Religion Clause

Wednesday, October 16, 2019

Naval Base Protesters May Not Raise RFRA or 1st Amendment Defenses

In United States v. Kelly, (SD GA, Oct. 11, 2019), a Georgia federal magistrate judge ruled that seven Catholics who are members of an activist group opposed to nuclear weapons cannot raise RFRA or First Amendment defenses in their trial for trespass and destruction of government property. Defendants broke into a highly secured Naval Submarine Base and in protest of nuclear weapons poured blood on the ground, hung banners and painted messages. (See prior posting.) The court said in part:

Here, the Court has already fully considered Defendants’ RFRA arguments in the course of ruling on Defendants’ motions to dismiss. In its ruling, the Court determined that the Government has shown a compelling interest and that it is utilizing the least restrictive means...., Because this determination has been made as a matter of law, and Defendants may not present a RFRA defense to the jury at trial....

Court Vacates Obama-Era Rule Mandating Gender Transition and Abortion Procedures

In Franciscan Alliance, Inc. v. Azar, (ND TX, Oct. 15, 2019), a Texas federal district court vacated and remanded for further consideration a rule issued by the Obama administration under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act that prohibits discrimination on the basis of gender identity or termination of pregnancy in health care programs that receive federal financial assistance. The court relied on reasoning in its earlier preliminary injunction decision (see prior posting) concluding that requiring health care providers to perform and provide insurance coverage for gender transitions and abortions in violation of their religious beliefs violates RFRA. The court held that vacatur is the proper remedy for an unlawful agency rule, and so refused to also issue a nationwide permanent injunction. In the case the court had allowed the ACLU and the River City Gender Alliance to intervene to defend the Obama administration rule. Becket Law issued a press release announcing the decision.

Sunday, October 13, 2019

Secy. Pompeo Speaks To Christian Conference

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo spoke on Friday to the American Association of Christian Counselors meeting in Nashville, Tennessee.The full text of his remarks titled "Being a Christian Leader" are featured on the State Department's website, along with a video of his remarks. Pompeo said in part:

... I’m especially telling the truth about the dire condition of religious freedom around the world. America has a proud history of religious freedom, and we want jealously to guard it here. But around the world, more than 80% of mankind lives in areas where religious freedom is suppressed or denied in its entirety.

The Chinese Communist Party ... is detaining and abusing more than one million Uighur Muslims in internment camps in the Xinjiang. ...

So Christian pastors today are being unlawfully arrested, beaten, detained inside the Islamic Republic of Iran. We need to speak about this.

Christian areas in northern Iraq that I’ve had the privilege to visit have been ravaged by ISIS, part of a greater trend of Christian persecution all across the Middle East.

And so the truth – for the past two years we’ve spoken the truth. We’ve hosted ministerials.... We’ve told the world about these shortfalls and the success of nations when individuals are given their basic human dignity to practice their conscience, their faith, or to choose no faith if they so choose all around the world.

Friday, October 11, 2019

Citizen Lacks Standing To Challenge City's Annual Menorah Lighting

In Taylor v. City of Flagstaff, (D AZ, Oct. 9, 2019), an Arizona federal district court held that a citizen of Flagstaff, Arizona lacked standing to challenge the constitutionality of the city's annual Grand Menorah Lighting at City Hall. The court said in part:

Although Plaintiff is a resident of Flagstaff..., Plaintiff did not allege that he has had direct contact with the Grand Menorah Lighting at City Hall, or any other religious ceremony purportedly held in City Hall. According to the Complaint, Plaintiff’s contact with the Grand Menorah Lighting at City Hall has, at most, been via newspaper articles reporting the “Flagstaff Hanukkah tradition.”.... While Plaintiff alleges that he has been “quite concerned” and “very disturbed” by the Grand Menorah Lighting at City Hall, ... —without more, the injury asserted by Plaintiff is too generalized and remote to confer standing....

The court concluded that the same test for standing applies to both plaintiff's Establishment Clause claim and his claim under the no-aid provision of the state constitution.

USCIRF Launches New Database of Religious Persecution Victims

On Monday at an International Religious Freedom Roundtable in Washington, D.C., the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom announced that it has launched the Freedom of Religion or Belief (FoRB) Victims List. The database lists those who have been victims of religious persecution in countries that USCIRF has recommended be designated "Countries of Particular Concern" under the International Religious Freedom Act.

Thursday, October 10, 2019

EEOC Sues Over Denial of Religious Accommodation To Messianic Jewish Employee

The EEOC yesterday announced the filing of a lawsuit against Center One, LLC, a call center company:

According to the EEOC's lawsuit ..., a call center employee at Center One's Beaver Falls, Pa., location, who is an adherent of Messianic Judaism, sought a reasonable accommodation of his religious beliefs and practice that he abstain from work on days of religious observance.... Center One imposed disciplinary points against the Messianic Jewish employee for his absences in observance of Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur. Center One required that the employee provide a certification from a religious leader or religious organization "on letterhead" as a precondition of granting him time off as a reasonable accommodation and imposed disciplinary points against the Messianic Jewish employee for his absences in observance of those religious holidays...

EEOC Suit Over Insults To Muslim Employees Settled

The EEOC announced that a consent decree was signed on Tuesday settling a suit against Haliburton Energy Services. The suit charged that two Muslim workers were subjected to taunts and name calling over their religion and national origin. One was fired for complaining about his treatment. In the consent decree, the company agreed to pay $275,000 in damages. The decree also enjoined future violations and requires training of human resource and managerial employees. (See prior related posting.)

Court Defers To Decisions of Parent Body In Dispute With Break-Away Presbyterian Congregation

In Presbytery of Seattle v. Schulz, (WA App., Oct. 7, 2019), a Washington state appellate court upheld a trial court's deference to decisions of the Administrative Commission set up by the Presbyterian Church USA's representative in connection with disputes regarding a break-away congregation. Finding that the Presbyterian church is a hierarchical church, the court concluded that the trial court correctly deferred to the decisions of the Administrative Commission that the disaffiliation of the First Presbyterian Church of Seattle was invalid, any interest it had in church property was held in trust for the benefit of Presbyterian Church USA, and the church's severance agreements with its pastors were invalid. The court rejected the argument by the local church that the national body no longer had ecclesiastical jurisdiction over it once it disaffiliated, so determinations after that date by the Administrative Commission should not binding.

Wednesday, October 09, 2019

Cert. Denied In Dispute Over Liability of National Church Body For Sex Abuse By Church Elder

On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court denied review in Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York v. J.W., (Docket No. 19-40, certiorari denied 10/7/2019). (Order List). In the case, a California state appellate court upheld an award against national church body of over $4 million to a girl who, when she was ten years old, was sexually abused by an elder of the Jehovah's Witness church. (See prior posting.) The petition for certiorari (full text) raised 1st Amendment issues both as to liability for acts of congregants and production of internal documents. Friendly Atheist blog discusses the case.

Tuesday, October 08, 2019

US Sanctions Chinese Entities For Human Rights Abuses of Uighurs

In a press release yesterday, he U.S. Department of Commerce announced that it is imposing sanctions on 28 Chinese governmental and commercial organizations because they have been implicated in China's human rights abuses of Uighurs and other Muslim ethnic minorities in the Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region. Thompson Reuters reports on these developments.

Supreme Court Hears Oral Arguments In LGBTQ Employment Discrimination Cases

Today the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in three cases involving whether Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act covers employment discrimination against gays, lesbians and transgender individuals. Two of the cases (consolidated for oral argument) involve whether the ban on discrimination on the "because of sex" covers sexual orientation discrimination. The cases are Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia (case page on SCOTUSblog) and Altitude Express, Inc. v. Zarda (case page on SCOTUSblog). Here is the transcript of the full oral argument. The third case is R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (case page on SCOTUSblog). It raises the question of whether Title VII's ban on "sex" discrimination protects transgender individuals from employment discrimination. Here is the transcript of the full oral argument. CNN reports on the oral arguments.

White House Issues Yom Kippur Greetings

The White House today released a Presidential Message on Yom Kippur, 2019 (full text). The message reads in part:

On this day, as Jews around the world stand in front of the open ark, facing the holy Torah and asking God’s forgiveness, Melania and I pray that He may seal you in the Book of Life for the coming year and grant His people a year of sweetness and plenty.

Yom Kippur begins at sundown tonight.

Cert. Petition Filed In Contraceptive Mandate Exemption Challenge

The Justice Department yesterday filed a petition for certiorari (full text) in Trump v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. In the case, the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals 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.) The cert. petition presents the following questions:

1. Whether the agencies had statutory authority under the ACA and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act ..., to expand the conscience exemption to the contraceptive-coverage mandate.

2. Whether the agencies’ decision to forgo notice and opportunity for public comment before issuing the interim final rules rendered the final rules—which were issued after notice and comment—invalid under the Administrative Procedure Act....

3. Whether the court of appeals erred in affirming a nationwide preliminary injunction barring implementation of the final rules.

[Thanks to Tom Rutledge for the lead.]

Certiorari Denied In Challenge To "Bible in the Schools" Program

Yesterday the U.S. Supreme Court denied review in Mercer County Board of Education v. Deal, (Docket No. 18-1487, certiorari denied 10/7/2019). (Order List.) In the case, the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a West Virginia federal district court and held that a student who had withdrawn from the offending school system (and her parent) had standing to challenge the school system's Bible in the Schools program. It also held that the claim was ripe for adjudication. (See prior posting.) Bluefield Daily Telegraph reports on the Supreme Court's action.

Monday, October 07, 2019

Supreme Court Denies Review Of Discovery Directed To Church

The U.S. Supreme Court today denied certiorari in Presbyterian Church v. Edwards, (Docket No. 18-1441, cert. denied 10/7/2019). In the case the Kentucky Supreme Court allowed discovery to proceed in a defamation suit against the Presbyterian Church to the extent necessary to determine if the church is entitled to ecclesiastical immunity. (See prior posting.) The Supreme Court in June denied a stay in the case.

Annual Red Mass Attended By Three Current Justices and Others

Catholic Standard reports on the annual Red Mass held yesterday at the Cathedral of St. Matthew the Apostle in Washington, D.C. The Mass is held each year on the Sunday before the U.S. Supreme Court opens its term. The paper reports:

Archbishop [Wilton D.] Gregory noted, “We pray for all of the members of the judiciary and legal world because yours is the tremendous responsibility of attempting to reflect God’s perfect justice and mercy in interpreting the laws of our nation and for all those who will come before you during this next year.”

Those affected by the administration of justice, he added, include those who may have committed crimes, and “those whose language, culture, race, or religion are not your own, as well as those who are at precarious moment on the spectrum of human life. None of them are unimportant and all of them approach you for what they hope will be a sign and an expression of God’s truth.”

Four Supreme Court justices attended the Mass: John G. Roberts Jr., Chief Justice of the United States; Associate Justices Clarence Thomas and Stephen G. Breyer; and retired Associate Justice Anthony M. Kennedy.

Also in attendance were U.S. Attorney General William Barr; U.S. Secretary of Labor Eugene Scalia; and U.S. Solicitor General Noel Francisco; along with numerous judges and local attorneys, along with deans, professors and students from area law schools. John Garvey, the president of The Catholic University of America; and John DeGioia, the president of Georgetown University, were also at the Mass.

British Employment Tribunal Rules Against Doctor Who Objects To Policy On Pronouns For Transgender Patients

In Mackereth v. Department for Work and Pensions, (Empl. Trib., Oc. 2, 2019), a British Employment Tribunal held that while a doctor's Christian religious beliefs are protected under the Equality Act, his refusal to refer to transgender patients who he was hired to assess by their preferred pronouns and titles constitutes unlawful discrimination and harassment under the Equality Act. The Tribunal said in part:

We accept that the belief in Genesis 1:27, lack of belief in transgenderism and conscientious objection to transgenderism ... are genuinely held and ... relate to a weighty and substantial aspect of human life and behaviour and attain a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance....

Irrespective of our determinations above, ... belief in Genesis 1:27, lack of belief in transgenderism and conscientious objection to transgenderism in our judgment are incompatible with human dignity and conflict with the fundamental rights of others, specifically here, transgender individuals....

... [T]he right to manifest a religion or belief is subject to art. 9(2) [of the European Convention on Human Rights] which includes “the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.”....

Law & Religion UK has more on the decision.

European Court Says Conviction For Holocaust Denial Does Not Violate Free Speech Rights

In Pastors v. Germany, (ECHR, Oct. 3, 2019), the European Court of Human Rights in a chamber judgment rejected claims by the chairman of the National Democratic Party of Germany that his criminal conviction for a speech he gave in the Land Parliament of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania violated his free expression rights under Art. 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Pastors was convicted of defamation and violating the memory of the dead for language in his speech denying the existence of the Holocaust. The court said in part:

In the present case, the applicant intentionally stated untruths in order to defame the Jews and the persecution that they had suffered during the Second World War. Reiterating that it has always been sensitive to the historical context of the High Contracting Party concerned when reviewing whether there exists a pressing social need for interference with rights under the Convention and that, in the light of their historical role and experience, States that have experienced the Nazi horrors may be regarded as having a special moral responsibility to distance themselves from the mass atrocities perpetrated by the Nazis ..., the Court therefore considers that the applicant’s impugned statements affected the dignity of the Jews to the point that they justified a criminal-law response. Even though the applicant’s sentence of eight months’ imprisonment, suspended on probation, was not insignificant, the Court considers that the domestic authorities adduced relevant and sufficient reasons and did not overstep their margin of appreciation. The interference was therefore proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued and was thus “necessary in a democratic society”.

... In these circumstances the Court finds that there is no appearance of a violation of Article 10 of the Convention. Accordingly the complaint must be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.

The court also issued a press release summarizing the decision.

Sunday, October 06, 2019

Judicial Ethics Complaint Filed Over Judge's Gift of Bible To Convicted Murder Defendant

On Oct. 3, the Freedom From Religion Foundation filed a complaint with the Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct (full text) asking it to investigate the actions of state trial judge Tammy Kemp at the widely covered murder trial of Former Dallas Police Officer Amber Guyger. The complaint states in part:

We write to raise your awareness of Judge Kemp’s actions at the close of the trial — during which she gifted a Christian bible, instructing the convicted criminal on how to read the bible and which passages to pay attention to, and witnessing to that convicted murderer. These proselytizing actions overstepped judicial authority, were inappropriate and were unconstitutional....

We understand that it was an emotional moment, particularly when the victim’s brother, Brandt Jean, publicly forgave and hugged Guyger. It is perfectly acceptable for private citizens to express their religious beliefs in court, but the rules are different for those acting in a governmental role. We, too, believe our criminal justice system needs more compassion from judges and prosecutors. But here, compassion crossed the line into coercion. And there can be few relationships more coercive than a sentencing judge in a criminal trial and a citizen accused and convicted of a crime.

FFRF issued a press release announcing the filing of the complaint.

Saturday, October 05, 2019

Trial Judge's Alleged Anti-Jewish Bias Leads To Stay of Execution

In Ex parte Halprin, (TX Ct. Crim. App., Oct. 4, 2019), the Texas' Court of Criminal Appeals stayed the execution of a Jewish inmate who claims that his trial judge was biased against him. Petitioner claims that the judge regularly used racist language and antisemitic slurs. Plaintiff's Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus contends:

The ... claim presents newly uncovered evidence that trial judge Vickers Cunningham referred to Mr. Halprin as a “goddamn kike” and “fuckin’ Jew,” and to his Latino co-defendants as “wetbacks,” when the judge bragged about his role in convicting and sentencing to death the Jewish and Latino members of the Texas 7. The evidence of Judge Cunningham’s bias comes primarily from first-hand accounts of disinterested witnesses to his prejudiced statements... and Judge Cunningham’s lifelong association with racist and anti-Semitic role models....

The court remanded the case for determination if petitioner's due process and free exercise rights were violated. Courthouse News Service reports on the decision.

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....

Friday, October 04, 2019

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.

Thursday, October 03, 2019

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.

Wednesday, October 02, 2019

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.

Tuesday, October 01, 2019

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.

Sunday, September 29, 2019

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.

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.

Saturday, September 28, 2019

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.

Friday, September 27, 2019

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.

Thursday, September 26, 2019

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.

Wednesday, September 25, 2019

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.

Tuesday, September 24, 2019

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.

Monday, September 23, 2019

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.

Sunday, September 22, 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.

Friday, September 20, 2019

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.

Thursday, September 19, 2019

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.

Wednesday, September 18, 2019

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.

Tuesday, September 17, 2019

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.

Monday, September 16, 2019

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.