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. 

9th Circuit Hears Oral Arguments In Tribe's Challenge To Geothermal Project

On Wednesday, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments in Fallon Paiute-Shoshone Tribe v. U.S. Department of the Interior (video of full oral arguments). In the case, in a January 14, 2022 opinion (full text) a Nevada federal district court, among other things, rejected a claim by the Fallon Paiute-Shoshone Tribe that construction of a geothermal facility will violate their rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The district court held that plaintiffs' claim that the project destroys the Tribe's ability to exercise its religious traditions is not enough to amount to a "substantial burden" on religious exercise. Desecration of a sacred area does not coerce Tribe members to act contrary to their religion. A conservation organization is also a plaintiff in the case. (See prior related posting.)  Nevada Current reports on this week's oral arguments.

President Issues Executive Order On Equality For LGBTQI+ Individuals

President Biden yesterday issued an Executive Order on Advancing Equality for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, and Intersex Individuals. (Full text). The Order sets out a long list of initiatives to be undertaken by various Cabinet departments and federal agencies. These include using federal authority to counter state laws which limit access to medically necessary care, reducing the risk of exposure to conversion therapy, and strengthening non-discrimination protections.  The Order also focuses on support for LGBTQI+ individuals in schools, housing programs, family counseling and health care.

Yeshiva University Must Recognize LGBTQ Student Group

In YU Pride Alliance v. Yeshiva University, (NY Cty. Sup.Ct., June 14, 2022), a New York state trial court held that New York City's public accommodation law requires Yeshiva University to officially recognize as a student organization an LGBTQ group, YU Pride Alliance.  The University must immediately grant the organization the full and equal treatment accorded to other student organizations.  The court rejected the University's claim that it is exempt from coverage under the definitions in NY Admin Code §8-102 which excludes from coverage a "religious corporation incorporated under the education law."  While Yeshiva University is incorporated under the education law, according to the court:

Yeshiva's organizing documents do not expressly indicate that Yeshiva has a religious purpose. Rather, Yeshiva organized itself as an "educational corporation" and for educational purposes, exclusively.... [T]he inquiry must focus on the purpose of the institution, which is typically expressed in a corporation's organizing documents. There may be schools organized under the education law that have a stated religious purpose so that they are exempt.... Since Yeshiva has not done so, the court does not need to reach this issue.

The court went on to hold that applying the public accommodation provisions of the New York City Human Rights Law to Yeshiva does not violate its First Amendment free exercise or free speech rights, saying in part:

Assuming arguendo that Yeshiva's refusal to recognize an LGBTQ student group is part of its exercise of religion, the NYCHRL's impact on Yeshiva's exercise of religion is only incidental to the NYCHRL's ban on discrimination. There can be no dispute that the NYCHRL is a neutral law of general applicability. It does not target religious practice....

... Yeshiva's Free Speech rights will not be violated by application of the NYCHRL. Formal recognition of a student group does not equate with endorsement of that group's message....

Washington Examiner reports on the decision.

New Jersey Township Settles RLUIPA Zoning Case With DOJ

The Department of Justice announced yesterday that a proposed Consent Order (full text) has been filed with a New Jersey federal district court in United States v. Township of Jackson, (D NJ, filed 6/15/2022). According to the Justice Department:

[The order] would resolve a lawsuit the United States filed in May 2020 alleging that the Township and Planning Board passed zoning ordinances that broadly prohibited religious schools and banned schools with dormitories, both of which are important to providing religious education within the Orthodox Jewish community. The complaint alleged that the intent of the ordinances was to prevent Orthodox Jewish schools from opening in the Township and thereby dissuade members of that community from living in or moving to Jackson....

The consent order requires Jackson Township to repeal the remaining active discriminatory ordinance and replace it with an ordinance that will allow religious elementary and secondary schools, religious higher learning institutions and religious residential schools. The consent order also requires that the new zoning ordinance treat religious schools equally with non-religious institutions that operate in the Township.

Also, the Township must pay a $45,000 civil penalty and pay $150,000 into a settlement fund.

Meat Processor Is Not State Actor In Requiring COVID Vaccination of Employees

In Reed v. Tyson Foods, Inc., (WD TN, June 14, 2022), a Tennessee federal district court dismissed plaintiffs' claims that their rights under RFRA and free exercise clause were violated when their employer required them to be vaccinated against COVID.  The court held that plaintiffs were not state actors, even though the President had invoked the Defense Production Act and instructed meat and poultry procession plants to continue operations.  The court said in part:

Plaintiffs contend that Defendant acted as an “agent of the government … by imposing strict worker vaccination rules to (in the estimation of the federal government), in order to preserve the integrity of the national food supply.”... However, no facts are pled that would enable the Court to find a sufficient nexus between Defendant’s vaccine policy and the involvement of the Government. The mere fact that Defendant relied on OSHA and CDC guidance in formulating its vaccine policy does not make Defendant an “agent of the government.” Nor does the fact that Defendant is subject to the federal government’s COVID-19 guidance for meat and poultry plants convert Defendant into a government actor.

The court also dismissed several other, but not all, of plaintiffs' additional claims.

Synagogue Sues In Challenge To Florida's Restrictive Abortion Law

Suit was filed last week in a Florida state trial court by a Palm Beach County synagogue challenging Florida's recently enacted 15-week abortion ban. The complaint (full text) in Generation to Generation, Inc. v. Florida, (FL Cir. Ct., filed 6/10/2022) contends that the law violates the free exercise, establishment, right to privacy, due process and equal protection provisions of the Florida Constitution.  The complaint alleges in part:

40. Some women, such as the members, congregants, supporters of Plaintiff L’Dor Va-Dor and their families have an abortion because it is required by their religious faith.  For Jews, all life is precious and thus the decision to bring new life into the world is not taken lightly or determined by state fiat.  In Jewish law, abortion is required if necessary to protect the health, mental or physical well-being of the woman, or for many other reasons not permitted under the Act.  As such, the Act prohibits Jewish women from practicing their faith free of government intrusion and thus violates their privacy rights and religious freedom.....

71. The Jewish people have often borne the brunt of the horrors that occur when the power of Christianity has merged with the power of the state.  The result has been Inquisitions, Crusades, ghettoes and pogroms for the Jews and the eventual loss of freedom for everyone else.... 

72.  The architects of the Act have taken a first step towards the dismantling of that wall and returning the state of Florida and our nation back to a time when the merger of Christianity and government produced genocide, slavery, misogyny, and the denial of equal rights and in many cases, any rights at all to those who did not share the gender, race or religion of those in power.

Jews for a Secular Democracy issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

German Federal Court Refuses To Order Removal Of Medieval Antisemitic Sculpture

As reported by AP, Germany's Federal Court of Justice yesterday refused to order a Wittenberg church where Martin Luther once preached to remove a 730-year old antisemitic sandstone relief carved on the outside of the church. The sculpture is known as the "Judensau" or "Jew pig".  A display explaining the history of antisemitism in Germany was added in 1988. While the full opinion is not yet online, the Court issued a press release summarizing the Court's decision. The press release describes the sculpture:

It shows a sow whose teats are being suckled by two people who are identified as Jews by their pointy hats. A person, who can also be identified as a Jew by his hat, lifts the sow's tail and looks into her anus. In 1570, the inscription "Rabini Shem Ha Mphoras" was placed over the sow, based on two anti-Judaist writings published by Martin Luther in 1543.

The press release also summarizes the Court's holding that while the sculpture was originally "massively defamatory," a bronze base and and a nearby display added in 1988 remedied the situation:

From the authoritative point of view of an unbiased and reasonable observer, it has ... converted [the sculpture] into a memorial for the purpose of commemoration and remembrance of the centuries-long discrimination and persecution of Jews up to the Shoah and distanced itself from the defamatory and anti-Jewish statement - as expressed in the relief when viewed in isolation.

State Department Issues International Religious Freedom Report

On June 2, the State Department issued its annual Report to Congress on International Religious Freedom.  Issued in accordance with the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998, the Report describes the status of religious freedom in nearly 200 foreign countries. The 2000-page Report is available on the State Department's website only in a format that allows the reader to choose one country at a time and read the report on that nation.  Appendices to the Report, also available on the website, give additional information on the legal framework that attempts to assure religious freedom internationally. Secretary of State Blinken and Ambassador At Large for International Religious Freedom Rashad Hussain delivered remarks (full text) on the release of the Report, highlighting issues in a number of  nations.  Ambassador Hussain said in part:

I’d like to lay out three key themes in the report.

First, too many governments use discriminatory laws and policies and abuse their own people. We have seen two genocides of religious minority communities in recent years – in China and in Burma.

Second, rising societal intolerance and hatred are fueling violence and conflict around the world. Governments must not sit silent or stand idly by in the face of such oppression.

Third, powerful collaboration among civil society, governments, and multilateral partners has led to some progress and provides hope in addressing these complex challenges.

European Court: Lithuania Should Have Provided Civilian Service Alternative To Jehovah's Witness

In Teliatnikov v. Lithuania, (ECHR, June 7, 2022), the European Court of Human Rights in a Chamber Judgment held that Lithuania violated Article 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion) of the European Convention On Human Rights when it refused to grant a Jehovah's Witness deacon alternative service under civilian control. The petitioner has religious objections to military service or any alternative service controlled, supervised or directed in any way by the military, or which supports military activity. Lithuania only provides alternative national defense service under military supervision. The court concluded:

the Court finds that the system in Lithuania failed to strike a fair balance between the interests of society and those of the applicant who has deeply and genuinely held beliefs.

The court also issued a press release summarizing the decision.

Title VII 90-Day Right To Sue Runs From Receipt Of Email, Not From Opening It

In Paniconi v. Abington Hospital- Jefferson Health, (ED PA, May 24, 2022), plaintiff, a 62-year-old white woman and a born-again Christian had filed a race and religious discrimination claim against her employer with the EEOC.  The EEOC sent both plaintiff and her attorney a right-to-sue letter on Sept. 8, 2021, but sent it through an e-mail which merely told the recipients to check their EEOC portal for an important document.  The e-mail to the attorney did not list the client's name or indicate that the important document was a right-to-sue letter. Title VII requires suit to be filed within 90 days after receipt of the right-to-sue letter.  Plaintiff's attorney did not access the portal or download the letter until Sept. 13.  Suit was filed on December 8, which is 91 days after receipt of the e-mail.  The court dismissed the suit, rejecting the argument that the 90-day period should run from the date the attorney accesses the portal and downloads the letter. Instead it held that the 90-day period runs from the date the e-mail reaches the attorney's inbox. JD Supra reports on the decision.