

... [A] religious medical practitioner, health care institutions, and health care payers that hold themselves out to the public as religious, state in their governing documents that they have a religious purpose or mission, and have internal operating policies or procedures that implement their religious beliefs, have the right to make employment, staffing, contracting, and admitting privilege decisions consistent with their religious beliefs....

No physician, nurse, technician, medical student, or other employee of a hospital, clinic or physician shall be required to recommend, perform or assist in the performance of an abortion if he advises the hospital, clinic or employing physician in writing that he objects to performing, assisting or otherwise participating in such procedures.

Belgian Regional Parliament Votes Down Ban On Kosher and Halal Slaughter

JTA reports that in the only portion of Belgium where kosher and halal slaughter is still legal, an attempt to ban those forms of slaughter (i.e. slaughter without first stunning the animal) failed:

The vote Friday in the parliament of the Brussels-Capital Region ... was on whether to scrap a bill proposing a ban. The bill, submitted by liberal and environmentally-centered parties, had been voted down in a committee that kicked it back to parliament.

Out of the 89 lawmakers in the region’s parliament, 42 voted in favor of scrapping, 38 voted against scrapping, eight abstained and one was not present, preserving for now the legality of kosher and halal slaughter in Brussels....

7 USCIRF Commissioners Appointed In Recent Weeks

The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom is comprised of 9 voting members-- 3 appointed by the President, 3 by the Senate and 3 by the House, under a formula that gives the President's political party 5 commissioners and the other party 4 commissioners. Commissioners are appointed for 2-year terms.  In recent weeks, seven Commissioners have been appointed or reappointed: Frederick A. Davie (April 27 press release); Nury Turkel, Frank R. Wolf and David G. Curry (May 13 press release);  Abraham Cooper and Eric Ueland (June 10 press release); Stephen Schneck (June 15 press release).

Recent Articles and Reports of Interest

From SSRN:

• Bethany Berger & Chloe Scherpa, Mohegan Women, the Mohegan Church, and the Lasting of the Mohegan Nation, (June 12, 2022).
• Cherian George, Analytical and Normative Frameworks for Studying Religious Nationalism, (May 30, 2022).
• Mark Friedman & Anthony Sangiuliano, Limiting Rights to Protect Morality: Upholding Charter Values as a Pressing and Substantial Objective, (Review of Constitutional Studies, vol. 26, no. 1 (2022)).
• Dustin N. Sharp, A Larger 'We'; Social Change and Spirituality in an Identitarian Age, (June 10, 2022).
• Taimoor Ali Shah, The Concept of Law, Justice and Morality in Islamic and Western Jurisprudence, (June 7, 2022).
• Muhammad Munir, Dower in Islamic Law and Pakistani Legal System, (June 2, 2022).

From elsewhere:

• ADL Report, Hate in the Empire State: Extremism & Antisemitism in New York, 2020-2021.

Iowa Supreme Court Overrules 2018 Decision That State Constitution Strongly Protects Abortion Rights

In a complicated set of opinions that span 182 pages, the Iowa Supreme Court overruled their own 2018 decision (referred to in the opinion as "PPH II") and held by a vote of 5-2 that neither the due process nor the equal protection clause of Iowa's constitution grants a fundamental right to an abortion. It thus rejected subjecting abortion regulation-- here a new 24-hour waiting period-- to strict scrutiny under the state Constitution. However the court did not decide what level of scrutiny should apply.  This left the standard to be the undue burden test imposed by federal law. In Planned Parenthood of the Heartland, Inc. v. Reynolds, (IA Sup. Ct., June 17, 2022), Justice Mansfield's majority opinion said in part:

[Law] professors [in an amicus brief] urge that adhering to a precedent when the membership of a court changes “refutes the cynical view that a supreme court is a political institution guided by the justices’ personal values, rather than the law.” But we know that the professors do not share that cynical view, so why do they ask us to act in fear of it? Shouldn’t we instead follow our solemn oaths to uphold the Iowa laws and constitution? In the end, court decisions should be—and we believe are—judged by the strength of their reasoning, not by the identity of the persons who wrote or joined them....

Constitutions—and courts—should not be picking sides in divisive social and political debates unless some universal principle of justice stands on only one side of that debate. Abortion isn’t one of those issues....

In summary, PPH II lacks textual and historical support. It is doctrinally inconsistent with prior Iowa jurisprudence concerning family rights that followed a balancing approach. Its rhetoric is one-sided. Its constitutional footing is unsound. While it is true that some other states have provided heightened protection for abortion rights, they have done so by invoking more relevant substantive constitutional guarantees—such as the right of privacy—not a procedural clause like due process.....

While 5 Justices concurred in that conclusion, 2 of those Justices in an opinion by Justice McDermott disagreed with the instructions on remand given in Justice Mansfield's opinion, saying in part:

I join almost all parts of the court’s opinion, including...  its overruling of ... PPH II.... But I dissent from my colleagues’ remand directing the district court to apply an “undue burden” standard, subject (apparently) to the standard being “litigated further” by the parties. In my view, we should emphatically reject—not recycle—Casey’s moribund undue burden test and instead direct the district court to apply the rational basis test to the plaintiffs’ constitutional challenge.

Chief Justice Christensen filed an opinion dissenting in part, saying: 

Out of respect for stare decisis, I cannot join the majority’s decision to overrule ... PPH II ... because I do not believe any special justification “over and above the [majority’s] belief ‘that the precedent was wrongly decided’ ” warrants such a swift departure from the court’s 2018 decision....

Since 2018, the makeup of our court has significantly changed with the appointment of four new justices to replace outgoing justices. Coincidentally, all four outgoing justices were part of the 5–2 majority that recognized a fundamental right to decide whether to continue or terminate a pregnancy in the 2018 case.

Justice Appel, who is the only Justice on the court who was part of the majority in 2018, filed an 88-page dissent, concluding in part:

The majority has chosen to simply rule that strict scrutiny is not the applicable test of a statute regulating abortion ... and has remanded the case to the district court for further consideration of other issues. The problem with this approach is twofold. First, the majority opinion grossly understates the importance of this life-changing abortion decision on women. Second, the majority opinion eliminates a strong, workable, and widely accepted barrier to governmental intrusion into the reproductive choices of a woman and invites us to stare into the standard-less abyss....

I have some thoughts to seek to salvage what can be salvaged from the decision. First, the district court must recognize the rights primacy of the Iowa Constitution and reject summarily a rational basis test, which is too often no test at all. Second, if a version of the undue burden test is to be adopted, it must be with teeth.

Des Moines Register reports on the decision. [Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]

Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine Bars Mississippi Courts From Adjudicating Claims Of Fired Diocese Finance Officer

In Catholic Diocese of Jackson, Mississippi v. DeLange, (MS Sup. Ct., June 16, 2022), the Mississippi Supreme Court held that the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine prevents Mississippi courts from adjudicating wrongful termination, defamation and infliction of emotional distress claims brought by the former Finance officer of the diocese.  Plaintiff was given several reasons for his termination by the bishop. Under the Code of Canon Law, the Finance officer can be removed only for "grave cause." Plaintiff claimed that the reasons given for his termination were false. The court said in part:

 ... de Lange argues that his request merely asks a court to determine the truthfulness of the reasons given by the Diocese for his termination. De Lange insists that a civil court will not be required to interpret the Code of Canon Law. We disagree.

Even if the Diocese’s reasons were found to be based on falsehoods, and we are making no such determination, a reason existed for de Lange’s termination. That is, there was some reason for his termination, whether it is one of the reasons cited by the Diocese or, perhaps, it is simply the apparent incompatibility that existed between de Lange and Bishop Kopacz. Whatever that reason may be and regardless of the strength of that reason, the request that de Lange now makes ... would ultimately require judicial interpretation of what constitutes “grave cause” under the Code of Canon Law....  Such an interpretation is off limits for a civil court to make.

Parents' Group Says Infrastructure Appropriations To Private Schools Violate Mississippi Constitution

A parents' organization has filed suit in a Mississippi state trial court challenging two Mississippi laws that together appropriate $10 million for grants to private or nonpublic schools for water, sewer and broadband infrastructure projects.  The appropriated funds come from federal Coronavirus State Fiscal Recovery Funds received under the American Rescue Plan. The complaint (full text) in Parents for Public Schools v. Mississippi Department of Finance and Administration, (MS Chancery Ct., filed 6/15/2022), contends that the Mississippi laws violate Section 208 of the Mississippi Constitution that provides:

No religious or other sect or sects shall ever control any part of the school or other educational funds of this state; nor shall any funds be appropriated toward the support of any sectarian school, or to any school that at the time of receiving such appropriation is not conducted as a free school.

The Mississippi ACLU issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.