9th Circuit: Employee's Objection to Covid Vaccine Accommodation Was Not Religious

 In Detwiler v. Mid-Columbia Medical Center, (9th Cir., Sept. 23, 2025), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision, affirmed a district court's dismissal of a suit under Title VII and a parallel Oregon statute brought by Sherry Detwiler, the medical center's Director of Health Information. Detwiler initially objected on religious grounds to her employer's Covid vaccine requirement. She was granted an exemption, conditioned, in part, on her having weekly antigen testing. She objected to that accommodation because she believed the ethylene oxide used in obtaining a nasal swab for the test was carcinogenic. She told her employer in part:

I have asked God for direction regarding the current COVID testing requirement. As I have prayed about what I should do, the Holy Spirit has moved on my heart and conscience that I must not participate in COVID testing that causes harm. If I were to go against the moving of the Holy Spirit, I would be sinning and jeopardizing my relationship with God and violating my conscience . . .

As a Christian protecting my body from defilement according to God’s law, I invoke my religious right to refuse any testing which would alter my DNA and has been proven to cause cancer. I find testing with carcinogens and chemical waste to be in direct conflict with my Christian duty to protect my body as the temple of the Holy Spirit.

Detwiler asked instead either for saliva testing or remote work. The majority said in part:

The Ninth Circuit has not yet endorsed a test for determining the nature, whether religious or secular, of a belief underlying a Title VII claim....

To survive a motion to dismiss, a plaintiff need not establish her belief is consistent, widely held, or even rational.  However, a complaint must connect the requested exemption with a truly religious principle.  Invocations of broad, religious tenets cannot, on their own, convert a secular preference into a religious conviction....

The District Court acknowledged the sincerity and religiosity of Detwiler’s belief in her body as a temple and even the implied prohibition on ingesting harmful substances.  Therefore, at issue is Detwiler’s belief that the testing swab is harmful, and specifically that EtO is a carcinogen.  This belief is personal and secular, premised on her interpretation of medical research.  In essence, Detwiler labels a personal judgment based on science as a direct product of her general religious tenet.  Yet, her alarm about the test swab is far too attenuated from the broad principle to treat the two as part of a single belief....

Invocation of prayer, without more, is still insufficient to elevate personal medical judgments to the level of religious significance.... Indeed, crediting every secular objection bolstered by a minimal reference to prayer as religious “would amount to a blanket privilege and a limitless excuse for avoiding all unwanted obligations.” 

Judge VanDyke filed a dissenting opinion, saying in part:

By affirming the district court, the majority creates a circuit split.  When faced with the question of whether religious objections to COVID-19 policies mirroring Detwiler’s objection were sufficiently pled, our sister circuits have consistently answered in the affirmative.... 

To work well, the majority’s mode of analysis must be capable of objective, impartial, and consistent application.  If not, such analysis opens wide the door to the discriminatory treatment of religious beliefs.  Those beliefs christened by a judge as “truly religious” will be protected, and those condemned as too mixed with “secular” beliefs will be left unprotected.  The majority’s approach requires the impossible—we are judges, not theologians or philosophers.  Judges are ill equipped to parse mixed claims into the “truly religious” and “purely secular” silos that the majority purports to discern....

Salem Reporter reports on the decision. 

Kansas Court Says Statute Sets Low Threshold for Religious Exemption from Covid Vaccine Mandate

In St. Luke's Health System, Inc. v. State of Kansas ex rel. Schultz, (KS App., Jan. 17, 2025), a Kansas state appeals court held that under a Kansas statute, an employee's request for a religious exemption from an employer's Covid vaccine mandate does not require as much proof as the trial court in the case demanded.  The appeals court said in part:

The statute does not require the employee to articulate a basis for their sincerely held religious beliefs, nor does it require the employee to provide written evidence of those religious beliefs, as the district court held Glean was required to do. It only requires the employee to explain in a written statement that complying with a COVID-19 vaccine mandate would violate their sincerely held religious beliefs, which Glean did. K.S.A. 2023 Supp. 44-663(a). And, in fact, the statute specifies:  "An employer shall grant an exemption requested in accordance with this section based on sincerely held religious beliefs without inquiring into the sincerity of the request." K.S.A. 2023 Supp. 44-663(b)....

Not only did she [employee Sheryl Glean] explain that her refusal to get the COVID-19 vaccine is based on her religious views—as in she believes the vaccine may cause harm to her body—she clarified the religious basis for her concern (or why she believes getting the vaccine would be wrong) when she said since she became a Christian she believes the Bible tells her that her body is holy. See 1 Corinthians 6:19-20..... Glean further evidenced the religiosity of her beliefs when she stated that she had discussed her concerns about getting the vaccine with the pastor from her church. Glean's invocation of both the Bible and her pastor as sources of guidance in this matter evidence the religiosity of her beliefs about the COVID-19 vaccine.

1st Circuit: Satanic Temple Loses Bid to Deliver City Council Invocation

In The Satanic Temple, Inc. v. City of Boston, (1st Cir., Aug. 6, 2024), the U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals rejected arguments that the failure to invite Satanic Temple to deliver an invocation at a Boston City Council meeting violated the 1st Amendment's Establishment Clause and the free exercise clause of the Massachusetts Constitution. Individual members of Council invite invocation speakers, without any guidelines as to selection. They choose speakers based on personal relations or based on the work the speaker does in the member's district or with the member's constituents. The court said in part:

TST has not shown that any of the Boston City Councilors have chosen invocation speakers based on the Councilors' own religious preferences or biases or barred potential speakers from delivering invocations that oppose the Councilors' religious beliefs.  The record shows rather that speakers were invited based on their contributions to the Councilors' districts and to the Boston community....

The record shows that there are many neutral, non-discriminatory reasons why TST has not been invited to give an invocation, including the following.  TST does not claim to have had a personal or working relationship with any Councilor on the basis of work it has done to benefit Boston communities. ...

Chief Judge Barron filed a concurring opinion, saying in part:

The City starkly sets forth the argument that causes me concern in its brief to us on appeal.  It contends -- seemingly unabashedly -- that the Establishment Clause permits City Councilors to choose invocation speakers based on how likely the selection is to earn them votes at the ballot box from certain religious communities.... 

I suppose the City is right that using invocations to attract political support from certain religious communities does not constitute invidious religious discrimination.  But I am dubious that the Establishment Clause blesses the practice that the City describes....

Alabama Supreme Court Affirms Dismissal of Church Property Dispute

 In Sails v. Weeks, (AL Sup. Ct., April 5, 2024), the Alabama Supreme Court by a vote of 8-1, without an opinion for the majority, affirmed the dismissal of a suit challenging the use and disposal of church property. Defendants contended that plaintiffs are not members of the church and thus could not bring suit on its behalf. Justice Mendheim filed a concurring opinion, saying in part: 

[I]t is inaccurate to attribute the genesis of the ecclesiastical-abstention doctrine to the First Amendment. The delicacy with which courts approach church-dispute cases arose more organically from America's history of seeking to disentangle church denominations from state governance...

I believe that our invocation of the ecclesiastical-abstention doctrine should come from a desire to protect religious freedom rather than an unfounded fear that religious ideas might taint our civil jurisprudence....

The Sails plaintiffs argued that the heart of this dispute concerns the alleged mismanagement or misuse of church property. However, I believe that the Sails plaintiffs' property allegations are a proxy for asking the courts to decide who controls the church -- an issue our courts lack the means and expertise to decide....

... "[T]he nature of the underlying dispute" is whether the Sails plaintiffs, who stopped attending the church several years ago, are still members of the spiritual church, who are the ones that ultimately control the incorporated church and the property it holds. In short, there is no way around the fact that, in this case, a decision concerning the use of the church property implicates the spiritual church because church membership is a spiritual concern. 

Justice Sellers filed a dissenting opinion, saying in part:

Defendants ... moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing, in part, that the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring an action on behalf of Union Baptist because, they claimed, Union Baptist was no longer a recognized legal entity under Alabama law because of the official name change that occurred in 2017....

... [C]hanging the name of a corporation, amending an organizational document, or reforming a deed involves the use of our civil legal system that by its very nature is not ecclesiastical.  The issue in this case then is who has the authority to act on behalf of the organization?  And, after identifying that issue, the question then becomes whether secular courts can decide that issue or whether that decision should be left to some ecclesiastical authority?  Because we have no ecclesiastical courts with enforcement authority, I am uncertain how the issue can be decided without court intervention. 

Satanic Temple Can Move Ahead with Establishment Clause Challenge to Its Treatment by City Council

In The Satanic Temple v. The City of Chicago, (ND IL, March 31, 2024), an Illinois federal district court held that The Satanic Temple ("TST") had alleged enough to move ahead on its claim that the city had violated the Establishment Clause by constantly delaying for over three years a request by a TST clergyman to deliver an invocation at a Chicago City Council meeting.  The court said in part:

The Establishment Clause requires that the City treat Vavrick the same as it would any other clergy member from any other religion. Assuming, therefore, that the City has not scheduled Vavrick to give an invocation because of his religious beliefs, such practice violates the Establishment Clause.

The court however dismissed plaintiffs' free speech claim finding that plaintiffs had not plausibly alleged that City Council invocations are anything other than government speech. It also refused to grant a preliminary injunction.

Episcopal Priest Sues County Commissioners Over Invocation Policy

Suit was filed this week in a Michigan federal district court by an Episcopal Priest in Grand Haven, Michigan, challenging the manner in which the Ottawa County Board of Commissioners currently selects individuals to deliver invocations at Board meetings. The complaint (full text) in Cramer v. Ottawa County, (WD MI, filed 10/2/2023), alleges that prior to 2023, different Commissioners on a rotating basis selected individuals to offer invocations. However, since January 2023 when Joe Moss became Chairperson of the Commission, only he selects persons to give invocations.  He has selected only male pastors of Christian churches who share his religious beliefs.  Some of the pastors have included in their invocations praise for a far-right political group that Moss founded and leads. Plaintiff is an advocate of LGBTQ rights, while Moss has promoted an anti-LGBTQ agenda. Grand Haven Tribune reports on the lawsuit.

11th Circuit: Buddhist Organization Prevails Under Alabama State Constitution in Zoning Fight

In Thai Meditation Association of Alabama, Inc. v. City of Mobile, Alabama,(11th Cir., Oct. 2, 2023), the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals partly reversed the summary judgments entered in favor of the city of Mobile at the district court level.  At issue is Mobile's denial zoning approval for a Buddhist organization to use a house in a residential district for religious purposes. The appeals court held that neither party is entitled to summary judgment under RLUIPA because of factual disputes.  It held that the district court correctly dismissed plaintiff's Free Exercise claim because the zoning designation process is neutral and generally applicable. It held however, that the Buddhist organization is entitled to an injunction under the Alabama Religious Freedom Amendment to the state constitution, saying in part:

To begin, we have never held that neighborhood character or zoning are compelling government interests sufficient to justify abridging core constitutional rights....  ... [A]mici also note that generalized, high-level invocations of “zoning” are often used to target minority faith’s land use applications.... These concerns underscore why it is necessary to hold government entities to their burden to state and support a well-defined government interest. 

Here, the City has failed to carry its burden to demonstrate a compelling government interest. The generalized invocations of neighborhood character and zoning fail as a matter of law under our precedents. The City’s invocation of traffic concerns fare slightly better..., but they are unsubstantiated in the record....

Denying Satanic Temple's Invocation Request Upheld

In The Satanic Temple, Inc. v. City of Boston, (D MA, July 31, 2023), a Massachusetts federal district court upheld Boston City Council's refusal to invite a representative of The Satanic Temple ("TST")  to deliver an invocation at a City Council meeting. The court said in part:

TST can prevail on its Establishment Clause claim if the evidence shows that the City's denial of TST's request to give the invocation was based on TST's religious beliefs. The City provides ample evidence that the refusal to invite TST to give an invocation was not because of TST's religious beliefs. All of the evidence submitted suggests that individual City Councilors invited speakers who served their constituents and were active in their communities, and TST did not qualify as such....

While TST provides some evidence that it had been involved in the greater Boston community, which is the primary factor City Councilors consider when selecting invocation speakers, through “Menstruatin’ with Satan,” “Warmer than Hell,” and Boston Pride tabling, there is no evidence that the City Councilors knew of those activities, nor that those activities took place within the Councilors’ districts. Indeed, the evidence clearly conflicts with that conclusion.....

The emails sent from the public to the City Councilors fall short of supporting TST's discrimination claim. Emails from the public expressing disagreement with TST's beliefs —particularly where, as here, there is no evidence that any City Councilor responded to those emails—do not support an inference that City Councilors did not invite TST to give an invocation because they shared the same opinion as the senders....

The City Council's process—or lack thereof—for selecting invocation speakers is the most troublesome to the Court of all factors to consider regarding legislative prayer practices. There is no dispute that the selection of the invocation speaker is left to each individual City Councilor's discretion, and there are no formal written policies governing this procedure. This leaves ample room for abuse, which concerns the Court. However, the lack of a formal, written policy does not by itself create a constitutional problem (though the existence of one could provide neutrality-enforcing guidelines that would help avoid constitutional issues in the future), nor does the fact that the selection of speakers is left to the discretion of the individual Councilors.

The court also rejected a free exercise claim. [Thanks to Greg Chaufen for the lead.]

Satanic Temple Sues to Deliver Invocation at Chicago City Council

The Satanic Temple filed suit last week in an Illinois federal district court challenging the city's exclusion of its clergy from delivering an invocation before Chicago City Council.  The complaint (full text) in The Satanic Temple, Inc. v. City of Chicago, (ND IL, filed 5/3/2023) alleges in part:

2. The City of Chicago has a longstanding practice of inviting clergy to open each meeting of its City Council with a prayer. 

3. Plaintiffs, The Satanic Temple Inc. (“TST”), and Adam Vavrick, an ordained minister of the Satanic Temple and a leader of TST’s Illinois congregation, seek to take part in this time-honored tradition by delivering an invocation before a City Council meeting. For more than three years, the City has rebuffed Plaintiffs’ efforts to provide an invocation without providing any clear explanation of why. 

4. The City’s practices with regard to invocations before City Council violate the First Amendment in two ways:

first, the City violates the First Amendment’s establishment clause by excluding disfavored minority faiths from the opportunity to provide an invocation; and 

second, the City grants the City Clerk unconstrained discretion to decide who can and cannot deliver an invocation because it lacks any standards for selection of clergy to give invocations and has not established a uniform process for members of the clergy to apply to give an invocation.

Reason reports on the lawsuit.

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.

Suit By Clergy Challenges Missouri Abortion Bans

Suit was filed this week in a Missouri state trial court by 13 clergy from several Christian denominations, as well as from Unitarian Universalist and Jewish traditions challenging a series of Missouri abortion restrictions and bans as violating the state constitution's prohibition on favoring any religion and its protection of free exercise of religion.  The 83-page complaint (full text) in Blackmon v. State of Missouri, (MO Cir. Ct., filed 1/19/2023), alleges in part:

8. This open invocation of religion in enacting H.B. 126 marked a departure from earlier legislative efforts to restrict abortion, when the sponsors claimed that their intent was to protect Missouri women. The legislative debate over those provisions reveals that, as with H.B. 126, the true purpose and effect of these laws was to enshrine certain religious beliefs in law. In enacting S.B. 5, for example, legislators spoke repeatedly of their intent to protect “innocent life,” could point as justification for the law only to biased investigations by the Senate “Sanctity of Life” Committee, and ignored the testimony of clergy who warned that targeting providers to limit abortion access impermissibly imposed one religious view on everyone else....

10. Collectively, Plaintiffs, like other clergy and faith communities all across this State, have through their work providing care, counseling, teaching, and preaching, spent decades countering the false but all too common assertion that faith and abortion access are incompatible. Their beliefs and lived experiences stand in stark contrast to the religious dictates that the Total Abortion Ban, Gestational Age Bans, Reason Ban, 72-Hour Delay, Same-Physician Requirement, Medication Abortion Restrictions, and Concurrent Original Jurisdiction Provision (collectively, the “Challenged Provisions”) impose on all Missourians.

NPR reports on the lawsuit. 

10th Circuit Denies En Banc Review in Ministerial Exception Case

In Tucker v. Faith Bible Chapel International, (10th Cir., Nov. 15, 2022), the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals by a vote of 6-4, denied en banc review of a panel decision which held that interlocutory appeals from the denial of a ministerial exception defense are not permitted. In the case, a former high school teacher and administrator/ chaplain contends that he was fired for opposing alleged racial discrimination by a Christian school. Judge Ebel, joined by Judge McHugh, filed an opinion concurring in the denial of review, saying in part:

Our panel decision, then, is consistent with well-established lines of Supreme Court precedent. Our decision also does not create any circuit split. It appears that no other circuit has addressed the specific question presented here—whether a religious employer is entitled to an immediate appeal under Cohen from a district court’s interlocutory ruling denying the employer summary judgment on its affirmative ministerial exception defense because there are genuinely disputed issues of material fact as to whether the employee qualifies as a minister.

Judge Bacharach, joined by Judges Tymkovich and Eid, filed a dissenting opinion, saying in part:

This appeal involves a religious body’s invocation of the collateral-order doctrine to appeal the denial of summary judgment on the ministerial exception. The panel majority rejected that effort, treating the ministerial exception like other affirmative defenses reviewed by appellate courts after final judgment. 

In my view, that treatment reflects a fundamental misconception of the ministerial exception. Though most defenses protect only against liability, the ministerial exception protects a religious body from the suit itself. Without that protection, religious bodies will inevitably incur protracted litigation over matters of religion. The stakes are exceptionally important for religious bodies deciding whom to hire or fire.

Americans United issued a press release announcing the decision.

11th Circuit: City Council Invocation Is Government Speech

In Gundy v. City of Jacksonville Florida, (11th Cir., Sept. 30, 2022), the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of appeals held that an invocation opening a city council meeting delivered by Reginald Gundy, a pastor invited by a member of Council, is government speech.  At issue is a suit by the pastor whose microphone was cut off in the middle of his invocation by the city council president who concluded that the invocation had crossed over into a political attack. The court concluded that the pastor's suit should be dismissed, saying in part:

Mr. Gundy's appeal centers on the fact that he brought counts against Mr. Bowman and the City based on alleged violations of his free speech and free exercise rights under the United States Constitution and the Florida Constitution.

As a threshold and dispositive matter, ... we hold that the district court erred in deeming the invocation private speech in a nonpublic forum instead of government speech. And since Mr. Gundy did not allege a violation of his rights under the Establishment Clause, which is the proper constitutional vehicle to attack the government speech at issue here, his appeal must fail.

Baltimore Wrongly Denied Permission For Rally To Protest USCCB Conference

In St. Michael's Media, Inc v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, (D MD, Oct. 12, 2021), a Maryland federal district court in an 86-page opinion held that the city of Baltimore violated the free speech and assembly rights of St. Michael's (also known as "Church Militant") when it instructed the company managing the city-owned Pavilion to cease contract discussions with Church Militant.  Church Militant was planning a protest prayer rally across from the Fall General Assembly of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. According to the court, Church Militant:

“often criticizes the current leadership” of the Catholic Church for what it perceives as “corruption in the Church,” including the Church’s protection of priests and others implicated in the sexual abuse of minors.... In addition, St. Michael’s “is a vocal critic of what it perceives as politicization of the Catholic Church by the USCCB.” ... In particular, it “disagrees with, and criticizes, a number of the USCCB’s positions on religious doctrine and morality, as well as the Catholic Church’s covering up of the sexual abuse committed by priests.”

The city contended:

Church Militant is attempting to hold an event on November 16, 2021 with confirmed speakers including Steve Bannon and others whose speaking engagements and statements have a track record of inviting protestors and counter protestors and supporting the January 6 attack on the Capitol in Washington, D.C. According to available media reports, their events and statements have a demonstrated history of inciting property destruction, physical assaults, and other violence....

The court held, however:

Even under the more lenient standard applied to nonpublic and limited fora, viewpoint discrimination is constitutionally impermissible.... I conclude that plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits of its claim that the City was not viewpoint-neutral in barring the rally. Therefore, I need not consider whether the City’s actions would have been reasonable in the absence of viewpoint discrimination....

Without question, the City reacted to a perceived safety concern arising from past use of inflammatory remarks by some of the rally speakers. In thwarting the rally, the City essentially invoked or relied on the heckler’s veto. And, in doing so, it exercised complete, unfettered discretion; it acted on an ad hoc basis, without any standards. Further, it has presented somewhat shifting justifications for its actions, with little evidence to show that the decision was premised on these justifications....

The City cannot conjure up hypothetical hecklers and then grant them veto power.... Moreover, 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 granted a preliminary injunction and the city has appealed to the Fourth Circuit.

UPDATE: In an Order dated Nov. 3 (full text), the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, without opinion, affirmed the district court.

Satanic Temple Can Move Ahead With Establishment Clause Claim As To Invocation Denial

In The Satanic Temple, Inc. v. City of Boston, MA (D MA, July 21, 2021), a Massachusetts federal district court refused to dismiss an Establishment Clause challenge to Boston's City Council invocation policy.  The court said in part:

TST reached out to the Boston City Council, which opens each of its meetings with a prayer, asking to give the invocation.... Defendant denied those requests, explaining that City Councilors choose speakers from their communities for their assigned weeks, and that TST could not lead the prayer without an invitation from a City Councilor.... Those denials were made after members of the Boston public objected to the possibility of TST opening a City Council session with a prayer and in the wake of a public outcry and 2,000-person protest after TST attempted to stage a “Black Mass” at Harvard....

Given the fact-specific nature of the inquiry into the constitutionality of legislative prayer schemes and the lack of controlling authority from the First Circuit or Supreme Court, this Court will not dismiss TST’s Establishment Clause claim at the motion to dismiss stage....  TST has plausibly raised a claim that Defendant’s prayer selection policy has discriminated against it in violation of the Establishment Clause.

The court dismissed plaintiff's free exercise, free speech and equal protection challenges. Universal Hub reports on the decision.

9th Circuit: Denial of Invocation Spot To Satanic Temple Was OK

 In The Satanic Temple, Inc. v. City of Scottsdale, (9th Cir., May 19, 2021), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed an Arizona federal district court's dismissal of a religious discrimination suit by The Satanic Temple.  TST sued after it was not permitted to give a religious invocation at a city council meeting.  The district court concluded that the decision was based on a policy that only allowed organizations with substantial ties to the city to deliver invocations. According to the Court of Appeals:

After weighing the credibility of the witnesses, the district court properly concluded that TST had failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that TST’s religious beliefs were a factor, let alone a substantial motivating factor, in Biesemeyer’s decision not to approve TST to give a legislative prayer.

Friendly Atheist blog discusses the case.

Cutoff of Pastor's City Council Invocation Did Not Violate 1st Amendment

In Gundy v. City of Jacksonville, Florida, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78850 (MD FL, March 22, 2021)-- decided last month but just available on Lexis-- a Florida federal district court dismissed a suit by a pastor who contended that City Council president Aaron Bowman improperly shut off plaintiff's microphone in the middle of the invocation that he was offering. Finding that plaintiff's 1st Amendment rights were not violated, the court said in part:

First, the Court finds Mr. Bowman's actions were not viewpoint discrimination. Mr. Bowman's comment when interrupting Plaintiff and the subsequent removal of Plaintiff's amplification were for the stated purpose of preserving the invocation for its intended purpose. That purpose, according to the City, was to maintain "a tradition of solemnizing its proceedings . . . for the benefit and blessing of the Council." ...

During his invocation, Plaintiff's remarks were at times objectively disparaging of the City Council and the incumbent administration.... While the remarks might have been entirely appropriate if delivered in a more public forum or even Plaintiff's pulpit, they were subject to the reasonable and viewpoint-neutral limitations set by the City for the invocation period — a nonpublic forum.

Plaintiff has filed an appeal. Florida Politics has additional background on the case.

9th Circuit Hears Oral Arguments In The Satanic Temple's Suit On Invocations

On Thursday, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments (video of full arguments) in The Satanic Temple v. City of Scottsdale. In the case, an Arizona federal district court held that the Satanic Temple had failed to prove that the denial of their request to deliver an invocation at a City Council meeting was because of their religious beliefs. The district court concluded rather that the decision was based on a policy that only allowed organizations with substantial ties to the city to deliver invocations. (See prior posting.) Law& Crime reports on the oral arguments. [Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]

Clergy Who Will Speak At Biden's Inauguration Are Identified

Vox reports that the clergy who will deliver the invocation and benediction at President Joe Biden's inauguration today are men with whom Biden has close personal ties.  Fr. Leo O’Donovan who will deliver the invocation was president of Georgetown University from 1980- 2001. Biden's son Hunter was  student at Georgetown during part of this period.  Rev. Silvester Beaman who will deliver the closing benediction is pastor of the predominately African-American Bethel AME Church in Wilmington, Delaware.

Court Upholds Denial of Invocation Slot For Satanic Temple

In Satanic Temple v. City of Scottsdale, (D AZ, Feb. 6, 2020), an Arizona federal district court held that the Satanic Temple failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the denial of their request to deliver a non-theistic invocation at a City Council meeting was because of their religious beliefs. The court rejected defendants' claims that the beliefs of the Satanic Temple do not constitute a religion. However the court credited the testimony of the Acting City Manager that he based his decision on a long-standing unwritten policy that only organizations that had substantial ties to the city could deliver invocations. This decision followed substantial public opposition to the Satanic Temple's appearance, including the orchestration by a church of 15,000 e-mails in opposition. The blog For Infernal Use Only reports on the decision.

UPDATE: In an April 9 opinion (full text), the court, with one exception, refused to amend its findings of fact or to amend its judgment.