Cert Filed In Case On Curricular Treatment of Hinduism

A petition for certiorari (full text) was filed this week in the U.S. Supreme Court in California Parents for the Equalization of Educational Materials v. Torlakson,(cert. filed 2/16/2021). In the case,  the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal of a suit claiming that California's History-Social Science Standards and Framework incorrectly describe Hinduism and treat it negatively in relation to the treatment of other religions. (See prior posting.) The cert petition frames the question presented as:

Whether the Free Exercise Clause permits the government to single out a religion for disfavored treatment so long as it does not “substantially burden” religious exercise.

[Thanks to Glenn Katon for the lead.]

Suit Challenges Disqualification of Ministers Ordained Online As Marriage Officiants

Suit was filed yesterday in a Pennsylvania federal district court seeking to declare unconstitutional the position taken by the Bucks County, Pennsylvania clerk of courts that ministers who were ordained online may not solemnize marriages under Pennsylvania law. Apparently the county takes the position that those ordained online are not clergy of a "regularly established church or congregation", as required by 23 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 1503. The complaint (full text) in Universal Life Church Monastery Storehouse v. Bobrin, (ED PA, filed 2/16/2021), alleges that this interpretation violates the Free Exercise, Establishment and Equal Protection Clauses, saying in part:

... Defendant has used the powers of her office to discourage ULC Monastery ministers from exercising rights afforded to ministers of other religions. Defendant’s apparent policy of discrimination unconstitutionally prefers certain religions or religious denominations over others and burdens ULC Monastery’s and its ministers’ free exercise of religion. To the extent Defendant is correct that 23 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 1503 bars ULC Monastery ministers from solemnizing marriages while granting that benefit to ministers of other religious denominations, the statute is unconstitutional.

Universal Life Church issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

8th Circuit: Arkansas Anti-Boycott of Israel Law Violates 1st Amendment

In Arkansas Times LP v. Waldrip, (8th Cir., Feb. 12, 2021), the U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision, struck down an Arkansas' statute requiring businesses that enter contracts with public entities to certify that they will not engage in any boycott of Israel. "Boycott of Israel" is defined in the statute as "engaging in refusals to deal, terminating business activities, or other actions that are intended to limit commercial relations with Israel...." The majority said in part:

Considering the Act as a whole, we conclude that the term “other actions” in the definition of ... “boycott of Israel” encompasses more than “commercial conduct” similar to refusing to deal or terminating business activities. Instead, the Act [also] requires government contractors ... to limit their support and promotion of boycotts of Israel. As such, the Act restricts government contractors’ ability to participate in speech and other protected, boycott-associated activities.... Therefore, the Act imposes a condition on government contractors that implicates their First Amendment rights.

Judge Kobes dissented.  Courthouse News Service reported on the decision.

9th Circuit Rejects Church's Challenge On COVID Restrictions

In Gateway City Church v. Newsom, (9th Cir., Feb. 12, 2021), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a Santa Clara County, California COVID-19 Order that prohibits all indoor gatherings, including worship services. The court said in part:

The challenged ban on indoor “gatherings” ... applies equally to all indoor gatherings of any kind or type, whether public or private, religious or secular. The Directive, which appears to affect far more activities than most other jurisdictions’ health measures, does not “single out houses of worship” for worse treatment than secular activities.

Santa Clara County issued a press release announcing the decision.

Exchange of Apache Sacred Land Does Not Violate RFRA or Free Exercise Clause

 In Apache Stronghold v. United States, (D AZ, Feb. 12, 2021), an Arizona federal district court refused to issue a preliminary injunction to prevent a land exchange between the federal government and two foreign mining companies known as Resolution Copper. The land to be conveyed to Resolution Copper contains a sacred Apache ceremonial ground know as Oak Flat. In addition to rejecting treaty claims, the court concluded that plaintiff has not shown a likelihood of prevailing on its claims under the Free Exercise clause and RFRA, saying in part:

Plaintiff has not been deprived a government benefit, nor has it been coerced into violating their religious beliefs. The Court does not dispute, nor can it, that the Government's mining plans ... will have a devastating effect on the Apache people's religious practices.... However, Oak Flat does not provide the type of "benefit" required under RFRA jurisprudence....

The Southeast Arizona Land Exchange and Conservation Act is facially neutral, and Plaintiff has provided no evidence of any discriminatory intent behind its passage....

Apache Stronghold issued a press release announcing the decision.

New Arkansas Law Limits COVID Restrictions On Religious Organizations

On Feb. 9, Arkansas Act 94 (Religion Is Essential Act) (full text) was signed by Gov. Asa Hutchinson and immediately went into effect. The new law provides that the Governor nor the State Board of Health

shall not prohibit or limit a religious organization from continuing to operate or engage in religious services during a disaster emergency under this subchapter.

The law however does permit requiring: 

religious organizations to comply with neutral health, safety, or occupancy requirements issued under state or federal law that are applicable to all organizations and businesses.

The law goes on to provide, however, that such requirements may not impose a substantial burden on a religious organization unless it is shown to be essential to further a compelling governmental interest and is the least restrictive means of doing so.

"Religious organizations" are broadly defined in the new law to include houses of worship, religious educational institutions and religious leaders, among others.

Another Church Seeks Supreme Court's Intervention On COVID-19 Restrictions

Continuing the flow of cases asking the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene to allow churches to to hold worship services at greater capacity than allowed by state COVID-19 orders, an emergency application for an injunction or summary reversal (full text) was filed with the Supreme Court on Feb. 11 in Calvary Chapel of Bangor v. Mills. In the case, the U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals held that the district court's denial of a temporary restraining order was not appealable before the district court rules on the church's preliminary injunction request. (See prior posting.) Liberty Counsel issued a press release announcing the filing.

Discrimination Claim By Muslim Employee of Sheriff's Office Is Dismissed

In Domino v. County of Essex, (D NJ, Feb. 11, 2021), a New Jersey federal district court dismissed, without prejudice, a religious discrimination and hostile work environment claim brought by an African American Muslim male who was employed by the Bureau of Criminal Identification in the Essex County (NJ) Sheriff's Office. Plaintiff complained that a series of actions by the sheriff that variously ordered no beards, limited the length of beards and required documentation from his Imam of plaintiff's religious observance infringed his rights under various statutes and constitutional provisions. The court dismissed plaintiff's Title VII claim for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. It dismissed his equal protection claim for failure to allege a discriminatory purpose. It also dismissed claims under New Jersey civil rights laws.

Recent Articles of Interest

 From SSRN:

• Harry G. Hutchison, The Collision of Social Justice Perfectionism, Rival Faiths, and Ordered Liberty: Review Essay: Mark T. Mitchell, The Unholy Marriage that Spawned America's Social Justice Warriors, (January 25, 2021).
• Tory L. Lucas, Greed and the Seven Deadly Sins: Treacherous for the Soul and Legal Ethics, (Regent University Law Review, Vol. 33, No. 1, 2020-2021).
• Gary J. Simson, Constitutional Law and the Culture Wars: When Religious Liberty and the Law Conflict, Which Should Prevail?,  (Freedom and Society: Essays on Autonomy, Identity, and Political Freedom; Yi Deng, Creighton Rosental, Robert Scott, and Rosalind Simson eds., Forthcoming Spring 2021).
• Taylor Holley, Auditing Scientology: Reexamining the Church's 501(c)(3) Tax Exemption Eligibility, (February 1, 2021).
• Erez Aloni, First Comes Marriage, Then Comes Baby, Then Comes What Exactly?, (15 National Taiwan University Law Review (2020)).
• MaryScott Polk, What to Do With Leftovers: Collecting Earmarked Donations Through Mobile Payment Apps, (January 24, 2021).
• Leora Bilsky, The Virtues of Comparing: Between Early Jewish Restitution Campaign and Contemporary Post-Colonial Restitution Debate, (Art Antiquity and Law, Forthcoming 2021).

From SSRN (Commonwealth Nations):

• Merilin Jacob, The Dirty Play of Politics on the Citizenship Amendment Act, (December 4, 2020).
• Howard Kislowicz, Law, Faith, and Canada’s Unwritten Constitution, (25.1 Review of Constitutional Studies (Forthcoming)).
• Scott Stephenson, Dignity and the Australian Constitution, (2020) 42 Sydney Law Review 369–94.

From SSRN (Islamic Law):

• Hassan Ahmad, Re-Assessing the Evidentiary Threshold for Zinā’ in Islamic Criminal Law: A De Facto Exemption Proposal, (Muslim World J Hum Rts (2021 Forthcoming)).
• Drishti Suri, Parties Inspired by Islam, Discursive Practices and Democracy - a Re-evaluation of the FIS (October 11, 2020).
• Edana Richardson & Simon O'Neill, Islamic Mortgage-Alternatives in Ireland: A Comparative Reflection on a Decade of Consumer Appetite in the Face of Legislative Uncertainty, ((2020) 4 Conveyancer and Property Lawyer 275-295).
• Fajari Muhammadin, Limits of Deception in Islamic Laws of War: The Case of Civilian Disguises in Suicide Attacks, (Ulul Albab: Jurnal Studi dan Pemikiran Hukum Islam, Vol. 4 No. 1 (2020)).
• Tal Mimran, The Islamic State of Horror – Who is Responsible for Atrocities Committed in the Territory of the Self-Declared Islamic State (Daesh)?, (Indiana International & Comparative Law Review, Forthcoming).

From SSRN (Jewish Law):

• Levi Cooper, Jewish Law in the Beit Midrash of Hasidism, (Diné Israel 34 (2020), 51-110).
• Elimelech Westreich & Avishalom Westreich, Jewish Law: Marriage, (Routledge Handbook of Religious Law (2019)).

Biden Re-Establishes White House Faith-Based Partnerships Office

Yesterday President Joseph Biden issued an Executive Order (full text) once again establishing a White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. The accompanying Fact Sheet says in part:

The Partnerships Office’s initial work will include collaborating with civil society to: address the COVID-19 pandemic and boost economic recovery; combat systemic racism; increase opportunity and mobility for historically disadvantaged communities; and strengthen pluralism. The office will also support agency partnerships that advance the United States Government’s diplomatic, international development, and humanitarian work around the world....

Fundamental to these goals is respecting our cherished guarantees of church-state separation and freedom for people of all faiths and none.... The Partnerships Office, for example, will not prefer one faith over another or favor religious over secular organizations. Instead, it will work with every willing partner to promote the common good, including those who have differences with the Administration.

According to the Fact Sheet, Melissa Rogers will serve as Executive Director of the Faith Based and Neighborhood Partnerships Office, and as Senior Director for Faith and Public Policy in the White House Domestic Policy Council. Josh Dickson will serve as the Office's Deputy Director.

Humanist Organization Lacks Standing To Challenge Texas Ban On Secular Marriage Celebrants

 In Center for Inquiry, Inc. v. Warren, (5th Cir., Feb. 10, 2021), the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed for lack of standing a suit by a secular humanist organization challenging as an Establishment Clause violation Texas law that refuses to allow secular celebrants to conduct marriage ceremonies. The court held that plaintiffs are asking for relief that does not remedy their injury in full, explaining:

The appellants are seeking relief that would essentially compel ... [the] Dallas County Clerk, to record marriages conducted by secular celebrants such as themselves. However, even if such relief were hypothetically granted, it would not fully redress the injuries for which the appellants bring suit. Here, the appellants’ injuries relate to the barrier to legally solemnize marriages. But even if they prevail in this litigation, relief would be incomplete because the appellants would still be subject to criminal prosecution. In other words, the barrier to legally solemnizing marriages would nevertheless remain.

No Injunction Against Sound Ordinance Because City Disclaims Enforcement Pending Revision

In Abolish Abortion Oregon v. City of Grants Pass, (D OR, Feb. 12, 2021), an Oregon federal district court refused to issue a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the city's Sound Ordinance sought by an organization of Christian evangelists and anti-abortion advocates. Plaintiffs contended that enforcement violates their free speech and free exercise rights. The city, however, has conceded that the current Sound Ordinance is probably unconstitutional and says it is revising the Ordinance. It has also said it will not enforce the Ordinance during the revision process.

Court Says Quebec Worship Limits Apply To Capacity for Each Room

Canadian Lawyer reports on a decision interpreting Quebec's COVID-19 limits on indoor worship services:

Current restrictions on indoor religious gatherings in Montreal means that a maximum of 10 people may congregate in each room of a house of worship, as long as each has a separate entrance or access to the street, the Quebec Superior Court of Justice has ruled in interpreting public health regulations during COVID-19.

Superior Court Justice Chantal Masse’s decision on Feb. 5 ended the legal battle of the Quebec Council of Hasidic Jews and several Jewish congregations, which successfully argued the 10-person limit per synagogue was unacceptable and violated freedom of religion....

Supreme Court Allows Execution Only If Clergy of Choice Allowed In Execution Chamber

As reported by SCOTUSblog, in a jigsaw puzzle-like set of opinions and orders the U.S. Supreme Court last night just before midnight Eastern Time allowed Alabama to move ahead with the execution of convicted murderer Willie Smith-- but only if the state allowed him to have the Pastor of his choice with him in the execution chamber. In Dunn v. Smith, (US Sup. Ct., Feb. 11, 2021), a majority of the Court refused to lift an injunction issued the day before by the 11th Circuit (see prior posting) holding that Alabama's exclusion of all clergy from the execution chamber violates RLUIPA. The order refusing to vacate the 11th Circuit's injunction was unsigned. However Justice Kagan wrote a concurring opinion, joined by Justices Breyer, Sotomayor and Barrett, saying that RLUIPA "sets a high bar for Alabama to clear." They added:

Prison security is, of course, a compelling state interest. But past practice, in Alabama and elsewhere, shows that a prison may ensure security without barring all clergy members from the execution chamber. Until two years ago, Alabama required the presence of a prison chaplain at an inmate’s side. (It gave up the practice only when this Court barred States from providing spiritual advisors of just one faith.) Still more relevant, other jurisdictions have allowed clergy members with no connection to the government to attend an inmate’s execution.... , dissenting from denial of application to vacate injunction). Nowhere, as far as I can tell, has the presence of a clergy member (whether state-appointed or independent) disturbed an execution.

Justice Kavanaugh, in an opinion joined by Chief Justice Roberts, dissented, saying in part:

Because the State’s policy is non-discriminatory and, in my view, serves the State’s compelling interests in ensuring the safety, security, and solemnity of the execution room, I would have granted the State’s application to vacate the injunction.

Justice Thomas indicated (without joining the dissenting opinion) that he would have vacated the 11th Circuit's injunction.   Neither Justice Alito or Gorsuch indicated how they voted, but at least one of them would have had to agree with the 11th Circuit for the majority vote which the Court's unsigned Order commanded.

But this did not end the matter because there was also another outstanding stay of execution in the case which the 11th Circuit had granted on Feb. 10 in order to consider a different challenge to the execution. The Supreme Court yesterday vacated that stay (Order List) so that the execution, with the Pastor present, could move ahead.

As reported by SCOTUSblog, in the end the execution was not carried out because the execution warrant expired a midnight Central Time, only one hour after the Supreme Court orders were handed down.

High School Soccer Rules Changed To Allow Religious Headwear

The National Federation of State High School Associations announced yesterday that it has amended it Soccer Rules Book to allow players to wear religious headwear without prior approval by the respective state association.

11th Circuit: Pastor Should Be Allowed In Execution Chamber

In Smith v. Commissioner, Alabama Department of Corrections, (11t Cir., Feb. 10, 2021), the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision, reversed an Alabama district court's denial of an injunction to an inmate seeking to have his pastor present in the execution chamber with him. Prison rules allow only members of the execution team and certain medical personnel to be present. Focusing on RLUIPA, the majority said in part:

Although it correctly found Smith had a sincere belief that Pastor Wiley should be present in the execution chamber, the court erred by finding Smith’s exercise of that belief was not substantially burdened simply because Smith expressed a “preference” rather than prove his belief was fundamental to his religion. The court also improperly relied on alternative ways that Smith could practice his religion, including that Smith can visit and pray with Pastor Wiley leading up to his execution and Pastor Wiley can observe the execution from the viewing room.

The majority went on to conclude that while the state has a compelling interest in prison security, its policy is not the least restrictive means of achieving that interest.  It could, as does the federal prison system, require the prisoner to designate his spiritual advisor as soon as an execution date is set so that the state can conduct a background check.

Judge Jordan dissented, saying in part:

Whether the district court got RLUIPA’s least restrictive means requirement right or wrong, I do not believe that its decision constitutes an abuse of discretion.

Minnesota Diocese Settles Clergy Sex-Abuse Claims In Bankruptcy Reorganization

According to WXOW News, the Catholic Diocese of Winona-Rochester, Minnesota which filed for bankruptcy reorganization in 2018 has agreed with its creditors' committee to settle clergy sex-abuse claims from 145 claimants for $21.5 million. The diocese also issued an apology to victims. The settlement must still be approved by the court in the final plan of reorganization.

New York COVID-19 Restrictions On Houses of Worship Enjoined

In a case on remand from the 2nd Circuit, a New York federal district court (without opposition from the state) has issued an injunction against New York state's COVID-19 restrictions on houses of worship.  The court in Agudath Israel of America v. Cuomo, (ED NY, Feb. 9, 2021) said in part:

In light of the decisions by the Supreme Court, Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn, N.Y. v. Cuomo ... and the Second Circuit, Agudath Israel of Am. v. Cuomo ..., specifically finding that “both the fixed capacity and percentage capacity limits on houses of worship” in  the red and orange zones “are subject to strict scrutiny,” ... Defendant has agreed to an injunction against enforcement of the 25% and 33% capacity limits in red and orange zones, respectively.... Subsequently, Defendant’s counsel has represented in status conferences that before the end of February 2021 EO 202.68 will be amended to remove houses of worship.

For the foregoing reasons, the court grants a permanent injunction against enforcement of EO 202.68’s 25% capacity or maximum of 10-people, and 33% capacity or maximum of 25-people limitations on houses of worship, respectively in red and orange zones.

Becket issued a press release announcing the decision.

7th Circuit En Banc Hears Arguments In Ministerial Exception Case

The full U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, sitting en banc, yesterday heard oral arguments in Demkovich v. St. Andrew the Apostle Parish. (Audio of full oral arguments.) In the case, a 3-judge panel of the 7th Circuit held by a 2-1 vote that the ministerial exception doctrine does not bar hostile work environment claims brought by a ministerial employee where no tangible employment action was taken.  In the case, the music director of a Catholic church alleged that his supervisor harassed an humiliated him about his sexual orientation, as well as his weight and his medical issues. (See prior posting.)  Becket has more on the case.

Jewish Camps Sue County Claiming Discrimination

Suit was filed last week in a New York federal district court by an Orthodox Jewish organization that operates two summer camps in the Catskill Mountains. The complaint (full text) in Oorah, Inc. v. Schoharie County, N.Y., (ND NY, filed 2/5/2021), alleges in part:

2. Over the past decade, Oorah has time and again been subjected to official action discriminating against it on the basis of its Orthodox Jewish character by Defendants. The goal of these arbitrary and discriminatory actions has been to thwart the operation of Oorah’s religious programs and to deter Oorah’s staff, volunteers and participants from the practice of their Jewish faith. Oorah has repeatedly been forced to obtain relief against Schoharie County in the state courts in order to allow it to operate its religious facilities.

3. This hostility rose to a crescendo in 2020, when Defendants... exploited the COVID-19 pandemic to shut down Oorah’s operations completely in an illegal,  premeditated, arbitrary and discriminatory manner.

Yeshiva World reports on the lawsuit.

11th Circuit: Anti-Abortion Protesters Challenge To Permit Requirements Rejected

In Henderson v. McMurray, (11th Cir., Feb. 9, 2021), the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed free speech, free exercise and due process challenges to Huntsville, Alabama's application of its permit requirements to activities of James and Carol Henderson, two anti-abortion protesters. When abortion rights counter-protesters drowned out the sidewalk counseling and prayers of the Hendersons, the Hendersons resorted to using amplification devices. This triggered the need for them to obtain a permit under Huntsville's municipal code. In dismissing the Hendersons' various challenges, the court concluded that they failed to plead facts showing that they did not have ample alternative channels of communication or that the limits on noise in their permit were a pretext for viewpoint discrimination. The court also held that the noise limits in the permit were not unconstitutionally vague and that the free exercise claim does not trigger strict scrutiny.

Court Orders Religious Dietary Accommodation For Capitol Riot Shaman

On Jan. 9, the U.S. Department of Justice announced that  Jacob Anthony Chansley was one of three men charged in connection with the the invasion of the Capitol building on Jan. 6. According to the DOJ release:

... Chansley was identified as the man seen in media coverage who entered the Capitol building dressed in horns, a bearskin headdress, red, white and blue face paint, shirtless, and tan pants. This individual carried a spear, approximately 6 feet in length, with an American flag tied just below the blade.

By late January, Chansley was held in custody in the D.C. jail where he filed a request for a religious dietary accommodation. He sought a diet of only organic food because he is a Shamanic practitioner. When the request was denied, Chansley filed an emergency motion in the D.C. federal district court.  In United States v. Chansley, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22788 (D DC, Feb. 3, 2021), the court handed down a lengthy opinion ordering the dietary accommodation, saying in part that:

... RLUIPA and the First Amendment provide prisoners with powerful mechanisms to challenge aspects of their confinement that substantially burden religious free exercise....

Ordinarily ... Free Exercise challenges to neutral and generally applicable laws post-Smith merit only rational basis review, under which the DOC's dietary rules would be presumptively valid. But the Court finds that Smith does not govern the present inquiry for two independent reasons. First, unlike the neutral and generally applicable drug law at issue in Smith itself, the DOC's decision to deny defendant a dietary religious exemption is more akin to an "individualized governmental assessment" of his religious conduct....

Second, Smith is inapposite because the DOC's policy is neither neutral nor generally applicable.... [T]he DOC provides dietary religious exemptions for both Muslim and Jewish inmates. Its sole rationale for withholding an analogous accommodation for defendant is that his religious views lack "religious merit." But that derisive language simply underscores the fact that not only is the DOC withholding a religious exemption for defendant that it already grants to other religious prisoners, but that it is doing so simply because defendant belongs to a disfavored sect....

Third, defendant has shown that the DOC's refusal to provide him with an all-organic diet is a substantial burden—both subjectively and objectively—to his religious beliefs....

Apparently the D.C. jail was unable to comply with the court's order, and Chansley was transferred to another federal facility that could comply. (See Court's Memorandum of Feb. 4, 2021). ABC11 reports on developments.

Factional Dispute In Church Dismissed

 In New Covenant Church, Inc. v. Futch, (SD GA, February 5, 2021), a Georgia federal district court dismissed on qualified immunity, as well as other, grounds a dispute described by the court as follows:

This case arises from two feuding family factions which both lay claim to a small church in Brunswick, Georgia, one faction’s exclusion of the other from the church for a period of time, and several Brunswick police officers’ role in that exclusion....

Plaintiffs allege that Defendants [police officers] ... violated Plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights to free exercise of religion ... by: allowing nonmembers of New Covenant to seize and lock it down for ten weeks; threatening to arrest New Covenant members who entered the property; preventing New Covenant members from worshipping; and permitting the Armstrong sisters and others to steal New Covenant’s property. ...

The court found that the officers did not violate a clearly established constitutional right, saying in part:

Defendants ... did not “regulate religious beliefs,” but instead “impose[d] restrictions affecting religious conduct” by allowing the church to be locked up.... The second threshold test is also satisfied; the facts show that Defendants’ actions were not “aimed at impeding religion,” but were instead aimed at maintaining the peace while the parties settled a bitterly contested property dispute.

The court also dismissed due process, 4th Amendment and false imprisonment claims.

Recent Articles of Interest

 From SSRN:

• Yoram Rabin, Yaniv Vaki & Isaac Becker, From Ancient Israel to Modern Israel: The Historical Development of the Protection of a Fetus in Criminal Law, (50 Israel Yearbook on Human Rights 149 (2020).
• Barbara P. Billauer, Religious Freedom vs. Compelled Vaccination: A Case-Study of the 2018–2019 Measles Pandemic - or The Law as a Public Health Response, (January 29, 2021).
• Kathleen Brady, COVID-19 and Restrictions on Religious Worship: From Nondiscrimination to Church Autonomy,  (Forthcoming Fides et Libertas).
• Justin Aimonetti & Christian Talley, Religious Exemptions As Rational Social Policy. (University of Richmond Law Review, Vol. 55, 2021).
• Levi Cooper, Pandemics in the Promised Land: The Hasidic Experience, (Australian Journal of Jewish Studies 33 (2020): 5-26).
• Xavier Foccroulle Menard & Anna Su, Liberalism, Catholic Integralism, and the Question of Religious Freedom (January 15, 2021).
• Audrey Macklin, Working Against and With the State: Hospitality from Sanctuary to Resettlement, (December 12, 2020).
• Carl H. Esbeck, The Establishment Clause: Its Original Public Meaning and What We Can Learn from the Plain Text, (22 Federalist Society Review 26 (2021)).
• Jerameel Kevins, Should Kenya Follow the Path Set by Argentina in Decriminalizing Abortion? (January 8, 2021).
• Caroline Henckels, Ronli Sifris & Tania Penovic, Dignity as a Constitutional Value: Abortion, Political Communication and Proportionality, (Federal Law Review (2021).

From SSRN (Islamic Law):

• Rifai Sulaiman Lebbe, Religious Freedom in Theory and Practice in Sri Lanka, (December 23, 2020).
• Nizamuddin Ahmad Siddiqui, The Law and Politics of the Muslim Minority Citizen, (September 12, 2020).
• Ayub Mukhammadiev, Civil Law Principles in Fiqh of Islamic Law, (TJL -Tematics Journal of Law, Vol-4-Issue-12-December-2020).
• Afrasiab Ahmed Rana & Waqar Ahmad Janjua, Sharī‘ah Governance in Islamic Banking Industry: A Critical Review, (September 19, 2020).
• Afrasiab Ahmed Rana, Essentials of a Valid Contract: A Comparative Study of Islamic Law and the Contract Act, 1872, (November 18, 2020).

From SmartCILP and elsewhere:

• Musafa Aijazuddin, Protection of Religious and Ethnic Minorities before the Genocide Convention, 16 Loyola University Chicago International Law Review 145-176 (2020).
• Shlomo C. Pill, Jewish Law Perspectives on Judicial Settlement Practice, 20 Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal 227-251 (2020).
• Journal of Law & Religion, Vol. 35, No. 3, Dec. 2020.

Ministerial Exception Applies To Whistleblower Act Claim

In Rehfield v. Diocese of Joliet, (IL Sup. Ct., Feb. 4, 2021), the Illinois Supreme Court held that the ministerial exception doctrine applies to require dismissal of a suit alleging retaliatory discharge in violation of the state's Whistleblower Act. In the suit, the principal of a Catholic elementary school alleged that her employment was terminated because she reported a parent's threatening conduct to police. After discussing prior Supreme Court and Circuit Court precedent, the court said:

In light of the consistent body of authority discussed above, we decline to hold that plaintiff’s whistleblower claim is exempt from application of the ministerial exception. We note, however, that our holding is confined to the claim at issue in this case. We express no opinion on whether the exception bars a suit filed in any case other than the one before us.

The court also concluded that the principal was a "minister" for purposes of the ministerial exception, saying in part: 

although her formal title (“lay principal”) does not necessarily indicate a religious role, it is apparent from the record that plaintiff’s job duties entailed numerous religious functions in furtherance of the school’s Catholic mission.

Cert. Petition Filed In Maine's Tuition Reimbursement Controversy

A petition for certiorari (full text) was filed with the U.S. Supreme Court last Thursday in Carson v. Makin. In the case, the U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Maine's statutory provisions that pay tuition to out-of-district public or private high schools for students whose districts do not operate a high school. However, to qualify to receive tuition assistance payments, a private school must be non-sectarian. Religious high schools do not qualify. (See prior posting.) Institute of Justice issued a press release  announcing the filing of the lawsuit. [Thanks to Michael Bindas and Chris Freund for the lead.]

New Hampshire Priest Sues Conservative Catholic Website For Defamation

A suit alleging defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress was filed last Friday in a New Hampshire federal district court by a New Hampshire Catholic priest against the controversial Church Militant website and persons affiliated with it. The complaint (full text) in de Laire v. Voris, (D NH, filed 2/5/2021), contends that false attacks on the character of Father Georges de Laire were published on the traditionalist website and on YouTube by Gary Michael Voris, his Church Militant media company and another reporter for the company. The false attacks began after Father de Laire issued a decree banning the New Hampshire-based St. Benedict Center from holding itself out as being affiliated with the Catholic Church or purporting to hold Roman Catholic religious services on its property.  According to the complaint, St. Benedict Center champions the views put forward in the 1940's by Father Leonard Feeney who "became known for incendiary and hate-filled speeches, primarily anti-Semitic in nature." Feeney was ultimately expelled from the Jesuit Order and excommunicated from the Catholic Church over these views and another doctrinal disagreement. [Thanks to Eugene Volokh via Religionlaw for the lead.]

Supreme Court Enjoins, Pending Appeal, California's Total Ban On Indoor Worship Services

Yesterday, in another decision on the Court's so-called "shadow docket", the U.S. Supreme Court in South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom, (US Sup. Ct., Feb. 5, 2021), enjoined while a petition for certiorari is pending a portion of California's restrictions on indoor worship services. Last month, the 9th Circuit upheld the restrictions. Now the Supreme Court temporarily enjoined enforcement of the state's total ban on indoor worship services in areas of the highest COVID-19 infection ("Tier I"). However it refused to enjoin the state's 25% capacity limits on worship services in Tier I, and refused to enjoin its ban on singing and chanting during services. The Court, in its unsigned order, added:

This order is without prejudice to the applicants presenting new evidence to the District Court that the State is not applying the percentage capacity limitations or the prohibition on singing and chanting in a generally applicable manner.

Chief Justice Roberts filed a brief concurring statement, saying in part:

[F]ederal courts owe significant deference to politically accountable officials with the “background, competence, and expertise to assess public health.”... At the same time, the State’s present determination—that the maximum number of adherents who can safely worship in the most cavernous cathedral is zero—appears to reflect not expertise or discretion, but instead insufficient appreciation or consideration of the interests at stake.

Justice Barrett, joined by Justice Kavanaugh, filed a brief concurring opinion. 

Justices Thomas, Gorsuch and Alito would also have enjoined the capacity limits and the ban on singing and chanting. However Justice Alito would have postponed the injunction on capacity limits for 30 days to give the state an opportunity to show that these limits are narrowly drawn to reduce COVID spread to the same extent as limits on other essential activities. Justice Gorsuch, joined by Justices Thomas and Alito, filed an opinion explaining their position, saying in part:

Since the arrival of COVID–19, California has openly imposed more stringent regulations on religious institutions than on many businesses....

Of course we are not scientists, but neither may we abandon the field when government officials with experts in tow seek to infringe a constitutionally protected liberty. The whole point of strict scrutiny is to test the government’s assertions, and our precedents make plain that it has always been a demanding and rarely satisfied standard....

Drafting narrowly tailored regulations can be difficult. But if Hollywood may host a studio audience or film a singing competition while not a single soul may enter California’s churches, synagogues, and mosques, something has gone seriously awry.

Justice Kagan, joined by Justices Breyer and Sotomayor, dissented, saying in part:

California’s response to the COVID pandemic satisfies that neutrality rule by regulating worship services the same as other activities “where large groups of people [come together] in close proximity for extended periods of time.”... The restricted activities include attending a worship service or political meeting; going to a lecture, movie, play, or concert; and frequenting a restaurant, winery, or bar. So the activities are both religious and secular—and many of the secular gatherings, too, are constitutionally protected....

The Court has decided that the State must exempt worship services from the strictest aspect of its regulation of public gatherings. No one can know, from the Court’s 19-line order, exactly why: Is it that the Court does not believe the science, or does it think even the best science must give way? In any event, the result is clear: The State may not treat worship services like activities found to pose a comparable COVID risk, such as political meetings or lectures. Instead, the State must treat this one communal gathering like activities thought to pose a much lesser COVID risk, such as running in and out of a hardware store. In thus ordering the State to change its public health policy, the Court forgets what a neutrality rule demands. The Court insists on treating unlike cases, not like ones, equivalently.

Vox reports on the decision, with particular attention to Justice Barrett's opinion-- her first signed opinion since joining the Court.

Biden Speaks At National Prayer Breakfast

President Biden yesterday delivered taped remarks at this year's National Prayer Breakfast. (Video of full remarks.) AP reported on the event, saying in part:

The event went entirely virtual this year because of the coronavirus pandemic, with Biden and all other speakers appearing via taped remarks. Four living former presidents sent messages to the breakfast, with three speaking on tape while Coons read a message from former President Jimmy Carter — making Trump’s absence conspicuous.

AP Report Critical of Catholic Church's Participation In Paycheck Protection Program

AP yesterday published an investigative report critical of the Catholic Church's participation in the COVID-19 Paycheck Protection Program.  The report says in part:

As the pandemic began to unfold, scores of Catholic dioceses across the U.S. received aid through the Paycheck Protection Program while sitting on well over $10 billion in cash, short-term investments or other available funds....

Overall, the nation’s nearly 200 dioceses, where bishops and cardinals govern, and other Catholic institutions received at least $3 billion. That makes the Roman Catholic Church perhaps the biggest beneficiary of the paycheck program....

Church officials have said their employees were as worthy of help as workers at Main Street businesses, and that without it they would have had to slash jobs and curtail their charitable mission as demand for food pantries and social services spiked. They point out the program’s rules didn’t require them to exhaust their stores of cash and other funds before applying....

By using a special exemption that the church lobbied to include in the paycheck program, Catholic entities amassed at least $3 billion — roughly the same as the combined total of recipients from the other faiths that rounded out the top five.... Baptist, Lutheran, Methodist and Jewish faith-based recipients also totaled at least $3 billion. Catholics account for about a fifth of the U.S. religious population while members of Protestant and Jewish denominations are nearly half....

Imam Sues Alabama Over Exclusion of Clergy From Execution Chamber

Yesterday a Muslim imam filed suit in an Alabama federal district court challenging prison rules that preclude him from being present in the execution chamber with inmates sentenced to death. The complaint (full text) in Maisonet v. Dunn, (SD AL, filed 2/4/2021), alleges that a change in execution policy in 2019 that now excludes all religious advisors from the execution chamber was adopted

for the purpose of excluding non-Christian religious advisors and prohibiting condemned men of non-Christian faiths from requesting their religious advisors to accompany them in the execution chamber.

The suit contends that the execution policy violates the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses as well as the Alabama Constitution's Religious Freedom Amendment.

Prior to 2019, prison rules required that the prison chaplain-- consistently a mainline Protestant clergyman-- be present in the execution chamber.  That practice was challenged and litigated up to the U.S. Supreme Court, which in 2019 allowed the Alabama execution of a Muslim inmate to proceed without reaching the merits of the challenge to that practice. (See prior posting.) Subsequently in 2019 the Supreme Court ruled against disparate treatment of non-Christian inmates facing execution in a Texas case. (See prior posting.) Courthouse News Service reports on the lawsuit.

2020 Report on Hate Groups Released

Earlier this week, the Southern Poverty Law Center released its report The Year In Hate and Extremism 2020. The Report identifies 838 active hate groups, an 11% drop from last year. As reported by CNA, some conservative Christian groups have criticized SPLC for labelling anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage organizations as anti-LGBTQ hate groups. [Thanks to Michael Lieberman for the lead.]

Supreme Court: FSIA Shields Germany From Suit Over Nazi Takings of German-Jewish Property

Yesterday in Federal Republic of Germany v. Philipp, (Sup. Ct., Feb. 3, 2021), the U.S Supreme Court held that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) precludes plaintiffs from filing suit in U.S. courts to recover for Jewish property taken by the Nazi government from German nationals.  Plaintiffs sued over the Nazi government's coercing a consortium of German Jewish art dealers to sell an art collection to Prussia at a one-third of its value. The FSIA provides that foreign countries, with certain exceptions, are immune from suit in U.S. courts.  Plaintiffs contended that the exception for cases  "in which rights in property taken in violation of international law are in issue" should apply because the coerced sale of their property was an act of genocide.

 A unanimous Supreme Court rejected plaintiffs' argument on two grounds. First it held that the exception for property taken in violation of international law does not include expropriation of property from a country's own nationals. Second it held that the exception for property taken in violation of international law does not apply to property taken in violation of international human rights law, saying in part: 

We need not decide whether the sale of the consortium’s property was an act of genocide, because the expropriation exception is best read as referencing the international law of expropriation rather than of human rights. We do not look to the law of genocide to determine if we have jurisdiction over the heirs’ common law property claims. We look to the law of property.

The Court yesterday also remanded Republic of Hungary v. Simon, (Sup. Ct., Feb. 3, 2021), for further consideration in light of tis decision in Germany v. Philipp. That case is a class action claim for property taken by the Hungarian government from Hungarian Jews during the Holocaust.

SCOTUSblog discusses the decisions.

7th Circuit OK's Nativity Scene In Christmas Display

In Woodring v. Jackson County, Indiana, (7th Cir., Feb. 2, 2021), the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision, upheld the constitutionality of a nativity scene as part of a display on the county's historic courthouse lawn. The court said in part:

[W]e hold that the County’s nativity scene complies with the Establishment Clause. The district court thought itself bound by the “purpose” and “endorsement” tests that grew out of the Supreme Court’s decision in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971). We hold, however, that the Supreme Court’s recent decision in American Legion v. American Humanist Association, 139 S. Ct. 2067 (2019), requires us to use a different, more historical framework to gauge the constitutionality of the County’s nativity scene. Applying American Legion, we conclude that the County’s nativity scene is constitutional because it fits within a long national tradition of using the nativity scene in broader holiday displays to celebrate the origins of Christmas—a public holiday....

Judge Hamilton dissented, saying in part:

[T]he majority’s feints toward displacing the endorsement and purpose tests. I say “feints” because the majority ends up applying the American Legion “historical” test in a way that actually looks a lot like the endorsement test, properly understood, taking full account of the content, history, and larger context of the display. Neither this case nor American Legion should be understood as a revolution in Establishment Clause doctrine....

I disagree with the majority’s result because of the specific facts: the religious content dominates the county’s Christmas display here....

The facts and cases may be arrayed roughly along a spectrum ranging from stand-alone Nativity scenes to those that are small parts of much broader seasonal displays. There is not a sharp line. It’s not as simple as counting whether there are more shepherds and angels than elves and snowmen.... If the display is dominated by religious symbolism, with only minor or token secular symbols and symbols of other faiths, the message of endorsement calls for court intervention.

The Hill reports on the decision.

Sanctuary Leaders Sue Over Targeting and Excessive Fines

Suit was filed last month in D.C. federal district court by advocacy groups and individuals who are leaders in the sanctuary movement claiming that ICE and the Department of Homeland Security have targeted the individual defendants with exorbitant fines because they have taken sanctuary in houses of worship. The complaint (full text) in Austin Sanctuary Network v. Gaynor, (D DC, filed 1/19/2021), alleges that these actions violate the 1st and 8th Amendments as well as RFRA. The complaint alleges in part:

The sanctuary movement reignited in the 2000s through a network of over 800 Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Sikh, Baha’i, and Buddhist houses of worship that opened their doors to immigrants at risk of deportation, amidst a steady rise in anti-immigrant rhetoric and the criminalization, detention, and deportation of immigrants....

Individual Plaintiffs’ religious beliefs are deeply intertwined with the sanctuary movement. For them, taking sanctuary and participating in the sanctuary movement are religious acts....

Center for Constitutional Rights issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Virginia Governor Protected By 11th Amendment In Church's Suit Challenging COVID-19 Orders

In Lighthouse Fellowship Church v. Northam, (ED VA, Jan. 27. 2021), a Virginia federal district court dismissed a church's suit against Virginia's governor challenging COVID-19 restrictions on worship services. The court held that under the 11th Amendment, the governor is immune from suit challenging his orders. The suit contended that the orders violated federal and state constitutional and statutory provisions. Christian Post reports on the decision. The Department of Justice had filed a statement of interest supporting plaintiff in the case. (See prior posting.)

Recent Articles of Interest

 From SSRN:

• D. Brock Hornby, History Lessons: Instructive Legal Episodes from Maine's Early Years — Episode 2, (November 15, 2020).
• Rachel Fewell, Interpretation of the Free Exercise Clause and the Disparate Effect on Faith-Based Organizations in a Time of Crisis, (January 25, 2021).
• Matthew Brown, Pistols in the Pews: The Religious Leader's Guide to Firearm Laws and Policies in Places of Worship, (December 15, 2020).
• Paul Johnson & Silvia Falcetta, The Inclusion of Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in Relationships Education: Faith-Based Objections and the European Convention on Human Rights, (October 28, 2020).
• Linda R. Meyer, Revelation and Legal Personhood, (January 4, 2020).
• Imran Minhas, Shariah Compliant Model of Islamic Banking,   (Journal of Islamic Banking and Finance - Asia - Vol. 37, No. 3, 2020).
• Munir Ahmad Mughal, Ibn Jauzī on the Meaning of Mind Understanding and Purgation, (November 15, 2020).
• Louis Eguzo, Governance and Accountability: A Systematic Review to Examine Its Impact on Social Mission in Nonprofit Organizations, (December 7, 2020).

From SmartCILP:

• Linda C. Fentiman, Of Mosquitoes and "Moral Convictions" in the Age of Zika: How the Trump Administration's Gutting of the Affordable Care Act's Contraceptive Mandate Jeopardizes Women's and Children's Health, 30 Health Matrix 85-174 (2020).
• Cortlan J. Wickliff, The Constitutional Crisis of Government Officials Ignoring Facts in Policy Creation, 43 Thurgood Marshall Law Review 667-692 (2019).

Another Decision On California COVID Limits On Worship Services

In Gateway City Church v. Newsom, (ND CA, Jan. 29, 2021), a California federal district court, discussing recent 9th Circuit and Supreme Court precedents, upheld portions of COVID-19 state and county restrictions on worship services, while preliminarily enjoining other parts of the state's orders.  The court upheld the state prohibition on indoor worship in Tier I high risk areas. It also upheld the county's general prohibition on gatherings of all sorts. The court however enjoined enforcement of state 100- and 200- person capacity limits in Tier II and III recovery-- but allowed percentage-based capacity limits. Finally it enjoined restrictions on activities other than worship services in houses of worship.

Christian Student Group May Move Ahead With Damage Claim For School's Derecognition

In Roe v. San Jose Unified School District Board, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16633 (ND CA, Jan. 28, 2021), a California federal district court, while dismissing a number of plaintiffs' claims, permitted the Fellowship of Christian Athletes (FCA) to move ahead on an "as applied" challenge to the school district's nondiscrimination policies. Plaintiffs allege that schools used those policies as a pretext to revoke recognition of student FCA chapters because of their religious beliefs and their speech. At issue is FCA's Sexual Purity Policy that requires FCA leaders to resign their positions if they engage in extramarital sex or homosexual acts. The court held that claims of the individual plaintiffs should be dismissed because they cannot proceed under pseudonyms. It held that individual plaintiffs' claims for prospective relief are moot because they have graduated, and that FCA failed to plead organizational standing for prospective relief. It concluded, however, that claims for damages against defendants in their personal capacities (but not their official capacities) survive a motion to dismiss.

Secular Elected Officials Form New Organization

A press release issued earlier this week announced the formation of a new organization, the Association of Secular Elected Officials.  According to the release, "the non-religious are seriously underrepresented in public office." The group has been formed to

provide support, information and a sounding board for non-religious elected officials at a time when a growing number of people choose not to affiliate with a religion.

Its goals are described by the group's founder:

“For too long the non-religious have been excluded from being open about their constitutional right to be non-religious,” Presberg said. “As the need for science-based policy is paramount, we have a vocal minority pushing for special rights for their religious beliefs. Now, more than ever, we need to support and educate our non-theistic elected colleagues as they work to make our country and their community better for everyone.”

The organization also has a goal of presenting an alternative to the political power of white Christian nationalists.

The organization has a website and a Facebook page.

9th Circuit Hears Oral Arguments In Case of High School Coach Who Prayed At 50-Yard Line

Earlier this week (Jan. 25), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District. (Audio, Video of full oral arguments.) In the case, a Washington federal district court dismissed 1st Amendment and Title VII claims by a high school football coach who was suspended when he insisted on prominently praying at the 50-yard line immediately after football games. The court concluded that his prayer amounted to endorsement of religion by the school district in violation of the Establishment Clause. (See prior posting.) First Liberty issued a press release on Monday's oral argument.

Biden Moves To Restore Funding For Family Planning Clinics; Reverses Mexico City Policy

President Biden yesterday issued Memorandum on Protecting Women’s Health at Home and Abroad (Jan. 28. 2021) (full text).  The Memorandum calls for the Secretary of Health and Human Services to consider whether to revise or repeal the Trump Administration's rules that prohibit recipients of Title X funds from referring patients to abortion providers. The rule has had a particular impact on Planned Parenthood clinics. (See prior posting.) Yesterday's Memorandum states in part:

The Title X Rule has caused the termination of Federal family planning funding for many women’s healthcare providers and puts women’s health at risk by making it harder for women to receive complete medical information.

The Memorandum also revokes the so-called "Mexico City Policy" which withholds USAID family planning funds abroad from organizations that use non-USAID funds to perform abortions, provide advice, counseling, or information on abortion, or lobby a foreign government to legalize abortion or make abortion services more easily available. The Memorandum also directs the Secretaries of State and HHS to withdraw the U.S. from the Geneva Consensus Declaration, and to resume funding to the United Nations Population Fund. CBS News has more on these developments.

RLUIPA Bars City's Enforcement of Parking Lot Restrictions On Church

In Pass-A-Grille Beach Community Church, Inc. v. City of St. Pete Beach, Florida, (MD FL, Jan. 26, 2021), a Florida federal district court, relying on the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, granted a preliminary injunction barring the city from enforcing restrictions on the way in which the church can use its own parking lot. The church, which is located across the street from the beach, allows the public to use its parking lot, free of charge, to access the beach. The city contends that its ordinances prohibit the church from allowing anyone who is not there on legitimate church business from parking in the lot. According to the court:

[The church] states that a vital aspect of its beliefs and ministry is outreach to the local community and the world, heeding a direct command from Christ himself. It desires to use “biblically-based hospitality” to help people enjoy a day at the beach with their families. The Church cites several Biblical verses in support of its beliefs on this point.

After concluding that the city has imposed a "substantial burden" on the church, the court analyzes the primary disagreement between the parties-- the sincerity of the church's religious beliefs regarding use of the parking lot. The court said in part:

When inquiring into a claimant's sincerity ... our task is ... limited to asking whether the claimant is (in essence) seeking to perpetrate a fraud on the court – whether he actually holds the beliefs he claims to hold.... 

The Church is certainly not attempting to perpetrate a fraud upon the Court when it states it desires to use its parking facilities to further its mission by attracting new people. Common sense shows that attracting new members is an important goal for almost all community organizations and mainstream religious groups. Likewise, giving away something for free (in this case parking) is a time-honored strategy used to generate attention create interest, and attract new customers.

At most, the City has demonstrated that the Church may have changed its mind over the years regarding the religious implications of its use of its parking lot.... Well respected religious leaders and institutions throughout the world change their minds on certain matters from time to time, and no one would suggest those changes evidence insincere religious beliefs.

Church Again Asks Supreme Court To Invalidate California COVID Restrictions

In its continuing challenge to California's COVID-19 restrictions on worship services, a California church is again seeking an emergency injunction from the Supreme Court.  The application for an injunction (full text) in Harvest Rock Church, Inc. v. Newsom, (Sup. Ct., filed 1/26/2021) challenges the 9th Circuit's decision earlier this week upholding California's total ban on indoor worship services in highest risk (Tier I) areas, while striking down 100- and 200-person limits at places of indoor worship in Tier 2 and 3 areas. In December, the Supreme Court had remanded the case for further consideration. (See prior posting.) Liberty Counsel issued a press release announcing the filing of the latest application with the Supreme Court.

Today Is International Holocaust Remembrance Day

In a formal resolution adopted in 2005 (full text), the United Nations General Assembly designated January 27 each year as International Holocaust Remembrance Day. That date is the anniversary of the 1945 liberation of Auschwitz-Birkenau. The United Nations has posted a calendar of events that will mark this year's commemoration.  The United States Holocaust Museum will also be streaming programming to mark the day.

UPDATE: President Biden also issued a statement (full text), saying in part:

Today, we join together with people from nations around the world to commemorate International Holocaust Remembrance Day by remembering the 6 million Jews, as well as the Roma and Sinti, Slavs, disabled persons, LGBTQ+ individuals, and many others, who were murdered by the Nazis and their collaborators during the Shoah. We must never forget the truth of what happened across Europe or brush aside the horrors inflicted on our fellow humans because of the doctrines of hatred and division....

The United States will continue to champion justice for Holocaust survivors and their heirs. We are committed to helping build a world in which the lessons of the Holocaust are taught and in which all human lives are valued.

Satanic Temple Challenges Boston City Council's Prayer Policy

Earlier this week, The Satanic Temple filed suit in a Massachusetts federal district court challenging the policy of Boston City Council for selecting individuals to offer the invocations at Council meetings.  The complaint (full text) in The Satanic Temple, Inc. v. City of Boston, MA, (D MA, filed 1/24/2021), alleges that any member of City Council can select a prayer giver. However, The Satanic Temple, which was not selected by a Council member, was denied permission to offer a prayer.  The complaint, claiming Establishment Clause, Free Exercise, Free Speech and Equal Protection violations, contends in part:

As a result, the City broadcasts two constitutionally impermissible messages: those religions who make the cut are endorsed and are therefore insiders of the politically favored community; those who don’t make the cut are not endorsed and are therefore outsiders from the politically favored community.

AP reports on the lawsuit.

9th Circuit Again Upholds Some of California's Restrictions On Indoor Worship; Enjoins Others

In Harvest Rock Church v. Newsom, (9th Cir., Jan. 25, 2021), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, relying on the South Bay decision handed down by a different 9th Circuit panel three days earlier (see prior posting) enjoined California from enforcing its COVID-19 related 100- and 200-person limits at places of indoor worship. It however upheld the total ban on indoor worship services in higher risk areas. Judge O'Scannlain concurred specially, criticizing the South Bay decision and arguing that the total ban on indoor worship should also be enjoined. Orange County Register reports on the decision.

Supreme Court GVRs Chaplain-In-Execution-Chamber Case

Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a dispute over execution procedures, granted review, vacated the judgment below and remanded the case in Gutierrez v. Saenz (Docket No. 19-8695, GVR 1/25/2021). (Order List.) The case challenges Texas' exclusion of chaplains from the execution chamber.  In June, 2020, a day before appellant's scheduled execution, the Supreme Court granted a stay of execution pending its decision on whether to grant review. (See prior posting.) As part of that order, the Supreme Court instructed the district court to  promptly determine whether serious security problems would result if a prisoner facing execution is permitted to choose the spiritual adviser the prisoner wishes to have in his immediate presence during the execution. Apparently the Texas federal district court made additional findings of fact in Nov. 2020. Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari and vacated the 5th Circuit's earlier rejection of the trial court's stay of execution. Yesterday's Supreme Court Order went on to provide:

The case is remanded to the Court of Appeals with instructions to remand the case to the District Court for further and prompt consideration of the merits of petitioner’s underlying claims regarding the presence of a spiritual advisor in the execution chamber in light of the District Court’s November 24, 2020 findings of fact. Although this Court’s stay of execution shall terminate upon the sending down of the judgment of this Court, the disposition of the petition for a writ of certiorari is without prejudice to a renewed application regarding a stay of execution should petitioner’s execution be rescheduled before resolution of his claims regarding the presence of a spiritual advisor in the execution chamber.

Austin American-Statesman reports on the decision.

Biden Executive Order Permits Transgender Individuals To Serve In Military

Yesterday President Biden issued an Executive Order (full text) reversing the Trump Administration's 2018 transgender military service ban. In his remarks at the signing of the Executive Order, President Biden said in part:

this is reinstating a position that previous commanders and — as well as the Secretaries have supported.  And what I’m doing is enabling all qualified Americans to serve their country in uniform, and essentially restoring the situation as it existed before, with transgender personnel, if qualified in every other way, can serve their government in the United States military.

NPR reports on the Executive Order.

Annual AALS Law & Religion Bibliography Issued

The Association of American Law Schools Section on Law & Religion has released its 2020 Newsletter which includes a 23-page bibliography of books and articles.

Review Denied In Challenge To Nevada's Limit on Worship Services

The U.S. Supreme Court today denied a petition for certiorari before judgment in Calvary Chapel Dayton Valley v. Sisolak, (Docket No. 20-639, cert. denied 1/25/2021). (Order List.) At issue is the constitutionality of Nevada Governor Steve Sisolak's COVID-19 Order limiting indoor worship services to no more than 50 people with social distancing. The SCOTUSblog case page has links to all the pleadings in the case. The Supreme Court previously refused to enjoin enforcement of the Order pending appeal. (See prior posting.)

Supreme Court Dismisses and Vacates Judgment Below In Temporary Texas Abortion Ban Controversy

The U.S. Supreme Court today granted certiorari in Planned Parenthood v. Abbott, (Docket No. 20-305, Jan. 25, 2021) (Order List), summarily vacated the judgment below and remanded the case to the 5th Circuit with instructions to dismiss the case as moot. The case began as a challenge to Texas Gov. Greg Abbott's order temporarily barring most elective abortions during the COVID-19 crisis. Subsequently the Governor permitted abortion services to resume. At issue in the case now was whether the Supreme Court would vacate the Court of Appeals judgments below so that they would no longer serve as precedent in other cases. (See petition for certiorari.) The SCOTUSblog case page has links to all the pleadings in the case.

1st Circuit Again Upholds Boston's Refusal To Fly Christian Flag From City Hall Flagpole

In Shurtleff v. City of Boston, (1st Cir., Jan. 22, 2021), the U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, in a case coming before it for a second time, again upheld the city of Boston's refusal to allow an organization to raise its "Christian flag" on one of the City Hall Plaza flag poles at an event that would also feature short speeches by local clergy. The court said in part:

Because the City engages in government speech when it raises a third-party flag on the third flagpole at City Hall, that speech is not circumscribed by the Free Speech Clause....  The City is therefore "entitled" to "select the views that it wants to express."...

The court also rejected plaintiffs' Establishment Clause claim, saying in part:

The exclusion of religious entities from a public  program, without more, does not violate the Establishment Clause. See Carson ex rel. O.C. v. Makin, 979 F.3d 21, 49 (1st Cir. 2020). Nor is proof of such exclusion evidence of hostility towards religion....

We add, moreover, that while the Establishment Clause may not require a secular-flag policy, the City "may act upon [its] legitimate concerns about excessive entanglement with religion" in administering its flag-raising program....

Our government-speech finding bolsters the conclusion that the City would be perceived to endorse the messages conveyed by the flags that it flies.

Jewish Organization Fails To Prove Violations In Denial of Its Use of Free After-School Space

In Chabad Chayil, Inc. v. School Board of Miami-Dade County Florida, (SD FL, Jan. 22, 2021), a Florida federal district court dismissed claims by a Jewish non-profit organization that the Miami-Dade County School Board and the County's Office of Inspector General (OIG) violated its 1st and 14th Amendment rights when it took away its rent free use of school facilities for after-school programs. The OIG, after investigating an anonymous complaint, claimed that Chabad Chayil violated various regulations in applying for rent-free use and in operating its program. The court concluded that Chabad Chayil had failed to show that its claims met the requirements for liability under 42 USC §1983. It "failed to allege facts showing that any School Board official or staff member was a final policymaker with respect to the decisions or actions that Chabad Chayil maintains were unconstitutional...." It failed to show a OIG custom or policy that would make it liable for free exercise violations. Chabad Chayil also failed to prove equal protection or due process violations.

9th Circuit Upholds California's Temporary Ban On Indoor Worship Services

 In South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom, (9th Cir., Jan. 22, 2021), the U.S. 9th Circuit court of Appeals affirmed a California federal district court's denial of a preliminary injunction to a church that objects to the state's COVID-19 ban on indoor religious services. The court describes the current restrictions:

California permits unlimited attendance at outdoor worship services and deems clergy and faith-based streaming services “essential,” but has temporarily halted all congregate indoor activities, including indoor religious services, within portions of the state currently identified by objective measures as being at high risk....

South Bay argues that the current restrictions on indoor services prohibit congregants’ Free Exercise of their theology, which requires gathering indoors.

In upholding the state's requirement, the court said in part:

Notably, in response to the State’s mountain of scientific evidence, South Bay has not pointed to anything in the record to support the notion that the lesser restriction that it seeks—100% occupancy with a reliance solely on mask-wearing, social distancing, and sanitation measures—would be effective to meet California’s compelling interest in controlling community spread. South Bay’s self-serving assertion that it has experienced no incidence of the virus among its worshipers is entirely anecdotal and undermined by evidence of outbreaks in similarly situated places of worship.

The court concluded, however, that 100- and 200-person caps for later stages of recovery are unconstitutional "because California has imposed different capacity restrictions on religious services relative to non-religious activities and sectors."

Recent Articles of Interest

 From SSRN:

• Craig Westergard, Haply a Minority's Voice May Do Some Good: Diversity at the United States Supreme Court, (29 Journal of Judicial Administration 174, 2020).
• Thomas Mohr, Religious Minorities and the Constitution of the Irish Free State, 1922-1937, (UCD Working Papers in Law, Criminology & Socio-Legal Studies Research Paper No. 1/2021).
• Sohail Wahedi, American Muslims: The Untouchables of American Constitutional Democracy?, (Idaho Law Review, Vol. 56, 2020, pp. 305-321).
• Alan Edward Brownstein & Thomas Charles Berg, Giving Our Better Angels a Chance: A Dialogue on Religious Liberty and Equality, (Journal of Appellate Practice and Process, volume 21, issue 2 (forthcoming)).
• Matthew Stevens, Centralism, Civil Rights, and Witchcraft,  (November 15, 2020).
• Michael Ramsden, Accountability for Crimes Against the Rohingya: Strategic Litigation in the International Court of Justice, (The Chinese University of Hong Kong Faculty of Law Research Paper Forthcoming).

Suit Challenges DOE's Conditioning of Federal Grants To Colleges On Free Exercise For Student Religious Groups

Suit was filed earlier this week in the D.C. federal district court challenging recent changes to Department of Education rules (see prior posting) on protection of free speech and religious freedom by colleges and universities receiving federal grants. The complaint (full text) in Secular Student Alliance v. U.S. Department of Education, (D DC, filed 1/19/2021) challenges this addition to DOE rules:

As a material condition of the Department’s grant, each State or subgrantee that is a public institution shall not deny to any student organization whose stated mission is religious in nature and that is at the public institution any right, benefit, or privilege that is otherwise afforded to other student organizations at the public institution (including but not limited to full access to the facilities of the public institution, distribution of student fee funds, and official recognition of the student organization by the public institution) because of the religious student organization’s beliefs, practices, policies, speech, membership standards, or leadership standards, which are informed by sincerely held religious beliefs.

The complaint contends:

Under the guise of enforcing the First Amendment, the Rule bars public colleges and universities from requiring religious student organizations to comply with nondiscrimination requirements, including university rules and state laws specifying that university-recognized, university-funded student organizations may not bar students from club membership or leadership on the basis of characteristics such as race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability status, or status as a veteran.

American Atheists issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Biden Issues Executive Order Calling For Agency Rules To Protect Against LGBTQ Discrimination

On Wednesday, President Biden issued an Executive Order (full text) calling on all federal agencies that administer statutes barring sex discrimination to review any of their regulations that do not assure that this protection extends to discrimination on the basis of gender identity and sexual orientation. The Executive Order begins with a broad policy statement:

Every person should be treated with respect and dignity and should be able to live without fear, no matter who they are or whom they love.  Children should be able to learn without worrying about whether they will be denied access to the restroom, the locker room, or school sports.  Adults should be able to earn a living and pursue a vocation knowing that they will not be fired, demoted, or mistreated because of whom they go home to or because how they dress does not conform to sex-based stereotypes.  People should be able to access healthcare and secure a roof over their heads without being subjected to sex discrimination.  All persons should receive equal treatment under the law, no matter their gender identity or sexual orientation.

It also takes the position that the Supreme Court's recent Title VII Bostock decision applies equally to the sex discrimination bans in Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, the Fair Housing Act and the Immigration and Nationality Act. NBC News reports on the Executive Order.

Biden-Harris Statement on Anniversary of Roe v. Wade

 This morning the White House issued a Statement from President Biden and Vice President Harris on the 48th Anniversary of Roe v. Wade (full text) which reads:

Today marks the 48th anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in Roe v. Wade.  

In the past four years, reproductive health, including the right to choose, has been under relentless and extreme attack.  We are deeply committed to making sure everyone has access to care – including reproductive health care – regardless of income, race, zip code, health insurance status, or immigration status. 

The Biden-Harris Administration is committed to codifying Roe v. Wade and appointing judges that respect foundational precedents like Roe.  We are also committed to ensuring that we work to eliminate maternal and infant health disparities, increase access to contraception, and support families economically so that all parents can raise their families with dignity.  This commitment extends to our critical work on health outcomes around the world. 

As the Biden-Harris Administration begins in this critical moment, now is the time to rededicate ourselves to ensuring that all individuals have access to the health care they need.

U.S. Catholic Bishops Call For Biden To Change His Policies On Abortion Rights

The head of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Archbishop José H. Gomez, released a lengthy statement (full text) on Wednesday as Joe Biden was inaugurated as U.S. President. The statement particularly focuses on Biden's stance on abortion, saying in part:

I look forward to working with President Biden and his administration, and the new Congress....

Working with President Biden will be unique, however, as he is our first president in 60 years to profess the Catholic faith.... [I]t will be refreshing to engage with a President who clearly understands, in a deep and personal way, the importance of religious faith and institutions. Mr. Biden’s piety and personal story, his moving witness to how his faith has brought him solace in times of darkness and tragedy, his longstanding commitment to the Gospel’s priority for the poor — all of this I find hopeful and inspiring.

At the same time, as pastors, the nation’s bishops are given the duty of proclaiming the Gospel in all its truth and power, in season and out of season, even when that teaching is inconvenient or when the Gospel’s truths run contrary to the directions of the wider society and culture. So, I must point out that our new President has pledged to pursue certain policies that would advance moral evils and threaten human life and dignity, most seriously in the areas of abortion, contraception, marriage, and gender. Of deep concern is the liberty of the Church and the freedom of believers to live according to their consciences....

For the nation’s bishops, the continued injustice of abortion remains the “preeminent priority.”...

Rather than impose further expansions of abortion and contraception, as he has promised, I am hopeful that the new President and his administration will work with the Church and others of good will.... My hope is that we can begin a dialogue to address the complicated cultural and economic factors that are driving abortion and discouraging families.

Pakistani Agency Threatens U.S. Website Owners With Sanctions Because of Ahmadi Content

 AP reported yesterday that Pakistan’s Telecommunication Authority earlier this month ordered two American men to shut down their U.S.-based website Trueislam.com. According to AP:

The legal notice accuses Zafar and Khan, a lawyer, of violating Pakistani laws for hosting and disseminating content on their website related to members the Ahmadi community who are “not allowed to preach or propagate their faith or invite others to accept their faith."

The notice also threatened a fine of $3.1 million as well as charges under Pakistan's controversial blasphemy law. As explained by AP:

Pakistan’s parliament declared Ahmadis non-Muslims in 1974. Since then, they have repeatedly been targeted by Islamic extremists in the Muslim-majority nation. An Ahmadi can get 10 years in prison for claiming to be a Muslim.

5th Circuit En Banc Hears Oral Arguments On Texas Abortion Restrictions

Yesterday the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals sitting en banc heard oral arguments in Whole Women's Health v. Paxton. (Audio of full oral arguments). The full court is rehearing the case after a 3-judge panel last October by a 2-1 vote (full text of panel majority decision) held unconstitutional a Texas statute that requires women to undergo a medically unnecessary procedure to cause fetal demise before obtaining a dilation and evacuation (D&E) abortion. Courthouse News Service reports on the oral arguments.

Expanded Contraceptive Mandate Exemptions Again Upheld

Last July in Little Sisters of the Poor v. Pennsylvania, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected two kinds of challenges to the Trump Administration's expanded conscience exemptions from the Affordable Care Act's contraceptive coverage mandate. the Court held that the relevant federal departments had authority to promulgate the rules, and that the procedural process used to adopt the rules was valid. The case was remanded for consideration of any other issues. (See prior posting.) Now in Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, (D MA, Jan. 15, 2021), a Massachusetts federal district court on remand held that the expanded exemptions are not arbitrary and capricious, and do not violate either the Establishment Clause or the Equal Protection guarantee of the 5th Amendment. In rejecting the Establishment Clause challenge, the court said in part:

Permitting entities to practice their beliefs as they would in the absence of the relevant government-imposed regulations does not, in this instance, rise to an unconstitutional violation of the Establishment Clause.