Tampa Conversion Therapy Ban Invalidated On Preemption Grounds

In Vazzo v. City of Tampa, (MD FL, Oct. 4, 2019), a Florida federal district court invalidated a Tampa city ordinance barring licensed psychotherapists and counselors from practicing sexual orientation change efforts on minors. The court avoided the significant constitutional issues posed by the conversion therapy ban, and instead held:

The City Ordinance is preempted by the comprehensive Florida regulatory scheme for healthcare regulation and discipline. Accordingly, the Court strikes the Ordinance under the implied preemption doctrine and grants the Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment.

(See prior related posting.) CBS12 reports on the decision.

Court Refuses To Enforce Jewish Marriage Contract Provision

In Tilsen v. Benson, 2019 Conn. Super. LEXIS 2475 (CT Super. Ct., Sept. 11, 2019), a Connecticut trial court opinion that has just become available on LEXIS, the court rejected plaintiff's argument that it could constitutionally apply neutral principles of law to enforce a provision in a ketubah (Jewish marriage contract) as if it were a pre-nuptial agreement. According to the court, the ketubah provided that any divorce would be "according to Torah law."  The husband argued that this means there should be a 50/50 division of property with no obligation for continuing alimony payments. In denying plaintiff's motion to enforce the ketubah, the court said in part:

To educate the court about the parties' chosen law, the plaintiff submitted the affidavit of a rabbi ... describing his understanding of Torah law as it pertains to alimony and property division. The defendant also submitted the affidavit of a rabbi. However, the defendant's rabbinical expert disagrees with the plaintiff's rabbinical expert.

It is clear, then, that enforcement of the "Torah law" provision in the Ketubah would require the court to choose between competing interpretations of Jewish law. But resolving such a dispute is precisely what the neutral principles approach forbids a court to do. The first amendment does not permit courts to resolve disputes over the meaning and interpretation of the Torah-or the Koran, the New Testament or any other religious text....

EEOC Sues Over Firing of Jehovah's Witness Employee

The EEOC announced this week that it has filed suit in a New York federal district court against Pedidatrics 2000 for religious discrimination in firing a Jehovah's Witness employee.  When the employee requested not to attend a December holiday party because it would violate her religious practices, she was fired by the health care company's owner who texted her: "[W]e can't tolerate religious privileges from anyone." JD Supra reports on the lawsuit.

Supreme Court Grants Certiorari On Louisiana Abortion Law Restriction

The U.S. Supreme Court today agreed to hear appeals involving the constitutionality of Louisiana's abortion law.  The Louisiana Unsafe Abortion Protection Act requires any abortion provider to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of the location where abortions are performed. The cases are June Medical Services LLC v. Gee, (Docket No. 18-1323, cert. granted 10/4/2019), and Gee v. June Medical Services, LLC, (Docket No. 18-1460, cert. granted 10/4/2019). (Order list).  In March 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court summarily upheld a preliminary injunction preventing the Act from going into effect. (See prior posting.) In September 2018, the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the statute. (Full text of opinion.) In January 2019, the full 5th Circuit, by a vote of 6-9, denied en banc review. (Full text.) Plaintiff appealed the substantive holding to the Supreme Court. (SCOTUSblog case page). The state cross-appealed the grant of standing to plaintiffs. (SCOTUSblog case page). NPR reports on the grant of certiorari.

Northern Ireland's Abortion Restrictions Violate European Human Rights Convention

Yesterday, the High Court in Northern Ireland held that Northern Ireland's abortion law is incompatible with Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights insofar as it bars abortions in cases of fatal fetal abnormality. As explained in a Summary of Judgment issued by the court:

In June 2018, the UK Supreme Court ... dismissed an appeal by the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission... over the legality of the abortion laws in Northern Ireland. A termination is only permitted if a woman’s life is at risk or if there is a risk of permanent and serious damage to her mental or physical health.... The majority of the UKSC held that the abortion law in Northern Ireland was incompatible with Article 8 ECHR [European Convention on Human Rights] in cases of FFA, rape and incest in that it denied women in these situations a lawful termination of their pregnancies for those who wish for it but dismissed the appeal, however, on the procedural issue that the NIHRC did not have the standing to bring the appeal....

Mrs Justice Keegan said she intended to follow the ruling of the UKSC that the law in Northern Ireland is incompatible with human rights in cases of FFA. She declined to follow a course which involved her effectively reopening the arguments already made and decided in relation to Article 8 incompatibility by the UKSC. The judge commented that the decision on substantive compatibility issues was intended by the UKSC to have persuasive force and that any matters of contention in respect of that decision should be corrected by the UKSC itself or by the European Court of Human Rights (“ECtHR”).

A full text of the decision is not yet posted online. The Guardian reports on the decision.

New Survey On Religious Activity In Public Schools

Pew Research Center has released a new survey titled For a Lot of American Teens, Religion Is a Regular Part of the Public School Day. (Full text; Summary)

The survey finds that about four-in-ten teens who attend public schools say they commonly (either “often” or “sometimes”) see other students praying before sporting events at school. This includes about half of teenage public schoolers who live in the South, where students are more likely than those in other regions to witness and partake in various religious expressions at school.

In addition, roughly half of U.S. teens who attend public school say they commonly see other students in their school wearing religious clothing (such as an Islamic headscarf) or jewelry with religious symbols (such as a necklace with a Christian cross or a Jewish Star of David).

About a quarter of teens who attend public schools say they often or sometimes see students invite other students to religious youth groups or worship services. About one-in-six (16%) often or sometimes see other students praying before lunch in their public school. And 8% report that they commonly see other teenagers reading religious scripture outside of class during the school day.....

... 8% of public school students say they have ever had a teacher lead their class in prayer – an action that the courts have ruled is a violation of the Establishment Clause of the Constitution.1 An identical share (8%) say they have had a teacher read from the Bible as an example of literature, which the courts have said is fine.

Court Refuses To Dismiss Challenge To Nativity Scene

In Woodring v. Jackson County, Indiana, (SD IN, Sept. 30, 2019), an Indiana federal district court refused to dismiss an Establishment Clause challenge to a nativity scene that is placed on the Jackson County courthouse lawn each December.  The court said in part:

The Court has no doubt that a lone nativity scene of this size on prominent display on government property would be one of those nativity scenes that gives a reasonable viewer the impression of religious endorsement. Here, however, the nativity scene is not on its own. It is accompanied by two other arguably secular symbols of Christmas: Santa Claus and a group of Christmas carolers.

Nevertheless, two facts alleged in Woodring’s Complaint persuade the Court that this nativity scene would give a reasonable observer the impression that the government is endorsing a religion. The first of those facts is the geography of the display. According to the Complaint, Santa and the carolers are placed “to the far side of the display, away from the side of the sidewalk where the crèche is located.” .... 

That brings the Court to the second decisive fact. The history of this display is that, for many years, it was only a nativity scene. But just recently, after a complaint from the Freedom from Religion Foundation, Jackson County added some secular symbols as a palliative.

Seymour Indiana Tribune reports on the decision.

Lawsuit Claims Deputy Coerced Driver To Be Baptized

The Chattanooga Times Free Press reports on an unusual lawsuit filed this week by a woman against two Hamilton County (TN) sheriff's deputies in a Tennessee state trial court.  The lawsuit, asking for $11 million in damages, alleges that Deputy Daniel Wilkey initiated an unjustified traffic stop of plaintiff, and then conducted an intrusive pat down search of her for methamphetamine.  He discovered only a marijuana cigarette butt. Then, according to the paper:

After searching the woman's vehicle, he asked her if she had ever been "saved" and whether she believed in Jesus Christ, the lawsuit states. He told her that God was "talking to him during the vehicle search" and that he "felt the Lord wanted him to baptize [her]."

Wilkey then told her to go inside the home she was visiting and grab two towels for a baptism.... He said if she let him baptize her, he would issue her only a criminal citation for the possession of marijuana.....

When the woman returned outside, Wilkey told her to drive her own vehicle and follow him..... [T]hey eventually arrived at a boat ramp at Soddy Lake.... At that point, another deputy — Jacob Goforth — arrived.... Wilkey told the woman that Goforth was there because, "in order for a baptism to be valid, a witness must 'attest' to the ritual."

Wilkey then "stripped nearly naked".... He then led her into nearly waist-deep water, placed one hand on her back and the other on her breasts and completely submerged her under the water....

Pompeo Speaks At Vatican Symposium On Faith-Based Organizations

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo spoke yesterday (full text and video of remarks) in the Vatican at a symposium titled Pathways to Achieving Human Dignity: Partnering with Faith-Based Organizations. The event was co-sponsored by the Holy See’s Secretariat of State and the U.S. Embassy to the Holy See. (Background on event). In his remarks, Secretary Pompeo particularly highlighted the persecution of Uighurs in China, but called out a number of other nations as well, saying in part:

We must recognize the roots of religious repression.  Authoritarian regimes and autocrats will never accept a power higher than their own.  And that causes all sorts of assaults on human dignity.

We must exercise our moral voice to confront them.

Chabad House's Suit Against Zoning Officials Is Dismissed

In Friends of Lubavitch v. Baltimore County, Maryland, (D MD, Sept. 30, 2019), a Maryland federal district court dismissed a suit in which a Chabad House serving students at Towson University and Goucher College challenged a state court order requiring it to raze the expansion of its building which was constructed in violation of zoning rules and a deed restriction.  Plaintiff claimed that implementation of the county's land use rules infringed its rights under RLUIPA and the 1st and 14th Amendments.

Cert. Filed By Little Sisters of the Poor Over Contraceptive Mandate Exemption

A petition for certiorari (full text) was filed yesterday, captioned Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, (U.S. Sup. Ct., filed 10/1/2019). The petition seeks review of the 3rd Circuit's decision in Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. President of the United States of America which affirmed a district court's entry of a nationwide preliminary injunction against enforcement of the Trump Administration's final rules expanding the scope of the exemptions under the Affordable Care Act for employers having religious or moral objections to contraceptive coverage. (See prior posting.) Little Sisters of the Poor who are seeking Supreme Court review were intervenors in the 3rd Circuit case. (See prior posting.) The petition for review sets out the questions presented:

1. Whether a litigant who is directly protected by an administrative rule and has been allowed to intervene to defend it lacks standing to appeal a decision invalidating the rule if the litigant is also protected by an injunction from a different court?

2. Whether the federal government lawfully exempted religious objectors from the regulatory requirement to provide health plans that include contraceptive coverage?

Becket issued a press release announcing the filing of the cert. petition.

Courts Rule On Virginia and Georgia Abortion Statutes

In Falls Church Medical Center, LLC v. Oliver, (ED VA, Sept. 30, 2019), a Virginia federal district court upheld some parts of Virginia's statute regulating abortions, but invalidated other parts, saying in part:

[E]nforcement of the ... Guidelines with respect to first trimester abortion procedures, and the requirement that non-surgical second trimester abortion procedures-up to the point of viability-be performed in outpatient surgical hospitals, present a substantial obstacle to women seeking an abortion and impose an undue burden on that right, in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.... On the other hand, evidence of the heightened potential for complications warrant the requirement that surgical abortion procedures during the second trimester should be performed in a hospital setting.

... [B]ased on a seamless line of authority, this Court cannot conclude that the Physician-Only law ... is either unduly burdensome or improvident when weighed against the State's well-recognized responsibility for ensuring safe abortion care.

... Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that ... requiring a mandatory ultrasound and waiting period, amount to a substantial obstacle preventing a woman's access to abortion care in Virginia. Plaintiffs have further failed to show that the statute's informed consent requirement imposes an undue burden.

Undoubtedly, the requirement that abortion clinics submit to biennial inspection ... is burdensome for clinic personnel. However, it is no more burdensome than inspection requirements for other medical facilities that provide similar services....

AP reports on the decision.

In SisterSong Women of Color Reproductive Justice Collective v. Kemp, (ND GA, Oct. 1, 2019), a Georgia federal district court issued a preliminary injunction against enforcement of Georgia's statute that prohibits abortions after detection of a fetal heartbeat.  The court said in part:

Plaintiffs have therefore met their burden of showing that H.B. 481, in prohibiting abortions after a fetal heartbeat is detectable, would operate as “a substantial obstacle to a woman’s choice to undergo an abortion” in “a large fraction” of relevant cases.....

Furthermore, as discussed above in detail, the Supreme Court has repeatedly and unequivocally held that a State may not ban abortion prior to viability.

Center for Reproductive Rights issued a press release announcing the decision.

Christian Student Group Can Retain Selective Leadership Requirements

In Intervarsity Christian Fellowship USA v. University of Iowa, (SD IA, Sept. 27, 2019), an Iowa federal district court held that the University of Iowa and three of its administrators violated the free speech and free exercise rights of a Christian student organization when it revoked its registered student organization status. The University's action was taken because Intervarsity Christian Fellowship required its leaders to affirm the groups Christian statement of faith. The court said in part:

by granting the exceptions it has to the Human Rights Policy and refusing to make a similar exception for InterVarsity, the University has made a value judgment that its secular reasons for deviating from the Human Rights Policy are more important than InterVarsity’s religious reasons for the deviation it seeks. Because this reflects an impermissible “value judgment in favor of secular motivations,” ... the University’s decision to deregister InterVarsity is subject to strict scrutiny.

Becket issued a press release announcing the decision.

Fired Teacher Sues Saying Requirements On Pronouns For Transgender Students Violated His Rights

A Virginia high school teacher filed suit yesterday in a Virginia state trial court challenging his firing for refusing to use male pronouns to refer to a transgender student in his French class.  The complaint (full text) in Vlaming v. West Point School Board, (VA Cir. Ct., filed 10/1-/2019), claims that the teacher's free speech and free exercise rights, as well as other rights, were violated. Plaintiff contends that the case is

about whether the government may force [plaintiff] to express ideas about human nature, unrelated to the school's curriculum, that he believes are false.

Plaintiff also contends that

[his] views and expression related to gender identity, would require [him] to violate his sincerely held religious beliefs.

Washington Post reports on the lawsuit.

President Trump Sends Rosh Hashanah Greetings

The White House today issued a Presidential Statement on Rosh Hashanah (full text). The holiday begins this evening.  The statement says in part:

...[W]e are all reminded of the virtues we can incorporate into our lives to better us as a Nation—kindness, compassion, and love. Together, with devotion to these ideals, we can form more sincere bonds with people of all faiths to help spread peace and prosperity in the United States and abroad.

Melania and I pray that those celebrating Rosh Hashanah build a more meaningful relationship with God throughout the High Holy Days.  May the Almighty bless you all.

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Patrick Parkinson, Is Gender Identity Discrimination a Religious Freedom Issue?, (September 6, 2019).
• Robin Fretwell Wilson, Family Law Isolationism and 'Church, State, and Family', (Forthcoming, Emory Journal of Law and Religion).
• Nicholas Aroney, Religious Discrimination and Religious Freedom: An Evaluation of the Exposure Draft of the Australian Religious Discrimination Bill 2019, (September 17, 2019).
• Steven Douglas Smith, One Step Enough, (San Diego Legal Studies Paper No. 19-414 (2019)).
• Sean T. Murphy, Philippines RH Act: Rx for Controversy Diatribe by Philippines’ President Turns Back the Clock, (September 16, 2019).
• James Rooney, International Human Rights as a Source of Unenumerated Rights: Lessons from the Natural Law, (September 5, 2019).
• Elias Al-Hihi & Asem Khalil, International Law within the Palestinian Legal System: A Call for Granting Human Rights Treaties a Special Constitutional Status, (September 13, 2019).
• Dale Carpenter, Born in Dissent: Free Speech and Gay Rights, (72 SMU Law Review 375 (2019)).
• Maryam Saeed, Challenges of Islamic Insurance (Takaful) Globally, (COMSATS Journal of Islamic Finance, 2019).
• Morr Link & Yoram Haftel, Islamic Legal Tradition and the Choice of Investment Arbitration Forums, (The Review of International Political Economy, Forthcoming).

Court In Indian State Bans Animal Sacrifice

In Bhattacharjee v. State of  Tripura, (Tripura High Ct., Sept. 27, 2019), a 2-judge panel of the High Court in a state in northeast India prohibited the sacrifice of animals or birds in any temples in the state. In its 72-page opinion, the court held that only practices which are an "essential and integral part of religion" are protected by Art. 25(1) of India's Constitution.  The court said in part:

[I]t cannot be said that the practice of animal sacrifice is essential to the core of the tenets rituals, ceremonies, ceremonies, beliefs observances or the practice of religion within the temple of Mata Tripureswari or other temples managed by the State within the State of Tripura....

In the instant case, sacrifice of animal in temples is not done out of necessity but merely on the unsighted conviction and credence that such activity would please the deity, who in return would bestow them with blessings and wellbeing. ...

The ban on sacrifice of animal ... does not infringe the fundamental right as enshrined in Part III under Art 25(1) of the constitution for the reason that such practice is contrary to constitutional morality and health....

The animals have basic rights and we have to recognise and protect them. The animal and bird breath like us. They are also creation of God. They have also a right to live in harmony with human beings and the nature.... 

The Leaflet discusses the decision at length.

DOJ Backs Catholic Archdiocese In Firing of Teacher For Same-Sex Marriage

On Friday, the Department of Justice filed a Statement of Interest (full text) in an Indiana state trial court in Payne-Elliott v. Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Indianapolis, Inc., (IN Super Ct., 9/27/2019).  In the suit, a teacher in a Catholic school in Indianapolis claims that the Archdiocese wrongly interfered with his contractual relationship with the school when the Archdiocese ordered the school to dismiss the teacher because of his public same-sex marriage. (See prior posting.)  DOJ argued that the First Amendment requires the court to dismiss the teacher's complaint:

The First Amendment bars this action for at least two independent reasons. First, Plaintiff’s action seeks to penalize an indisputably expressive association—the Archdiocese—for deciding which schools may identify as Catholic under its associational umbrella.....

Second, Plaintiff seeks to embroil this Court in a dispute over the Archdiocese’s application of Catholic law, in violation of the church-autonomy doctrine.

A Justice Department press release announced its filing with the court.

Michigan Catholic Adoption Agency Gets Preliminary Injunction Protecting Its Policy on LGBTQ Couples

In Buck v. Gordon, (WD MI, Sept. 26, 2019), a Michigan federal district court issued a preliminary injunction to prevent the state from requiring that a Catholic adoption and foster care agency place children with same-sex couples. The agency currently refers such couples to other agencies.  As summarized by the court:

The State pays St. Vincent to place children with foster or adoptive parents certified as suitable by the State. St. Vincent has done that faithfully, regardless of whether the certified parents were opposite sex, same-sex, or unmarried couples. St. Vincent would like to continue doing so under existing and renewed contracts with the State.  

What St. Vincent has not done and will not do is give up its traditional Catholic belief that marriage as instituted by God is for one man and one woman. Based on that belief, St. Vincent has exercised its discretion to ensure that it is not in the position of having to review and recommend to the State whether to certify a same-sex or unmarried couple, and to refer those cases to agencies that do not have a religious confession preventing an honest evaluation and recommendation. In 2015, the Michigan legislature enacted legislation designed to protect that choice, and until January of 2019, the State defended the right of the State and St. Vincent to make that choice.

That changed when Defendant Attorney General Nessel took office. Leading up to and during the 2018 general election campaign, she made it clear that she considered beliefs like St. Vincent’s to be the product of hate. She stated that the 2015 law seeking to protect St. Vincent’s practice was indefensible and had discriminatory animus as its sole purpose. After her election, she ... put St. Vincent in the position of either giving up its belief or giving up its contract with the State. That kind of targeted attack on a sincerely held religious belief is what calls for strict scrutiny in this case and supports entry of a preliminary injunction preserving the status quo while the case is fully litigated.

Detroit News reports on the decision.

House Holds Hearing on Trump's "Muslim Ban"

On Sept. 24, two subcommittees of the House Judiciary Committee held a joint hearing on Oversight of the Trump Administration’s Muslim Ban. A video of the full 4-hour hearing, along with copies of the prepared testimony of numerous witnesses and letters from other interested organizations are all available on the Judiciary Committee's website. [Thanks to Michael Lieberman for the lead.]

"Church Autonomy" Requires Dismissal of Fired Faculty Member's Claims

In Garrick v. Moody Bible Institute, (ND IL, Sept. 25, 2019), an Illinois federal district court held that the "church autonomy" doctrine requires dismissal of claims by a former faculty member of a religious college that she was terminated because of her advocacy in favor of women serving as clergy members. The court said in part:

Garrick’s disagreement with Moody’s beliefs on the role of women in the ministry underlies the majority of Garrick’s allegations..... Under these circumstances, if the Court were to delve into the disputes posed by Garrick, it would impermissibly inject the auspices of government into religious doctrine and governance.

However the court said plaintiff could refile Title VII claims if they are untethered from her disagreements with Moody’s religious views.

Muslim Community Center's Claim of Discrimination In Permitting Process Must Proceed To Trial

In OT, LLC v. Harford County, Maryland, (D MD, Sept. 23, 2019), a Maryland federal district court refused to grant summary judgment to either side on almost all the claims by a Muslim group seeking permits to construct a community center. Plaintiffs contend that delays in approval were motivated by religious discrimination in violation of various constitutional and statutory provisions and imposed a substantial burden on their free exercise of religion in violation of RLUIPA.  The court said in part:

Importantly, “a government decision influenced by community members’ religious bias is unlawful, even if the government decision makers display no bias themselves....

Here, Plaintiffs contend that the sequence of events leading up to the County’s decision, departures from the County’s normal procedures, and contemporary statements by County decision-makers demonstrate that County Defendants’ actions were motived by the community’s anti-Muslim beliefs....

Conversely, County Defendants maintain that their decisions here were motivated by their desire to conform to existing practices and the County Code....

[T]he Court concludes that there is a genuine dispute of material fact as to the intent of the County Defendants....

The court similarly concluded that there was a genuine dispute of fact on whether the delay imposed a substantial burden on plaintiffs' right of religious exercise.

SPLC's "Hate Group" Designation For Christian Ministry For LGBT Views Is Protected By 1st Amendment

In Coral Ridge Ministries Media, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., (MD AL, Sept. 19, 2019), an Alabama federal district court, in an interesting 141-page opinion, dismissed claims by a Christian television ministry against the Southern Poverty Law Center and Amazon's charitable program. As summarized by the court:

The lawsuit is based largely on Coral Ridge’s allegations that, because of its religious opposition to homosexual conduct, SPLC has designated it as a “hate group” and that, because of this designation, Amazon and AmazonSmile have excluded it from receiving donations through the AmazonSmile charitable-giving program.

Coral Ridge has three claims against SPLC: a state claim that its “hate group” designation is defamatory and federal claims for false association and false advertising under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125. Coral Ridge has a single claim against the Amazon defendants: a federal claim that they excluded it from the AmazonSmile charitable-giving program based on religion, in violation of Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000a et seq.

The ministry conceded that it was a "public figure" for purposes of its defamation claim Engaging in a lengthy discussion of the meaning of "hate group", the court rejected the ministry's claim because "An alleged defamatory statement is generally not provable as false when it labels the plaintiff with a term that has an imprecise and debatable meaning." The court went on to say that even if there were a commonly understood definition of "hate group",  the defamation claim should still be dismissed:

To find actual malice just because SPLC publicized a meaning of “hate group” that conflicted with the common understanding of the term would severely undermine debate and free speech about a matter of public concern. This is because, even if the term had achieved a commonly understood meaning, that meaning would not be fixed forever, but rather could evolve through public debate. To sanction a speaker for promoting a genuinely held dissenting view of the meaning of “hate group” would be akin to punishing a speaker for advocating new conceptions of terms like “terrorist,” “extremist,” “sexist,” “racist,” “radical

The court rejected the ministry's Lanham Act claims, finding that they are subject to the same heightened First Amendment standards, not the lower commercial speech standards.

The court also rejected the ministry's claim that Amazon violated the public accommodation provision of the 1964 Civil Rights Act in excluding it from its charitable giving program, saying in part:

Even if it were assumed that the Amazon defendants are places of public accommodation subject to Title II, seeking to receive donations through the AmazonSmile program does not qualify as a service, privilege, or advantage, etc. protected by the statute’s anti-discrimination prohibition. This is because the Amazon defendants limit the ability to receive such donations exclusively to 26 U.S.C. § 501(c)(3) organizations and therefore do not make that ability open to the public. Moreover, an alternative ground for dismissing the claim is that Coral Ridge has not plausibly alleged that the Amazon defendants discriminated against it based on religion.

The court concluded its opinion:

The court should not be understood as even suggesting that Coral Ridge is or is not a “hate group.” It has merely held that SPLC’s labeling of the group as such is protected by the First Amendment....  

SPLC issued a press release announcing the decision.

Break-Away Diocese Cannot Use Former Trademarked Names

In vonRosenberg v. Lawrence, (D SC, Sept. 19, 2019), a South Carolina federal district court,in a 73-page opinion, resolved a trademark dispute between The Episcopal Church and a break-away diocese.  As summarize by World Intellectual Property Review:

A US judge has ordered a former South Carolina diocese of the Episcopal Church to change its name, after concluding the breakaway group was infringing the Episcopal Church’s trademark-protected diocesan shield.

On Thursday, September 19, District Judge Richard Gergel issued an injunction against the breakaway diocese, ordering the group not to use nine trademarks associated with the Episcopal Church and ... The Episcopal Church in South Carolina, an affiliate of the national church.

Jewish Nursing Home Is Exempt From Title VII's Religious Discrimination Provision

In Shand v. Charles E. Smith Life Communities, (D MD, Sept. 23, 2019), a Maryland federal district court held that a Jewish nursing home, Hebrew Home of Greater Washington, is a religious organization for purposes of in Title VII. Under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-1, religious organizations are exempt from the employment discrimination provisions of Title VII "with respect to the employment of individuals of a particular religion to perform work connected with the carrying on by such [organization] ... of its activities."  In the lawsuit, a geriatric nursing assistant claimed the nursing home had failed to grant her request for a religious accommodation.

Death-Qualifying Jurors Does Not Infringe Their Free Exercise Rights

In Jackson v. State of Alabama, (AL Ct. Crim. App., Sept. 20, 2019), an Alabama state appeals court in a 135-page opinion dealing with numerous challenges upheld appellant's death sentence.  In one portion of the opinion (pp. 34-40), the court, relying extensively on precedent from other federal district courts, concluded that death-qualifying prospective jurors does not violate the jurors' free exercise of religion.

At the United Nations: Trump's Religious Liberty Forum; Report on Antisemitism; and Abortion Rights Concerns

Yesterday, on the first of his three day visit to the United Nations, President Donald Trump hosted a forum titled Global Call to Protect Religious Freedom. CBN and the New York Post reported on the event. Vice President Mike Pence opened the forum with remarks (full text) and an introduction of the President. President Trump, in an eleven-minute address (full text), said in part:

As we speak, Jews, Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs, Yazidis, and many other people of faith are being jailed, sanctioned, tortured, and even murdered, often at the hands of their own government, simply for expressing their deeply held religious beliefs.  So hard to believe.

Today, with one clear voice, the United States of America calls upon the nations of the world to end religious persecution.

Trump also announced that the U.S. is creating a coalition of U.S. businesses that will encourage the private sector to protect people of all faiths in the workplace. Others speakers at the forum included U.N. Secretary General António Guterres and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo (video of their remarks).

In another development at the United Nations, the Secretary General on Friday released an interim report (full text) on Combatting Antisemitism. The 19-page report, from the U.N.'s Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief, says in part:

The Special Rapporteur is alarmed by the increase in antisemitism in many countries driven by sources including individuals motivated by white supremacist and radical Islamist ideologies.... He is also concerned at the apparent increase in expressions of antisemitism emanating from sources on the political left as well as with discriminatory laws, regulations and policies of States.

Jerusalem Post covers the recently released report.

Also yesterday at the United Nations, world leaders reached agreement on the UN Political Declaration on Universal Health Coverage. (UN News report.) At the High Level Meeting on Universal Health Coverage, U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar spoke (full text of statement). On behalf of the U.S. and 18 other nations, he noted one area of concern:

The United States joins consensus on today’s political declaration, in recognition of the importance of better health for all, but we wish to state clearly that we disassociate from paragraph 68 of the Declaration.

We do not accept the terms “sexual and reproductive health” and “sexual and reproductive health and reproductive rights” in this Declaration....

These terms must always include language, which some countries blocked, to remind U.N. agencies that each nation has the sovereign right to implement related programs and activities consistent with their laws and policies, and that these terms in no way imply that there is an international right to abortion.

CNN reports on Azar's remarks.

Maryland's Conversion Therapy Ban Upheld

In Doyle v. Hogan, (D MD, Sept. 20, 2019), a Maryland federal district court dismissed free speech and free exercise of religion challenges to Maryland's ban on mental health professionals engaging in conversion therapy with minors. The court said in part:

Although § 1-212.1 regulates speech by prohibiting the use of language employed in the process of conducting conversion therapy on minor clients, it “does not prevent licensed therapists from expressing their views about conversion therapy to the public and to their [clients].” ... Most importantly, § 1-212.1 does not prohibit practitioners from engaging in any form of personal expression; they remain free to discuss, endorse, criticize, or recommend conversion therapy to their minor clients.... 

The Baltimore Sun, reporting on the decision, says the decision will be appealed.

Parent's Challenge To California's Boarding School Regulation Is Dismissed

In Teen Rescue v. Becerra, (ED CA, Sept. 19, 2019), a California federal district court dismissed a suit brought by the parent of a child attending River View Christian Academy, a Christian boarding school which is subject to the California Community Care Facilities Act.  The Act requires private alternative boarding schools to allow students full autonomy on maters of religion and sexual identity.  Seeking to represent all parents and guardians of students in the school, plaintiff alleges that subjecting the school to these requirement violates his religious free exercise and his parental rights. The court dismissed the complaint, saying in part:

Merely developing a plan to train RVCA staff in issues relating to the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender communities does not invade the First Amendment rights of RVCA parents....

Similarly, preventing a community care facility from attempting to change the sexual orientation of its students is not an invasion of the parents’ First Amendment rights. The First Amendment gives Williams the right to believe and profess whatever religion he desires. If sending his child to an exclusively faith-based educational institution is an important part of Williams’ faith, there is nothing in the CCFA that prevents him from doing so.... Williams is free to enroll his child at a CCFA-exempt religious boarding school....

[T]he only injuries alleged here were suffered by Teen Rescue, not the parents. Williams failed to identify a concrete and particularized injury in fact under the Free Exercise Clause. Thus, Williams and the other RVCA parents lack standing to bring a claim under the First Amendment.

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Kevin H. Govern, Truth, Justice, and Reconciliation in the Wake of Clerical Sexual Abuse in America, (Baku State University Law Review, Volume 5, Issue 2, 2019).
• Jeremy J. Patrick, An Argument against Registration of Religions, (September 4, 2019).
• Dimitrios Kyritsis, The Limits of Neutrality in the Legal Philosophy of Stavros Tsakyrakis, (September 10, 2019).
• Marko Božić, Neither Secular State nor Laical Republic? Legal Position of Religious Communities in Communist Yugoslavia – Legal Framework Analysis, (University of Milano-Bicocca School of Law Research Paper No. 19-04 (2019)).
• Samuel Moyn, Christianity and Human Rights, (Rafael Domingo Osle and John Witte, Jr., eds., Christianity and Global Law: An Introduction, (Cambridge University Press), Forthcoming).
• Aishwarya Deb, Religion v. Reform: Role of Indian Judiciary vis-à-vis ‘Essential Religious Practices’ Test, (February 28, 2018).
• Mark C. Weber, Of Immigration, Public Charges, Disability Discrimination, and, of All Things, Hobby Lobby, (September 11, 2019).
• Paolo Cavaliere, Digital Platforms and the Rise of Global Regulation of Hate Speech, (Edinburgh School of Law Research Paper No. 2019/29 (2019).)
• Oscar I. Roos & Anita Mackay, A Shift in the United Nations Human Rights Committee's Jurisprudence on Marriage Equality? An Analysis of Two Recent Communications from Australia, (University of New South Wales Law Journal, Vol. 42, 2019).
• Norman I. Silber, Considering the Allure and Peril of Nonprofit Social Impact Bond Arrangements, (September 20, 2019).
• Albert Feuer, How Savings and Retirement Benefit Distributions May Prudently Be Used to Make Charitable Gifts, (53 No. 1 NYSBA TR. & EST. L. SEC. J. 7 (Spring/Summer 2019)).

Christian Student Group May Continue Suit Against University

In Intervarsity Christian Fellowship/ USA v. Board of Governors of Wayne State University, (ED MI, Sept. 20, 2019), a Michigan federal district court refused to dismiss a Christian student organization's free exercise, free speech and procedural due process claims against Wayne State University that refused to grant the group recognized student organization status. The University contended that the organization's requirements that its leaders profess the Christian faith violates the University's non-discrimination policy.  The court said in part:

[I]nsofar as religious organizations have a clear constitutional right to choose their own ministers without interference from the government, it is far from implausible that they may affirmatively assert a violation of such right in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Similarly, InterVarsity’s claim based on its right to internal autonomy in religious affairs may state a claim. The court will not dismiss the claims offered (novel though they may be) in Counts 1 and 2.

Counts 3 and 4 allege Free Exercise violations based on targeting of InterVarsity’s religious beliefs and Wayne State applying its policy in a way that it is not generally applicable.... There are more than enough factual allegations to cross the basic threshold of a valid claim. 

Detroit Free Press reports on the decision.

Justice Department Sues Michigan City Over Mosque Zoning

The Department of Justice announced yesterday that it has filed suit against the city of Troy, Michigan alleging that it has violated the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act in denying zoning approval for a mosque to be built by Adam Community Center.  The complaint (full text) in United States v. City of Troy, Michigan, (ED MI, filed 9/19/2019), contends in part:

Troy specifically violated RLUIPA by: (a) imposing an unjustified substantial burden on Adam’s exercise of religion when it denied Adam’s variance requests, 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(a)(1); and (b) requiring places of worship to abide by more onerous setback and parking restrictions than nonreligious places of assembly, id. § 2000cc(b)(1).

Detroit Free Press reports on the lawsuit.

6th Circuit Refuses To Allow Congress To Intervene To Defend FGM Ban

As previously reported, after the Department of Justice dropped its appeal of the district court's decision in United States v. Nagarwala which held the federal ban on female genital mutilation (18 USC Sec. 116(a)) unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause, the House of Representatives filed a motion to intervene in the case to defend the constitutionality of the statute. The Detroit Free Press now reports that the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals last week denied the House's motion to intervene and granted the Justice Department's motion to voluntarily dismiss the appeal.

Evangelizing Students Sue Over Restrictive Park Rules

A lawsuit was filed yesterday in an Illinois federal district court by Wheaton College students who are members of the Chicago Evangelism Team. The suit challenges limitations on the areas in Millennium Park in which they can engage in open air evangelism and distribute literature. The complaint (full text) in Swart v. City of Chicago, (ND IL, filed 9/18/2019), contends that park rules improperly restrict speech and distribution of free literature in a traditional public forum, violating students' free speech and free exercise rights. Chicago Tribune reports on the lawsuit.

Denial of Student Visa For Religious Trainee Is Upheld

In Ashby v. United States Department of State, (MD NC, Sept. 17, 2019), a North Carolina federal district court dismissed a suit challenging the State Department's refusal to issue a student visa to Colombian resident Jhonier Herrera, a "friend/ religious partner" of plaintiff Shon Ashby.  Ashby wished "to train and educate ... Herrera in the areas of business [and] religious training." The court rejected plaintiff's argument that visa rules favor other religious institutions such as religiously affiliated colleges. and that they substantially burden his exercise of religion.  The court said in part:

While Ashby might have plausibly alleged a disparate impact in favor of religious institutions, he fails to plausibly allege that any law or regulation is religiously targeted....

While Ashby may have a sincere desire to train Herrera on religious topics, this desire does not itself make Herrera’s presence necessary to Ashby’s religious exercise. Because Plaintiffs lack standing and fail to plausibly allege a substantial burden that prevents or inhibits them from practicing their religion, the RFRA claim will be dismissed.

Suit Against Catholic Hospital That Refused Transgender Procedure May Move Ahead

In Minton v. Dignity Health, (CA App., Sept. 17, 2019), a California state appellate court held that a trial court should not have dismissed a suit filed under the Unruh Civil Rights Act by transgender man whose doctor was barred by a Catholic hospital from performing a hysterectomy for treatment of his gender dysphoria.  The refusal was based on Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services.  The court said in part:

[Plaintiff] alleges that the Act was violated ... when defendant cancelled the scheduled procedure at Mercy and Mercy’s president told Dr. Dawson that she would never be allowed to perform Minton’s hysterectomy at Mercy.... [T]hat refusal was not accompanied by advice that the procedure could instead be performed at a different nearby Dignity Health hospital. At that point in time ... Minton was denied full and equal access to health care treatment, a violation of the Unruh Act.

Allegedly in response to pressures brought to bear on defendant, within a relatively short period of time Ivie proposed use of the facilities at the alternative hospital. In doing so, and in making those alternate facilities available three days later, defendant undoubtedly substantially reduced the impact of the initial denial of access to its facilities and mitigated the damages to which Minton otherwise would have been entitled. However, the steps that were taken to rectify the denial in response to pressure from Minton and from the media did not undo the fact that the initial withholding of facilities was absolute, unqualified by an explanation that equivalent facilities would be provided at an alternative location.

The Recorder reports on the decision.

Third Circuit: Ban On Religious Bus Ads Violates 1st Amendment

In Northeastern Pennsylvania Freethought Society v. County of Lackawanna Transit System, (3d Cir., Sept. 17, 2019), the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision, held that the County of Lackawanna Transit System's ban on bus advertising that promotes religious views violates the First Amendment.  Plaintiff's proposed ad that featured the word "Atheists" along with the group's name and website was rejected under this policy. The majority said in part:

The 2013 policy’s ban on speech related to religion discriminates on the basis of viewpoint. And it is not a permissible limitation on COLTS’s forum, however that forum is characterized.

Judge Cowen dissenting said in part:

I do not believe that the transit system’s policy rises to the level of viewpoint discrimination. As the D.C. Circuit has recently explained, there is a critical difference between the prohibition of religious (and atheistic) perspectives on otherwise permissible subject matters—which constitutes viewpoint discrimination—and the exclusion of religion itself as a subject matter—which does not.

WNEP News reports on the decision.

Juvenile Court Can Override Mother's Religious Objection To Vaccinations

In In re K. Y-B, (MD Ct. Special Appeals, Aug. 30, 2019), a Maryland appellate court upheld a Juvenile Court's order allowing the Baltimore City Department of Social Services to consent to the routine vaccinations of an infant in its custody, despite Muslim religious objections to vaccination expressed by the child's mother. The child, now seven moths old, was ordered into shelter care two days after his birth.  The parents had a long history of abuse and neglect of their other children. In a lengthy opinion, the court held:

[A]  parent is free to believe as she wishes, but she cannot act on her beliefs in such a way as to pose a serious danger to the child’s life or health or impair or endanger the child’s welfare....

[T]he juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the State’s compelling interest in protecting the health of the Child outweighs Mother’s belief that vaccination contravenes her faith.

Legal Newsline reports on the decision.

New Immigration Rules Impact Foreign Religious Workers

America: The Jesuit Review yesterday published an extensive analysis of how the Trump Administration's new immigration rules defining those who may become "public charges" will adversely impact foreign religious workers.  It explains in part:

Men and women in religious orders—like the Dominicans, Jesuits, Franciscans or Carmelites, or Buddhist monks and others whose lives are devoted to their vocation—take vows of poverty. Their religious communities provide for their simple needs. But unlike previous “public charge” criteria that considered the income of sponsors, the new rules shift attention to the income of individual applicants, which is negligible for most members of religious orders....

Health care coverage for religious orders does not necessarily come through traditional insurance plans and may not meet D.H.S. standards for proof of insurance. For example, one cloistered community of nuns ... has an agreement with a Catholic hospital system to provide health care for its members. This is not a traditional insurance plan, but they are not receiving care at the government’s expense....

The government has suggested that this problem can be managed under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. However ... [t]he lengthy lawsuit process would make it impractical to use the R.F.R.A. as a way to help a foreign-born religious worker who is currently being denied entry due to the public charge rule.

Student's Distribution of Religious Valentines On Campus Is Protected Speech

In Olsen v. Rafn, (ED WI, Sept. 13, 2019),a Wisconsin federal district court held that Northeast Wisconsin Technical College's Public Assembly Policy violates the free speech rights of plaintiff, a student at the college. The school contended that Polly Olsen violated its policy by distributing hand-made Valentines with Biblical verses on them to fellow students, friends and staff at various places on campus. The school's policy, both the one in effect at the time of plaintiff's activity and an amended one subsequently adopted, limits assembly and expressive activity to designated Public Assembly Areas. Quoting precedent, the court held that the school's limitations on speech as applied here are an "anathema to the nature of a [college], which is ‘peculiarly the marketplace of ideas'." WBAY News reports on the decision.

Arizona Supreme Court Backs Wedding Invitation Artists In Their Free Speech Claim

In Brush & Nib. v. City of Phoenix, (AZ Sup Ct., Sept. 16, 2019), the Arizona Supreme Court in a 4-3 decision held that Phoenix's public accommodation law cannot be applied to force owners of a wedding and event supply business to create custom wedding invitations for same-sex ceremonies when doing so violates their religious beliefs. The several opinions generated span 78 pages.  The majority opinion of Justice Gould, focusing largely on the compelled speech doctrine, said in part:

[Plaintiffs] have the right to refuse to express such messages under article 2, section 6 of the Arizona Constitution, as well as Arizona’s Free Exercise of Religion Act.... Our holding is limited to Plaintiffs’ creation of custom wedding invitations that are materially similar to those contained in the record.... We do not recognize a blanket exemption from the Ordinance for all of Plaintiffs’ business operations. Likewise, we do not, on jurisprudential grounds, reach the issue of whether Plaintiffs’ creation of other wedding products may be exempt from the Ordinance....

 Plaintiffs’ custom wedding invitations, and the creation of those invitations, constitute pure speech entitled to full First Amendment protection....

Here, Plaintiffs’ objection is based on neither a customer’s sexual orientation nor the sexual conduct that defines certain customers as a class. Plaintiffs will make custom artwork for any customers, regardless of their sexual orientation, but will not, regardless of the customer, make custom wedding invitations celebrating a same-sex marriage ceremony. Thus, although Plaintiffs’ refusal may ... primarily impact same sex couples, their decision is protected because it is not based on a customer’s sexual orientation.

Justice Bolick filed a concurring opinion. Three dissenting opinions were filed, one joined by all three dissenters. The primary dissent written by Justice Bales said in part:

Our constitutions and laws do not entitle a business to discriminate among customers based on its owners’ disapproval of certain groups, even if that disapproval is based on sincerely held religious beliefs. In holding otherwise, the majority implausibly characterizes a commercially prepared wedding invitation as “pure speech” on the part of the business selling the product and discounts the compelling public interest in preventing discrimination against disfavored customers by businesses and other public accommodations.

Arizona Republic reports on the decision.

Britain Has New Envoy for Freedom of Religion or Belief

In Britain last week, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office announced:

The Prime Minister has today appointed Rehman Chishti MP as his new Special Envoy for Freedom of Religion or Belief. In his new position, Rehman Chishti will bring together efforts across the UK Government, with faith actors and civil society to promote the UK’s firm stance on religious tolerance abroad. The Special Envoy will continue to lead the implementation of the recommendations from the recent independent review into FCO support for persecuted Christians led by the Bishop of Truro. He will also advocate for the rights of all individuals here in the UK and around the world who are being discriminated against and persecuted for their faith or belief.

Rehman Chishti’s appointment means that the Government will now have a dedicated person on the issue of religious freedom. The Envoy role was previously held by FCO Minister Lord (Tariq) Ahmad who will continue to champion human rights in his Ministerial capacity. This appointment will therefore increase the number of people working on the issue of religious freedom across government....

[Thanks to Law & Religion UK for the lead.]

European Court Says Marriage Annulment By Greek Court Violates Couple's Rights

In Theodorou and Tsotsorou v. Greece, (ECHR, Sept. 5, 2019) [decision in French], the European court of Human rights held that Greece violated Art. 12 of the European Convention on Human Rights (Right to Marry) when it annulled the marriage of applicants under a law interpreted as barring the marriage of a man to the sister of his former wife.  A Greek court annulled the ten-year marriage of the couple on the petition of the husband's first wife who he had divorced. Greek law bars marriage of individuals related by collateral descent up to the third degree. As summarized by the court's English language press release:

[W]ith regard to the Government’s arguments concerning “biological considerations” and the risk of confusion, the Court noted that those problems did not arise in the present case. It was not clear what exactly those biological considerations involved, or the practical risk of confusion preventing the applicants’ marriage, given that they were not blood relatives and had not had children together. Furthermore, with regard to the Government’s argument that there existed a social need for communication between the members of a family and the outside world, the Court observed that the Government had not specified how the prohibition in question could assist in or serve such communication.

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Kristina Michelle Campbell, Sanctuary, Temporary Protected Status, and Catholic Social Teaching, (University of Detroit Mercy Law Review, Vol. 96, No. 1, 2018).
• Thea Raymond-Sidel, I Saw the Sign: NIFLA v. Becerra and Informed Consent to Abortion, (Columbia Law Review, Vol. 119, No. 8, 2019).
• Robert Kahn, The Long Road Back to Skokie: Returning the First Amendment to Mask Wearers, (U of St. Thomas (Minnesota) Legal Studies Research Paper No. 19-14 (2019)).
• Robert Leckey, ‘Repugnant’: Homosexuality and Criminal Family Law, (University of Toronto Law Journal, Forthcoming).
• Ayako Hatano, Can Strategic Human Rights Litigation Complement Social Movement? - A Case Study of the Movement against Racism and Hate Speech in Japan, (May 1, 2019).
• Shahnawaz Ahmed Malik, Minority Rights Protection in India; From Sachar Committee Recommendations to Mob Lynching, (Review Of Research Journal, 2018).
• Muhammad Munir, Multiplying Zeroes: (In)Validity of Promises in Marriage Contracts under Pakistani Case Law, (LUMS Law Journal, Vol. 6 (2019), pp. 1-14).

State Department Sanctions Two Russians For Persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses

Last week the State Department publicly designated two investigative officials in Russia's western Siberian city of Surgut as ineligible to enter the United States because of their involvement in persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses.  The State Department's press release said in part:

The Department is publicly designating Vladimir Petrovich Yermolayev, the Head of the Investigative Committee in the city of Surgut, Russia, and Stepan Vladimirovich Tkach, Senior Investigator at the Investigative Committee of Surgut, Russia, under Section 7031(c) of the FY2019 Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, due to their involvement in gross violations of human rights.  Section 7031(c) provides that, in cases where the Secretary of State has credible information that foreign officials have been involved in significant corruption or a gross violation of human rights, those individuals and their immediate family members are ineligible for entry into the United States.

... On February 15, 2019, officers of the Surgut Investigative Committee, led by Yermolayev and Tkach, subjected at least seven Jehovah’s Witnesses to suffocation, electric shocks, and severe beatings during interrogation at the Committee’s headquarters.  This brutality stands in marked contrast to the peaceful practices of the Jehovah’s Witnesses who have been criminally prosecuted for their religious beliefs in Russia since a 2017 Supreme Court decision affirming their wrongful designation as an “extremist organization.”

California Legislature Tells Clergy How To Treat LGBTQ Community

On September 9, the California legislature gave final passage to Assembly Concurrent Resolution 99  which calls on Californians-- and particularly its religious leaders-- to treat members of the LGBT community with greater respect.  The Resolution reads in part:

WHEREAS, The stigma associated with being LGBTQ often created by groups in society, including therapists and religious groups, has caused disproportionately high rates of suicide, attempted suicide, depression, rejection, and isolation amongst LGBTQ and questioning individuals; and...

WHEREAS, In a pluralistic society, people differing along spectrums of political and religious perspectives share a common responsibility of protecting the health and well-being of all children and vulnerable communities; now, therefore, be it...

Resolved, That the Legislature calls upon religious leaders to counsel on LGBTQ matters from a place of love, compassion, and knowledge of the psychological and other harms of conversion therapy; and be it further

Resolved, That in addressing the stigma often associated with persons who identify as LGBTQ, we call on the people of California–especially its counselors, pastors, religious workers, educators, and legislators–and the institutions of California with great moral influence–especially its churches, universities, colleges, and other schools, counseling centers, activist groups, and religious centers–to model equitable treatment of all people of the state....

Christian Post reports on the Concurrent Resolution.

Canadian Court Says Assisted Suicide Law Is Unconstitutionally Restrictive

In Truchon v. Procureur General du Canada, (Quebec Superior Ct., Sept. 11, 2019) [opinion in French], a Quebec trial court judge held that portions of the Canadian and of Quebec's assisted suicide laws are unconstitutional because they are too restrictive. As summarized by Canadian Press:

Justice Christine Baudouin found in favour of two Quebecers struck by incurable degenerative diseases who'd argued they were denied a medically assisted death under laws that are discriminatory.

Baudouin ruled invalid the Criminal Code requirement that a natural death be "reasonably foreseeable" before someone can be eligible for assisted death. The condition has prevented some people from accessing the end-of-life procedure. She also invalidated a section of the Quebec law that says people must "be at the end of life."

But the court granted an exemption to Truchon and Gladu [the plaintiffs], allowing them to seek medical aid in dying during this period if they satisfy other conditions in the law.

New York City To Make A Strategic Retreat On Its Broad Conversion Therapy Ban

As previously reported, in January the Christian advocacy organization Alliance Defending Freedom filed suit in a New York federal district court challenging New York City's broad ban on conversion therapy.  The city's ban, unlike bans in other jurisdictions, covers provision of conversion therapy to adults as well as minors. ADF filed the suit on behalf of an Orthodox Jewish physician, almost all of whose patients are Orthodox Jews. Now, according to yesterday's New York Times, New York City Council, with the support of LGBT activists, is about to repeal its ban.  The move is an attempt to prevent decisions from the Second Circuit or the U.S. Supreme Court that could give constitutional protection to conversion therapy. The gay speaker of City Council, Corey Johnson, was to introduce the repeal measure yesterday. Conversion therapy for minors will remain illegal under a New York state ban. (See prior posting.)

Texans Sue Under the "Save Chick-fil-A" Law

As previously reported, in June Texas Gov. Greg Abbott signed a bill which prohibits any governmental entity in Texas from taking adverse action against any person because of the person's affiliation, contribution or support for a religious organization. The law was aimed at San Antonio's exclusion of Chick-fil-A from operating at the San Antonio's airport.  The restaurant chain has been criticized for its contributions to organizations that oppose same-sex marriage. Last week, five Texas residents filed suit in a state trial court under the new law seeking an injunction to prevent the city from continuing to exclude Chick-fil-A from the airport. The complaint (full text) in Von Dohlen v. City of San Antonio, (TX Dist. Ct., filed 9/5/2019), alleges in part:

The law of Texas prohibits governmental entities from taking “adverse action” against corporations based on their contributions to a religious organization. See Texas Gov’t Code § 2400.002. The City of San Antonio is violating this statutory command by excluding Chick-fil-A from the San Antonio airport on account of its donations to Christian organizations such as the Salvation Army and the Fellowship of Christian Athletes. 

20. For years, liberal activists have been attacking Chick-fil-A because it gives money to Christian organizations that accept the Bible as the Word of God.

21. Because these Bible-believing Christian organizations derive their notions of morality from the Bible rather than modern-day cultural fads, they oppose homosexual behavior and same-sex marriage.

San Antonio Family Association issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Virginia School Board Expands Non-Discrimination Policy

The Stafford County, Virginia school board yesterday voted 4-3 to update its anti-discrimination policy to cover discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, political affiliation, religion, sex, pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions, marital status, mental or physical disability, genetic information, sexual orientation, gender identity, or any other characteristic prohibited by state and/or federal law. (Full text of updated policy). As reported by Shareblue Media, the expanded policy resulted from the school's handling of an active shooter drill last year. While other students were sent to wait in their locker rooms, the transgender student was left to wait in the gym because staff did not know which locker room to assign her to.

Cert. Filed In Florist's Refusal To Provide Same-Sex Wedding Flowers

A petition for certiorari (full text) was filed with the U.S. Supreme Court yesterday in Arlene's Flowers, Inc. v. State of Washington, (Sup. Ct., cert. filed 9/11/2019).  In the long-running case, the Washington state Supreme Court held that a florist shop's refusal to provide flowers for a same-sex wedding constitutes sexual orientation discrimination under the Washington Law Against Discrimination, and that enforcement of the law does not violate the constitutional rights of the floral shop owner. (See prior posting.) ADF issued a press release announcing the filing of the petition for review.

Michigan City Adopts Ban on Conversion Therapy For Minors

The City of East Lansing on Tuesday passed an ordinance banning provision to minors of conversion therapy relating to sexual orientation or gender identity.  The City Council vote of approval was 3-2, after amendments to the version as proposed were adopted.  The original proposal and a video of City Council meeting including discussion and amendments are available on the city's website. Fox47 News reports on the passage of the ordinance.

Indian Tribe Sues Over Exclusion From Committee Dealing With Ancestors' Remains

A lawsuit was filed yesterday in a Texas federal district court by a non-federally recognized Indian tribe against Texas officials involved in redevelopment of the Alamo complex complaining about the tribe's exclusion from a committee dealing with human remains found at the site. Plaintiffs say their ancestors are among those buried there, and some of the tribes allowed on the committee are responsible for the deaths of those buried in the cemetery.

The complaint (full text) in Tap Pilam Coahuiltecan Nation v. Alamo Trust, Inc., (WD TX, filed 9/10/2019), contends that requirements of the San Antonio's zoning laws that refer to the National Historic Preservation Act are not being followed in dealing with a cemetery on the redevelopment site. Instead authorities are applying the Native American Grave Protection Act which excludes non-recognized tribes. The complaint alleges in part:

Defendants are ignoring the City of San Antonio’s Unified Development Code and arbitrarily applying NAGPRA for the purpose of excluding the Plaintiffs and other lineal descendants from participation. The reason for this is obvious, the Defendants are planning to conduct their archaeological activities in a manner that violates local, state and federal laws in an attempt to reduce cost and time.

Plaintiffs also complain that they were denied use of the Alamo Chapel for their annual Sunrise Memorial Ceremony. Courthouse News Service reports on the lawsuit.

Ann Arbor Concedes Narrow View of Public Accommodation

Last week, the city of Ann Arbor, Michigan settled a suit brought by a conservative political consulting and marketing firm challenging the city's attempt to apply its public accommodation law to the firm. Ann Arbor Code § 9:151(22) defines a public accommodation as including:

[A] business or other facility of any kind, whose goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages or accommodations are extended, offered, sold or otherwise made available to the public....

The Stipulated Dismissal (full text) in ThinkRight Strategies, LLC v. City of Ann Arbor, (ED MI, filed 9/5/2019), asserts that:

While ThinkRight advertises to and receives requests for its services from the general public, ThinkRight will not fulfill any request if doing so involves promoting messages, views, policies, platforms, or causes contrary to ThinkRight’s conservative or religious principles.

The city of Ann Arbor conceded:

Ann Arbor does not consider ThinkRight to be a place of public accommodation as defined by Ann Arbor Code § 9:151(22).That is because ThinkRight will only provide its services in ways that promote, or are not contrary to, its conservative political beliefs and therefore limits the platforms, views, policies, causes, events, or messages it will convey or promote through its services.

ADF issued a press release announcing the settlement.

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Hashika Durai & K. Niranjana, A Study on Religious Laws and Religious Crimes in India, (August 26, 2019).
• Cyra Akila Choudhury, Reflections on the Christchurch Massacre: Incorporating a Critique of Islamophobia and TWAIL, (TWAILR: Reflections - 9/2019).
• Perry Dane, Echad: A D’var Torah on Parshat Vaetchanan, (August 17, 2019).
• Mark Kelman, What is in a Name?, (Taxation and Regulation Across Constitutional Domains (Carolina Academic Press, 2019)).
• Richard W. Garnett, The Communitarian Work and Vision(s) of Robert Cochran (and Thomas Shaffer), (Pepperdine Law Review, Vol. 46, 2019).
• Thomas Charles Berg, Religious Freedom and the Common Good: A Summary of Arguments and Issues, (15 University of St. Thomas Law Journal 517 (2019)).
• Etienne Wain, The Blessing of Same Gender Relationships in the Anglican Church of Aotearoa New Zealand and Polynesia: A Mixed Blessing?, (Victoria University of Wellington Legal Research Paper (Sept. 2019)).
• Khaled Beydoun, The Ban and the Borderlands Within: The Travel Ban As a Domestic War on Terror Tool, (Stanford Law Review, Vol. 71, 2019).
• Shahnawaz Ahmed Malik, Minority Rights Protection in India; From Sachar Committee Recommendations to Mob Lynching, (Review Of Research Journal, 2018).
• Douglas NeJaime, The Constitution of Parenthood, (Stanford Law Review, Vol. 72, Forthcoming).

From SmartCILP:

• L. Darnell Weeden, A Functional Free Exercise Clause Analysis Requires a State To Prove a Compelling Interest Before Interfering With an Individual's Faith-Based Same-Sex Marriage Participation Objections, [Abstract], 18 Appalachian Journal of Law 113-150 (2018-2019).
• Rabea Benhalim, The Case for American Muslim Arbitration, [Abstract], 2019 Wisconsin Law Review 531-591.

Prof's Objections To Referring To Students By Preferred Gender Rejected

In Meriwether v. Trustees of Shawnee State University, (SD OH, Sept. 5, 2019), an Ohio federal magistrate judge recommended dismissing challenges brought by a faculty member against his university claiming that the school's nondiscrimination policy violates his 1st and 14th Amendment rights as well as his rights under the state constitution.  Shawnee State requires faculty to refer to students using pronouns that reflect the student's gender identity even when that is different that the gender assigned to the student at birth. Plaintiff alleges that he is an evangelical Christian with the religious belief that gender cannot be changed after the moment of conception. He contends that the University's policy forces him to communicate an ideological message regarding gender that conflicts with his beliefs. Among other things, the judge in a 63-page opinion, rejected plaintiff's compelled speech, viewpoint discrimination and free exercise claims. [Thanks to Glenn Katon for the lead.]

Former Priest Charged With Lying To FBI

The U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania announced yesterday that it has charged former Catholic priest Robert Brennan with four counts of making false statements in order to  obstruct an investigation into complaints that he sexually abused a child when he was serving as a priest in Philadelphia. AP reports on the indictment. State criminal charges against Brennan had been dropped after his alleged victim died in 2013 of a drug overdose.

Procedures For Inclusion On Terrorist Watch List Are Unconstitutional

In Elhady v. Kable, (ED VA, Sept. 4, 2019), a Virginia federal district court held that the procedures for including individuals in the U.S. government's Terrorist Screening Data Base ("Watchlist") violate plaintiffs' constitutional rights. The court held that plaintiffs' liberty interests are implicated by their inclusion in the Terrorist Watch List, and the process used to place a person on the list poses a substantial risk of erroneous deprivation of their rights to domestic and international travel, as well as interference with their reputational interests. RNS reporting on the decision notes that the case was brought by CAIR on behalf of 23 Muslim U.S. citizens who say they were wrongly placed on the list.

Doctor Sues Over Hospital's Limits On Providing Aid-In-Dying Medications

Last month, a doctor and her terminally ill patient filed a lawsuit in a Colorado state court against Centura Health's St. Anthony Hospital challenging its religion-based policy of refusing to allow its physicians to prescribe medication for patients under the state's End of Life Options Act, or to assist in qualifying a patient for use of aid-in-dying medication. The complaint (full text) in Mahoney v. Morris, (CO Dist. Ct., filed 8/21/2019), alleges that the hospital's policy goes beyond the opt-out permitted by the Colorado statute which only permits hospitals to bar their physicians from writing prescriptions for assisted-suicide medications that will be used on hospital premises.

Last week, Centura Health fired plaintiff Dr. Barbara Morris, and filed a petition to remove the case to federal court, contending that the hospital, sponsored by Catholic and Seventh Day Adventist ministries, cannot be barred from dismissing an employee who violates its policy.  The Notice of Removal (full text) in Mahoney v. Morris, (D CO, filed 8/30/19) alleges that the hospital's rights under the Free Exercise and Establishment clauses would be violated if it cannot discipline its doctors for acting in opposition to its religious doctrines. It also invokes 42 U.S. Code § 2000e–1, the exemption from Title VII for religious institutions. Kaiser Health News reports on these developments. [Thanks to Michael Peabody for the lead.]

Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine Prevents Decision On Church Demolition

In Friends to Restore St. Mary's, LLC v. Church of St. Mary, Melrose, (MN App., Sept. 3, 2019), a Minnesota state appellate court held that the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine precludes a civil court from adjudicating a dispute over whether an arson-damaged church building is a “historical resource” protected under Minnesota Environmental Rights Act.  Plaintiffs sought an injunction to prevent demolition of the church building after the Bishop and the Diocesan Building Council recommended demolition and building of a new structure. The court concluded:

On the record before us, the decision to remove features of religious significance and demolish the church building is an internal decision that affects the faith and mission of the church. Appellant’s MERA claim cannot be adjudicated without violating the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine.

British Appeals Court Upholds Order For Payments Until A "Get" Is Granted

In Moher v. Moher, (EWCA, Aug. 21, 2019), Britain's Court of Appeal upheld an order issued by a trial court in a divorce action requiring the husband to pay £22,000 per year until the husband granted the wife a get (Jewish divorce decree). British statutes specifically allow courts to order that the civil divorce decree will not become final until the marriage has been dissolved under Jewish law. The appeals court concluded that this does not prevent other types of orders directed at obtaining a get. The appeals court pointed out that "a Get obtained by compulsion is invalid in Jewish law," but concluded that:

the structure of the order in the present case does not compel the husband to act in a certain way. The court order provides only that until he grants a Get he has to pay periodical payments to the wife.

Family Law Week reports on the decision.

City's Special Events Ordinance Partly Upheld

In Shook v. City of Lincolnton, NC, (WD NC, Aug.29, 2019). a North Carolina federal district court agreed with only part of a challenge by a group of Christian street preachers to a city's Special Event and Unnecessary Noise Ordinances. the court said in part:

[T]he Court will grant Plaintiff’s preliminary injunction [as to] the portion of the Special Events Ordinance prohibiting “[a]ny conduct deemed to be disruptive . . . to participants or attendees of the special event” and “[a]busive . . . language that disrupts a special event or festival.” However, the City may still enforce the ... [ban on] "language ... that abuses or threatens another person in a manner likely to cause a fight or brawl at a special event or festival,” “... conduct deemed to be ... dangerous to participants or attendees of the special event,” and “threatening language that disrupts a special event or festival.”

The court also upheld the city's Unnecessary Noise ban.

Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine Requires Dismissal of Pastor's Contract Claim

In In re First Christian Methodist Evangelistic Church, (TX App., Aug. 30, 2019), a Texas state appellate court held that the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine, as a matter of constitutional law, prevented civil courts from adjudicating a pastor's claim that he was entitled to 6 months severance pay under his employment contract. The court said in part:

[T]o determine if the Church was required to pay the Senior Pastor severance under the contract, the trial court will be required to determine why the Senior Pastor was terminated and, if the termination was for misconduct, the court will be required to determine if the Senior Pastor was properly terminated for misconduct as defined by the Church’s Book of Discipline and ecclesiastical rules.... The ecclesiastical nature of the dispute cannot be severed from the contractual issues asserted by the Senior Pastor. 

County Settles Suit Over Invocation Policy

According to yesterday's Carroll County Times, the Carroll County, Maryland, Board of Commissioners voted unanimously yesterday to settle a lawsuit, originally filed in 2013, challenging the Commissioners' policy on invocations.  Prayers that were often sectarian were delivered by members of the County Commission, on a rotating basis, rather than by invited clergy or a chaplain.  The Commissioners decided to settle the case after the 2017 decision by the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in Lund v. Rowan County, North Carolina finding a similar practice unconstitutional. (See prior posting.) At yesterday's Board meeting, a number of citizens objected to the settlement.