Religion Clause

Tuesday, January 12, 2021

DOE Says Bostock Decision Does Not Apply To Title IX

As reported by Education Week, the U.S. Department of Education has released a Jan. 8, 2021 Memorandum (full text) on the impact of the U.S. Supreme Court's Bostock decision on Title IX. While Bostock held that the ban on sex discrimination in Title VII includes discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, the DOE Memo concludes that Bostock does not apply to Title IX, saying in part:

[T]he Department’s longstanding construction of the term “sex” in Title IX to mean biological sex, male or female, is the only construction consistent with the ordinary public meaning of “sex” at the time of Title IX’s enactment.

The memo goes on to provide that some kinds of discrimination based on a person's homosexuality or transgender status may violate Title IX because the discrimination takes into account the person's biological sex. Examples are employment discrimination and sexual harassment. However, in other educational situations, Title IX does not protect against sexual orientation or gender identity discrimination:

We believe the ordinary public meaning of controlling statutory and regulatory text requires a recipient providing separate athletic teams to separate participants solely based on their biological sex, male or female, and not based on transgender status or homosexuality, to comply with Title IX.

Under Title IX and its regulations, a person’s biological sex is relevant for the considerations involving athletics, and distinctions based thereon are permissible and may be required because the sexes are not similarly situated.

Disagreeing with two Circuit Court opinions, the memo states:

[W]e believe the plain ordinary public meaning of the controlling statutory and regulatory text requires a recipient providing “separate toilet, locker room, and shower facilities on the basis of sex” to regulate access based on biological sex.

The Memorandum also recognizes that religious exemptions under Title IX and RFRA still apply.

Monday, January 11, 2021

Supreme Court Denies Review In Discrimination Suit By Muslim Flight Attendant

The U.S. Supreme Court today denied review in Stanley v. ExpressJet Airlines, Inc., (Docket No. 20-495, certiorari deied 1/11/2021). (Order List.) In the case, the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals held that a Muslim flight attendant's religious discrimination claim should have been submitted to arbitration. It also rejected her retaliation claim. The flight attendant sought a religious accommodation so that she would not need to prepare or serve alcohol during flights. At issue in the case was the scope of the Railway Labor Act's mandatory arbitration provisions.

Supreme Court Denies Review In Clinic Buffer Zone Case

The U.S. Supreme Court today denied review in Bruni v. City of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, (Docket No. 19-1184, certiorari denied 1/11/2021). (Order List [scroll to pg. 25]). In the case, the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a Pittsburgh ordinance that creates a 15-foot buffer zone outside any health care facility, including a Planned Parenthood clinic. Congregating, patrolling, picketing and demonstrating in such areas are banned. (See prior posting.) Justice Thomas added a statement to his vote to deny review, saying that in an appropriate case the Court should re-examine whether intermediate scrutiny is the correct test in buffer zone cases. ADF issued a press release on the denial of certiorari.

Sunday, January 10, 2021

Supreme Court Wil Hear Challenge To California Donor-Disclosure Requirement

The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday granted certiorari in Thomas More Law Center v. Becerra (Docket No. 19-255, cert. granted 1/8/2021) and Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Becerra (Docket No. 19-251, cert. grange 1/8/2021) (Order List), and consolidated the cases for oral argument. At issue is a California administrative rule requiring non-profit organizations that wish to solicit tax deductible contributions in the state to file an annual report that includes an unredacted IRS Form 990 Schedule B. That Schedule contains the names and contributions of significant donors. Thomas More Law Center, which describes itself in its petition for certiorari as a non-profit organization that defends religious freedom, family values, and the sanctity of life, argues in its cert. petition:

For those associated with charities that speak on contentious matters—like Petitioner the Thomas More Law Center (the “Law Center”)—disclosing donor information to the Attorney General’s Registry poses an imminent danger of hate mail, violence, ostracization, and boycotts. Only the most stalwart supporters will give money under such a toxic cloud. Most will reasonably conclude that the risk of association is too great, with the result that groups who make the most threats will effectively shut down those with whom they disagree.

See prior related posting. SCOTUSblog case pages (1, 2) for the cases have links to all the pleadings and related materials.

Saturday, January 09, 2021

Ministerial Exception Applies To Title IX Hostile Work Environment Claims

In Koenke v. Saint Joseph's University, (ED PA, Jan. 8, 2021), a woman employed by a Catholic university sued under Title IX claiming sexual orientation discrimination. The court held that the Supreme Court's Bostock decision should be read to apply to sexual orientation discrimination under Title IX as well as under Title VII. All the parties agreed that plaintiff's position as Assistant Director for Music and Worship was a "ministerial" position for purposes of the ministerial exception. However plaintiff claimed that the ministerial exception does not apply to non-tangible employment discrimination claims such as hostile work environment. The court disagreed, saying in part:

[H]ostile work environment claims, particularly those brought pursuant to Title VII or Title IX, clearly fall within the scope of cases banned by the ministerial exception.... The Supreme Court has not cabined the ministerial exception to tangible or intangible employment actions, and it is not for this Court to create such an exception to binding precedent.

Friday, January 08, 2021

HHS Adopts Amended Rules Reducing LQBTQ Anti-Discrimination Protections

The Department of Health and Human Services yesterday adopted final rules (full text of Release adopting rules) which narrow LGBTQ non-discrimination protections. Previously, 45 CFR 75.300(c) barred discrimination on non-merit factors such as age, disability, sex, race, color, national origin, religion, gender identity, or sexual orientation in receiving benefits of HHS programs or in administering funded programs. The newly amended rule instead reads:

It is a public policy requirement of HHS that no person otherwise eligible will be excluded from participation in, denied the benefits of, or subjected to discrimination in the administration of HHS programs and services, to the extent doing so is prohibited by federal statute.

Previously 45 CFR 75.300(d) required grant recipients to treat same-sex marriages as valid. The newly amended rule instead reads:

HHS will follow all applicable Supreme Court decisions in administering its award programs.

In its 86-page release adopting the rule, HHS said that enforcing the prior rule may violate the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. ADF issued a press release announcing the adoption of the new rules. Americans United issued a press release criticizing the new rule.

Thursday, January 07, 2021

Religious Leaders React To Storming Of Capitol By Trump Supporters

Religion News Service has published excerpts from separate statements from over 20 faith leaders across the country reacting to the storming of the U.S. Capitol yesterday by supporters of President Trump who were seeking to stop certification of Electoral College votes. For example, Southern Baptist Convention President J.D. Greear said:

Peaceable transitions of power have marked our Republic since the beginning. It is part of honoring and submitting to God’s ordained leaders whether they were our choice or not. We need you, @POTUS to condemn this mob. Let’s move forward together. Praying for safety.

Texas Supreme Court Hears Oral Arguments In Ecclesiastical Abstention Case

The Texas Supreme Court yesterday heard oral arguments in Diocese of Lubbock v. Guerrero, consolidated for argument with In Re Diocese of Lubbock. (Video of oral arguments.) The court's website describes the case:

In this defamation case by a deacon among a list of clergy published on the church website and in a press release, the issues are (1) whether the ecclesiastical-abstention doctrine bars the libel claim when a church internally decides to disclose inside information to the public at large and (2) whether Guerrero, the deacon, presented clear and specific evidence establishing a prima facie case of each element of his defamation claim.

Links to the pleadings and briefs in the cases can be found here and here. Courthouse News Service reports on the oral arguments.

Massachusetts COVID Requirements For Church Services Upheld

In Delaney v. Baker, (D MA, Jan. 6, 2021), a Massachusetts federal district court rejected plaintiff's claims that COVID-19 orders imposing maximum occupancy limits and requiring a mask and social distancing at Catholic religious services, as well as more general mask requirements, violate his free exercise rights. The court held that plaintiff's claims as to restrictions at religious services should be dismissed for lack of standing:

Delaney’s ... challenge ... that his First Amendment right to freely exercise his religion is infringed by the maximum occupancy limits, fails.... This injury is not concrete and particularized, nor is it actual or imminent.... The joint finding is devoid of any evidence that Delaney was ever denied access to his parish church, let alone that such a denial was due to Governor Baker’s occupancy limit....Delaney also argues that the mask mandate violates his religious beliefs and therefore his First Amendment right to the free exercise of his religion and that the social distancing guidelines for churches are an affront to the free exercise of his religion.... Setting aside, for a moment, the mask mandate outside of Delaney’s parish, the mask mandate within his parish and Delaney’s injury from the social distancing guidelines within his parish fail to allege a redressable injury.... Delaney is claiming that Governor Baker’s orders are the cause of his parish’s protocols which are infringing on the exercise of his religion.... There is no evidence, however, that the Archdiocese instituted its protocols only because of Governor Baker’s orders, and even had it done so, there is no evidence that a favorable ruling would result in redress of Delaney’s injury....

As to the more general mask requirement, the court said in part:

Governor Baker’s orders for all residents to wear masks are rationally related to the interest in stemming the spread of COVID-19 because, as the parties stipulated in the joint finding, “[i]t has been proven that the wearing of masks can slow the transmission of the spread of the coronavirus.”....

Delaney’s challenge suffers the same fate under the more deferential Jacobson standard.

Rules For Possessing Coyotes Survive Free Exercise Challenge

In Tranchita v. Callahan, (ND IL, Jan. 5, 2021), an Illinois federal district court rejected an attempt by a wildlife educator who cares for orphan coyote pups to recover a coyote taken from her by the Illinois Department of Natural Resources. The Department insists that the breeder must hold a hound running area permit in order to legally possess the coyote. Plaintiff claims, among other assertions, that the permit requirement violates her free exercise of religion rights:

Tranchita contends that it is her religious belief that she must “‘do unto others as [she] would have them do unto [her],’” that this belief “extends to animals as well as humans,” and that running hounds after coyotes violates this belief.

All the parties agreed that the permit requirement is neutral and generally applicable. The court then concluded:

Because the Hound Running Permit requirement is neutral and generally applicable, the Court must next ask whether the requirement “is rationally related to a legitimate government interest.”... And it is here that Tranchita fails to show a likelihood of success on the merits. No matter how tame a coyote may seem, it is still a wild animal that could pose danger to other animals (such as pets) and people if it were to escape from its enclosure in a densely populated area. Illinois has a legitimate interest in trying to prevent such situations from occurring, and it may do so through regulating who can possess coyotes and where.

Wednesday, January 06, 2021

American Atheists Release Report On 2020 Legal Developments

Yesterday, American Atheists released a report titled 2020 State of the Secular States (full text). Assessing last year's developments, the 88-page report says in part:

Although state legislation did not significantly impact religious equality in 2020, that same cannot be said for the courts. We saw fundamental changes to the law of church-state separation in the courts this year, most of it extremely negative from a separationist perspective. The U.S. Supreme Court all but struck down the numerous state constitutional protections that limit the flow of public money to religious private schools, while at the same time greatly expanding the ability of religious organizations to evade nondiscrimination protections. And the lower courts granted exemption after exemption to religious organizations, allowing them to meet even in defiance of emergency restrictions by state governors, even at risk to public health.

The report describes its approach to analyzing last year's developments:

This report identifies four categories of public policy in each state that affect religious equality: Constitutional & Nondiscrimination Protections, Education & Youth, Health Care & Wellness, and Special Privileges for Religion. We assess nearly 50 related law and policy measures in each state as well as Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia. The states have been grouped into three broad categories, but they have not been individually ranked.

Tuesday, January 05, 2021

Religious Affiliation of New Congress Survyed

Pew Research Center yesterday published its survey of the religious affiliation of members of the new 117th Congress. Of the 98 Senate seats and the 433 House seats that were filled as of yesterday, 294 members are Protestant, 158 are Catholic, and 33 are Jewish. Smaller numbers are Mormon (9), Orthodox Christian (7), Muslim (3), Unitarian Universalist (3), Buddhist (2), Hindu (2), Unaffiliated (1).

DC Church Sues Proud Boys For Over Racist Vandalism

An historic Black church in Washington, DC filed suit yesterday against the Proud Boys, its chairman Enrique Tarrio, and members of the organization, seeking damages and declaratory relief for vandalizing of the church. The complaint (full text) in Metropolitan African Methodist Episcopal Church v. Proud Boys International, L.L.C., (DC Super. Ct., filed 1/4/2021), alleges in part:

1. On December 12, 2020, hundreds of members of the Proud Boys, an all-male group with ties to white nationalism and a pronounced history of violence, traveled to Washington D.C. for the purpose of committing further acts of violence intended to intimidate and silence individuals and organizations that support racial justice.

2. Arriving in droves from around the country, they created a violent riot in Washington, D.C., committed brutal assaults against protestors and passersby, destroyed property, and silenced peaceful speech by tearing down, igniting, and otherwise destroying signs and banners supporting the Black Lives Matter movement.

3.... Metropolitan AME, like other nearby churches showing support for the Black Lives Matter movement, was terrorized through coordinated acts of violence when Proud Boys members climbed over a fence surrounding the Church, came on to the Church’s property and destroyed a large Black Lives Matter sign the Church was proudly displaying....

The suit alleges conversion, trespass, violations of the D.C. Bias-Related Crime Act of 1989, and the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act that prohibits damaging or destroying property of a house of worship. Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights issued a press release announcing the lawsuit. Miami Herald reports on the suit.

Meanwhile (according to AP), yesterday Tarrio returned to D.C. in advance of the protests planned for Wednesday when Congress certifies Electoral College results. He was promptly taken into custody under an arrest warrant issued in connection with the December 12 incident. He also will likely face weapons charges since officers found two high-capacity firearm magazines in his custody when he was arrested.

[Thanks to Michael Lieberman for the lead.]

Stalking Suit Against Church of Scientology and Actor Must Go To Arbitration

Variety and Vanity Fair report on an Order issued on Dec. 27 by a Los Angeles Superior Court trial judge in a civil suit brought by several women against actor Danny Masterson and the Church of Scientology. The court held that the suit must be arbitrated through the Church of Scientology because of an existing arbitration between the parties. As summarized by Vanity Fair:

The suit was initially filed in August 2019 by Chrissie Carnell Bixler; her husband, Cedric Bixler-Zavala; Marie Bobette Riales; and two Jane Does. It claims that agents working for the church stalked and intimidated them after they reported assault allegations against Masterson [a member of the Church of Scientology] to the police....

Carnell Bixler claims in the lawsuit that Masterson sexually assaulted her multiple times while they were dating in 2001 and 2002. After she reported the assault to the police, her husband alleges in the suit, “agents of the defendants” poisoned their dogs, assaulted them with cars, and made harassing phone calls.... The judge’s ruling will not apply to plaintiff Bobette Riales as she was not a member of the Church of Scientology.

9th Circuit Hears Oral Arguments in Harvest Rock Church Appeal

Yesterday, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments (video of arguments) in Harvest Rock Church v. Newsom. In the case, a California federal district court, on remand from the U.S. Supreme Court, upheld California's COVID restrictions on houses of worship. (See prior posting.) Plaintiffs then asked the 9th Circuit for an emergency injunction pending appeal. (Links to briefs and supplemental briefs filed in the 9th Circuit.) That motion was the subject of yesterday's arguments.

Monday, January 04, 2021

Saturday, January 02, 2021

6th Circuit: County COVID Order Closing All High Schools Infringes Parochial Schools' Rights

In Monclova Christian Academy v. Toledo-Lucas County Health Department, (6th Cir., Dec. 31, 2020), the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals granted an injunction pending appeal against enforcement of a health department order prohibiting in-person attendance for Grades 7-12 at the nine Christian and Catholic schools bringing suit. The health department order imposed the same restrictions on public and secular private schools in the Ohio county. The court held that in deciding whether religious schools are treated less favorably than comparable secular activities, it is not enough that secular schools are treated in the same manner:

In Lucas County, the plaintiffs’ schools are closed, while gyms, tanning salons, office buildings, and the Hollywood Casino remain open. Cuomo makes clear that those secular facilities are “comparable” for purposes of spreading COVID-19. 141 S. Ct. at 66; see also, e.g., Roberts, 958 F.3d at 414. The Resolution’s restrictions therefore impose greater burdens on the plaintiffs’ conduct than on secular conduct.

The court also rejected the state's argument that the schools' exercise of religion was not burdened because the order allowed the schools to open for religious education classes and religious ceremonies. The court said in part:

... [N]o one argues that the Department has targeted the plaintiffs’ schools or acted with animus toward religion here. But the plaintiffs argue that the exercise of their faith is not so neatly compartmentalized. To the contrary, they say, their faith pervades each day of in-person schooling.... We have no basis to second-guess these representations.... The Department’s closure of the plaintiffs’ schools therefore burdens their religious practice.

Josh Blackman at Volokh Conspiracy reports on the decision.

Friday, January 01, 2021

Christian After-School Program Employee Not Covered By Unemployment Insurance

In By the Hand Club for Kids, NFP, Inc. v. Department of Employment Security, (IL App., Dec. 30, 2020), an Illinois state appellate court held that an organization that operates a Christ-centered after-school program to aid students is exempt from the Illinois Unemployment Insurance Act. The organization assists students with homework, provides tutoring and literacy program, health services and a meal program. It also provides chapel services and Bible reading. The court concluded that the organization is "operated primarily for religious purposes." Thus the court denied an unemployment compensation claim by the group's former human resources director. ADF issued a press release announcing the decision.

Happy New Year 2021!

Dear Religion Clause Readers:

Happy New Year 2021! I hope you find Religion Clause a valuable resource in following the intersection of religion with law and politics. At a time in which factual accuracy is increasingly the victim of ideology, I hope that Religion Clause has built a reputation for reliability. I strive for objectivity in my posts, and provide extensive links to the primary sources underlying each post for those who wish to fact check or explore more deeply the developments I highlight.

I am pleased that my regular readers span the political and religious spectrum and include law school faculty, journalists, clergy, governmental agency personnel, students and others working professionally dealing with church-state relations and religious liberty concerns in the U.S. and around the world.

We have all endured one of the most trying years in our lives because of the unprecedented Coronavirus pandemic. Perhaps surprisingly, the earliest pandemic-related litigation has been dominated by religious liberty disputes. Governors and courts have been placed in the uncomfortable position of having to decide, for example, whether congregate prayer is as essential as in-person grocery shopping. The coming months may see another round of religious liberty litigation surrounding the roll-out of COVID vaccines if, as seems likely, employers, airlines, schools and others begin to mandate vaccinations.

2021 brings a reconstituted Supreme Court and a new Administration which face ongoing as well as newly-developing religious liberty controversies. In the past year, many of the most highly charged issues that divide our country politically have continued to divide it along religious lines. This reality creates difficult challenges for the Supreme Court as well as for the other branches of government.

All of this illustrates the saliency of religion in life, law and politics in the U.S. and around the world. Religion Clause will continue to cover all the legal developments in these areas.

Thanks again to all of you who are loyal readers-- both those who have followed Religion Clause for years and those of you who have only recently discovered the blog. A special thanks to readers who have quickly sent me leads on recent developments, and to those who have alerted me to mistakes. All of you have made Religion Clause the most recognized and reliable source for keeping informed on the intersection of religion with law and politics. I encourage you to recommend Religion Clause to colleagues, students and friends who might find it of interest.

I also remind you that the Religion Clause sidebar contains links to a wealth of resources. Please e-mail me if you discover broken links or if there are other links that I should consider adding.

Best wishes as you face the challenges that 2021 brings to us! Feel free to contact me by e-mail (religionclause@gmail.com) in response to this post or throughout the year with comments or suggestions.

May you have a healthy 2021,

Howard Friedman

Thursday, December 31, 2020

Argentina Legislature Votes To Legalize Early Term Abortion

As reported by NPR, Argentina's Senate yesterday voted 38-29 (with one abstention) to approve the Voluntary Interruption of Pregnancy Bill which allows abortions during the first 14 weeks of pregnancy. The Chamber of Deputies, the lower house of Argentina's Congress, approved the bill on Dec. 11 by a vote of 131-117 (with 6 abstentions). Argentine President Alberto Fernández says he will sign the bill. Last month, Pope Francis wrote opponents of the bill expressing his opposition to the legislation. (ABC News).

Wednesday, December 30, 2020

President Trump Issues Proclamation Recognizing Anniversary of Martyrdom of St. Thomas Becket

Earlier this week, President Trump issued a lengthy Proclamation (full text) recognizing Dec. 29th as the 850th Anniversary of the Martyrdom of Saint Thomas Becket. The Proclamation reads in part:

Before the Magna Carta was drafted, before the right to free exercise of religion was enshrined as America’s first freedom in our glorious Constitution, Thomas gave his life so that, as he said, “the Church will attain liberty and peace.”...

When the Archbishop refused to allow the King to interfere in the affairs of the Church, Thomas Becket stood at the intersection of church and state. That stand, after centuries of state-sponsored religious oppression and religious wars throughout Europe, eventually led to the establishment of religious liberty in the New World....

As Americans, we were first united by our belief that “rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God” and that defending liberty is more important than life itself. If we are to continue to be the land of the free, no government official, no governor, no bureaucrat, no judge, and no legislator must be allowed to decree what is orthodox in matters of religion or to require religious believers to violate their consciences....

To honor Thomas Becket’s memory, the crimes against people of faith must stop, prisoners of conscience must be released, laws restricting freedom of religion and belief must be repealed, and the vulnerable, the defenseless, and the oppressed must be protected.

Tuesday, December 29, 2020

Trump Executive Order Provides School Choice Funding For Disadvantaged Students Lacking In-Person Schools

President Trump yesterday issued an Executive Order allowing states to use funds from Community Services Block Grants to provide scholarships to private or parochial schools, or for home schooling or or other educational services, for disadvantaged students whose public schools do not offer in-person classes during the COVID pandemic. As reported by Politico:

The move comes after the $900 billion coronavirus relief deal ... that Trump signed on Sunday excluded many of the school choice provisions that his administration and GOP lawmakers had sought to include in that sweeping legislation.

The Dec. 28 Executive Order on Expanding Educational Opportunity Through School Choice (full text) provides in part:

The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall take steps, consistent with law, to allow funds available through the Community Services Block Grant program to be used by grantees and eligible entities to provide emergency learning scholarships to disadvantaged families for use by any child without access to in-person learning. These scholarships may be used for:

(i) tuition and fees for a private or parochial school;

(ii) homeschool, microschool, or learning-pod costs;

(iii) special education and related services, including therapies; or

(iv) tutoring or remedial education.

Michigan Supreme Court Affirms Narrow Reading of "No-Aid" Clause

In Council of Organizations and Others for Education About Parochiaid v. State of Michigan, (MI Sup. Ct., Dec. 28, 2020), the Michigan Supreme Court by an evenly divided 3-3 decision affirmed a state Court of Appeals decision holding that there are no state or federal constitutional bars to state reimbursement of private and parochial schools for the costs they incur in complying with state health, safety, and welfare mandates such as state asbestos regulations and vehicle inspections. At issue was whether the no-aid provision of Art. 8 Sec. 2 of the Michigan Constitution only bars aid for educational services, or whether it also covers other reimbursements to non-public schools. Detroit News reports on the decision.

2nd Circuit Invalidates New York's Fixed Capacity Limits For Houses of Worship

Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court in a widely noted 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. (See prior posting.) Now the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals has come down with a decision in that pending appeal. In Agudath Israel of America v. Cuomo, (2nd Cir., Dec. 28, 2020), (in a decision that also covers the suit brought by the Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn), the court held that these limits imposed on houses of worship are subject to strict scrutiny, and that they are not narrowly tailored to stem the spread of COVID-19. It remanded the cases to the district court, instructing it to issue a preliminary injunction. It also ordered the district court to determine in the first instance whether alternative limits in the governor's Order of 25% and 33% of capacity can satisfy strict scrutiny. In reaching its conclusion, the court said in part:

[T]he [Governor's] Order does not impose generally applicable public-health guidelines, like requiring masks and distancing or limiting capacity by 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. That lack of general applicability is also subject to strict scrutiny.

Further, although the Governor asserts that “all” activities not restricted by the Order present lesser risks of COVID-19 transmission than religious worship, he has never claimed that the unrestricted category of “essential” activities was created based on transmission risk. Instead, “[t]he 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.”

Reuters reports on the decision.

Indiana Fetal Tissue Disposition Law Challenged Again

Suit was filed last week in an Indiana federal district court challenging the constitutionality of Indiana's statutes that require healthcare facilities to dispose of embryonic and fetal tissue from abortions and miscarriages by burial or cremation, regardless of patients’ wishes. The complaint (full text) in Jane Doe No. 1. v. Attorney General of Indiana, (SD IN, filed 12/21/2020), alleges in part:

The Tissue Disposition Laws violate fundamental tenets of the First and Fourteenth Amendments by compelling abortion and miscarriage patients—and their healthcare providers— to act in accordance with the State’s view of personhood—namely, that an embryo is the ontological and spiritual equivalent of a person—regardless of their own opinions about the status of developing human life. Indiana’s effort to create orthodoxy on a deeply polarizing issue that implicates the most profound aspects of religion, culture, and ideology is constitutionally prohibited.

The U.S. Supreme Court in 2019 (without hearing oral argument) upheld the Indiana tissue disposition laws in a case which did not raise the constitutional challenges put forward in this complaint. (See prior posting.) Christian Headlines reports on last week's filing.

Court Refuses To Enjoin Mask Requirement For Religious School Students

In Resurrection School v. Gordon, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 242315 (WD MI, Dec. 16, 2020), a Michigan federal district court refused to issue a preliminary injunction sought by parents of Catholic school children to eliminate the COVID face covering requirement for children attending K through Grade 5 at religious schools. Parents contend that the requirement interferes with the free exercise of the students' religion. Rejecting that claim, the court said in part:

The order is clear: individuals over the age of five must wear a mask when they are out in public. Therefore, given the near-universal mask requirement, the Court finds nothing in the contours of the order at issue that correlate to religion, and finds that the order "cannot be plausibly read to contain even a hint of hostility towards religion." ... The Court finds that the challenged face-mask requirement is neutral and generally applicable. Any burden on Plaintiffs' religious practices is incidental, and therefore, the orders are not subject to strict scrutiny.... Plaintiffs have failed to establish a liklihood of success on the merits of their First Amendment claim.

Monday, December 28, 2020

Saturday, December 26, 2020

Top 10 Religious Liberty and Church State Developments of 2020

Each year in December, I attempt to pick the most important church-state and religious liberty developments of the past year-- including developments internationally in the mix. My choices are based on the importance of the pick to law or policy, regardless of whether the development has garnered significant media attention. The selection of top stories obviously involves a good deal of subjective judgment, and I welcome e-mail comment from those who disagree with my choices. So here are my Top Ten picks-- as one of the most unusual years we have all experienced comes to an end:

(1) Challenges by houses of worship and religious schools to the limits imposed on them by COVID-19 health orders dominated much of the year. Numerous state and federal courts, including the Supreme Court were called upon to balance free exercise rights against the life and health of community members.

(2) The death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and confirmation of Justice Amy Coney Barrett to take her seat on the Supreme Court promised to continue the Court's movement toward expanded free exercise rights.

(3) The U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia held that the provision of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act which prohibits discrimination in employment "because of sex" protects gay, lesbian and transgender individuals.

(4) The Supreme Court in Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, held that Montana's exclusion of religious schools from its scholarship tax credit program violates the Free Exercise clause of the U.S. Constitution.

(5) In June Medical Services L.L.C. v. Russo, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Louisiana's law that requires doctors at abortion clinics to hold active admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of the clinic.

(6) The Court of Justice of the European Court upheld a law enacted in Belgium's Flemish region that effectively bans Halal and Kosher Slaughter.

(7) The U.S. Supreme Court in Tanzin v. Tanvir held that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act permits suits for damages against federal officials in their individual capacities.

(8) The Department of Health and Human Services adopted a final rule that rolled back health care anti-discrimination coverage in federally supported services. The prior rules protected transgender individuals and those who had accessed abortion services.

(9) In Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru, the U.S. Supreme Court held that two elementary school teachers in separate Catholic schools are covered by the "ministerial exception" so that they cannot sue for employment discrimination.

(10) The U.S. Supreme Court in Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v. Pennsylvania rejected challenges to the Trump Administration's expanded conscience exemptions from the Affordable Care Act's contraceptive coverage mandate.

Friday, December 25, 2020

President and First Lady Issue Christmas Greetings Via Video

President Trump and First Lady Melania Trump issued Christmas greetings in a video posted to the President's Twitter account yesterday.

Thursday, December 24, 2020

Universal Life Church Can Move Ahead In Challenge To Tennessee Ban On Marriages By Those Ordained Online

In Universal Life Church Monastery Storehouse v. Nabors, (MD TN, Dec. 22. 2020), a Tennessee federal district court held that the Universal Life Church and two of its ministers have standing to challenge Tennessee's ban on solemnization of marriages by clergy who received online ordination. It also held that the state Attorney General, District Attorney Generals and County Clerks (but not the Governor) are proper defendants.

Appellate Court Upholds New York City Measles Vaccination Order

In C.F. v. New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, (App. Div., Dec. 23, 2020), a New York state appellate court upheld New York City's 2019 Order requiring everyone residing in certain areas of Brooklyn to be vaccinated against measles. An outbreak of the disease had occurred in that area. The court said in part:

The resolution was within the authority of the Board of Health of the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene to make and the resolution itself did not violate any right of the petitioners, including their freedom of religion....

The petitioners profess to hold religious beliefs that hold that a healthy body should not assimilate foreign objects, including vaccine ingredients...

While there are recent decisions of the United States Supreme Court which have reflected a greater solicitude to claims for religious exemptions from neutral, generally applicable laws than had previously been articulated (see e.g. Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter & Paul Home v Pennsylvania...; Burwell v Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc....), those cases were not decided under the First Amendment, but under the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993....

The petitioners rely on language from Justice Gorsuch's concurrence in Masterpiece Cakeshop, joined by Justice Alito, which characterized the Smith rule as "controversial in many quarters".... While it is certainly conceivable that the United States Supreme Court may, in some future case, reconsider the standard for addressing a religious objector's challenge to neutrally applicable laws, we are bound to apply the constitutional principles as they now exist, rather than engage in a projection as to what principles may evolve in the future....

We believe that the Free Exercise Clause does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a valid and neutral law of general applicability, even if the law has the incidental effect of burdening a particular religious practice.

Court Again Refuses To Enjoin California's COVID Limits On Church Services

In a case in which the U.S. Supreme Court previously refused to grant injunctive relief, a California federal district court again denied a preliminary injunction against California's COVID orders to a church seeking to hold indoor services. In South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom, (SD CA, Dec. 21, 2020), the court said in part:

In drawing this difficult balance between religious liberty and public health, the Court must follow the higher courts’ precedents, when the precedents seem to change course as quickly as the various pandemic restrictions. Admittedly, this has been a rapidly evolving—and escalating—pandemic. And in this very case, the Supreme Court declined to intervene after the Court refused to enjoin California’s prior regulation. Now, by all measures, the pandemic is worse and more out of control in Southern California than when that decision was made. Nevertheless, the Court is tasked with deciding whether Chief Justice Roberts’ rationale for not intervening in this case has now “expired,” as Justice Gorsuch’s recent concurrence in another case suggests. See Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo...

California has carefully designed the different exemptions to match its goal of reducing community spread, based on a neutral, seven-factor risk analysis. The Court does not find that California’s Regional Stay at Home Order is underinclusive as to exceed the boundaries drawn by the First Amendment. Therefore, based on the record before the Court, Plaintiffs are not likely to show that the Regional Stay at Home Order restricts more than is necessary to advance the California’s compelling interest in reducing community spread.

Fox5 News reports on the decision.

1st Circuit: Church's Appeal of TRO Denial Is Dismissed

In Calvary Chapel of Bangor v. Mills, (1st Cir., Dec. 22, 2020), the U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed a church's interlocutory appeal of the district court's denial of a temporary restraining order against enforcement of the Maine governor's COVID Orders that prohibited the gathering of more than ten people for faith-based events. The court concluded that denial of a temporary restraining order-- before the district court rules on a preliminary injunction request-- here is not appealable, even though both parties contended that this case fell within an exception to that rule. The court said in part:

The Chapel contends that the district court's decision to deny it a temporary restraining order functionally precluded any possibility of a preliminary injunction. This contention elevates hope over reason....

... [T]he absence of immediate appealability — like the denial of the temporary restraining order itself — will not cause serious harm. Given the gravity of the situation and the fact that events remained in flux, we discern no sufficient basis for finding that the Chapel can satisfy the second of the three requirements for immediate appealability of a temporary restraining order. In this regard, we deem it important that the Chapel retained other means to organize worship services for its congregants, including the sponsorship of online worship services, the holding of drive-in services, and the hosting of gatherings of ten or fewer people.

6th Circuit Refuses Injunction Pending Appeal Of Religious School Closure Order

In Pleasant View Baptist Church v. Beshear, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 40077 (6th Cir., Dec. 21, 2020), the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals refused to issue a preliminary injunction pending appeal of a COVID Order by the Kentucky governor which, among other things, barred in-person instruction in religious schools until January 4. The court said that the Order was about to expire of its own terms. Judge Donald filed a concurring opinion which expressed concern with one of plaintiff's arguments:

Fundamental to Christian School Plaintiffs' argument in this emergency appeal is that under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, EO 2020-969 burdens their "hybrid rights." That is, the order burdens both their Free Exercise rights and other constitutional rights, a combination that, they contend, triggers an exception to Smith and subjects even neutral laws of general applicability to strict scrutiny....

We have had no reason to re-consider our view that Smith's discussion of "hybrid rights" was anything but dicta.

The Constitution is not a mixing bowl for rights that when considered in the aggregate are entitled to a higher level of scrutiny compared to when those exact same rights are viewed in isolation.

... I provide the foregoing analysis ... to highlight what I see as a troubling trend in the use of the Court's emergency docket....

I do not see an emergency appeal as the proper forum to advocate for abrupt and sweeping change to well-settled federal law.

Wednesday, December 23, 2020

On Remand From SCOTUS, California COVID Limits On Worship Services Again Upheld

In Harvest Rock Church, Inc. v. Newsom, (CD CA, Dec. 21, 2020), a California federal district court, in a case on remand from the U.S. Supreme Court, upheld California's COVID restrictions on houses of worship. The Supreme Court had called for reconsideration in light of its recent decision in Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo. The district court, distinguishing both Supreme Court and 9th Circuit cases, said in part:

The law remains that courts must first assess whether a law is “neutral or generally applicable.” Smith, 494 U.S. at 881. The Court finds that California’s Blueprint is. The Blueprint offers something the New York and Nevada Orders did not: the ability to legally congregate in unlimited numbers for worship—so long as that worship occurs outside. In so doing, the Blueprint treats religious activity better than comparable secular activity and even better than essential services. This is distinct from both the New York and Nevada restrictions and compels the conclusion that the Blueprint is neutral....

California’s Blueprint is also painstakingly tailored to address the risks of Covid-19 transmission specifically....

The First Amendment has not taken a sabbatical. Californians may still worship, attend services, pray, and otherwise exercise their religious freedoms. They just may not do so in ways that significantly increase the likelihood of transmission of a virus which has claimed more than three hundred thousand American lives in less than one year. The Constitution is not a suicide pact. The First Amendment may not be used to make it one.

Courthouse News Service reports on the decision.

UPDATE: Over the objection of Judge O'Scannlain, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in Harvest Rock Church, Inc. v. Newsom, (9th Cir., Dec. 23, 2020), set a briefing schedule for the Church's motion for an injunction pending appeal that failed to grant temporary relief by Christmas.

New Hampshire Supreme Court Says State Constitution Requires Strict Scrutiny of Free Exercise Infringements

In State of New Hampshire v. Mack, (NH Sup. Ct., Dec. 22, 2020), the New Hampshire Supreme Court held that the state Constitution's elaborate guarantee of free exercise of religion so long as one does not "disturb the public peace" should be read to require strict scrutiny. The court vacated a trial court's refusal to dismiss a drug prosecution brought against defendant who was a member of the Oklevueha Native American Church. Defendant was convicted of possession of psilocyn and psilocybin for use in religious rituals. The court concluded that the state constitution gives greater free exercise protection against burdens from neutral generally applicable laws than does the U.S. Constitution under the Smith case. The court said in part:

We ... conclude that when religious practices violate a generally applicable law, our State Constitution ... demands that “there . . . be a balancing of [the] competing interests.” ... [W]e choose to adhere to our traditional formulation of strict judicial scrutiny — requiring the State to demonstrate that its action is “necessary to achieve a compelling governmental interest and narrowly tailored to meet that end.” ... Accordingly, under Part I, Article 5, once an individual establishes that the government action substantially burdens his or her sincere religious practice, ... the burden shifts to the State to show both that the government action is necessary to achieve a compelling government interest, and is narrowly tailored to meet that end....

The Union Leader reports on the decision.

Catholic Schools' Suit Against COVID Closings Is Moot

In Michigan Association of Non-Public Schools v. Gordon, (WD MI, Dec. 21, 2020), a Michigan federal district court dismissed as moot a challenge to Michigan's COVID-19 Order temporarily closing all high schools to in-person learning. The suit, brought by a group of Catholic schools, claimed that the Order violated their 1st and 14th Amendment rights. That Order expired on Dec. 20 and a new Order now allows high schools to reopen. Detroit Free Press reports on the decision.

Tuesday, December 22, 2020

Massive Tax and Spending Bill Passed By Congress Includes Issues of Interest on Religion

As reported by the Washington Post, the House and Senate yesterday evening both passed a wide-ranging 5,593-page government funding and pandemic economic relief bill after Congressional leaders finally reached a compromise on the legislation. The bill now goes to the President for his signature.

Here is the full text of the bill, titled Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021. Demonstrating the vast array of topics included in the bill are two unrelated provisions of particular interest to those who follow law and religion issues. The first makes it clear that churches and religious organizations can be eligible to participate in the Paycheck Protection Program Loans program:

SEC. 311. PAYCHECK PROTECTION PROGRAM SECOND DRAW LOANS ...

c) ELIGIBLE CHURCHES AND RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS

(1) SENSE OF CONGRESS.—It is the sense of Congress that the interim final rule of the Administration entitled ‘‘Business Loan Program Temporary Changes; Paycheck Protection Program’’ (85 Fed. 11 Reg. 20817 (April 15, 2020)) properly clarified the eligibility of churches and religious organizations for loans made under paragraph (36) of section 7(a) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 636(a)).

(2) APPLICABILITY OF PROHIBITION.—The prohibition on eligibility established by section 120.110(k) of title 13, Code of Federal Regulations, or any successor regulation, shall not apply to a loan under paragraph (36) of section 7(a) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 636(a)).

The second provision of interest is Subtitle E, Tibetan Policy and Support Act of 2020, which among other things focuses on religious persecution in Tibet. It provides in part:

SEC. 342. STATEMENT OF POLICY REGARDING THE SUCCESSION OR REINCARNATION OF THE DALAI LAMA....

(b) STATEMENT OF POLICY.—It is the policy of the United States that—

(1) decisions regarding the selection, education, and veneration of Tibetan Buddhist religious leaders are exclusively spiritual matters that should be made by the appropriate religious authorities within the Tibetan Buddhist tradition and in the context of the will of practitioners of Tibetan Buddhism;

(2) the wishes of the 14th Dalai Lama, including any written instructions, should play a key role in the selection, education, and veneration of a future 15th Dalai Lama; and

(3) interference by the Government of the People’s Republic of China or any other government in the process of recognizing a successor or reincarnation of the 14th Dalai Lama and any future Dalai Lamas would represent a clear abuse of the right to religious freedom of Tibetan Buddhists and the Tibetan people.

(c) HOLDING CHINESE OFFICIALS RESPONSIBLE FOR RELIGIOUS FREEDOM ABUSES TARGETING TIBETAN BUDDHISTS.—It is the policy of the United States to take all appropriate measures to hold accountable senior officials of the Government of the People’s Republic of China or the Chinese Communist Party who directly interfere with the identification and installation of the future 15th Dalai Lama of Tibetan Buddhism, successor to the 14th Dalai Lama, including by—

(1) imposing sanctions pursuant to the Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act (22 U.S.C. 2656 note); and

(2) prohibiting admission to the United States under section 212(a)(2)(G) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(2)(G)).

Monday, December 21, 2020

Saturday, December 19, 2020

Federal Court Refuses To Enjoin State COVID Enforcement Proceedings Against Church

In Calvary Chapel San Jose v. Cody, (ND CA, Dec. 18, 2020), a California federal district court, applying the Younger abstention doctrine, refused to issue a temporary restraining order against state court proceedings enforcing a state court's preliminary injunction against a church. The church "blatantly flouted" COVID restrictions on worship service, continuing to hold indoor services for large numbers of worshipers without effectively enforcing mask or social distancing requirements. In refusing the TRO, the court said in part:

Our Federalism properly places this dispute in the more-than-capable hands of the Santa Clara County Superior Court.

Courthouse News Service reports on the decision.

Friday, December 18, 2020

Suit By Fired Parish Office Manager Dismissed On Ecclesiastical Abstention Grounds

In Napolitano v. St. Joseph Catholic Church, (FL App., Dec. 18, 2020), a Florida state appellate court dismissed on ecclesiastical abstention grounds a suit by a church parish's office manager. At issue was whether a new parish priest could fire the office manager after the prior priest, just before his ouster, had on behalf of the parish entered a 4-year contract with the office manager. In affirming the trial court's dismissal of the case, the court said in part:

At the heart of the dispute between Napolitano and the Church Defendants is whether Father Brown had the authority under Canon Law to obligate successor administrations of St. Joseph to retain his chosen employees. Simply put, Napolitano has requested that a secular court examine a hierarchical religious organization and determine who has the authority to speak and act on its behalf. Whether based on actual or apparent authority, Napolitano’s request would require a court to impermissibly wade into ecclesiastical polity, in violation of the First Amendment....

Whether Father Brown had the actual or apparent authority to form the employment agreement and bind St. Joseph and the Diocese, even after his removal, is a quintessentially religious controversy—one that would require judicial inquiry into internal church matters—and constitutes a subject matter of which secular courts lack jurisdiction.

DOJ Sues Vermont Hospital For Violating Church Amendments

The Justice Department announced this week that it filed suit in a Vermont federal district court against the University of Vermont Medical Center for violating the Church Amendments that protect medical workers from being required to assist with abortions in violation of their religious or moral convictions. The complaint (full text) in United States v. University of Vermont Medical Center, (D VT, filed 12/16/2020) alleges in part:

Defendant has scheduled conscience objectors, including nurses, to assist with elective abortions despite specific and repeated requests from those personnel not to be assigned to elective abortions because of their religious beliefs or moral convictions. Moreover, Defendant has repeatedly assigned conscience objectors to participate in elective abortions without giving advance notice of the nature of the procedure.

European Court Upholds Flemish Restrictions on Halal and Kosher Slaughter

In a case referred to it by Belgium's Constitutional Court, the Court of Justice of the European Union in Centraal Israëlitisch Consistorie van België and Others v. Vlaamse Regering, (CJEU Grand Chamber, Dec. 17, 2020), upheld a decree of the Flemish government requiring kosher and halal slaughter in the country to use a reversible stunning technique that is inconsistent with Jewish and Muslim religious requirements. The Flemish government contended:

Electronarcosis is a reversible (non-lethal) method of stunning in which the animal, if it has not had its throat cut in the meantime, regains consciousness after a short period and does not feel any negative effects of stunning. If the animal’s throat is cut immediately after stunning, its death will be purely due to bleeding.... [T]he application of reversible, non-lethal stunning during the practice of ritual slaughter constitutes a proportionate measure which respects the spirit of ritual slaughter in the framework of freedom of religion and takes maximum account of the welfare of the animals concerned.

The European Court said in part:

[T]he Charter is a living instrument which must be interpreted in the light of present-day conditions and of the ideas prevailing in democratic States today ... with the result that regard must be had to changes in values and ideas, both in terms of society and legislation, in the Member States. Animal welfare, as a value to which contemporary democratic societies have attached increasing importance for a number of years, may, in the light of changes in society, be taken into account to a greater extent in the context of ritual slaughter and thus help to justify the proportionality of legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings....

... [T]he measures contained in the decree at issue ... allow a fair balance to be struck between the importance attached to animal welfare and the freedom of Jewish and Muslim believers to manifest their religion and are, therefore, proportionate.

The Court also issued a press release announcing the decision. Meanwhile, Israel's Ministry of Foreign Affairs harshly criticized the ruling, saying in part:

Beyond the fact that this decision harms the freedom of worship and religion in Europe, a core value of the EU, it also signals to Jewish communities that they are unwanted in Europe.

Courthouse News Service reports on the decision.

Thursday, December 17, 2020

Supreme Court, 7-2, Refuses To Reinstate Injunction Against Kentucky School Closing Order

In Danville Christian Academy, Inc. v. Beshear, (US Sup. Ct., Dec. 17, 2020), the U.S. Supreme Court by a vote of 7-2 refused to reinstate a district court's injunction against the Kentucky governor's November 18 COVID-related school closing order. The 6th Circuit had stayed the injunction. The governor's Order was challenged by a Christian school. The majority said in part:

The Governor’s school-closing Order effectively expires this week or shortly thereafter, and there is no indication that it will be renewed. The Order applies equally to secular schools and religious schools, but the applicants argue that the Order treats schools (including religious schools) worse than restaurants, bars, and gyms, for example, which remain open. For the latter reason, the applicants argue that the Order is not neutral and generally applicable....

Under all of the circumstances, especially the timing and the impending expiration of the Order, we deny the application without prejudice to the applicants or other parties seeking a new preliminary injunction if the Governor issues a school-closing order that applies in the new year.

Justice Alito filed a dissenting opinion that Justice Gorsuch joined. And Justice Gorsuch filed a dissenting opinion that Justice Alito joined. SCOTUSblog discusses the decision. (See prior related posting.)

VP Pence Hosts Pro-Life Event At White House Complex

Yesterday, Vice President Mike Pence hosted a "Life is Winning Event" in the Executive Office Building at which more than 20 anti-abortion organizations were represented. (Video of the event.) The event included 15 minutes of remarks from the Vice President (full text of remarks) in which he said in part:

... I truly do believe if all of us continue to do all that we can in the months and the years ahead, we will see the sanctity of life restored to the center of American law in our time....

I know what all of you know as well: that he who said “Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you” is about life. And we do well in this movement to always remind ourselves that when we make the cause for life our cause, we make His work on this Earth our very own.

So do not grow weary in doing well, because in the last four years, we’ve shown when men and women of faith and conviction come together to stand up for the unborn, to speak out for the voiceless, life can win in America. And with your help and God’s help, life will keep on winning in the United States of America.

DC Archdiocese Seeks Liberalized Capacity Rules For Its Churches

Last week, the Catholic Diocese of Washington, D.C. sued in federal district court challenging D.C.'s COVID-related 50-person cap on religious gatherings. It seeks, instead, percentage-based limits similar to those imposed on numerous commercial establishments. The complaint (full text) in Roman Catholic Archbishop of Washington v. Bowser, (D DC, filed 12/11/2020), alleges that half of the churches in the Archdiocese can accommodate 500 or more worshippers, and the largest can accommodate thousands. It contends that the current limits violate its 1st and 14th Amendment rights. The complaint declares:

Christmas should be a time for reconciliation and joy, and the Archdiocese simply wants to welcome its flock home. It respectfully requests that it be allowed to do so.

Catholic News Service reports on the lawsuit.

UPDATE: In order to resolve the litigation, D.C.'s Mayor on Dec. 16 issued modified rules (full text of Mayor's Order) that allow houses of worship to admit up to 25% of their capacity, not to exceed 250 persons, for worship services. Other events or programs at churches are limited to 10 persons indoors or 25 outdoors. Other safety protocols are also required for religious services. Washington Post reports on the new Order.

Wednesday, December 16, 2020

9th Circuit Orders Injunction Against Nevada's COVID Limits On Churches

In Calvary Chapel Dayton Valley v. Sisolak, (9th Cir., Dec. 15, 2020), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held that Nevada's COVID-19 restrictions on worship services violate the Free Exercise clause. The court said in part:

The Supreme Court’s decision in Roman Catholic Diocese compels us to reverse the district court. Just like the New York restrictions, the Directive treats numerous secular activities and entities significantly better than religious worship services. Casinos, bowling alleys, retail businesses, restaurants, arcades, and other similar secular entities are limited to 50% of fire-code capacity, yet houses of worship are limited to fifty people regardless of their fire-code capacities.

Nevada Independent reports on the decision.

Federal Agencies Loosen Requirements For Faith-Based Grantees

Yesterday nine federal departments jointly issued a 381-page release (full text) titled Equal Participation of Faith-Based Organizations in the Federal Agencies’ Programs and Activities. The Release amends existing rules to loosen restrictions on faith-based organizations operation of programs and activities funded by federal grants. The new rules impact grants by the Departments of Education, Homeland Security, Agriculture, Justice, Labor, Veterans Affairs, Housing and Urban Development, Health and Human Services, and Agency for International Development.

DOJ's press release on the new rules says in part:

This final rule ensures equal treatment for faith-based organizations, consistent with the Constitution and other federal law. It removes requirements in prior regulations that placed unequal burdens on religious organizations, cast unwarranted suspicion on them, and were in tension with their religious liberty rights. This final rule also clarifies that religious organizations do not lose various legal protections because they participate in federal programs and activities, such as the rights to accommodations and conscience protections under the First Amendment, Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and other federal laws.

Friendly Atheist blog describes the major changes as follows:

Right now, faith-based service providers have to refer clients elsewhere if the people say they feel uncomfortable with their religious affiliation. That’s now gone.

Right now, any clients are required to be told about their religious freedom rights. They’re told they don’t have to participate in any religious activities, they are entitled to go to an alternative service provider, and they can file a complaint if necessary. That’s now gone.

Right now, if clients receive a voucher for social services, there must be a secular provider in addition to any religious providers. That requirement is now gone… which means there may be no secular options for some people.

The new rules become effective Jan. 16, 2021. [Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]

Tuesday, December 15, 2020

Supreme Court Sends Two Cases On COVID Limits Back For Reconsideration

In two separate cases today, the U.S. Supreme Court vacated district court opinions (1, 2) denying churches or clergy injunctions against state COVID-19 orders. The Supreme Court ordered those courts to reconsider the cases in light of the Supreme Court's recent decision in Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo. In one of today's cases, High Plains Harvest Church v. Polis, (Sup. Ct., Dec. 15, 2020), challenging Colorado restrictions, Justice Kagan, joined by Justices Breyer and Sotomayor dissented on the ground that the case is now moot since the challenged capacity limits have already been lifted. In the second case, Kevin v. Murphy, (Sup. Ct., Dec. 15, 2020), challenging New Jersey restrictions, no dissents to the one paragraph order were recorded. SCOTUSblog has more on the decisions. [updated]

Minnesota Town Approves Asatru Zoning Request

The Washington Post reported yesterday on a controversial religious zoning battle in the 273-person town of Murdock, Minnesota:

The Murdock City Council voted 3-1 ... to allow the Asatru Folk Assembly to turn the run-down church it purchased in July into its first “hof,” or gathering place, in the Midwest. The looming presence of the obscure Nordic folk religion, widely classified as a White supremacist hate group by extremism and religious experts, promoted months of pushback from concerned residents.

City leaders, meanwhile, were advised that denying the AFA’s permit could leave Murdock vulnerable to a potentially devastating religious discrimination suit.

Michigan Catholic School Challenges COVID Closure Order

A private Catholic school has sued seeking a declaration that Michigan's latest COVID-19 order temporarily closing down in-person high school instruction violates its Free Exercise rights. The complaint (full text) in Saint Michael Academy, Inc. v. Gordon, (WD MI, filed 12/11/2020) alleges in part:

The Declaration of Dr. Jayanta Bhattacharya, a world-renowned scientific expert, professor of Medicine at Stanford University, and author of 136 articles in peer-reviewed journals, attached to this Complaint as Exhibit 3, presents scientific analysis which shows that prohibiting in-person instruction for pupils in grades 9 through 12 as does Director Gordon’s current Order, is not warranted by either transmission or mortality data, and causes these students great harm....

Without in-person instruction, St. Michael Academy is unable to provide the Christ-centered, communal academic environment required for its students to grow and develop in accordance with its religious purpose, mission and vision....

The current Order is an arbitrary order that, while closing down St. Michael Academy’s high school, nevertheless permits many other types of gatherings that pose similar or greater risks of COVID-19 transmission and infection, and that are unprotected by the Free Exercise clause of the United States Constitution.

Thomas More Law Center issued a press release with more details on the case. MLive reports on the lawsuit.

Ohio County's School Closure Order Upheld

In Monclova Christian Academy v. Toledo- Lucas County Health Department, (ND OH, Dec. 14, 2020), an Ohio federal district court refused to issue a temporary restraining order against COVID-19 rules which bar in-person instruction at the high school level, and bar use of schools for various activities. The suit was filed by three Christian schools and an organization of Christian and Catholic schools. The court said in part:

The nature of Plaintiffs’ arguments stems in part from their assertion that the educational courses they offer to their students are inextricably intertwined with their religious beliefs and, therefore, to prohibit Plaintiffs from holding classes in the manner in which they believe is most consistent with the tenets of their faith is to interfere with the free exercise of their faith....

While, as Plaintiffs note, TLCHD has not ordered gyms, tanning salons, or casinos to close, ... these are not the relevant “comparable secular activities.” Instead, the comparable secular activities are educational classes offered by all other schools in Lucas County. These specific environments have substantially similar groupings and movements of individuals....

Plaintiffs’ arguments ... would extend to prohibit the government from regulating any aspect of a Christian’s public life because, as Plaintiffs’ mission statements make clear, the purpose of providing “a biblical foundation for . . . students” is to prepare students “to exemplify Christ [and] make Biblically-based decisions” throughout an individual’s life, and not only during the schools years.

Monday, December 14, 2020

Austria's Constitutional Court Strikes Down Assisted Suicide Ban; Hijab Ban For Young Girls

Last Friday, Austria's Constitutional Court issued two important decisions. It held it unconstitutional to prohibit assisting suicide. According to the Court's press release:

At the request of several people affected, including two seriously ill people, the Constitutional Court (VfGH) repealed the provision that makes assisting suicide a criminal offense:

The phrase “or help him” in Section 78 of the Criminal Code is unconstitutional. It violates the right to self-determination, because this fact forbids any kind of assistance under any circumstances.

The Court also struck down the ban on young school girls wearing religious head coverings. Its press release said in part:

Pursuant to Section 43a, Paragraph 1, Clause 1 of the School Education Act, schoolchildren are prohibited from wearing ideologically or religiously influenced clothing that involves covering their heads until the end of the school year in which they turn 10.

Two children and their parents opposed this regulation. The children are raised religiously in the sense of the Sunni or Shiite legal school of Islam. You see in this provision, which is ultimately aimed at the Islamic headscarf (hijab), a disproportionate interference with the right to religious freedom and religious child-rearing.

With the decision announced today, the Constitutional Court (VfGH) has repealed this "headscarf ban" as unconstitutional....

A regulation that selectively picks out a certain religious or ideological conviction by deliberately privileging or disadvantaging such a belief requires a special objective justification with regard to the requirement of religious and ideological neutrality.

AFP reported on the headscarf decision. [Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]

Sunday, December 13, 2020

Court Refuses To Enjoin Kentucky Limits On In-Person Religious School Instruction

In Pleasant View Baptist Church v. Saddler, (ED KY, Dec. 11, 2020, a Kentucky federal district court refused to issue a preliminary injunction against enforcement of Kentucky's COVID-19 orders that, among other things, ban in-person teaching at religious schools and limit the size of in-home social gatherings. Relying on 6th Circuit precedent, the court rejected free exercise challenges by Christian schools. It added, however:

Ultimately, the Supreme Court will decide this question. Danville Christian Academy, Inc., et al. v. Beshear, 20-6341 (6th Cir. Nov. 29, 2020), appeal docketed, No. 20A96 (Dec. 1, 2020). At this juncture, an injunction is not supported given the teaching of the Sixth Circuit, but that could change. And if it does, this Court will revisit Pleasant View’s request.

Saturday, December 12, 2020

Street Preacher Planning Protest Lacks Standing In TRO Proceeding

In Gibson v. City of Vancouver, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 232408 (WD WA, Dec. 3, 2020), a Washington federal district court refused to issue a temporary restraining order to protect a street preacher who planned to hold a 20-person outdoor prayer protest at a public park to oppose the governor's COVID-19 orders. The court held that plaintiff lacks standing to sue, saying in part that plaintiff:

has not demonstrated that any of the Defendants he sued have communicated a specific warning or threat to initiate any proceedings against him if he carries out his plan...

Court Refuses To Enjoin City's Holiday Display Policy

In Knights of Columbus Star of the Sea Council 7297 v. City of Rehoboth Beach, Delaware, (D DE, Dec. 11, 2020), a Delaware federal district court refused to issue a preliminary injunction against the city's policy on religious displays at the Rehoboth Beach Bandstand. Plaintiffs want to continue their past practice of erecting a creche on the site for the Christmas season. The city's policy, which allegedly at one time banned religious displays of all kinds, was revised while this litigation was pending so that it now prohibits only any unattended private display on city property. However it permits attended religious and secular displays. The court said in part:

[B]ecause the motion is directed to a policy that no longer exists (if it ever did) and there is no realistic chance the alleged unconstitutional conduct will be resumed before the Court can reach the merits of the case, the motion must be denied as moot. It is also unripe. The Knights is free to apply to display an attended creche, but it has not yet done so. Finally, ... even assuming Plaintiff has established a likelihood of success on the merits, the motion must be denied because Plaintiff has failed to show it will suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary injunctive relief.