White House Issues Easter Greetings

Today is Easter. In honor of the holiday, President Biden issued a Statement (full text) which says in part:

Jill and I join Christians around the world in celebrating Easter Sunday, a day of hope and joy, renewal and rebirth....

Today, we hold close the Easter message that nothing – not even death – can match the power of faith, hope, and love. And we remember Jesus’ sacrifice and recommit ourselves to love God with all our hearts and to love our neighbors as ourselves, embracing His call to treat one another with compassion.

Last week, the White House also issued a Release (full text) giving extensive details for this year's annual Easter Egg Roll. It says that "In total, approximately 30,000 people will take part in this year’s Easter “EGGucation” Roll...."

Ministerial Exception Doctrine Requires Dismissal of Hostile Work Environment Claims

In Montgomery v. St. John's United Church of Christ, (OH App., April 6, 2023), an Ohio state appellate court held that the ministerial exception doctrine requires dismissal of plaintiffs' hostile work environment claims. In the case, the church's minister and a pastoral assistant contended that they were sexually harassed by a lay leader of the church, and that their employment was terminated because of their resistance to this conduct. The court said in part:

The [trial] court found that due to the nature of relationships of the parties involved and the subject matter of the conversations and communications between them, it could not “adjudicate the sexual harassment claims of Appellants without distinguishing between Appellee Martin as a parishioner in the congregation seeking counsel, guidance, and comfort from his pastor and pastoral assistant, and Martin as a church officer engaging in harassing or hostile behavior.”... The court found that it could not make this distinction or determination without “delving deeply into the relationships and expectations of the parties and their church and their faith.” ... 

We agree that this is precisely the kind of state inquiry into church employment decisions that the First Amendment forbids....

Contradictory Orders From 2 District Court on FDA's Approval of Abortion Pill

In Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. U.S. Food & Drug Administration, (ND TX, April 7, 2023), a Texas federal district court held that plaintiffs have a substantial likelihood of success on their claim that the FDA's 2021 action allowing the abortion drug mifepristone to be distributed by mail violates the Comstock Act and thus was also in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. The court also concluded that the FDA's approval in 2000 of doctors prescribing mifepristone violated the agency's rules for approval of new drugs. The FDA rules (Subpart H) relied upon to approve the drug apply to "new drug products that have been studied for their safety and effectiveness in treating serious or life-threatening illnesses and that provide meaningful therapeutic benefit to patients over existing treatments...."  The court said in part:

[T]o satisfy Subpart H, FDA deemed pregnancy a “serious or life-threatening illness[]” and concluded that mifepristone “provide[d] [a] meaningful therapeutic benefit to patients over existing treatments.” See 21 C.F.R. §§ 314.500; 314.560. FDA was wrong on both counts....

Pregnancy is a normal physiological state most women experience one or more times during their childbearing years — a natural process essential to perpetuating human life. Defendants even admit pregnancy is not an “illness.”...

FDA also exceeded its authority under the second requirement of Subpart H. In addition to treating a serious or life-threatening illness, chemical abortion drugs must also provide a “meaningful therapeutic benefit” to patients over surgical abortion... [T]his cannot be the case because chemical abortion drugs do not treat “serious or life-threatening illnesses” — a prerequisite to reaching the second requirement.... Similarly, chemical abortion drugs cannot be “therapeutic” because the word relates to the treatment or curing of disease.

The court stayed the FDA's approval of mifepristone, but stayed the effectiveness of its order for 7 days so the government can appeal to the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals for emergency relief.  President Joe Biden issued a statement (full text) criticizing the court's decision and reporting that the Justice Department has already filed an appeal.  Vice President Kamala Harris also issued a statement (full text) criticizing the decision.

Meanwhile, in State of Washington v. U.S. Food & Drug Administration, (ED WA, April 7, 2023), a Washington federal district court issued a preliminary injunction barring the FDA from "altering the status quo and rights as it relates to the availability of Mifepristone" in the 17 states and District of Columbia that are plaintiffs in the case. Plaintiffs are challenging certain requirements for prescribing mifepristone added in 2023.

Seattle Times reports on the decisions.

Maryland Attorney General Releases Report on Child Sexual Abuse in Baltimore Archdiocese

Maryland's Attorney General today released a Report on Child Sexual Abuse in the Archdiocese of Baltimore (full text). The 463-page report details abuse by each of 156 individuals , with the names of ten of the individuals redacted. The Report says in part:

As the case descriptions in this Report make clear, from the 1940s through 2002, over a hundred priests and other Archdiocese personnel engaged in horrific and repeated abuse of the most vulnerable children in their communities while Archdiocese leadership looked the other way. Time and again, members of the Church’s hierarchy resolutely refused to acknowledge allegations of child sexual abuse for as long as possible. When denial became impossible, Church leadership would remove abusers from the parish or school, sometimes with promises that they would have no further contact with children. Church documents reveal with disturbing clarity that the Archdiocese was more concerned with avoiding scandal and negative publicity than it was with protecting children.

WBAL's news story has additional details.

Biden Marks Passover by Announcing Upcoming Release of National Strategy to Combat Antisemitism

Passover begins this evening. To mark the holiday, President Biden published an Op Ed (full text) on CNN (also posted on the White House website) titled "To fight antisemitism, we must remember, speak out and act". In it he announced that the federal government will be releasing the first-ever national strategy to counter antisemitism.  In the op-ed, after recounting a number of instances of antisemitism, the President went on to say in part:

These acts are unconscionable and despicable. They carry in them terrifying echoes of the worst chapters in human history. And they’re not only a strike against Jews, they’re also a threat to other minority communities and a stain on the soul of our nation.

To the Jewish community, I want you to know that I see your fear, your hurt and your concern that this venom is being normalized.... 

Rest assured that I am committed to the safety of the Jewish people. I stand with you. America stands with you. Under my presidency, we continue to condemn antisemitism at every turn. Failure to call out hate is complicity. Silence is complicity. And we will not be silent....

But government alone cannot root out antisemitism and hate. All Americans, including businesses and community leaders, educators, students, athletes, entertainers and influencers must help confront bigotry in all its forms. We must each do our part to create a culture of respect in our workplaces, in our schools, on our social media and in our homes.

IRS Correctly Denied Non-Profit Ruling to Church That Promoted Use of Ayahuasca

In Iowaska Church of Healing v. United States, (D DC, March 31, 2023), the D.C. federal district court upheld the IRS's refusal to grant §501(c)(3) non-profit status to a church that promotes the religious use of Ayahuasca, a tea brewed from plants containing a drug that is illegal under the federal Controlled Substances Act. The church, which has 20 members located around the world, applied to the Drug enforcement Administration for a religious exemption from CSA provisions. After four years, that application is still pending.  The court said in part:

The IRS correctly concluded that, until plaintiff obtains a CSA exemption, its promotion and use of Ayahuasca remains illegal under federal law, and plaintiff is neither organized nor operated exclusively for public purposes. As a result, plaintiff is not entitled to an exemption from income tax under section 501(c)(3).

Plaintiff had argued that the Supreme Court's decision in the O'Centro case entitled it to a tax exemption.  The court responded:

[T]he holding in O Centro stands only for the principle that obtaining a CSA exception for religious use of Ayahuasca is possible, if such use is in fact a sincere religious exercise. The flaw in plaintiff’s reliance on O Centro here, is that plaintiff has still not obtained that CSA exception—and whether plaintiff’s showing made to the DEA is sufficient to qualify for this exemption remains an open question that is not before this Court. O Centro simply does not stand for plaintiff’s asserted holding, that all Ayahuasca use is necessarily religious, and that case certainly does not establish that all organizations making use of Ayahuasca are entitled to an exemption from income tax, which is the issue pending here.

The court also held that the church lacks standing to challenge the denial of non-profit status as a violation of RFRA because "plaintiff’s inability to use Ayahuasca does not stem from the IRS Determination Letter, but rather from the CSA’s ban on using DMT, and plaintiff’s lack of a CSA exemption thus far."

Suit Challenges Oregon Requirement That Adoptive Parents Support Child's Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity

Suit was filed this week in an Oregon federal district court challenging a rule of the state's Department of Human Services that persons seeking to adopt children must agree to accept and support the sexual orientation and gender identity of any child placed with them. The complaint (full text) in Bates v. Pakseresht, (D OR, filed 4/3/2023), contends that the rule violates the free expression, free exercise and equal protection rights of plaintiff whose Christian religious beliefs do not permit her to comply with this requirement.  The complaint reads in part:

Under this rule, caregivers must agree to use a child’s preferred pronouns, take a child to affirming events like Pride parades, or sign the child up for dangerous pharmaceutical interventions like puberty blockers and hormone shots—no matter a child’s age, no matter whether a child actually desires these things, and no matter how deeply these requirements violate the caregiver’s religious convictions.

This puts Jessica in a bind. Like countless people of faith, Jessica believes that our biological sex carries spiritual significance for who we are and how we should act. Jessica cannot affirm that a male is or should try to be female or vice  versa....

... Because she will not agree to use a hypothetical child’s preferred pronouns or facilitate a hypothetical gender transition, she cannot even adopt a newborn who has no concept of, much less a desire for, these things.

ADF issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

9th Circuit: Jehovah's Witness' Suit Over State-Employee Loyalty Oath Is Remanded

In Bolden-Hardge v. Office of the California State Controller, (9th Cir., April 3, 2023), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and remanded a district court's dismissal of a suit by a Jehovah's Witness who challenged California's refusal to allow her to add a paragraph to the state-employee loyalty oath specifying that by signing it she is not giving up the right to exercise her religion which requires her primary loyalty be to God. Reversing dismissal of plaintiff's Title VII claims, the court said in part:

California’s apparent rationale for the oath requirement is to ensure that if an oath taker’s religion ever comes into conflict with the federal or state constitutions, religion must yield....

[T]o exempt the Controller’s Office from a federal accommodation requirement solely because the requested accommodation would violate state law would essentially permit states to legislate away any federal accommodation obligation....

Bolden-Hardge alleges a disparate impact... She contends that her religious beliefs are “consistent with [those] of other Jehovah’s Witnesses,” who also believe that their faith forbids them from swearing primary allegiance to any human government.... [T]his belief is in tension with the loyalty oath requirement....

The loyalty oath is a business necessity, the Controller’s Office argues, because public employees must be “committed to working within and promoting the fundamental rule of law while on the job.”... It asserts that allowing addenda that indicate an oath-taker’s primary loyalty to God would render the oath meaningless and undermine critical state interests. This assertion may well prove true and, if so, the Controller’s Office may be able to defeat Bolden-Hardge’s disparate impact claim at a later stage of the litigation. But this is not apparent from the face of her Complaint,,,,

Catholic Media Group Can Move Ahead with Free Speech and Assembly Claims

In St. Michael's Media, Inc. v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, (D MD, March 31, 2023), a Maryland federal district court in an 80-page opinion allowed a conservative media organization that often criticizes the current leadership of the Catholic Church to move ahead with free speech and freedom of assembly claims against the city of Baltimore and the management of a city-owned concert venue.  The claims grew out of the cancellation of a contract for plaintiff to hold a conference and prayer rally to coincide with the Fall General Assembly of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. The court said in part:

St. Michael’s sufficiently alleges viewpoint-based discrimination.... St. Michael’s alleges that defendants cancelled the rally “specifically because they disapproved of the content and viewpoint of the speech that was expected to occur at the rally.”... St. Michael’s asserts that, when Voris spoke with Shea regarding the cancellation, “Shea told Mr. Voris that his office had received reports that St. Michael’s had ‘ties to the January 6 [2021] riot’ at the Capitol building in Washington, D.C.”.... As I acknowledged in granting the preliminary injunction ..., “invocation of the events of January 6, 2021, as horrifying as they were, cannot, without more, serve as a license for the City to dispense with its obligations under the First Amendment.”

The court however dismissed plaintiff's free exercise claim, saying in part:

[T]he Second Amended Complaint “does not raise any plausible suspicion”—even a slight suspicion—that plaintiff’s religious exercise was the “object” of the City’s decision to cancel the rally.

It also dismissed plaintiff's Establishment Clause claim, saying in part:

The only allegation in the SAC asserting City support for the USCCB is that “Shea unilaterally canceled St. Michael’s [sic] contract with SMG because the USCCB told him to.”...  [T]his still does not exhibit a religious preference. St. Michael’s bases this assertion on its belief that “Shea was told by USCCB members that the content of speech during St. Michael’s [sic] rally would be uncomfortable or offensive for the attendants of its Fall General Assembly to hear.”... Yet, the only religious element of the rally identified by St. Michael’s is praying the Rosary. There are no facts alleged to support the claim that defendants chose one religious group over another.

North Dakota Enacts A State RFRA

Last week, North Dakota Governor Dout Burgum signed House Bill No. 1136 (full text), North Dakota's version of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The new law provides in part:

... [A]state or local government entity may not:

a. Substantially burden a person's exercise of religion unless applying the burden to that person's exercise of religion in a particular situation is essential to further a compelling governmental interest and is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling government interest;

b. Treat religious conduct more restrictively than any secular conduct of reasonably comparable risk; or

c. Treat religious conduct more restrictively than any comparable secular conduct because of alleged economic need or benefit.

ADF issued a press release announcing the signing of the bill. [Thanks to Greg Chaufen for the lead.]

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Carlo A. Pedrioli, Cakes and Communication: A Trans‐Atlantic Conversation Between the U.S. And U.K. Supreme Courts on the Tension Between Anti‐Discrimination Law and the Freedoms of Religion and Speech, (7 U. Bologna L. Rev. 183 (2023)).
• Debbie Kaminer, Religious Accommodation in the Workplace, Undue Hardship, and the Impact on Coworkers, (March 20, 2023).
• Patrick Parkinson, Gender Identity Discrimination and Religious Freedom, (Journal of Law and Religion, Vol. 38, No. 1, 2023).
• Raymond Caraher, Reproductive Injustice? A County-Level Analysis of the Impact of Abortion Restrictions on Abortion Rates, (Political Economy Research Institute Working Paper No. 573 (March 2023)).
• Allie Zunski, Ducking the System: Examining the Efficacy of Bounty Hunting Statutes that Stifle the Free Exercise of Constitutional Rights, (William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal, Vol. 31, No. 1, 2022).
• Kenneth Robert Davis, A Farewell to Harms: Rethinking the Injury Requirements of Title VII,   (Harvard Journal on Legislation, Vol. 61, 2024).

From SmartCILP:

• Joshua E. Kastenberg, Commander-in-Chief Authority and the Religious Rights of Service Members in Crisis Times: The Vaccine Mandate as a Call for Reincorporating the Standing Army Fears in Jurisprudence and Depoliticizing the Bench, 83 Louisiana Law Review 1-58 (2022).

Muslim Corrections Officer Applicant Can Move Ahead With 1st Amendment and Title VII Claims

In Talukder v. State of New York, (SD NY, March 31, 2023), a New York federal district court allowed a Sunni Muslim applicant to the New York Department of Corrections Training Academy to move ahead with his 1st Amendment free exercise claim as well as his Title VII failure to accommodate and disparate treatment claims.  Plaintiff sought to wear a 3-inch beard for religious reasons, while the Academy was unwilling to permit any beard longer than one-eighth of an inch. Finding a free exercise violation was adequately alleged, the court said in part:

DOCCS allows numerous uniformed staff to grow beards for secular reasons, while simultaneously denying trainees the same accommodation on religious grounds....

The justification that Defendants proffer for the ban—that “all trainees must pass a respirator fit test and applicable respirator training to become certified correctional officers,” ...—raises a fact-intensive inquiry that fails to justify dismissal at this stage. The Complaint raises a plausible inference that a policy requiring all trainees to be clean-shaven or wear facial hair no longer than 1/8 of an inch in order to pass a respiratory fit-test is not narrowly tailored to advance the goal of preparing trainees to become corrections officers—particularly given that many of those officers will never have to wear a respirator at all....

Maker of Religious-Themed Military Dog Tags Can Move Ahead with 1st Amendment Claims Against DoD

In Shields of Strength v. U.S. Department of Defense, (ED TX, March 31, 2023), a Texas federal district court allowed a company that manufactures military personnel "dog tags" to move ahead with certain of its 1st Amendment claims against the military that sought to prevent the company from producing dog tags with Biblical or other religious references near symbols or phrases that the military had registered for trademark protection. DoD regulations provide:

DoD marks may not be licensed for any purpose intended to promote ideological movements, sociopolitical change, religious beliefs (including non-belief), specific interpretations of morality, or legislative/statutory change.

 The court said in part:

If the military does not have meaningful conditions and controls on the licensing of its trademarks, the military may be deemed to have opened a limited public forum for private expression using those marks.... If a public forum were opened, disallowing views that promote religious beliefs would seem a prima facie case of unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination. So defendants’ motion to dismiss the viewpoint-discrimination claims ... is denied....

For purposes of the religious-exercise claims ... the court assumes that any marks not licensed for use on Shields’ dog tags are valid trademarks, used in a way likely to confuse consumers, without a defense to liability (other than religious-exercise rights). The question under Counts 2 and 8 is whether the military’s failure to license that usage violates the Free Exercise Clause or RFRA. 

The answer turns on the same categorization called for by the free-speech challenge.... If the military’s grants of trademark licenses are government speech, then any burden from the military’s licensing choice is justified by the compelling governmental interest that animates trademark law generally and, specifically, a trademark owner’s liberty to decide and control its own vision of a mark’s reputation....

On the other hand, if the military’s program here is so unrestrictive that the military has surrendered any licensing voice—making its licensing program a limited public forum for private speech using the marks—that deficiency also negates the compelling public interest for denying Shields’ ability to use the marks.... 

However, the court refused to issue a preliminary injunction because it found no substantial likelihood of success on the claims.

White House Recognizes Transgender Day of Visibility

Today the White House posted a Statement from President Joe Biden on Transgender Day of Visibility (full text) which says in part:

I want every member of the trans community to know that we see you. You’re each made in the image of God, and deserve love, dignity, and respect. You make America stronger, and we’re with you.

The White House also issued a Fact Sheet:  White House Honors Transgender Day of Visibility (full text), setting out a long list of initiatives of the Biden-Harris Administration supporting transgender individuals.

Church Preschool Challenges California's Anti-Discrimination Rules for Food Program Participants

Suit was filed earlier this month in a California federal district court by a Christian church and its preschool challenging the state's agreement form that was required for participants in the state's Child and Adult Food Care Program. The complaint (full text) in Church of Compassion v. Bonta, (SD CA, filed 3/10/2023), alleges in part:

The new 2022 CDSS PSA required the Church and Dayspring to certify that their management of the CACFP Food Program will be “operated in compliance with all applicable civil rights laws and will implement all applicable non-discrimination regulations....

Because of the Church’s orthodox religious beliefs regarding human sexuality, it was unable to comply with the PSA when it submitted its application for the 2022-2023 year. Specifically, Dayspring signed the PSA statement, but deleted the words “sexual orientation” and “gender identity.”

The complaint alleges that the requirement violates plaintiffs' Free Exercise, Free Speech and Establishment Clause rights. National Center for Law & Policy issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Militant Pro-Abortion Group Sued Under Access to Clinic Act

Suit was filed this week in a Florida federal district court against a militant abortion rights group by a pro-life pregnancy counseling and medical clinic that was vandalized and whose fundraising gala was disrupted by the group.  The complaint (full text) in Heartbeat of Miami, Inc. v. Jane's Revenge, (MD FL, filed 3/29/2023), charges violations of the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, trespass, civil conspiracy and violation of the Florida RICO statute.

At the same time, Florida's attorney-general filed suit in the same court against two members of the organization who allegedly participated attacks against three abortion counseling centers in Florida. The complaint (full text) in Moody v. Freestone, (MD FL, filed 3/29/2023), seeks an injunction and civil penalties, invoking the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act.

Daily Signal and Fox News report on the lawsuits.

Fraudulent Misrepresentation Claims Against LDS Church Are Dismissed

 In Gaddy v. Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, (D UT, March 28, 2023), a Utah federal district court, in a 56-page opinion, dismissed a Second Amended Complaint in a class action lawsuit brought by former members of the LDS Church. The suit alleges that the Church has fraudulently misrepresented its founding to its members while its leaders did not have a sincere religious belief in the narrative. It also alleges that the Church made fraudulent misrepresentations about the use of money received from members' tithing. The court said in part:

The court has twice considered and rejected Plaintiffs’ arguments that fraud-based claims directed towards the Church’s alleged misrepresentations and omissions concerning the First Vision, Church History, translations of the Books of Mormon and Abraham, and locations of events in the Book of Mormon are not subject to the church autonomy doctrine. The court also previously rejected Plaintiffs’ theory that they can avoid the church autonomy doctrine by arguing the sincerity of the Church’s beliefs or basing their claims on a theory of fraudulent omissions....

By pleading even more facts concerning Joseph Smith, Plaintiffs seek to have the court adjudicate the truth or falsity of the Church’s beliefs and teachings concerning its founder by challenging the accuracy of facts surrounding those beliefs. But again, “[i]f religious events themselves sit beyond judicial purview, religious beliefs concerning the details of those events must enjoy the same protection.”...

The court agrees with the Church that Plaintiffs’ fraud in the inducement claim fails, not for running into a First Amendment bar on the falsity or reliance elements, but for a more fundamental failure to plead the claim with the specificity required under Rule 9(b)....

The court agrees with the Church that Plaintiffs fail to state a claim for fraudulent nondisclosure on the tithing theory because Plaintiffs cannot show that a legal duty exists between the Church and its members requiring disclosure of material financial information....

The court is unaware of any case law supporting the proposition that “constructive fraud based on a breach of promises of future performance” is an independent, recognized cause of action in Utah....

Because the UCSA [Utah Charitable Solicitation Act] does not appear create a private cause of action, and because effectively Plaintiffs concede this point in their Opposition, the court dismisses Plaintiffs’ claim for violation of the UCSA....

The court agrees with the Church that Plaintiffs have failed to plead a cognizable civil RICO claim....

Kentucky Legislature Overrides Veto of Transgender Bill Restricting Schools and Doctors

As reported by AP, the Kentucky legislature yesterday voted to override Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear's veto of Senate Bill 150 (full text). The elaborate bill requires schools to notify parents of all school health and mental health services related to human sexuality, contraception or family planning and of parents' right to withhold consent for such services.

The bill prohibits policies that keep student information confidential from parents and policies that require use of pronouns that do not conform to a student's biological sex. However, information may be kept from parents if disclosure is likely to result in the child becoming abused or neglected.

Under the bill, no instruction on sexuality may be offered to children below grade 6, and no course at any grade level may discuss gender identity, gender expression or sexual orientation. Parental consent is required for students to take sex education courses. However, this does not bar discussing sexuality of historic persons or answering relevant student questions about human sexuality. 

The bill bars schools from allowing students to use restrooms or locker rooms reserved for students of the opposite biological sex. However other accommodations should be made for transgender students. 

Also, health care providers are prohibited from furnishing puberty blockers or providing other gender transition procedures to minors.

Governor Beshear's March 24 veto message said in part:

Senate Bill 150 allows too much government interference in healthcare issues and rips away the freedom of parents to make medical decision for their children. Senate Bill 150 further strips freedom from parents to make personal family decisions on the names their children are called and how people should refer to them....

I am also vetoing Senate Bill 150 because my faith teaches me that all children are children of God and Senate Bill 150 will endanger the children of Kentucky....

Lex18 reports on the bill.

11th Circuit: Jewish Student's Masking Objections Do Not Get 1st Amendment Protection

 In Zinman v. Nova Southeastern University, Inc., (11th Cir., March 29, 2023), the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a Florida federal district court's dismissal of a suit by a Jewish law student challenging on religious grounds his school's COVID mask mandates. The court said in part:

None of Zinman’s claims are viable. His application for injunctive relief is moot as to all of the defendants. Zinman’s damages claims fare no better. His Title II claim fails because damages are not available under Title II of the Civil Rights Act. His Title VI claim fails because the Second Amended Complaint does not contain any factual allegations -- as it must -- from which we could infer that any of the masking decisions NSU made were animated by discriminatory intent. And his § 1983 claims fail because Zinman has not plausibly alleged that any of his constitutional rights were violated.....

Zinman has failed to state a claim for a free exercise violation arising under the First Amendment because Zinman does not explain why the mask mandates were not neutral and generally applicable. Neutral rules of general application are subject only to rational basis review.... The adoption of mask mandates easily passed this test.... 

Zinman has also failed to state a claim for a free speech violation because wearing a mask is not speech or expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment.... 

The likelihood is exceedingly remote and attenuated that a reasonable passerby observing Zinman without a mask on would interpret his unmasked status as an attempt to convey some sort of message. There are so many more probable explanations for a person’s decision to go unmasked that have nothing to do with conveying any sort of message -- political, religious, or otherwise. Thus, for example, a person may not be masked for medical reasons, or because he left his mask at home, or perhaps just on account of a personal dislike for masking.

Christain School Sues Over "Poison Pill" Provisions That Exclude It from Maine's Tuition Payment Program

Suit was filed this week in a Maine federal district court by a Christian school challenging 2021 amendments to Maine's Human Rights Act that operate to exclude the school from participating in Maine's tuition payment program for students from districts without public high schools.  The motion for a preliminary injunction (full text) which was filed along with the complaint in Crosspoint Church v. Makin, (D ME, filed 3/27/2023), focuses on provisions in 5 MRSA §4602 that now require schools that participate in the tuition reimbursement program to comply with the sexual orientation and gender identity non-discrimination provisions. Religious schools that do not receive public funding are exempt from that provision. The law also now provides that "to the extent that an educational institution permits religious expression, it cannot discriminate between religions in so doing." Plaintiff characterizes these provisions as "poison pills" that prevent it from participating in the tuition payment program without violating its religious beliefs after the U.S. Supreme Court in Carson v. Makin upheld the right of sectarian schools to participate. Plaintiff seeks a preliminary injunction based on violations of the Free Exercise, Free Speech and Establishment Clauses. Washington Times reports on the lawsuit.