Supreme Court Remands Church's Challenge To COVID Restrictions

In Harvest Rock Church v. Newsom,(US Sup. Ct., Dec. 3, 2020), the U.S. Supreme Court issued an Order treating the church's application for an injunction as a petition for certiorari before judgment, and granted the petition. It then vacated the district court's order and remanded the case for further consideration in light of the Court's recent decision in Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo. In the case, a church challenged California Governor Gavin Newsom's COVID-19 restrictions on indoor worship services. (See prior posting.)  New York Times reports on the Supreme Court's Order.

DOJ Sues New York Village Over Discriminatory Zoning Aimed At Orthodox Jews

The Department of Justice announced yesterday that it has filed a RLUIPA lawsuit against the Village of Airmont, New York alleging that it has used its zoning code to discriminate against the Orthodox Jewish community.  The complaint (full text) in United States v. Village of Airmont, (SD NY, filed 12/2/2020), alleges that since the expiration of a prior consent decree, the Village has adopted a new zoning code, and has applied it in a discriminatory manner, that prevents Orthodox Jews from gaining zoning approval for home synagogues and a school. It has also enforced regulations in a manner that prevents Jews from clearing trees on their property to erect sukkahs, and prevents the installation of mikvahs. First Liberty Institute issued a press release with additional background. [Thanks to Steven H. Sholk for the lead.]

Factional Dispute In Church Is Dismissed

 In St. John Missionary Baptist Church v. Flakes, (TX App., Nov. 30, 2020), a Texas state appeals court affirmed the dismissal, on ecclesiastical abstention grounds, of a suit between two factions of a church. One faction attempted to remove the pastor through a church meeting. The pastor refused to step down and the other faction continued to pay him. In dismissing the suit, the court said in part:

Texas courts have consistently held that the relationship between an organized church and its ministers is its lifeblood, and matters concerning this relationship must be recognized as of prime ecclesiastical concern.

The court similarly held that the questions of whether members excommunicated by one faction could enter the church and whether they could vote on sale of church property were also covered by the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine. 

Anti-Gay Proselytizers Lose Suit Against City

In Waldrop v. City of Johnson City,Tennessee, (ED TN, Nov. 30, 2020), a Tennessee federal district court dismissed a suit by several individuals who were distributing religious literature at a gay pride event. Plaintiffs claimed that their free speech and free exercise rights were infringed when they were required by police to move from the entrance to the park where the event was being held to a nearby sidewalk. The court said in part:

The evidence supports only the conclusion that the officers escorted Plaintiffs from Founders Park, and voiced any attendant warnings to them about their return there, in response to their obstruction of the entrance—a content-neutral reason for their removal. The record is simply without evidence showing that Lieutenant Peters or any other officer moved Plaintiffs away from Founders Park for any other reason, much less for the reason that the content of Plaintiffs’ message was offensive or disagreeable. To the contrary, the evidence establishes— beyond any genuine issue of material fact—that the officers allowed Plaintiffs’ message to endure within the festival’s event area for hours into the day, despite TriPride’s organizers’ clamors for the officers to extinguish it.

5th Circuit, By 9-8 Vote, Denies En Banc Review In Ecclesiastical Abstention Case

In McRaney v. North American Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention, Inc., (5th Cir., Nov. 25, 2020), the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals by a vote of 9-8 denied en banc review of a panel decision that had refused to invoke the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine in a dispute between the Mission Board and its former executive director. (See prior posting.) In the case, plaintiff alleged that the Mission Board intentionally made false statements about him that led to his termination. Judge Ho, joined by 5 other judges, filed a dissenting opinion, saying in part:

This case falls right in the heartland of the church autonomy doctrine. A former Southern Baptist minister brought this suit to protest his dismissal from church leadership. That fact alone should be enough to bar this suit. As the saying goes, personnel is policy.

... The complaint acknowledges that the plaintiff was dismissed because he “consistently declined to accept” church policy regarding “the specific area of starting new churches..." He even admits that “this cause of action had its roots in Church policy.” We should take him at his word. This case is a dispute over a church’s vision for spreading “the gospel of Jesus Christ through evangelism and church planting”—a fundamental tenet of faith, not just for the defendant in this suit, but for hundreds of millions of evangelicals around the world. Put simply, this suit puts the church’s evangelism on trial.

Judge Oldham, joined by 4 other judges, also filed a dissenting opinion, saying in part:

What matters is that the jurisdictional line prohibiting civil courts from intruding on ecclesiastical matters is an ancient one. It goes back to the Middle Ages. It has been part of England’s formal law since William the Conqueror. It’s so entrenched in English history that even Coke—the seventeenth century’s fiercest champion of civil jurisdiction and the common law—respected it. And although there were disputes about boundaries of ecclesiastical jurisdiction over laypersons like Nicholas Fuller, there could be little dispute about ecclesiastical jurisdiction over ecclesiastical matters like ministry disputes and discipline.

[Thanks to Robert Tuttle for the lead.] 

Christian School Asks Supreme Court To Reinstate District Court's Injunction Against Kentucky's COVID Order

The battle continues in Kentucky over Governor Andrew Beshear's COVID-19 Order that prohibits in-person instruction at all public and private elementary and secondary schools. In a suit by Danville Christian Academy-- backed by Kentucky's Attorney General-- the federal district court enjoined the enforcement of the Order against private religious schools which follow other public health guidelines. Last Sunday, the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals stayed, pending appeal, the district court's preliminary injunction. (See prior posting.) Yesterday the school filed an emergency application with the U.S. Supreme Court asking it to stay the 6th Circuit's order and allow the district court's injunction to go into effect. (Full text of Emergency Application in Danville Christian Academy, Inc. v. Beshear, (Sup. Ct., filed 11/30/20). In accordance with Supreme Court practice, the emergency application was filed with the Justice assigned to the 6th Circuit (Justice Kavanaugh), who may either rule on it or refer it to the full Court. First Liberty issued a press release announcing the filing of the application.

Funeral Home Settles Transgender Employment Discrimination Claim After SCOTUS Loss

In June, the U.S. Supreme Court's Bostock decision held that Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act which prohibits discrimination in employment "because of sex" protects gay, lesbian and transgender individuals. The decision covered three separate employment discrimination cases, one of which was R. G. & G. R. Harris Funeral Homes, Inc. v. EEOC. That case involved a discrimination claim by a transgender employee.  Yesterday the Detroit News reported that a Michigan federal district court has approved a settlement in the case:

U.S. District Judge Sean Cox on Monday approved the terms of the settlement between the estate of Stephens, who died in May, and her former employer, R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes, which going forward is prohibited from firing employees on the basis of transgender status.

Under the terms of the agreement, Harris Homes is to pay $130,000 to Stephens' estate, including $63,724 in back pay with interest and $66,276 in damages.

The consent decree also says Harris Homes, which operates three funeral homes in southeast Michigan, must pay another $120,000 to the ACLU Foundation for costs and plaintiff attorney fees.

The settlement also contains other remedial provisions.

6th Circuit Rejects Preliminary Injunction Against Kentucky's Closure of Religious Schools

In Commonwealth of Kentucky ex rel. Danville Christian Academy v. Beshear, (6th Cir., Nov. 29, 2020), the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals stayed a federal district court's preliminary injunction against part of Kentucky Governor Andrew Beshear's COVID-19 Order which prohibits in-person instruction at all public and private elementary and secondary schools. The district court had enjoined enforcement of the Order against private religious schools that otherwise follow public health measures. The 6th Circuit, in staying the district court's preliminary injunction pending appeal distinguished the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision in Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo, saying in part:

Executive Order 2020-969 applies to all public and private elementary and secondary schools in the Commonwealth, religious or otherwise; it is therefore neutral and of general applicability and need not be justified by a compelling governmental interest....

Unlike in Roman Catholic Diocese, there is no evidence that the challenged restrictions were “targeted” or “gerrymandered” to ensure an impact on religious groups.... In addition, while many of the houses of worship in Roman Catholic Diocese could seat well over 500 people, they were subject to attendance caps of ten or twenty-five persons, while retail businesses were not.... There is no comparable harsh requirement aimed at religious institutions here.

AP reports on the decision. [Thanks to Tom Rutledge for the lead.]

Recent Articles of Interest

 From SSRN:

• Yehezkel Margalit, Bargaining in the Shadow of Get Refusal: How Modern Contract Doctrines Can Alleviate This Problem, (Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution, Vol. 36, 2020).
• Uladzislau Belavusau, Legislative and Judicial Politics of LGBT Rights in the European Union, (Don Haider-Markel (ed.), The Oxford Encyclopaedia of LGBT Politics and Rights (Oxford University Press, forthcoming in 2020)).
• Mohammad Islam, Rohingya Refugees: Implications of the Right to Return and the Right to Remain (October 14, 2020).
• Muhammad Kamaldeen Imam-Tamim, A Comparative Analysis of Criminal Procedural Systems Under Shari’ah and Common Law, (October 3, 2020).

From SmartCILP:

• Amr Shalakany, Book Review. Constituting Religion: Islam, Liberal Rights, and the Malaysian State, by Tamir Moustafa, [Abstract], (54 Law & Society Review 301-304 (2020)).

French Council of State Says Capacity Limits On Worship Services Are Too Strict

Religious freedom challenges to COVID-19 restrictions have spread to Europe. EuroWeekly reports that on Friday French Catholic bishops appealed to the Council of State, the country's highest court, challenging the country's 30-person limit on religious ceremonies. According to Reuters, today the Council of State ordered the government to review the restrictions, saying:

The claimants are right in saying that the measure is disproportionate in light of protecting the public's health ... thus it is a serious and illegal infringement on the freedom of worship.

According to Reuters:

The Conference of French Bishops welcomed the ruling and said that it would meet French Prime Minister Jean Castex later on Sunday to discuss new rules to limit the risk of coronavirus infection during church services.

"No other activity is limited by such a limitation regardless of surface area," it said.

Catholic organisations are proposing to allow churches to utilise 30% of their seating capacity.

Justice Alito Refuses To Enjoin Louisiana's COVID Restrictions On Churches

On Nov. 10, in Spell v. Edwards, a Louisiana federal district court dismissed a suit by megachurch pastor Tony Spell challenging the state's COVID-19 limits on worship services. Plaintiff filed an Emergency Application for an Injunction Pending Appeal with Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, contending:

This case presents a threshold question that other applicants did not present to this Court in prior religious liberty challenges: Whether the First Amendment places the decision of whether to assemble solely within the jurisdiction of the Church and not the State.

 On Nov. 27, Justice Alito, without referring the Application to the full court, denied the Application. Law & Crime reports on Justice Alito's action.

Court Denies Preliminary Injunction Against Nativity Scene

In Lamunion v. Fulton County, Indiana, (ND IN, Nov. 25, 2020), an Indiana federal district court refused to grant a preliminary injunction against a nativity display on the Fulton County courthouse lawn. The court explained:

[I]n 2018, [plaintiff] sued Fulton County, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against the display. He did not seek preliminary injunctive relief when he filed his complaint, or during the next holiday season. Recently, however, almost two years after filing his complaint, he moved for a preliminary injunction prohibiting the county from erecting the display this year....

[P]laintiff contends that the display’s constitutionality would depend on a fact-intensive, totality-of-the-circumstances inquiry from the viewpoint of a reasonable observer. But the Court has only a couple snapshots of the display to consider. It is difficult from those few pictures to understand the context of the display and the way it would appear to a reasonable observer.... 

Resolving those difficult issues, while also giving due respect to the public’s interest and the sincere and deeply held convictions on both sides, requires a degree of care and deliberation simply not possible in the mere days the plaintiff has given the Court to rule.... The plaintiff asks this Court to pass judgment on a fifty-plus year old display in the span of a few days.... [E]ven assuming the plaintiff has established at least the minimum likelihood of success, the Court could not find that a preliminary injunction is warranted when weighing the preliminary injunction factors as a whole.

Supreme Court Enjoins, Pending Appeal, New York's COVID-19 Capacity Limits On Houses of Worship

The U.S. Supreme Court late last night, in a 5-4 decision, enjoined-- while appeals are pending-- New York's 10 and 25 person occupancy limits on houses of worship in red and orange zones of high COVID infections. In Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn, New York v. Cuomo, (Sup. Ct., Nov. 25, 2020), in a decision that also applies to Agudath Israel of America v. Cuomo, the Court's per curiam opinion said in part: 

[S]tatements made in connection with the challenged rules can be viewed as targeting the “ ‘ultra-Orthodox [Jewish] community.’ ”... But even if we put those comments aside, the regulations cannot be viewed as neutral because they single out houses of worship for especially harsh treatment.

In a red zone, while a synagogue or church may not admit more than 10 persons, businesses categorized as “essential” may admit as many people as they wish. And the list of “essential” businesses includes things such as acupuncture facilities, camp grounds, garages, as well as many whose services are not limited to those that can be regarded as essential, such as all plants manufacturing chemicals and microelectronics and all transportation facilities....

[T]here are many other less restrictive rules that could be adopted to minimize the risk to those attending religious services. Among other things, the maximum attendance at a religious service could be tied to the size of the church or synagogue....

Members of this Court are not public health experts, and we should respect the judgment of those with special expertise and responsibility in this area. But even in a pandemic, the Constitution cannot be put away and forgotten. The restrictions at issue here, by effectively barring many from attending religious services, strike at the very heart of the First Amendment’s guarantee of religious liberty.

Justice Gorsuch filed a concurring opinion, stating in part:

The only explanation for treating religious places differently seems to be a judgment that what happens there just isn’t as “essential” as what happens in secular spaces. Indeed, the Governor is remarkably frank about this: In his judgment laundry and liquor, travel and tools, are all “essential” while traditional religious exercises are not. That is exactly the kind of discrimination the First Amendment forbids....

Even if the Constitution has taken a holiday during this pandemic, it cannot become a sabbatical.

Chief Justice Roberts filed a dissenting opinion arguing that while the restrictions pose serious concerns, the Court should not rule on them because the houses of worship before the Court are no longer in red and orange zones. He also criticized Justice Gorsuch's attack on the dissenters in the case.

Justice Kavanaugh filed a concurring opinion, explaining why he disagrees with Chief Justice Roberts' approach.

Justice Breyer, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Kagan, dissented, pointing out that the houses of worship are no longer under the challenged capacity limits and saying in part:

The nature of the epidemic, the spikes, the uncertainties, and the need for quick action, taken together, mean that the State has countervailing arguments based upon health, safety, and administrative considerations that must be balanced against the applicants’ First Amendment challenges.

Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justice Kagan, filed a dissenting opinion, saying in part:

It is true that New York’s policy refers to religion on its face. But as I have just explained, that is because the policy singles out religious institutions for preferential treatment in comparison to secular gatherings, not because it discriminates against them....

Finally, the Diocese points to certain statements by Governor Cuomo as evidence that New York’s regulation is impermissibly targeted at religious activity—specifically, ... New York’s Orthodox Jewish community.... The Diocese suggests that these comments supply “an independent basis for the application of strict scrutiny.”... I do not see how.... Just a few Terms ago, this Court declined to apply heightened scrutiny to a Presidential Proclamation limiting immigration from Muslim-majority countries, even though President Trump had described the Proclamation as a “Muslim Ban,”....

 New York Times reports on the decision.

Kentucky Governor Enjoined From Enforcing Closure of Religious Schools

 In Danville Christian Academy, Inc. v. Beshear, (ED KY, Nov. 25, 2020), a Kentucky federal district court enjoined Kentucky's governor  from enforcing his COVID-19 prohibition on in-person instruction against any religious private school in the state that adheres to applicable social distancing and hygiene guidelines. The court found that the restriction violates the school's free exercise rights, saying in part:

[A]lthough the Governor would like the Court to only compare schools in the context of the executive order and find the order to be one of general applicability, Maryville instructs otherwise. In answering the general applicability question in Maryville, the Sixth Circuit questioned why law firms, laundromats, liquor stores, and gun shops could stay open while churches, despite following CDC-approved guidelines, could not. 957 F.3d at 614. The restrictions which the Sixth Circuit criticized as “inexplicably applied to one group and exempted from another” are similar to those Danville Christian challenges today. This Court wonders why under this executive order, one would be free to attend a lecture, go to work, or attend a concert, but not attend socially distanced chapel in school or pray together in a classroom that is following strict safety procedures and social distancing.... Of even more significance, preschools in the state remain open after this executive order, as do colleges and universities.... The prohibition on in-person teaching is not narrowly tailored as required by Lukumi.

As reported by WKYT News, the state will request an emergency stay of the judge's order from the 6th Circuit.

President Issues Thanksgiving Day Proclamation

President Trump yesterday issued a Proclamation on Thanksgiving Day 2020, declaring today as a National Day of Thanksgiving. The Proclamation, which among other things acknowledges the "remarkable courage and boundless generosity of the American people" in battling the coronavirus pandemic, begins:

On Thanksgiving Day, we thank God for the abundant blessings in our lives.  As we gather with family and friends to celebrate this season of generosity, hope, and gratitude, we commemorate America’s founding traditions of faith, family, and friendship, and give thanks for the principles of freedom, liberty, and democracy that make our country exceptional in the history of the world.

China Proposes New Rules For Religious Activities By Foreigners

China's State Administration of Religious Affairs, part of its Ministry of Justice, last week published for comment new draft rules for the Administration of Foreign Religious Activities in the People's Republic of China. (Full text in Chinese). (Full unofficial English translation via Google Translate).

 CNN summarizes the proposed rules:

Though the draft rules affirm China's commitment to respecting "the freedom of religious belief of foreigners," the list of potential new restrictions and requirements could make practicing that belief far more difficult.

In particular, the draft rules include a list of activities that foreigners should not conduct within China, such as "interfering with or dominating the affairs of Chinese religious groups," advocating "extremist religious thoughts," using religion to conduct terrorist activities, or "interfering with the appointment or management of Chinese clergy members."

The last point appears aimed at the Vatican, with whom China has a longstanding dispute over the appointment of bishops by the official Chinese Patriotic Catholic Association.

5th Circuit En Banc Holds Medicaid Patients Cannot Challenge Planned Parenthood Defunding

In a procedurally complex holding, the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals en banc in Planned Parenthood of Greater Texas Family Planning and Preventive Health Services, Inc. v. Kauffman, (5th Cir., Nov. 23, 2020), vacated a preliminary injunction that had prevented Texas from terminating its Medicaid contracts with Planned Parenthood. Eleven of the 16 judges joined the majority opinion in full.  Three others joined it in part. Two dissented. The termination was prompted by a controversial video from a pro-life organization involving procurement of fetal tissue for research. In vacating the injunction, the majority said in part:

[T]he district court grant[ed] the Providers and Individual Plaintiffs’ [who were Medicaid patients] motion for a preliminary injunction and prohibit[ed] the termination of the Providers’ Medicaid provider agreements. The district court held that § 1396a(a)(23) granted rights to the Individual Plaintiffs upon which a § 1983 action challenging the OIG’s termination decision could be based. The district court concluded ... [that] the OIG “did not have prima facie . . . evidence, or even a scintilla of evidence, to conclude the bases of termination set forth in the Final Notice merited finding the . . . Providers were not qualified.” This appeal ensued.

A three-judge panel of this court held ... that the Individual Plaintiffs [Medicaid patients] could maintain a § 1983 suit.... We granted en banc review.

The preliminary injunction issued by the district court was based solely on the claims of the Individual Plaintiffs. The district court did not consider whether the Providers were entitled to a preliminary injunction. The question before us is whether the Individual Plaintiffs may bring a § 1983 suit to contest the State’s determination that the Providers were not “qualified” providers.... We hold that they may not. We accordingly vacate the preliminary injunction.

Because the district court did consider the Providers’ claims, no aspect of those claims is before us in this interlocutory appeal. Accordingly, we do not reach an issue addressed by JUDGE HIGGINSON’s opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, which is whether the Medicaid agreements of entities affiliated with PP Gulf Coast were properly terminated.

UPDATE: Law & Crime reports on the decision.

Firing Only Unmarried Pregnant Teachers Is Not Proper Enforcement of Catholic School's Morals Code

 In Crisitello v. St. Theresa School, (NJ App., Nov. 19, 2020), a New Jersey state appellate court reversed the dismissal of a pregnancy discrimination lawsuit brought against a Catholic school by one of its former teachers. The court summarized its holding:

In this action brought under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD), N.J.S.A. 10:5-1 to -49, we are asked to determine whether a parochial school's knowledge of the pregnancy of an unmarried lay teacher, who started as a teacher's aide for toddlers, later taught art, and had no responsibility for religious instruction, can serve as the nondiscriminatory basis for the teacher's termination for violating the school's morals code, where the school never made any effort to determine whether any of its other employees have violated the school's prohibition against "immoral conduct" that is allegedly incorporated into each employees' terms of employment. We now hold that knowledge or mere observation of an employee's pregnancy alone is not a permissible basis to detect violations of the school's policy and terminate an employee.

Bridgewater Courier News reports on the decision.

Kentucky AG Sues Its Governor Over Religious School Closures

Last Friday, Kentucky's Attorney General along with a Kentucky Christian school filed a lawsuit in federal district court against Kentucky Governor Andrew Beshear challenging his recent COVID-19 Order barring schools-- including private religious schools-- from meeting in person. The complaint (full text) in Danville Christian Academy, Inc. v. Beshear, (ED KY, filed 11/20/2020) alleges in part:

The order contains no accommodations for religious education , despite such education being recognized by the Supreme Court as a “vital” part of many faiths... And, like the Governor’s previously enjoined orders, the latest order burdens religious institutions while arbitrarily allowing other gatherings that pose similar health risks to continue.

Regardless of how well-intentioned the Governor might be, his actions violate the federal and state constitutions and Kentucky’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act. His actions also infringe on the autonomy of religious institutions and violate the Constitution’s Establishment Clause.

The Attorney General issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Church Seeks Supreme Court Relief Against California COVID-19 Restrictions

As reported by Pasedena Now, Harvest Rock Church last Saturday filed an Emergency Application for an Injunction pending appeal (full text) with the U.S. Supreme Court. The Pasadena, California church is challenging Gov. Gavin Newsom's COVID-19 restrictions.

In the case, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 decision refused to issue a preliminary injunction against Governor Newsom’s Orders that restrict in-person worship services. (See prior posting). Liberty Counsel issued a press release announcing the filing of the petition.

New York AG Sues Buffalo Diocese and Former Bishops For Handling Of Sex Abuse Complaints

New York's Attorney General, in a 218-page complaint, yesterday filed suit against the Catholic Diocese of Buffalo, two of its former bishops and its Apostolic Administrator over the handling of complaints of sexual abuse of minors and vulnerable adults. The complaint (full text) in People of the State of New York v. Diocese of Buffalo, (NY County Sup. Ct., filed 11/23/2020), alleges in part:

The Attorney General brings this lawsuit to obtain remedial and injunctive relief for the persistent violation of New York nonprofit law by the Diocese of Buffalo .... For nearly two decades, the Diocesan Corporation ignored standards established by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops ... to address and prevent the sexual abuse of minors by U.S. clergy. In direct defiance of the USCCB’s public commitment to reform, the Diocesan Corporation, through the conduct of its senior leadership, evaded key provisions of these standards, ignoring requirements for the investigation and review of alleged clergy sexual abuse....

[T]hrough their actions and inactions in response to the sexual abuse crisis, the Diocesan Corporation and its two most senior leaders ... violated multiple provisions of the Not-for-Profit Corporation Law ... and Estates, Powers and Trusts Law....

The Attorney General seeks injunctive relief to accomplish three objectives: provide mechanisms for independent review of the Diocesan Corporation’s response to alleged sexual abuse; require reporting to the Attorney General for a period of five years; and mandate external oversight of an appropriate remedial and compliance plan. This action also seeks to hold Bishop Malone and Auxiliary Bishop Grosz individually responsible for violating their secular duties as fiduciaries of the Diocesan Corporation by enjoining them from future service in a secular role as a director or officer of any charitable organization subject to New York law and by obtaining damages against and restitution from them for the waste of charitable assets caused by their misconduct.

The New York attorney general also issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit. New York Times also reports on the lawsuit.

6th Circuit Allows Tennessee "Reason" Abortion Ban

In Memphis Center for Reproductive Health v. Slatery, (6th Cir., Nov. 20, 2020), the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 decision reversed a district court and allowed the state of Tennessee to continue to enforce its "reason" abortion ban while the constitutionality of the provision is being litigated. At issue is a ban on physicians performing abortions where the physician knows that the abortion is sought because of the sex, race, or Down syndrome diagnosis of the fetus. Challengers contend in part that the ban is unconstitutionally vague.  ACLU issued a press release discussing the decision.

Supreme Court Denies Cert. In Satanic Temple Challenge To Abortion Law

The U.S. Supreme Court today denied review in Doe v. Parson, (Docket No. 20-385, certiorari denied 11/23/2020). (Order List.) In the case the U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected claims by a member of the Satanic Temple that Missouri's abortion informed consent law violates her 1st Amendment rights. (See prior posting.)

Supreme Court Denies Review In RLUIPA Standing Case

The U.S. Supreme Court today denied review in Rabbinical College v. Pomona, NY, (Docket No. 20-14, certiorari denied 11/23/2020). (Order List.) In the case, the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in a 104-page opinion affirmed in part the judgment in favor of those supporting construction of a rabbinical school in a New York village, but held that the College lacks standing to pursue some of its claims. (See prior posting.)  The College sought Supreme Court review on the issue of when a property owner has standing to assert a RLUIPA challenge to a zoning law that prohibits a particular land use.

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Larry O. Natt Gantt, II, Reframing the Wellness Challenges in the Legal Profession as Opportunities for Christian Lawyers to Be Salt and Light, (16 The Christian Lawyer 3 (Fall 2020)).
• Barry Winston Bussey, Blazing the Path: Freedom of Conscience as the Prototypical Right, (Supreme Court Law Review 2nd Series, volume 98, 2020).
• Isaac Sommers, Suffering for Her Faith: The Importance of an Intersectional Perspective on Gendered Religious Persecution in International Law, (Harvard International Law Journal, Vol. 61, No. 2, Pages 511–558, Summer 2020).
• Lee-ford Tritt, Litigation Blues for Red-State Trusts: Judicial Construction Issues for Wills and Trusts, (Florida Law Review, Vol. 72, No. 841, 2020).
• Jeroen Temperman, Blasphemy and the European Court of Human Rights: A Small Step Forward, A Giant Leap Back, (European Yearbook on Human Rights (Intersentia, 2019)).
• Thomas Simmons, Saint Paul’s Trial Narrative in Acts: Imperium Rōmānum vs. Vasileía tou Theoú, (South Dakota Law Review, Vol. 65, No. 2, 2020).
• Brian Owsley, Is The Supreme Court Irrational: Trump v. Hawaii,  (Southern California Interdisciplinary Law Journal, Vol. 29, No. 591, 2020).
• Guha Krishnamurthi & Charanya Krishnaswami, Title VII and Caste Discrimination, (November 6, 2020).
• Mark Sidel & David Moore, The Law Affecting Civil Society in Asia: Developments and Challenges for Nonprofit and Civil Society Organizations, (Univ. of Wisconsin Legal Studies Research Paper No. 1671 (2020)).

From SSRN (LGBTQ Rights):

• Alex Reed, Religious Nonadherence Claims as a Means of Contesting LGB-Related Employment Bias, (Berkeley Journal of Employment and Labor Law, Vol. 40, No. 2, 2019).
• James Duane, 'Without Undue Disrespect': An Open Letter to Justice Anthony Kennedy About His Opinion for the Court in Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, 138 S.Ct. 1719 (2018). (2020).
• Alex Reed, Beyond Bostock: Employment Protections for LGBTQ Workers Not Covered by Title VII, (New York University Journal of Legislation and Public Policy, Forthcoming).
• Frederick Mark Gedicks, Dignity and Discrimination, (Brigham Young University Law Review, 2021 Forthcoming).

From SSRN (Islamic Law):

• Eesha Shrotriya & Shantanu Pachauri, Criminalisation of Triple Talaq: Dissecting the Constitutional and Socio-Legal Aspects, (NLS Socio-Legal Review Forum, 2019).
• Adam Baczko, Gilles Dorronsoro, Arthur Quesnay & Maai Youssef, Maai, The Rationality of an Eschatological Movement: The Islamist State in Iraq and Syria, (Program on Governance and Local Development Working Paper No. 7, 2016).
• Tariq Javed, Modern Theories vs Islamic Concept of Jihad Impacting Pakistan Security Dilemma, (Malaysian Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities (MJSSH), Volume 5, Issue 9, (page 76 - 89), 2020).

From SmartCILP:

• Mark Strasser, Establishment Clause Health on a Restricted, Artificial Lemon Diet, [Abstract], (29 Boston University Public Interest Law Journal 169-222 (2019).
• Nadia B. Ahmad, Faith-Based Approaches to Ecological Harmony and Environmental Protection, 21 Rutgers Race & the Law Review 1-22 (2020).

6th Circuit Hears Oral Arguments In Case of Prof Who Refused To Use Student's Preferred Pronouns

The U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals on Thursday heard oral arguments in Meriwether v. Hartop.(Audio of full oral arguments.) In the case, an Ohio federal district court dismissed a lawsuit by a college philosophy professor who was disciplined by a university when he refused to abide by the school's non-discrimination policy.  The professor refused to address a transgender student using the student's preferred gender identity title and pronouns, and instead used only the student's name. (See prior posting.) Portsmouth Daily Times reports on the oral arguments.

11th Circuit Strikes Down Conversion Therapy Ban

 In Otto v. City of Boca Raton, Florida, (11th Cir., Nov. 20, 2020), the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision, struck down city and county ordinances in Florida that ban therapists from engaging in counseling or therapy aimed at changing a minor’s sexual orientation, reducing a minor’s sexual or romantic attractions, or changing a minor’s gender identity or expression. Support to minors undergoing gender transition, however is permitted. The majority said in part:

We understand and appreciate that the therapy is highly controversial. But the First Amendment has no carveout for controversial speech. We hold that the challenged ordinances violate the First Amendment because they are content-based regulations of speech that cannot survive strict scrutiny...

This decision allows speech that many find concerning—even dangerous. But consider the alternative. If the speech restrictions in these ordinances can stand, then so can their inverse. Local communities could prevent therapists from validating a client’s same-sex attractions if the city council deemed that message harmful.... People have intense moral, religious, and spiritual views about these matters—on all sides. And that is exactly why the First Amendment does not allow communities to determine how their neighbors may be counseled about matters of sexual orientation or gender.

Judge Martin, dissenting, said in part:

The majority is correct to say this case implicates sensitive considerations about when and how government bodies may regulate speech. Instances in which a speech restriction is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling interest are deservedly rare. But they do exist.... I believe the Localities’ narrow regulation of a harmful medical practice affecting vulnerable minors falls within the narrow band of permissibility.

Palm Beach Post reports on the decision.

Court Says Church Trustees Had Authority To Remove Pastor

In Vaughn v. Faith Bible Church of Sudlersville, (MD App., Nov. 19, 2020), a Maryland state appellate court held that under the state's Religious Corporation Act, trustees of the church had the authority to remove its pastor. The court said in part:

Churches in Maryland formally organize as religious corporations and thus, the trustees, not the congregation, constitute the corporation....

Appellant ... argues that Shore Haven trustees lacked authority to terminate him because the firing of a church pastor is an ecclesiastical matter reserved to the church, not the trustees....

However, here, there was simply no evidence that the Board’s decision was based on disputes regarding religious doctrine, biblical interpretations or other ecclesiastical matters. As stated by appellee, “appellant’s personal behaviors, organizational shortcomings, inability to manage a breakdown in civility, and over-heated remarks about [a Shore Haven trustee] drove” the decision.

Suit Challenges DC's Refusal To Allow "Black Pre-Born Lives Matter" Mural on Street

Suit was filed this week in D.C. federal district court challenging the constitutionality of D.C.'s refusal to allow protesting groups to paint a mural reading "Black Pre-Born Lives Matter" on the street near a Planned Parenthood Clinic. It also barred the chalking of the same message. The complaint (full text) in Frederick Douglass Foundation, Inc. v. District of Columbia, (D DC, filed 11/18/2020) points out that murals reading "Black Lives Matter" and "Defund the Police" were permitted to be painted along other D.C. streets. Plaintiffs contend that this differential treatment violates their free speech, equal protection and free exercise rights.  ADF issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Oregon COVD-19 Limits On Parochial Schools Upheld

The Oregonian yesterday reported on federal district judge's ruling from the bench in Horizon Christian School v. State of Oregon, (D OR, Nov. 17, 2020) denying a preliminary injunction to three Christian schools challenging Gov. Kate Brown’s COVID-19 executive order that limits the schools to remote instruction. According to the report:

Attorney John Kaempf, representing Horizon Christian School, McMinnville Christian Academy and Life Christian School, had urged the judge to halt the governor’s executive order and allow the three schools to reopen with in-person classes and proper safeguards in place.

He argued that gathering communally is a tenet of Catholic education, and not allowing the schools to hold in-person religious classes violates their freedom of religion and expression....

U.S. District Judge Michael W. Mosman said he found it “utterly implausible,” that the governor’s motive behind her executive order was to shut down religious schools.

Previously the court had denied a temporary restraining order in the case. (See prior posting.)

10th Circuit Dismisses Objections To Attempted Search of Church

 In Aguilera v. City of Colorado Springs, (10th Cir., Nov. 18, 2020), the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of a civil rights claim brought by the High Priestess/ Property Manager of Green Faith Ministry who objected to an attempt by a police officer and fire marshals to inspect the ministry's building. Officers apparently suspected marijuana usage or occupancy standard violations. The court rejected plaintiff's complaint that one officer told her to "praise the Lord." The court said in part:

Aguilera’s amended complaint does not allege facts indicating that an objective observer would view Officer Vargason’s purpose in saying “Praise the Lord” as an official endorsement of religion.

The court also rejected plaintiff's free exercise claim, concluding:

Aguilera has failed to allege that any defendant burdened her exercise of religious beliefs or practices.

FBI Releases 2019 Hate Crime Statistics

This week, the FBI released its 2019 Hate Crime Statistics. According to the Report, of the 7,103 single-bias incidents, 19.9% of the offenses, and 21.4% of the incidents, were motivated by religious bias. Of the offenses motivated by religious bias:  60.3% were anti-Jewish; 13.3% percent were anti-Islamic (Muslim); 4.0% were anti-Catholic; 3.6% were anti-Other Christian; 3.0% were anti-Sikh; 2.8% were anti-Eastern Orthodox (Russian, Greek, Other); 2.5 percent were anti-multiple religions; 1.5% were anti-Protestant; 0.8% were anti-Mormon; 0.4% were anti-Hindu; 0.4% were anti-Jehovah’s Witness; 0.4% were anti-Atheism/Agnosticism; 0.3% were anti-Buddhist. The prior year's report showed 20.2% of the offenses motivated by religious bias. (See prior posting.) ADL issued a press release commenting on the Report, as did Muslim Advocates.

New Report On Attitudes Toward Religious Liberty

Becket Fund for Religious Liberty this week released its second annual Religious Freedom Index, a 90-page report on American attitudes toward religion, culture and the law. The Executive Summary says in part:

[T]he Index asks questions that provide insights into opinion on past, present, and future religious liberty topics. These responses statistically group into six dimensions that contribute to the yearly Index score: 1)Religious Pluralism, 2) Religion and Policy, 3) Religious Sharing, 4) Religion in Society, 5) Church and State, and 6) Religion in Action.

The Becket website has additional information.

7th Circuit Stays, Pending Appeal, Injunction Against Creche On County Property

 As the holiday season approaches, the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals by a vote of 2-1 in Woodring v. Jackson County, Indiana, (7th Cir., Nov. 17, 2020), granted a stay pending appeal of a district court order barring the display of a creche on the historical county courthouse-- now county office building-- lawn. The appeal on the merits in the case was argued before the 7th Circuit last week. (See prior posting.) Judge dissented, saying:

The relief granted by the stay violates the Establishment Clause. The dominant religious content of the display communicates to a reasonable observer a governmental endorsement of Christianity, a matter as to which governments must remain neutral. In addition, the county waited so long to seek this stay that it cannot plausibly claim it needs emergency relief.

Liberty Counsel issued a press release (including a photo of the display) announcing the grant of the stay.

NY Court Approves Sale of Christian College Campus To Yeshiva

Under New York law, court approval (or approval by the attorney General) is required for sale of assets of a non-profit educational corporation. In In re Nyack College, (Sup Ct NY County, Nov. 13, 2020), the court approved the sale of Nyack College's South Nyack campus to Yeshiva of Viznitz D'Khal Torath Chaim in Ramapo. Nyack, a Christian College.  According to Lower Hudson News, the Yeshivah plans to operate Jewish religious schools for 250 college age students and 250 high school students.

10th Circuit Hears Oral Arguments In Colorado Ban On Discriminating Against Same-Sex Weddings

 On Monday, the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of appeals heard oral arguments (audio of full arguments) in 303 Creative v. Elenis. In the case, plaintiff Lorie Smith wanted to expand her business to design custom websites for couples planning weddings. However she would not provide her services for same-sex weddings.  Last year, a Colorado federal district court rejected a constitutional challenge to the application of the "communications clause" of Colorado's public accommodation law to Smith's business.  That law prohibits publication of any notice or advertisement indicating that services will be withheld on the basis of, among other things, sexual orientation. (See prior posting.) KNSI News reports on the oral arguments.

West Virginia Supreme Court Exempts Religious Schools and Camps From Deceptive Practices Ban

 In State of West Virginia ex rel. Morrisey v. Diocese of Wheeling-Charleston, (WV Sup. Ct., Nov. 16, 2020), the West Virginia Supreme Court held that the deceptive practices provisions of the state's Consumer Credit and Protection Act cannot be applied to educational and recreational services offered by a religious institution. It concluded that state statutory provisions protecting religious schools and institutions lead to this result.  It also held that 

the entire relationship between Church and State arising from the Attorney General’s application of the Act constitute an excessive entanglement of  Church and State...

According to the court:

[T]he Attorney General claimed that the Diocese had violated the deceptive practices provisions when it knowingly employed admitted and credibly-accused sexual abusers in its schools and camps but neither disclosed that material information to consumers nor warned them of the alleged dangers inherent to the educational and recreational services it provided. The Attorney General also claimed that the Diocese had made material misrepresentations regarding the safety of those services....

Justice Workman filed a dissenting opinion, saying in part:

The majority opinion is transparently result-oriented which explains its logical incoherence and sins of omission. The issue before the Court is one of fairness and honesty in commercial communications to the public---potential purchasers of goods and services. The fundamental question involves matters of unfair or deceptive acts or practices in advertising or selling and in advertising based on false promises. That is all. Nothing else is at issue. This case has absolutely nothing to do with the free exercise or expression of religious thought and nothing to do with regulating religious institutions in the sense of excessive State entanglement....

In conclusion, the majority opinion slams the door shut on enforcement of even the most blatant unfair or deceptive commercial conduct on the grounds that false or misleading advertising was perpetrated by a religious institution.... Ironically, religious institutions have been given an unfair marketplace advantage with respect to their commercial enterprises. 

AP reports on the decision.

New Jersey School's Presentation of Islam Did Not Violate Establishment Clause

 In Hilsenrath v. School District of the Chathams, (D NJ, Nov. 12, 2020), a New Jersey federal district court held that the 7th grade World Cultures and Geography course presentation of material about Islam did not violate the Establishment Clause.  The court held that a nominal damages claim is sufficient to give plaintiff standing to challenge the course material. The court said in part:

Here, the World Cultures course includes similar units on, for example, Hinduism and Buddhism, in which students watch videos on those religions to understand their tenets and practices.... A reasonable observer would not perceive an endorsement of Islam when the course also presented other religions in a similar manner. Further, Islam is introduced as part of a unit on the Middle East and North Africa in a course covering geography and world cultures, so it is presented in conjunction with nonreligious material about a region of the world....

This case falls into the category of those in which schools permissibly asked students to “read, discuss, and think” about a religion.

TAPinto reports on the decision.

11th Circuit Allows Buddhist Center To Move Ahead With RLUIPA and State Law Claims

 In Thai Meditation Association of Alabama, Inc. v. City of Mobile Alabama, (11th Cir., Nov. 16, 2020), the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals remanded to the district court some of the claims by a Buddhist group that its rights were violated when the city Planning Commission and City Commission refused to approve its proposed meditation center.  The court held that the district court had used the wrong test to determine whether  the refusal imposed a "substantial burden" in violation of RLUIPA and the 1st Amendment. The Court said in part:

it isn’t necessary for a plaintiff to prove—as the district court here seemed to assume—that the government required her to completely surrender her religious beliefs; modified behavior, if the result of government coercion or pressure, can be enough. ...

However the court rejected plaintiffs' religious discrimination claim, saying in part:

It’s not enough .. for the plaintiffs to show that community members opposed their applications on prohibited grounds—they must prove that the city officials who rejected them acted with discriminatory intent. And we cannot attribute the residents’ purported bias to city officials absent at least some proof that the officials “ratified” it.

The court also held that Alabama's Religious Freedom Amendment requires plaintiffs to merely show a "burden", rather than a "substantial burden" on their religious exercise. The Court said in part:

Given the post-RFRA context in which ARFA was adopted, and its pointed rejection of the phrase “substantially burden” in favor of “burden” simpliciter, we conclude that qualifier’s omission was intentional. No matter how tempting it may be—whether to harmonize state and federal law or, as the district court suggested, to “control[] the floodgates of litigation”—we aren’t at liberty to graft the adverb “substantially” onto a provision (or set of provisions) that won’t accommodate it....

Recent Articles and Publications of Interest

 From SSRN:

• Suzanne A. Kim, Commentary on Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, (in Feminist Judgments: Reproductive Justice Rewritten (Kimberly Mutcherson ed., 2020).
• Ihsan Yilmaz, Erdoğanism’s Undesired Citizens, (August 21, 2020).
• Meghan J. Ryan, Framing Individualized Sentencing for Politics and the Constitution, (American Criminal Law Review, Forthcoming).
• Nelson Tebbe, A Democratic Political Economy for the First Amendment, (105 Cornell Law Review 959 (2020)).
• Elijah Zachary Granet & Frank Cranmer, Re S (Parental Alienation: Cult), ([2020] LAW & JUSTICE 118).
• Marina Lostal, Islamic State and the Illicit Traffic of Cultural Property, (The International Criminal Responsibility of War’s Funders and Profiteers, edited by Nina H B Jørgensen, 122–47 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2020)).
• Muhammad Farooq, The Man’s Right to Dissolve the Muslim Marriage: Treatment of This Right in Shari’ah and in Case Law of Pakistan, (August 7, 2019).

From SmartCILP and elsewhere:

• Judith Bartnoff, 2019 Shrensky Lecture on Law and Jewish Ethics. Doing Justice: Judging and Jewish Values, 69 American University Law Review 615-628 (2019).
• Catherine A. Hardee, Schrodinger's Corporation: The Paradox of Religious Sincerity in Heterogeneous Corporations, 61 Boston College Law Review 1763-1818 (2020).
• John Inazu, Taking Stock of the Religion Clauses, 97 Washington University Law Review 1631-1640 (2020).
• Michael W. McConnell, Keynote address. Freedom of Association: Campus Religious Groups, 97 Washington University Law Review 1641-1652 (2020).
• Stephanie H. Barclay, Untangling Entanglement, 97 Washington University Law Review 1701-1728 (2020).
• Garielle M. Girgis, What Is a "Substantial Burden" on Religion under RFRA and the First Amendment?, 97 Washington University Law Review 1755-1786 (2020).
• Steven H. Sholk, A Guide to Election Year Activities of Section 501(c)(3) Organizations, (Updated 2020 version).
• Scott Wiener, Guardianship, Women, and Religious Freedom in Saudi Arabia, (USCIRF Update, Nov. 2020).

Chabad Moves One Step Closer To Recovering Sanctions Against Russia In Attempt To Repatriate Library

Agudas Chasidei Chabad of the United States v. Russian Federation, (D DC, Nov. 6, 2020), is the latest decision in a long-running attempt by Agudas Chasidei Chabad to recover from the Russian government two expropriated collections of valuable Jewish religious books and manuscripts. In 2013, the D.C. federal district court held the Russian government and three of its agencies in civil contempt, and imposed sanctions of $50,000 per day, for not complying with a 2010 default judgement ordering it to return the materials. (See prior posting). Plaintiffs attempted to find Russian assets to satisfy the sanctions by issuing subpoenas to Tenam, an indirectly wholly-owned subsidiary of Russia's nuclear agency.  Tenam challenged the subpoenas by challenging the underlying judgment against Russia. The district court held that Tenam lacks standing to challenge that judgment, and Tenam appealed. Now Tenam seeks a stay of discovery pending that appeal. In this latest 54-page decision, the federal district court denies that stay. VINnews reports on the decision. [Thanks to Steven H. Sholk for the lead.]

7th Circuit Hears Oral Arguments In Creche Case

The U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday heard oral arguments in Woodring v. Jackson County, Indiana. (Audio of full oral arguments.) In the case, 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. (See prior posting).  Courthouse News Service reports on yesterday's oral arguments.

Brooklyn Diocese Asks Supreme Court To Enjoin COVID-19 Church Capacity Limits

Yesterday, an Emergency Application for Writ of Injunction (full text) was filed by the Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn in its challenge to New York Governor Andrew Cuomo's limitations on the number of persons who can attend a worship service during the COVID-19 pandemic. (See prior posting.) The U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision, refused to grant an injunction pending appeal to the Diocese and to a group of Jewish synagogues in the challenge to special restrictions on spots in which clusters of COVD-19 cases have broken out. SCOTUSblog reports on yesterday's filing.

UPDATE: On Nov. 16, the synagogues filed a similar Emergency Application. (Full text). SCOTUSblog has more on the filing.

Colorado Marijuana Ban May Be Applied To Cannabis Ministry

 In People v. Torline, (CO App., Nov. 12, 2020), a Colorado state appellate court held that Colorado’s law barring possession and growing of marijuana does not violate the state or federal Free Exercise rights of defendant, an ordained minister who grows the plants as part of his Cannabis Ministry. The court said in part:

[T]he incorporation of marijuana and marijuana concentrate into religious rituals is subject to regulation on equal terms with secular marijuana use. Colorado law does not penalize such conduct because of its religious character.

British Report Issued On Child Sex Abuse Response By Catholic Church

In Britain on Tuesday the government-authorized Independent Inquiry Into Child Sexual Abuse published its 154-page Investigation Report on the Roman Catholic Church (full text) (press release announcing the report). The Report says in part: 

As we have said previously, faith organisations are marked out from most other institutions by their explicit moral purpose. The Roman Catholic Church is no different. In the context of the sexual abuse of children, that moral purpose was betrayed over decades by those in the Church who perpetrated this abuse and those who turned a blind eye to it. The Church’s neglect of the physical, emotional and spiritual well-being of children and young people in favour of protecting its reputation was in conflict with its mission of love and care for the innocent and vulnerable.

The Bishops' Conference of England and Wales issued a statement welcoming the report. Law & Religion UK has more on the Report.

USCIRF Issues New Report On Persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses

The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom has issued a report (full text) on The Global Persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses. The Report says in part:

The governments outlined in this report tend to target Jehovah’s Witnesses as “extremists” or because of their conscientious objection to military service. Those countries that persecute Jehovah’s Witnesses on the basis of vague extremism accusations, however, have failed to provide any evidence to demonstrate that members of the community have ever been involved in any act of violence against the state or its citizens, or called for the overthrow of any such government. On the contrary, the group is doctrinally apolitical and pacifist, and the prosecution of its members as dangerous “extremists” demonstrates the capacity for abuse inherent in vague and sweeping anti-extremism legislation.

Early Supreme Court Review Sought In Church's Challenge To Nevada COVID-19 Limits

In July, the U.S. Supreme Court by a 5-4 vote refused to grant an injunction pending appeal to a church that was challenging Nevada Governor Steve Sisolak's COVID-19 Order limiting worship services to no more than 50 people with social distancing. (See prior posting). A Nevada federal district court had upheld the governor's Order. Arguments are scheduled next month in the church's appeal to the 9th Circuit. However, last week the church filed a petition (full text) asking the U.S. Supreme Court to grant review in the case before it is heard by the 9th Circuit. Calvary Chapel Dayton Valley v. Sisolak, (certiorari filed, 11/5/2020). ADF issued a press release announcing the filing.

Suit Challenging Louisiana COVID-19 Limits On Churches Fails

 In Spell v. Edwards, (MD LA, Nov. 10, 2020), a Louisiana federal district court dismissed a suit by a pastor challenging the state's COVID-19 limits on worship services. The court held that plaintiffs' claim for injunctive relief is moot because the specific Proclamation they challenge has expired. The court also dismissed plaintiffs' claim for damages, saying in part:

Governor Edwards's Proclamations have always treated comparable secular institutions similarly to comparable religious institutions.... 

To the extent that Plaintiffs argue that any restrictions on their right to gather violate the U.S. Constitution, they are clearly incorrect.

The Advocate reports on the decision.

Vatican Publishes Lengthy Report On Its Handling Of Abuse Accusations Against Former Cardinal McCarrick

The Vatican yesterday released a 461-page report titled The Holy See's Institutional Knowledge and Decision-Making Related to Former Cardinal Theodore Edgar McCarrick. (Full text). A statement (full text) by Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Pietro Parolin says in part:

The Report ..., which the Secretariat of State drew up on the Pope's mandate, is published today. It is a substantial text, which has involved a careful examination of all the relevant documentation of the archives in the Holy See, at the Nunciature in Washington and in the dioceses of the United States involved in various ways. The complex investigation was also integrated with information obtained from interviews with witnesses and persons with knowledge of the facts, in order to obtain as complete a picture as possible and a more detailed and accurate knowledge of the relevant information.

We publish the Report with sorrow for the wounds that these events have caused to the victims, their families, the Church in the United States, and the Universal Church.

CBS News, summarizing details of the Report, said in part:

Pope Francis kept a promise by releasing the 461-page report, which attempts to answer a troubling question about McCarrick.

“How a man who had rumors swirling about him, about how he liked to sleep with seminarians could nevertheless rise to the top of the Catholic church,” AP religion writer Nicole Winfield said.

Charming and well-spoken in five languages, McCarrick was a leading figure in American Catholicism for years. He was the Bishop of Metuchen, Archbishop of Newark, and Cardinal of Washington D.C. Now, the 90-year-old is disgraced, defrocked, and widely viewed as a deceiver....

The report says Pope John Paul II believed McCarrick’s denial, after New York’s John Cardinal O’Connor raised red flags in a 1999 letter.

It also faults several bishops for providing incomplete information about McCarrick to the Vatican.

NYPD Settles Suit Over Religious Head Coverings In Mug Shots

 The Hill reported yesterday that the New York City Police Department has settled a lawsuit filed against it by two Muslim women last year challenging NYPD's policy of requiring persons arrested to remove their head coverings for a mug shot. (Full text of complaint in Clark v. City of New York, (SD NY, filed 3/16/2018)). The policy change agreed to in the settlement is described by the news report:

The new policy requires officers to “take all possible steps, when consistent with personal safety” to respect "privacy, rights and religious beliefs," with exceptions for weapons or contraband searches and a risk to safety, and the department will keep track of such instances for at least the next three years.

Suit In Nigeria Challenges Arabic On Currency As Violating Secular Status of Country

This Day reports on a suit heard yesterday by Nigeria's Federal High Court challenging Arabic inscriptions on Nigerian currency. Plaintiff in the suit claims that the inscriptions portray Nigeria as an Islamic state, violating its secular constitutional status. Defending the use of Arabic script, the Central Bank of Nigeria argued that it is not a symbol of Islam, but is merely used to aid non-English speakers who are literate in Arabic and use it in trade.

2nd Circuit Denies Injunction Pending Appeal Of NY Governor's Cluster Zone Limits On Houses of Worship

In Agudath Israel of America v. Cuomo, (2d Cir., Nov. 9, 2020), the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 decision refused to grant an injunction pending appeal to a group of Jewish synagogues and to the Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn in a case challenging New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo's restrictions on spots in which clusters of COVD-19 cases have broken out. (See prior posting.) The majority said in part:

The Court fully understands the impact the executive order has had on houses of worship throughout the affected zones. Nevertheless, the Appellants cannot clear the high bar necessary to obtain an injunction pending appeal. The challenged executive order establishes zones based on the severity of the COVID-19 outbreaks in different parts of New York. Within each zone, the order subjects religious services to restrictions that are similar to or, indeed, less severe than those imposed on comparable secular gatherings....

Thus, while it is true that the challenged order burdens the Appellants’ religious practices, the order is not “substantially underinclusive” given its greater or equal impact on schools, restaurants, and comparable secular public gatherings.

Judge Park dissented, saying in part:

Here, the executive order does not impose neutral public-health guidelines, like requiring masks and distancing or limiting capacity by space or time. Instead, the Governor has selected some businesses (such as news media, financial services, certain retail stores, and construction) for favorable treatment, calling them “essential,” while imposing greater restrictions on “non-essential” activities and religious worship. Such targeting of religion is subject to strict scrutiny.

Hamodia reports on the decision.

Certiorari Denied In Challenge To "So Help Me God" In Citizenship Oath

 Yesterday the United States Supreme Court denied review in Perrier-Bilbo v. United States, (Docket No. 20-349, certiorari denied 11/9/2020). (Order List.) In the case, the U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals rejected constitutional challenges to the inclusion of "so help me God" at the end of the oath of allegiance administered at naturalization ceremonies. (See prior posting.)  Friendly Atheist reports on the Supreme Court's action.

Another Chapter In Challenge To Navy Chaplain Selection Procedures

In In re Navy Chaplaincy, (DC Cir., Nov. 6, 2020), the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals issued the latest decision in a controversy that has been in litigation for over twenty years.  In the case, non-liturgical Protestant chaplains allege discrimination against them by selection boards that control promotions and early retirements of Navy chaplains. The court said:

the district court made no mistake in granting summary judgment for the Navy on the Plaintiffs’ various First Amendment challenges to its selection board policies. See Chaplaincy, 323 F. Supp. 3d at 35-36, 55-56. With regard to the claims that certain selection board policies violated the Establishment Clause, the Plaintiffs had to show each policy had an unconstitutional effect; that is, the Plaintiffs had to show “the selection policies appear[ed] to endorse religion in the eyes of a reasonable observer.”... To prove an endorsement with statistics, the Plaintiffs had to show a stark disparity in outcomes during the relevant period ..., but the statistics they offered came nowhere close to doing so.

However the court remanded for further proceedings a claim by a chaplain endorsing agency, Associated Gospel Churches, of injury because of the Navy's policy. The trial court had dismissed the claim for lack of standing. The Court of Appeals said in part:

On appeal, AGC argues it has standing in its own right to challenge the Navy’s faith-neutral accession goals. We agree. AGC alleged the Navy’s accession goals resulted in AGC’s chaplain candidates entering the Navy at a significantly lower rate than they otherwise would have. AGC further alleged, because it relies upon its chaplains for financial support, it loses money when its ability to find placements for its candidates is hindered. AGC also alleged its low rate of success placing candidates in the Navy tarnished its reputation. These allegations satisfy all three elements of standing. We express no opinion on the sufficiency of the allegations in any other respect.

The court also reversed and remanded claims that had been dismissed as untimely, ordering the trial court to consider whether equitable tolling applies. Finally, the court held:

Allowing chaplains to sit on chaplain selection boards does not create a de jure denominational preference and does not create excessive entanglement.

Slam Poetry Book In Curriculum Upheld

In Coble v. Lake Norman Charter School, Inc., (WD NC, Nov. 6, 2020), a North Carolina federal district court refused to issue a temporary restraining order to prevent a public charter school from including The Poet X in its ninth-grade language arts curriculum. Plaintiffs claim that inclusion of the book violates the Establishment Clause as well as their free exercise rights. The court said in part:

The sincerity of Plaintiffs’ religious objections to The Poet X is not disputed, nor is the fact that the book deeply offends Plaintiffs. Even accepting, however, that the work is antithetical to the particular Christian beliefs espoused by Plaintiffs, its inclusion in the high school curriculum alone does not violate the Establishment Clause...

The issue is not whether The Poet X embodies anti-Christian elements; the Court assumes that it does. Instead, the issue is whether its selection and retention by school officials “communicat[es] a message of government endorsement” of those elements....

Similarly, inclusion of The Poet X as representative of a particular literary genre (slam poetry / verse novel) neither religiously inhibits nor instills, but simply informs and educates, students on a particular social outlook forged in the crucible of Afro-Latinx urban life. To include the work in the curriculum, without further evidence of the school’s endorsement, no more communicates governmental endorsement of the author’s or characters’ religious views than to assign Paradise Lost, Pilgrim’s Progress, or The Divine Comedy conveys endorsement or approval of Milton’s, Bunyan’s, or Dante’s Christianity....

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Marcello Neri, Pope Francis’ Constitutionalism and Catholic Politics, (University of Milano-Bicocca School of Law Research Paper No. 20-04 (2020).
• J. Mark Ramseyer, Contracting for Compassion in Japanese Buddhism, (Harvard Law School John M. Olin Center Discussion Paper No. 1039, 2020).
• Barry Winston Bussey, Contagion: Government Fear of Religion during the COVID-19 Crisis, (Revista General de Derecho Canónico y Derecho Eclesiástico del Estado, 54 (2020)).
• Mahdi Attar Kashani, The Concept of Right and Its Differences With Similar Concepts in Islamic Jurisprudence, (September 12, 2020).
• Stephen Cranney, Are Christians More Likely to Invoke RFRA—and Win—than Other Religions since Hobby Lobby?, (Mercer Law Review Forthcoming).
• Brian Miller, Religion and Local Power, (Mercer Law Review Forthcoming).
• David Kenny, The Virtues of Unprincipled Constitutional Compromises: Church and State in the Irish Constitution, (European Constitutional Law Review (Forthcoming)).
• Afrasiab Ahmed Rana, Essentials of a Valid Contract: A Comparative Study of Sighah in Islamic Law and the Agreement in the Contract Act, 1872, (November 1, 2020).

UAE Liberalizes Personal Status and Penal Laws

The United Arab Emirates today announced liberalizing changes in its Sharia-based personal laws. The Hill, The National, and Emirates News Agency all report on the changes made by Presidential Decree to the Personal Status, Civil Transactions, Penal Code and Criminal Procedural laws.  The changes, many involving protections for foreigners living in the UAE, take effect immediately. They include:

• Repeal of the provisions allowing more lenient sentences for so-called "honor crimes".
• Divorces of foreigners who were married abroad will be governed by the laws of their home country instead of Sharia law.
• The law of a person's home country, rather than Sharia law, will govern division of assets on death where no will is left.
• Attempted suicide is decriminalized.
• "Good Samaritans" who intervene to help another person will not be held accountable for the person's injury or death.
• More severe punishments are set for harassment of women.
• Death penalty is prescribed for rape of a minor or of someone of limited mental capacity.
• Alcohol consumption in authorized areas by adults who do not have a license to consume liquor is decriminalized. Typically Muslims have been denied a license.
• Cohabitation by unmarried couples is decriminalized.
• Translators will be provided in courts for defendants and witnesses, and evidence involving indecent acts will not be made public.

Suit Against Trump For Misleading Christians Is Dismissed For Lack of Standing

In Kelly v. Trump, (Del. Chancery, Nov. 2, 2020), a Delaware Chancery Court Master recommended dismissing as legally frivolous a suit against President Donald Trump alleging that he violated plaintiff's free exercise and Establishment Clause rights. The court said that plaintiff "has not shown an actual or concrete injury to her caused by Trump’s conduct....  Her contentions are too remote and vague to be actionable."  The court described plaintiff's allegations in part as follows:

Kelly’s main theory of her case is that Trump creates the illusion of being a devout Christian, while engaging in acts that Kelly contends are against the main tenets of Christianity. She claims that his actions substantially burden and injure her “free exercise of religion”... by [his] increased threat of government sponsored religious persecution.... Kelly alleges that ... he is misleading people, deceiving them to sin, and dooming them to hell. The primary harm Kelly claims is that, because Trump is leading people to hell, Kelly will not be able to love them for eternity. She also alleges that she is persecuted ... because of Trump’s support for one religious belief, and suppression of others....

Court Refuses Stay of Order On Creche Display

In Woodring v. Jackson County, Indiana, (SD IN, Nov. 3, 2020), an Indiana federal district court refused to stay its final judgment pending appeal in a case challenging the annual display of a creche on the county courthouse lawn.  The court said in part:

Because the crèche straddles the sidewalk subdividing the lawn and the more-secular figures are placed on the periphery, the venerable magi and hallowed manger share center stage. Id. Since the primary focus of the display is a celebration of the birth of Jesus Christ, a reasonable observer would believe that Jackson County was endorsing a particular religion, that is, Christianity. Id. Moreover, the display—which had consisted solely of the Nativity scene for almost twenty years—expanded to include the secular Christmas figures only after Jackson County received a letter from the Freedom from Religion Foundation questioning whether the display was constitutional.... A reasonable observer aware of this "history and context" would view the addition of the ancillary figures as a reactionary effort to obscure the display's religious essence.

(See prior related posting.)

10th Circuit: Plaintiff Lacks Standing To Challenge Kansas Vaccination Requriement

 In Baker v. USD 229 Blue Valley, (10th Cir., Nov. 3, 2020), the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed for lack of standing a mother's lawsuit challenging Kansas' vaccination law which requires school children to be vaccinated, but allows religious exemptions. Plaintiff's son, S.F.B., was granted a religious exemption. The court rejected plaintiff's claim that nevertheless she suffered injury. The court said in part:

Ms. Baker’s unusual standing theory falls outside any recognized notion of injury based on the potential enforcement of a law. She argues the District misapplied Kansas law in granting the religious exemption to S.F.B. in response to the Bakers’ statement. She asserts that if the District would apply the law correctly, it would revoke the religious exemption, injuring her and S.F.B. From this she contends there is a credible injury in fact....

First, we evaluate Ms. Baker’s injury argument that the District may revoke S.F.B.’s religious exemption because Kansas law compels that result. We find that Ms. Baker has not shown a concrete, imminent, and non-speculative injury in fact.

Second, we consider Ms. Baker’s contention that Kansas law inhibits her from exercising certain “options” for S.F.B. including home schooling and child care. We reject this theory because Ms. Baker alleges only a “some day” intention to exercise these options that is insufficient to demonstrate an injury in fact.

New Developments In the Abortion Rights Controversy

The past few days have brought several developments in the battle over abortion rights. In Colorado, an Initiative measure on the ballot that would have banned abortions after 22 weeks of gestation was defeated 59% to 41% (89% of precincts reporting). In Louisiana voters approved by a margin of 62% to 38% an amendment to the state constitution providing "To protect human life, nothing in this constitution shall be construed to secure or protect a right to abortion or require the funding of abortion."

Meanwhile last week, the Alabama Supreme Court in Magers v. Alabama Women's Center Reproductive Alternatives, LLC, (LA Sup. Ct., Oct. 30, 2020), dismissed a wrongful death action brought by the father of an aborted 6-week old fetus against a clinic that provided the mother with a pill to induce a medication abortion. The trial court dismissed the suit, and the state Supreme Court dismissed because appellant did not comply with the procedural requirements for the type of brief that needs to be submitted for an appeal. However Justice Mitchell, joined by 3 other justices wrote concurring opinion that said in part:

I write separately, however, to state my view that Roe v. Wade ... and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey ... are due to be overruled by the United States Supreme Court....

First, the central holding of Roe -- that there is a constitutional right to have an abortion based on a judicially created trimester framework -- has no grounding in the text of the United States Constitution....

Second, the right to have an abortion has no foundation "so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental." Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U.S. 97, 105 (1934).

[Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead as to Alabama.]

Supreme Court Will Hear Oral Arguments Today In Catholic Foster Care Agency Case

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia. In the case,  the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals upheld against 1st Amendment challenges the City of Philadelphia's policy of refusing to contract with foster care agencies, such as Catholic Social Services, that will not place children with same-sex married couples. (See prior posting.) Links to pleadings and briefs filed in the case, as well as to commentary on the case, are at the SCOTUSblog case page. When the transcript and/or recording of oral arguments become available later today, I will post a link to them.

UPDATE: Here is the transcript of the oral arguments, and here is the audio of the arguments.

Religious Voter Trends To Watch In Today's Election

A Religion News Service analysis suggests 7 religious voter trends to watch for as election results begin to be reported today: Black Protestant turnout; Muslim turnout in Michigan; Jewish turnout in Pennsylvania and Florida; Shifts among white mainliners and Catholics in the Rust Belt; Small but important shifts among Hispanic and Latino religious voters; Any movement among white evangelicals; and Latter-day Saints in Arizona.