Recent Articles of Interest

 From SSRN:

• Karsten Schubert, The Christian Roots of Critique. How Foucault's 'Confessions of the Flesh' Sheds New Light on the Concept of Freedom and the Genealogy of the Modern Critical Attitude, (Le foucaldien 7, no. 1, pp. 1-11 (2021)).
• Agustina Ramón Michel & Sonia Ariza Navarrete, Unexpected Uses of and Responses to Conscientious Objection to Legal Abortion, (REDAAS N° 13 January 2021).
• Fiona A. Miller, The Federal Spending Power: Building Forward after the Pandemic, (Healthcare Management Forum, Forthcoming).
• Barry Winston Bussey, Human Dignity Found In Religious Community, (in Barry W. Bussey & Angus J. L. Menuge, Eds., The Inherence of Human Dignity Law and Religious Liberty, Volume 2 (London: Anthem Press, 2021), 115-145).
• Anton Sorkin, A "Cruel Choice" Made Law: Freewheelin' Accommodation Claims and Harms of Conviction Endemic to Adverse Action, (University of Memphis Law Review, Forthcoming).
• Caroline Mala Corbin, Public School Teachers & Transgender Students & Pronouns, (Balkinization, March 19, 2020).
• Agustina Ramón Michel, Abortion, (The Oxford Handbook of Constitutional Law in Latin America, Oxford University Press, 2020).
• Jaina Green, Abortion Regulations: An Avenue for Abolishing Abortion?, (Southern University Law Review, Forthcoming).
• Preston Green, Julie Mead & Suzanne Eckes, Covenants to Discriminate: How the Anti-LGBT Policies of Participating Voucher Schools Might Violate the State Action Doctrine, (University of New Hampshire Law Review, Forthcoming).
• Enyinna S. Nwauche, A Customary Law of the Afrikaner People of South Africa, (in ES Nwauche (ed) Citizenship and Customary Law in Africa, Centre for African Legal Studies, 69-85 (2020)).
• John Picton, Lëhtimaki v Cooper: Duty and Jurisdiction in Charity Law, ((2021) 84 Modern Law Review 383).
• Cindy Lott, Mary Shelly & Nathan Dietz, Regulatory Breadth Index: A New Measurement of State-Level Charity Regulation (November 9, 2020).

From SSRN (Religious Law):

• Fajri Muhammadin, Islamic Ethics of the Conduct of War,  (Forthcoming Chapter in the Handbook of Islamic Ethics, Edited by Prof Mohammad Jafar Mahallati).
• Gargey Yadav, A Critical Study on Dharma with Respect to Justice in Western Jurisprudence, (March 26, 2021).
• T. K. Tushar, Evolution of Muslim Marriage Laws, (April 1, 2021).
• Nikos Koumoutzis, The Islamic Prohibition of Adoption as Limitation of the Right to Respect of Family Life (article 8 ECHR) – Revisiting ECtHR Harroudj v France, no. 43631/09, 4 October 2012, (Cuadernos de Derecho Transnacional 1/2021).
• Moorthy S. Muthuswamy, The Theme-Enablers Theory of Salafi Extremism, (February 19, 2021).

French Top Court Says Anti-Semitic Murderer of Jewish Woman Is Mentally Unfit To Stand Trial

France 24 reports that France's highest court, the Court of Cassation, ruled on Wednesday that a Muslim man who murdered Sarah Halimi, a Jewish woman, was not criminally responsible for the act.  The report says in part:

Halimi, an Orthodox Jewish woman in her sixties, died in 2017 after being pushed out of the window of her Paris flat by neighbour Kobili Traoré, who shouted "Allahu Akbar" ("God is great" in Arabic).

The verdict by the Court of Cassation, means Traoré will not face any trial. It confirmed past rulings from lower courts. 

Traoré, a heavy pot smoker, has been in psychiatric care since Halimi's death. The court said he committed the killing after succumbing to a "delirious fit" and was thus not responsible for his actions....

Following Wednesday's verdict, lawyers representing Halimi's family said they intend to refer the case to the European Court of Human Rights.

NIH Reverses Trump Era Restrictions On Fetal Tissue Research

 As reported by Politico:

The Biden administration on Friday moved to unwind strict Trump-era restrictions on federal-funded medical research using fetal tissue obtained by abortions, reversing policies that scientists warned would devastate the development of treatments for a broad range of diseases.

The Trump administration, under pressure from allied anti-abortion groups, ended fetal tissue research at the National Institutes of Health and established an ethics board to review government support for the research at universities and other labs. The board, which was filled with critics of the research, met just once and rejected 13 of 14 projects that NIH scientists had deemed worthy of support.

In a Notice (full text) published yesterday, the National Institutes of Health said in part:

This notice informs the extramural research community that HHS is reversing its 2019 decision that all research applications for NIH grants and contracts proposing the use of human fetal tissue from elective abortions will be reviewed by an Ethics Advisory Board. Accordingly, HHS/NIH will not convene another NIH Human Fetal Tissue Research Ethics Advisory Board.

Michigan Statute Protecting Parents' Faith Healing Includes Subjective Religious Interpretations

Michigan's Child Protection Law (MCL 722.634) provides:

A parent or guardian legitimately practicing his religious beliefs who thereby does not provide specified medical treatment for a child, for that reason alone shall not be considered a negligent parent or guardian.

In In re Piland, (MI App., April 15, 2021), a Michigan state appellate court held that the trial court erred in refusing to give a jury instruction based on this statute in a case in which parental rights for three children were being revoked.  The parents had allowed a newborn infant who developed jaundice to die rather than call for medical help. The trial court had refused the instruction because it interpreted the statute to relate only to the practice of beliefs of a religious organization, and not to individualized beliefs.  The appellate court disagreed, saying in part:

The trial court’s interpretation of the word “legitimately,” as used in MCL 722.634, is that the religious beliefs being practiced must be legitimate. And, that, in order to be legitimate, those beliefs had to be part of the doctrine or tenants of a religion as opposed to a parent or guardian’s subjective interpretation of scriptures. The trial court’s interpretation, however, renders the statute unconstitutional. It is well-established that “government has no role in deciding or even suggesting whether the religious ground” for a person’s actions “is legitimate or illegitimate.” 

Jewish Sailor Gets Temporary Reprieve From Order To Shave Beard

Suit was filed yesterday in the D.C. federal district court by a Jewish sailor who was ordered to shave his beard which he maintains for religious reasons. Other plaintiffs in the case are Muslim sailors.  The complaint (full text) in Di Liscia v. Austin, (D DC, filed 4/15/2021), alleges in part:

1. Plaintiff Edmund Di Liscia, a devout Chassidic Jew and a Sailor in the United States Navy with a rating as an Electricians Mate, Nuclear Power 3rd Class Petty Officer (EMN3), seeks emergency relief to stop Defendants from forcing him to shave in violation of his sincerely held religious beliefs.

2. Over two years ago, shortly after joining the Navy, EMN3 Di Liscia received a “no-shave chit” permitting him to maintain his beard as a religious accommodation for his faith. That accommodation remained effective during his current deployment aboard the U.S.S. Theodore Roosevelt. Indeed, throughout the deployment, his fellow Sailors aboard the USS Roosevelt have all received MWR (Morale, Welfare, and Recreation) no-shave chits that allow them to shave only once every fourteen days.

3. But on or around April 14, 2021, EMN3 Di Liscia’s chief informed him that he must shave on the morning of April 16, 2021, and regularly thereafter....

Plaintiff moved for a TRO (memo in support of TRO). The military agreed that it would not require Di Liscia to shave, at least for the time being. The court issued a temporary restraining order (full text) barring the military from requiring him to shave or trim his beard. Military.com reports on the case.

HHS Proposes Reversal of Trump Administration Title X Family Planning Grant Rules

Yesterday the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services published a proposed rule that would reverse the Trump Administration rules on federally funded family planning services and return, with a few modifications, to the rules in effect before 2019.  As summarized by NPR News:

The [Trump Administration] rules ... forbid any provider who provides or refers patients for abortions from receiving federal funding through Title X to cover services such as contraception and STD screenings for low-income people....

The Trump administration implemented the current rules in an effort to "defund Planned Parenthood," as he had promised supporters during both his campaign and his presidency. That prompted more than 1,000 health clinics in dozens of states, including but not limited to Planned Parenthood, to leave the program.

The HHS Release (full text) titled Ensuring Access to Equitable, Affordable, Client-Centered, Quality Family Planning Services says in part:

For five decades, Title X family planning clinics have played a critical role in ensuring access to a broad range of family planning and related preventive health services for millions of low-income or uninsured individuals and others.... Title X providers offered clients a broad range of effective and medically safe contraceptive methods approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Title X-funded sexually transmitted infection (STI) and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) screening services prevented transmission and adverse health consequences....

Given the previous success of the program, the large negative public health consequences of maintaining the 2019 rules, the substantial compliance costs for grantees, and the lack of tangible benefits, the Department proposes revoking the 2019 Title X regulations. As has been clearly borne out by case law and history, the Department has the discretion to make this determination and it is in the interest of public health....

USCIRF Issues Report On Antisemitism In Europe

Yesterday the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom issued a 58-page report (full text) on Antisemitism In Europe. The Report says in part:

Measured against their own long-standing and common political commitments, governments of the 11 states covered in this report have responded differently to the challenges of antisemitism in their countries. In some countries, antisemitic attitudes are a greater challenge than antisemitic incidents. In others the reverse holds true.

In 10 of the 11 countries, though, efforts seem insufficient to meet the antisemitism challenges that present themselves....

The Report includes recommendations for United States policies to fight antisemitism in Europe.

Lawsuit Claims South Carolina's Blaine Amendment Is Unconstitutional

Suit was filed yesterday in a South Carolina federal district court asking the court to declare that South Carolina's Blaine Amendment (Art. XI, Sec. 4 of the South Carolina Constitution) violates the Equal  Protection and Free Exercise clauses of the U.S. Constitution.  The complaint (full text) in Bishop of Charleston v. Adams, (D SC, filed 4/14/2021) reads in part:

1. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic ravaging our state and nation, the U.S. Congress and South Carolina General Assembly have appropriated substantial sums of public funds to provide relief to local governments, employers, non-profit organizations, schools, and colleges.

2. However, because the South Carolina Constitution contains a provision, a so-called Blaine Amendment, which prohibits public funds from being allocated to private or religious schools, the schools and universities represented by Plaintiffs are legally prohibited from accessing these relief funds.

3. Because the Blaine Amendment was born in bigotry and prejudice based on race and religion, it violates the equal protection and free exercise clauses of the U.S. Constitution, and should no longer bar Plaintiffs’ schools from equal access to these essential relief funds.

The complaint goes on to trace the specific history of the Blaine Amendment in South Carolina.  Plaintiffs in the case are a Catholic diocese that operates 33 schools and an association of private colleges. The Center Square reports on the lawsuit.

FDA Lifts In-Person Dispensing Requirement For Abortion Drug During COVID Emergency

On Monday, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in a letter (full text) to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine announced that during the COVID-19 emergency, it is lifting the in-person dispensing requirement for the abortion drug  Mifepristone. The agency said that it was exercising enforcement discretion because of the additional COVID-related risks to patients and healthcare personnel involved in clinic visits solely to obtain the drug.  It likewise will allow prescriptions for Mifepristone to be filled by mail. Washington Free Beacon reports on criticism of the FDA's move by Republican lawmakers and anti-abortion groups.

6th Circuit Judges Debate Eugenics In Yesterday's Abortion Decision

Yesterday's important 6th Circuit en banc decision (see prior posting) upholding Ohio's statute barring doctors from knowingly performing Down-syndrome motivated abortions includes interesting debates among the various judges on the relevance of the historic eugenics movement. This focus builds on a 2019 concurring opinion in the U.S. Supreme Court by Justice Thomas in Box v. Planned Parenthood (See prior posting.) Here is an example of the exchanges between the 6th Circuit judges in yesterday's opinions:

Judge Griffin concurring (at pg. 36):

I write separately to emphasize Ohio’s compelling state interest in prohibiting its physicians from knowingly engaging in the practice of eugenics....

Many think that eugenics ended with the horrors of the Holocaust. Unfortunately, it did not. The philosophy and the pure evil that motivated Hitler and Nazi Germany to murder millions of innocent lives continues today. Eugenics was the root of the Holocaust and is a motivation for many of the selective abortions that occur today. 

Judge Donald dissenting (at pg. 108):

... Ohio’s and the various concurrences’ invocations of the term “eugenics” fail to acknowledge the difference between (1) the purpose with which a woman may decide to have an abortion after a Down-syndrome diagnosis, and (2) the goals of eugenics as a means of “improving stock” .... Put simply, the use of the term “eugenics” ignores the difference between a private choice and a social movement. I find it exceedingly, if not undeniably, unlikely that a woman choosing an abortion because of a prenatal Down syndrome diagnosis is doing so with any intention of improving the quality of humankind.... Rather, she likely makes the decision based on a multitude of deeply personal factors, including her financial and emotional ability to commit to raising a child with Down syndrome.... The state legislature now commandeers that personal decision-making, which interferes not only in a profoundly private personal decision, but also does violence to the ethical norm of patient autonomy, likely leading to doctors withholding information from patients and patients concealing information from their doctors....

6th Circuit En Banc Upholds Ohio's Ban On Doctors Knowingly Performing Abortions Because of Down Syndrome

In Preterm-Cleveland v. McCloud, (6th Cir., April 13, 2021), the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals sitting en banc in a complicated set of fragmented opinions spanning 111 pages upheld Ohio's statute which prohibits a doctor from performing an abortion if the doctor has knowledge that the woman’s reason, in whole or part, for having the abortion is that she does not want a child with Down syndrome. The vote was 9-7. 

Eight judges joined several portions of Judge Batchelder's opinion to make these portions the opinion of the court.  Critical to the majority opinion was the fact that the law does not apply so long as the woman does not disclose the reason for her abortion to the doctor performing it. Indeed, according to the majority, even if the doctor performing the abortion learns of the fetal-Down-syndrome diagnosis, "knowledge of the diagnosis is not knowledge of the reason." With that understanding, the majority went on to say in part:

The right to an abortion before viability is not absolute. The “[S]tate may regulate abortion before viability as long as it does not impose an undue burden on a woman’s right to terminate her pregnancy.”...

H.B. 214 advances the State’s legitimate interests and will not prevent a large fraction of the women it affects from obtaining abortions. As mentioned, H.B. 214 furthers three valid and legitimate interests by protecting: (1) the Down syndrome community from the stigma associated with the practice of Down-syndrome-selective abortions, (2) pregnant women and their families from coercion by doctors who advocate abortion of Down-syndrome-afflicted fetuses, and (3) the integrity and ethics of the medical profession by preventing doctors from becoming witting participants in Down-syndrome-selective abortions. These are legitimate interests....

The burdens here are that H.B. 214 will (1) prevent a full, open, and honest conversation with the doctor who will perform the abortion by forcing the woman to withhold this reason for the abortion and (2) require her to engage in “doctor shopping” to find a doctor who is unaware of her reason for having the abortion....

Ohio’s broad definition of knowledge does not alter the reality that the woman remains in control of who knows, and who does not know, the reason for her abortion. And the record simply does not support the notion that a large number of doctors would independently learn of the reason such that it would place a substantial obstacle in the path of most women seeking abortions.... Ohio’s knowledge requirement does not amount to an undue burden.

Only five judges joined other parts of Judge Batchelder's opinion. Four separate concurring opinions were filed, as were six separate dissenting opinions. Cincinnati Enquirer reports on the decision.

UPDATE: For additional discussion of the case, see this later posting.

Multi-Faith Group Issues Statement Questioning Religious Exemptions From COVID Orders

On Monday, some 27 religious organizations representing various Christian, Jewish and Muslim traditions issued a statement (full text) expressing concern that states are going too far in adopting legislation exempting houses of worship from COVID-19 health orders and other emergency orders.  The statement reads in part:

We appreciate the desire to protect our right to worship and gather for religious activities. Too often, however, these bills are overly broad and could result in policies that threaten public health and safety.

Religious freedom is a fundamental American value, and the freedom to worship in accordance with one’s spiritual practices and traditions is a right of the highest order. At the same time, religious freedom does not demand tying the hands of public officials who are trying to safeguard public health as they respond to unforeseen events like pandemics, natural disasters and other emergencies. Indeed, all of our denominations have found creative ways to provide opportunities for worship during the pandemic, recognizing the spiritual sustenance and sense of community that religious practices provide....

Times of public crisis demand that all community leaders—religious, secular, and governmental—work together to find solutions. By giving religious gatherings a pre-emptive exemption from future emergency orders, we fear that these bills will unintentionally paint religious communities as part of the problem, not the solution, and thereby undercut our ability to partner with community leaders to defeat the crisis.

[Thanks to Don Byrd at BJC for the lead.]

Biden Statement on the Beginning of Ramadan

Yesterday President Biden issued a Statement on the Beginning of Ramadan (full text), saying in part:

On my first day as President, I was proud to end the shameful Muslim travel ban, and I will continue to stand up for human rights everywhere, including for Uyghurs in China, Rohingya in Burma, and Muslim communities all over the world.

As we remember those who we have lost since last Ramadan, we are hopeful for brighter days ahead.  The Holy Qur’an reminds us that “God is the light of the heavens and earth,” who leads us out of darkness to the light.  Although our White House festivities will be held virtually this Ramadan, Jill and I look forward to resuming the traditional White House Eid celebration in person next year, inshallah.  We wish your families an inspiring and rewarding month.

Russian Opposition Leader Navalny Sues Prison Officials To Obtain A Quran

According to reports from AP and The Hill, imprisoned Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny is suing prison officials to obtain access to volumes of the Quran with commentary that he purchased. AP says in part:

Navalny has faced criticism over the years for using nationalist rhetoric regarding migrants, many of whom arrive in Russia from predominantly Muslim nations in Central Asia.

He said Tuesday he had realized his “development as a Christian requires studying the Quran,” adding that he decided to become “the Quran champion among Russian non-Muslim politicians.”

Prison authorities say that they must screen all books for extremism before making them available to prisoners, and that this will take three months. Navalny is in the midst of a hunger strike and prison officials are threatening to force feed him. 

Ramadan Began Last Night; Minnesota Gives Religious Exemption From Curfew Order

Ramadan began last night. As reported by the Minneapolis Star Tribune, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz's 7:00 pm curfew order for several counties-- issued after 20-year-old Daunte Wright was shot and killed by police in a Minneapolis suburb-- contains an exemption for those traveling to and from religious services. The exemption was clarified after the Minnesota chapter of CAIR issued a statement calling for such an exemption.

6th Circuit Grants Initial Hearing En Banc In Tennessee Abortion Case

On Friday, the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in a high-profile abortion case, by a vote of 10-6, took the unusual step of agreeing to hear an initial appeal en banc, rather than allowing the appeal to be heard initially by a 3-judge panel.  In Bristol Regional Women's Center, P.C. v. Slatery, (6th Cir., April 9, 2021), Judge Moore, joined by 5 other judges, issued a dissent to the majority's one-sentence order:

This case concerns abortion. Specifically, it concerns the constitutionality of a Tennessee abortion law that sets a 48-hour waiting period before a woman can obtain an abortion. After the district court held Tennessee’s waiting-period law unconstitutional and permanently enjoined its enforcement, the officials defending the law appealed. Appellants sought a stay pending appeal. A three-judge panel denied that request, with Judge White and myself concluding that Appellants were unlikely to succeed on the merits of their appeal. Judge Thapar disagreed. So vehemently did he disagree that he called for “immediate correction” of the stay order, urging Appellants to seek initial hearing en banc. Appellants readily obliged, filing a petition for initial hearing en banc. By granting that petition, a majority of this court has sent a dubious message about its willingness to invoke that extraordinary—and extraordinarily disfavored—procedure in ideologically charged cases....

The grant of initial hearing en banc in this case damages the reputation of this court.... Indeed, the inescapable suggestion of Appellants’ petition for initial hearing en banc is that there are judges on this court who will always side with Appellants on the issue of abortion and will upend standard practice to do so. Today we could have sent a message affirming this court’s impartiality and independence. The majority declined.

Courthouse News Service reports on the decision. [Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]

Recent Articles of Interest

 From SSRN:

• Adam McDuffie, 'Law and Order,' Canopy Forum, (January 11, 2021).
• Jennifer Piatt, James G. Hodge & Leila Barraza, When Can You Be Required to Get a COVID-19 Vaccine?, (Slate - Future Tense, Forthcoming).
• James Stern, First Amendment Lochnerism & the Origins of the Incorporation Doctrine, (University of Illinois Law Review, Vol. 2020, No. 5, 1501).
• Zalman Rothschild, Free Exercise Partisanship, (Cornell Law Review, Vol. 107, No. 4, 2022).

From SmartCILP:

• John Witte Jr. & Andrea Pin, Faith in Strasbourg and Luxembourg? The Fresh Rise of Religious Freedom Litigation in the Pan-European Courts, 70 Emory Law Journal 587-662 (2021).
• Dallan F. Flake, Restoring Reasonableness to Workplace Religious Accommodations, 95 Washington Law Review 1673-1724 (2020).

Supreme Court Enjoins, Pending Appeals, California Limits On In-Home Worship Services

Late Friday night, in another case on its so-called "shadow docket", the U.S. Supreme Court in Tandon v. Newsom,  (Sup. Ct., April 9, 2021), granted an injunction preventing enforcement during the appeal process of California's COVID-19 order limiting religious gatherings in homes to three households. In a 5-4 decision, the majority in a 4-page per curiam opinion outlined important principles to be applied in deciding free exercise claims, saying in part:

First, government regulations are not neutral and generally applicable, and therefore trigger strict scrutiny under the Free Exercise Clause, whenever they treat any comparable secular activity more favorably than religious exercise....

Second, whether two activities are comparable for purposes of the Free Exercise Clause must be judged against the asserted government interest that justifies the regulation at issue....

California treats some comparable secular activities more favorably than at-home religious exercise, permitting hair salons, retail stores, personal care services, movie theaters, private suites at sporting events and concerts, and indoor restaurants to bring together more than three households at a time.

Justice Kagan filed a 2-page dissent, joined by Justices Breyer and Sotomayor. They said in part:

The First Amendment requires that a State treat religious conduct as well as the State treats comparable secular conduct. Sometimes finding the right secular analogue may raise hard questions. But not today. California limits religious gatherings in homes to three households. If the State also limits all secular gatherings in homes to three households, it has complied with the First Amendment. And the State does exactly that: It has adopted a blanket restriction on at home gatherings of all kinds, religious and secular alike. California need not, as the per curiam insists, treat at-home religious gatherings the same as hardware stores and hair salons—and thus unlike at-home secular gatherings, the obvious comparator here.

Chief Justice Roberts also dissented, without filing an opinion. Volokh Conspiracy blog has more on the decision.

Idaho Supreme Court: Marijuana Ban Does Not Violate Free Exercise Rights

In State of Idaho v. Heath, (ID Sup. Ct., April 8, 2021), the Idaho Supreme Court held that the state's prohibition of marijuana does not violate defendant-appellant's right to religious liberty.  The issue arose as appellant attempted to recover a pipe and bong made from elk antler, seized as contraband (along with marijuana), during a police traffic stop. The court said in part:

... Heath contends that the provisions of the [Controlled Substances Act] prohibiting the use of marijuana are not neutral and generally applicable. However, Heath's arguments do not support his conclusion. Certainly, the prohibition of marijuana under the CSA impairs Heath's ability to consume marijuana, which he attests is an important element of his belief system.... [W]e will not question the sincerity of his beliefs. But the impact of the CSA on Heath's ability to legally practice his beliefs is not the dispositive issue. Rather, the issue is whether the CSA proscribes religious use of marijuana while permitting non-religious use, or has been designed so that it applies primarily to religiously motivated conduct..... Heath has made no such argument.

11th Circuit: Rastafarian Paramedic Was Offered Reasonable Accommodation

In Bailey v. Metro Ambulance Services, Inc., (11th Cir., April 6, 2021), the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals held that an ambulance company had offered a Rastafarian paramedic a reasonable accommodation of his religious beliefs as required by Title VII. The court said in part:

AMR offered Bailey a reasonable accommodation. It provided Bailey with the opportunity to maintain his beard and to work on the non-emergency-transport side of its operations, for which DeKalb County’s facial-hair policy did not apply. Had Bailey accepted the offer, his salary, hours, and job description would have remained the same as if he had worked either exclusively on the emergency side or on both the emergency and non-emergency sides of AMR’s operations. As a result, his terms and conditions of employment would not have been affected by the accommodation AMR offered.

Judge Rosenbaum filed a concurring opinion. [Thanks to Joshua Sarnoff via Religionlaw for the lead.]

Muslim Group Sues Facebook For Consumer Fraud Because of Online Hate Speech

The non-profit organization Muslim Advocates filed suit yesterday in District of Columbia Superior Court against Facebook and its executives alleging that their failure to take down anti-Muslim posts, while claiming to do so, is fraudulent and violates the D.C. Consumer Protection Procedures Act.  The complaint (full text) in Muslim Advocates v. Zuckerberg, (DC Super. Ct., filed 4/8/2021) alleges in part:

Every day, ordinary people are bombarded with harmful content in violation of Facebook’s own policies on hate speech, bullying, harassment, dangerous organizations, and violence. Hateful, anti-Muslim attacks are especially pervasive on Facebook. 

Yet Facebook refuses to “remove” this content or “take it down,” as its executives repeatedly promised that they and the company would do when they learn of such content. Instead, in an effort to convince Congress, civil rights groups, and the public that their product is safe, Facebook’s officials have consistently misrepresented the company’s actual practices when it comes to enforcing Facebook’s own its own standards and policies to keep Facebook free of hate speech and other harmful content....

Facebook has been used, among other things, to orchestrate the Rohingya genocide in Myanmar, mass murders of Muslims in India, and riots and murders in Sri Lanka that targeted Muslims for death. Anti-Muslim hate groups and hate speech run rampant on Facebook with anti-Muslim posts, ads, private groups, and other content.....

Washington Post reports on the lawsuit.

Christian Wedding Photographer Sues Over NY Public Accommodation Law

Suit was filed this week in a New York federal district court challenging on 1st Amendment grounds the application of New York's public accommodation law to a Christian wedding photographer.  Among other things, the law broadly prohibits sexual orientation discrimination.  The complaint (full text) in Emilee Carpenter, LLC v. James, (WD NY, filed 4/6/2021), alleges in part:

[T]he Accommodations Clause ... makes it unlawful for Emilee to treat photography requests for same-sex engagements and weddings different from photography requests for opposite-sex weddings—whether by responding to the former more slowly, by always referring the former to another photographer, or by offering any part of her services to the latter but not the former, such as posting wedding photographs or blogs for opposite-sex weddings on her website but not posting wedding photographs or blogs for same-sex weddings.

... In short, the Accommodations Clause forces Emilee to celebrate same-sex engagements or weddings and would require her to promote messages that violate her religious beliefs or require her to participate in religious ceremonies that violate her religious beliefs, something she cannot do....

ADF issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

7th Circuit: Walmart Need Not Accommodate Seventh Day Adventist

In EEOC v. Walmart Stores East, L.P., (7th Cir., March 31, 2021), the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision, held that accommodating the scheduling need of a Seventh Day Adventist would impose an undue burden on Walmart. The majority, in an opinion by Judge Easterbrook, said in part:

According to the EEOC, Walmart could have offered Hedican several accommodations that would have enabled him to be an assistant manager. One would have been to give him that job and let him trade shifts with other assistant managers. But that would not be an accommodation by the employer, as Title VII contemplates. This proposal would thrust on other workers the need to accommodate Hedican’s religious beliefs. That’s not what the statute requires..... Title VII does not require an employer to offer an “accommodation” that comes at the expense of other workers.

Judge Rovner dissented, saying in part:

Although Ahern considered whether it might be feasible to adjust other assistant managers’ schedules in some manner (including voluntary shift‐trades) so that Hedican would never have to work on a Friday night or Saturday, one thing she did not do is consult with the other managers in making her assessment....

Discussion of the difficulty of accommodating Hedican brings to mind the sorts of excuses employers long trotted out for why it was impractical to hire women of child‐bearing age....

JD Supra reports on the decision.

Suit Against Alabama Is Dropped After Voter Registration Form Is Amended

Last October, the Freedom From Religion Foundation sued Alabama's Secretary of State challenging language in Alabama's voter registration form. The oath in the form ends with "so help me God." (See prior posting.) Yesterday, FFRF announced that it is voluntarily dismissing the suit because Alabama has amended the form to allow voters to opt out of that language. The new mail-in form allows a voter to check a box that says, "OPTIONAL: Because of a sincerely held belief, I decline to include the final four words of the oath above." The online form has also been changed.

Missouri Supreme Court Upholds Some Claims of Failure To Supervise Abusive Clergy

In John Doe 122 v. Marianist Province of the United States, (MO Sup. Ct., April 6, 2021), the Missouri Supreme Court dismissed negligent supervision claims of plaintiff who was sexually abused by a Marianist brother in the early 1970's. In dismissing the claim, the court relied on its earlier precedent in Gibson v. Brewer, (1997). However the court reversed the trial court's dismissal of plaintiff's intentional failure to supervise claims, saying in part:

Using all of the evidence before them, including Father Doyle’s expert testimony, the jury may infer Chaminade knew the risk that Brother Woulfe would visit sexual abuse upon a student was certain or substantially certain and – if so – whether Chaminade disregarded that known risk. And they may not. The only issue before this Court, and the issue on which the circuit court erred, is whether Father Doyle’s testimony (taken together with all the other evidence) is sufficient for the jury to draw that inference reasonably if persuaded to do so. This Court concludes there is.... 

St. Louis Today reports on the decision.

British Court Says Removal of Franklin Graham Bus Ads Violated Religion and Speech Rights

In Lancaster Festival of Hope With Franklin Graham v. Blackpool Borough Council, (Manchester Cty. Ct., April 1, 2021), a British trial court held that the Equality Act 2010 and the European Convention on Human Rights were violated when banner ads for the Lancaster Festival of Hope were removed from public buses. According to the court:

Upon the Defendants receiving complaints from members of the public about the advertisements, the advertisements were removed from the buses. The complaints related to Franklin Graham and his association with the Festival, and predominantly referred to his views on homosexuality and same-sex marriage as being offensive.

In finding a violation of the Equality Act, the court said in part:

The complaints arose from the objections of members of the public to the religious beliefs. The removal came about because of those complaints. I find it also came about because the Defendants allied themselves on the issue of the religious beliefs with the complainants, and against the Claimant and others holding them. If there were any doubt about that it is made explicit by the content of the press statement issued on behalf of the Second Defendant when the advertisements were removed....

Finding a violation of the European Convention, and thus of the Human Rights Act 1998, the court said in part:

Yes, the Claimant was still able to advertise its event and yes, it was still a success. But “it turned out all right in the end” cannot be an answer to the question of whether the interference with a fundamental right to freedom of expression can be justified. The Defendants had a wholesale disregard for the right to freedom of expression possessed by the Claimant. It gave a preference to the rights and opinions of one part of the community without having any regard for the rights of the Claimant or those who shared its religious beliefs. It made no effort to consider whether any less intrusive interference than removing the advertisements altogether would meet its legitimate aim.

Christianity Daily reports on the decision.

Suit Says Housing Discrimination Based On Family Size Is Religious Discrimination Against Orthodox Jews

A lawsuit was filed yesterday in a New York federal district court by a couple who claim that the city's public housing rules which effectively limit the size of families that are eligible for apartments through the affordable housing lottery operate to discriminate against Orthodox Jewish families. The complaint (full text) in Katz v. New York City Housing Preservation & Development, (SD NY, filed 4/6/2021) alleges:

Plaintiffs and their family members have a sincerely held religious belief that having a large family is both an obligation and a blessing from God....

Orthodox Jewish families are at an inherent disadvantage in applying for affordable housing lotteries, because even the average family, with 4.1 children, would exceed the maximum family size requirement of 6 individuals.

Plaintiffs allege that the policy violates city, state and federal anti-discrimination laws as well as the 1st Amendment.   AP reports on the lawsuit.

Republican Arkansas Governor Vetoes Bill Banning Gender Transition Procedures [Update: Veto Override]

 As reported by NPR, Arkansas Republican Governor Asa Hutchinson yesterday vetoed Arkansas House Bill 1570 ("Save Adolescents From Experimentation (SAFE) Act") which prohibits physicians from providing gender transition procedures to minors. Hutchinson told reporters that the bill would set:

new standards of legislative interference with physicians and parents as they deal with some of the most complex and sensitive matters involving young people.

A majority of the Arkansas legislature can override the Governor's veto.

UDATE: On April 6, the Arkansas legislature overrode the Governor's veto by a vote of 71-24. (ABC News).

Suit Claims Enforcement of Deed Restriction Against Synagogue Violates Religious Exercise Rights

Suit was filed late last month in a Texas federal district court against the City of Houston seeking to block it from enforcing a deed restriction against a small Orthodox synagogue that meets in a house zoned only for residential use.  The complaint (full text) in TORCH (Torah Outreach Resource Center of Houston) v. City of Houston, Texas, (SD TX, filed 3/25/2021), alleges that the city's selective enforcement of the deed restriction violates RLUIPA, the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and the federal Fair Housing Act. First Liberty Institute issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

UPDATE: An April 20 announcement by First Liberty indicates that the case has been settled, with the City of Houston agreeing not to enforce deed restrictions against the synagogue and to dismiss citations it has already issued.

Christian Student Group Wins Suit Seeking To Limit Its Leadership To Believers

In Intervarsity Christian Fellowship/USA v. Board of Governors of Wayne State University, (ED MI, April 5, 2021), a Michigan federal district court held that Wayne State University violated the free exercise, free speech, association and assembly rights of a Christian student organization (IVCF) when the University suspended the group's status as a Recognized Student Organization.  The University took this action because IVCF violated the school's non-discrimination policy by insisting that its leaders agree with IVCF's  “Doctrine and Purpose Statements,” “exemplify Christ-like character, conduct and leadership,” and describe their Christian beliefs. In an 83-page opinion, the court said in part:

The First Amendment provides religious organizations the right to select their own ministers, and, under the First Amendment and §1983, organizations can sue the government for violating that right....

Plaintiffs also provide uncontradicted evidence that student leaders, called “Christian leaders,” qualify as ministers under the First Amendment....  In essence, Plaintiffs’ student leaders participate in proselytizing efforts and are Plaintiffs’ chosen spiritual resource for students at Wayne State....

No religious group can constitutionally be made an outsider, excluded from equal access to public or university life, simply because it insists on religious leaders who believe in its cause...

Defendants have barred Plaintiffs from selecting leaders that share its Christian views while allowing other groups to engage in similar form of leadership selection. This divergent treatment cannot withstand constitutional scrutiny....

The court awarded an injunction and nominal damages. Detroit News reports on the decision.

Supreme Court Denies Review In Cases Seeking To Overturn Hardison's Interpretation Of Title VII

The U.S. Supreme Court today denied review in two Title VII religious discrimination cases. (Order List). In both, petitioners were asking the Supreme Court to overturn its 1977 decision in Trans World Airlines v. Hardison which, interpreting the statutory term "undue hardship", allows an employer to refuse to accommodate an employee's religious requirements if doing so would impose  anything more than a de minimis cost. In Dalberiste v. GLE Associates, Inc. (Docket No. 19-1461, certiorari denied 4/5/2021), a Seventh Day Adventist sought a religious accommodation for his Sabbath observance. (SCOTUSblog case page.)  In Small v. Memphis Gas, Light & Water, (Docket No. 19-1388, certiorari denied      4/5/2021), a Jehovah's Witness employee sought scheduling accommodations that would allow him to attend church services. (SCOTUSblog case page). 

Justice Gorsuch, joined by Justice Alito, dissented from the denial of certiorari in the Small case, saying that the statutory interpretation involved there is out of step with subsequently adopted federal civil rights laws in other areas. Their opinion contends in part:

... Title VII’s right to religious exercise has become the odd man out. Alone among comparable statutorily protected civil rights, an employer may dispense with it nearly at whim. As this case illustrates, even subpar employees may wind up receiving more favorable treatment than highly performing employees who seek only to attend church.

Reuters reports on the Court's actions.

Churches' Challenge to Minnesota COVID Orders Moves Ahead

In Northland Baptist Church of St. Paul, Minnesota v. Walz, (D MN, March 30, 2021), a Minnesota federal district court refused to dismiss at the pleading stage complaints by two churches and a pastor that Minnesota's COVID-19 orders treat religious services less favorably than comparable secular activities. The decision also dealt extensively with several procedural and jurisdictional issues, as well as with other challenges by business plaintiffs.

Trump's Anti-Muslim Statements Did Not Taint Passport Revocations

In Abuhajeb v. Pompeo, (D MA, March 31, 2021), a Massachusetts federal district court dismissed Establishment Clause and Equal Protection challenges, among others, to the 2019 revocation of the U.S. passports of five siblings who were born in Jordan and whose father is a U.S. citizen. Claiming that the passports were initially issued erroneously, the revocations took place 14 years after the passports were initially issued.  According to the court:

The Siblings argue that President Trump’s statements during his 2016 campaign and administration, the series of executive orders barring immigrants from mostly Muslim-majority countries from entering the United States, and the State Department’s corresponding actions revoking their passports in August 2019 demonstrate that they were the targets of a new “deliberate revocation policy” based on their race and religion.

Rejecting this argument, the court said in part:

Even if the Siblings have alleged circumstantial evidence of President Trump’s discriminatory intent, they have not alleged how that intent motivated the State Department’s decision to revoke their passports. The 2017 Travel Ban and extreme vetting for immigrant visa applicants program allege discriminatory intent against Muslim and non-white immigrants, but not U.S. passport holders in the Siblings’ positions. The Department of Justice’s increase in denaturalization cases may implicate the Siblings, but the government has not moved to strip their citizenship in the past year since revoking their passports.

Recent Articles of Interest

 From SSRN:

• Iddo Porat, The Starting at Home Principle: On Ritual Animal Slaughter, Male Circumcision and Proportionality, (Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 2020).
• Margaret Chavez, Employing Smith to Prevent a Constitutional Right to Discriminate Based on Faith: Why the Supreme Court Should Affirm the Third Circuit in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, (American University Law Review, Vol. 70, No. 3, Feb. 2021).
• Shubhank Patel, Anuparna Chatterjee & Rishi Raj Mukherjee, The Sisyphean Dilemma: Analyzing the Transient Landscape of Essential Practice Doctrine vis-a-vis Santhara, (International Journal of Legal Developments and Allied Issues, Vol 6, Issue 6 (2020).
• C. Christine Fair & Parina Patel, Barriers to Covenantal Pluralism in Bangladeshi Public Opinion, (The Review of Faith & International Affairs (2020).
• Kevin D. Brown, Annapurna Deborah Waughray, Lalit Khandare & Kenneth Glenn Dau-Schmidt, Bostock v Clayton County Game Changer: US Federal Employment Law Now Covers Caste Discrimination Based on Untouchability, (Forthcoming, New York University Review of Law & Social Change, Vol. 46, 2022).
• James G. Hodge & Emily Carey, Charting the Legality of Religious-based Exemptions to COVID-19 Vaccinations, (Berkley Forum. 2021; (online February 16)).
• Netta Barak Corren, Noam Gidron & Yuval Feldman, Majority Nationalism Laws and the Equal Protection of Minorities: Experimental and Observational Evidence from Israel, (March 31, 2021).
• Md Tasnimul Hassan, Criminalization of Cattle Slaughter and Individual Rights under the Indian Constitution, (November 5, 2020).

Biden Issues Holocaust Remembrance Proclamation

Today President Biden issued a Proclamation (full text) designating April 4 through April 11 as Days of Remembrance of Victims of the Holocaust.  The Proclamation reads in part:

On Yom HaShoah — Holocaust Remembrance Day — we stand in solidarity with the Jewish people in America, Israel, and around the world to remember and reflect on the horrors of the Holocaust. An estimated six million Jews perished alongside millions of other innocent victims — Roma and Sinti, Slavs, disabled persons, LGBTQ+ individuals, and others — systematically murdered by the Nazis and their collaborators in one of the cruelest and most heinous campaigns in human history....

I remember learning about the horrors of the Holocaust from my father when I was growing up, and I have sought to impart that history to my own children and grandchildren in turn. I have taken them on separate visits to Dachau, so that they could see for themselves what happened there, and to impress on them the urgency to speak out whenever they witness anti-Semitism or any form of ethnic and religious hatred, racism, homophobia, or xenophobia. The legacy of the Holocaust must always remind us that silence in the face of such bigotry is complicity — remembering, as Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel wrote, that there are moments when “indifference to evil is worse than evil itself.”

Survey On Anti-Semitism In U.S. Released

The Anti-Defamation League this week released its 2021 Survey on Jewish Americans’ Experiences with Antisemitism. It found:

Well over half (63 percent) of Jews in America have either experienced or witnessed some form of antisemitism in the last five years.

USCIRF Focuses On Financial Regulation of Religious Organizations

Earlier this week, the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom issued a Fact Sheet titled Controlling Civil Society's Pursestrings. The Fact Sheet focuses on the impact of financial regulation on religious organizations and religious freedom. It concludes:  

Around the globe, governments rely on excessive financial restrictions to hamper civil society actors.... Efforts to restrict foreign funding, or label civil society organizations as “foreign agents,” often reflect broader xenophobic policies under which religious minorities are targeted as dangerous foreign influences or potential fifth columns.

Financial harassment can take many forms, from attempts to delegitimize the work of foreign-funded civil society by enacting requirements to register as “foreign agents,” to imposing excessive and intrusive reporting requirements, as well as exorbitant fees and fines for religious activity, to seizing assets or religious property.... [T]he ability to solicit and receive financial contributions is an integral component of the freedom of religion or belief....

Biden Declaration of March 31 As "Transgender Day of Visibility"

Earlier this week, President Biden signed a Presidential Proclamation (full text) declaring March 31 as "Transgender Day of Visibility". The Proclamation reads in part:

Transgender Day of Visibility recognizes the generations of struggle, activism, and courage that have brought our country closer to full equality for transgender and gender non-binary people in the United States and around the world.  Their trailblazing work has given countless transgender individuals the bravery to live openly and authentically.  This hard-fought progress is also shaping an increasingly accepting world in which peers at school, teammates and coaches on the playing field, colleagues at work, and allies in every corner of society are standing in support and solidarity with the transgender community.

Synagogues Lose Suit Over Repealed Zoning Law

In Orthodox Jewish Coalition of Chestnut Ridge v. Village of Chestnut Ridge, New York, (SD NY, March 31, 2021), a New York federal district court dismissed a suit by Orthodox Jewish synagogues contending that the village's former zoning law violated RLUIPA, the free exercise clause and the New York constitution. The court held RLUIPA's safe harbor provision protects municipalities that correct their laws from damage suits under RLUIPA. It also dismissed plaintiffs' equal protection claim because they failed to show that the old zoning law was enacted with discriminatory intent. The court found that claims for prospective relief were moot and that certain other claims were not ripe.

Court Upholds NY Law Barring Discrimination Against Employees Because Of Reproductive Health Decisions

In Slattery v. Cuomo, (ND NY, March 31, 2021), a New York federal district court dismissed free exercise, free speech, freedom of association and vagueness challenges to a New York Labor Law §203-e  which prohibits employers from discriminating or taking retaliatory action against an employee because of the person's reproductive health decision making. The law was challenged by a pro-life crisis pregnancy center which required its employees to agree with, adhere to and convey the Catholic view on abortion and sexual relations outside of marriage. The court concluded that the law does not target the Catholic religion in violation of the free exercise clause. Rejecting plaintiffs' free speech challenge, the court said in part:

Section 203-e does not serve to limit any of Plaintiffs’ advocacy against abortion, promotion of certain religious views, and public arguments for particular versions of sexual morality. The statute does not prevent the Plaintiffs, who provide medical information to pregnant women, from telling those women that they should not get abortions, urging them not to use contraception, or telling them about Plaintiffs’ religious beliefs. The statute simply prohibits employers from taking employment action based on the reproductive health decisions of an employee or potential employee. Hiring, firing, or refusing to hire an employee is conduct, not speech, and the law does not implicate Plaintiffs’ First-Amendment rights in that.

Minister Sues To Hold Good Friday Vigil On U.S. Capitol Grounds

On Tuesday, a complaint was filed in D.C. federal district court by a Presbyterian minister who wants to host a prayer vigil on theWestern Terrace of the U.S. Capitol for Good Friday, as he did in 2020.  He was refused a permit because the Capitol grounds have been fenced off since the January 6 attack on the Capitol.  Plaintiff alleges that the denial of a permit violates his free speech, freedom of assembly, free exercise and other rights.  The complaint (full text) in Mahoney v. Pelosi, (D DC, filed 3/30/2021), alleges in part:

In closing the sidewalks and public areas around the Capitol, including the Lower Western Terrace Plaintiff seeks to utilize, Defendants have effectively created a no-speech zone around the nations Capitol. Defendants prevent any First Amendment activities on/in these areas, even though no specific threat to the Capitol has been identified in justification....

Defendants’ restrictions have specifically and explicitly targeted Plaintiff’s religious and “faith based” service and are thus not neutral on their face. Defendants have prohibited Plaintiff’s religious gathering while exempting a laundry list of other activities that occur at the Capitol, including media events, non-religious public gatherings, and various political and other events.

Fox News reports on the lawsuit. [Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]

North Dakota Enacts Law To Limit Restrictions On Religious Exercise During Health Emergencies

On March 29, North Dakota Governor Doug Burgum signed into law Senate Bill 2181 (full text) which limits the authority of the State Health Officer and the governor to issue disease control or other emergency orders that restrict the free exercise of religion.  Under the new law, an order may not:

(1) Substantially burden a person's exercise of religion unless the order is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest and is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest;

(2) Treat religious conduct more restrictively than any secular conduct of reasonably comparable risk, unless the government demonstrates through clear and convincing scientific evidence that a particular religious activity poses an extraordinary health risk; or

(3) Treat religious conduct more restrictively than comparable secular conduct because of alleged economic need or benefit.

Williston Herald reported on the legislature's passage of the bill.

9th Circuit Upholds California Limits On In-Home Bible Study Groups

In Tandon v. Newsom, (9th Cir., March 30, 2021), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision, refused to issue an emergency injunction pending appeal to prevent enforcement of California's COVID-19 limitations against appellants' in-home Bible study and communal worship sessions. The majority said in part:

[T]he district court concluded that the State reasonably distinguishes in-home private gatherings from the commercial activity Appellants assert is comparable. For example, the district court found that the State reasonably concluded that when people gather in social settings, their interactions are likely to be longer than they would be in a commercial setting; that participants in a social gathering are more likely to be involved in prolonged conversations; that private houses are typically smaller and less ventilated than commercial establishments; and that social distancing and mask-wearing are less likely in private settings and enforcement is more difficult.... Appellants do not dispute any of these findings. Therefore, we conclude that Appellants have not established that strict scrutiny applies to the gatherings restrictions.

Judge Bumatay dissented, saying in part:

Even if studying scripture at home risks some level of transmission of COVID-19, the exemptions for barbershops, tattoo and nail parlors, and other personal care businesses reveal that less-restrictive alternatives are available to California to mitigate that concern. If the State is truly concerned about the “proximity, length, and interaction” of private gatherings, as it claims, it could regulate those aspects of religious gatherings in a narrowly tailored way. But the one thing California cannot do is privilege tattoo parlors over Bible studies when loosening household limitations.

Biden To Nominate First Muslim Federal Judge

On Tuesday, President Biden announced eleven nominees for federal judgeships. Among the nominees is  Zahid Quraishi who is to be nominated to the New Jersey federal district court where he is currently a magistrate judge.  As reported by Fox News, if confirmed by the Senate, Quraishi would become the first Muslim American to serve as a lifetime-appointed federal judge.

State Department Releases Country Reports On Human Rights

On Tuesday, the U.S. State Department released its 2020 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices. According to the Department:

The annual Country Reports ... cover internationally recognized individual, civil, political, and worker rights, as set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international agreements.

However for the most part the country reports cross refer to the Department's International Religious Freedom Reports for discussion of religious freedom issues. The 2020 Report on religious freedom has not yet been released.

LGBTQ+ Students Challenge Title IX Religious Institution Exemption

In a class action lawsuit filed earlier this week in an Oregon federal district court, 33 LGBTQ+ students enrolled at religious colleges that receive federal financial assistance challenge the constitutionality of the exemption in Title IX for educational institutions controlled by religious organizations.  The exemption applies if the non-discrimination provisions of Title IX would conflict with the organization's religious tenets. The complaint (full text) in Hunter v. U.S. Department of Education, (D OR, filed 3/29/2021) alleges that the Department of Education's refusal to enforce non-discrimination provisions against religious colleges:

leaves students unprotected from the harms of conversion therapy, expulsion, denial of housing and healthcare, sexual and physical abuse and harassment, as well as the less visible, but no less damaging, consequences of institutionalized shame, fear, anxiety and loneliness.

Alleging equal protection and Establishment Clause claims, plaintiffs contend:

[W]hile the statutory religious exemption to Title IX may permit, or even require, the Department to refuse assistance to sexual and gender minority students like the Plaintiffs, the Constitution forbids such inaction.

NBC News reports on the lawsuit.

UPDATE: An amended complaint (full text) was filed on June 7, 2021).

Virginia Public School Guidance On Transgender Students Is Challenged

Suit was filed yesterday in a Virginia state trial court challenging a guidance document titled Model Policies on the Treatment of Transgender Students In Virginia's Public Schools developed by the Virginia Department of Education (DOE). The guidance document calls for safe, supportive and inclusive school environments for transgender students. The lawsuit filed by a parent and two advocacy organizations contends that during the adoption process, the Department of Education failed to respond to a number comments raising constitutional and other legal objections to the proposed guidance document. The complaint (full text) in Family Foundation v. Virginia Department of Education, (VA Cir. Ct., filed 3/30/2021) alleges that the document violates free speech, free exercise, privacy, equal protection, and parental rights. Family Foundation issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit. AP reported on the lawsuit.

Challenge To Bible In Schools Program Survives Motion To Dismiss

In Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc. v. Mercer County Board of Education, (SD WV, March 26, 2021), a West Virginia federal district court denied a motion to dismiss filed by a school principal in an Establishment Clause challenge to the county's Bible in the Schools program. The court also found that it is impossible to determine at this stage of the case whether the principal is entitled to qualified immunity.

Anti-Abortion Protesters Lose Challenge To D.C.'s Defacement Ordinance

In Frederick Douglass Foundation, Inc. v. District of Columbia,  (DDC, March 26, 2021), the federal district court for the District of Columbia refused to enjoin enforcement of D.C.'s Defacement Ordinance against two groups that organized an anti-abortion demonstration. Protesters attempted to paint or chalk the streets with their slogan "Black Pre-Born Lives Matter." The court rejected plaintiffs' free speech, equal protection, RFRA and free exercise claims. Plaintiffs claim that the Ordinance is enforced in a viewpoint discriminatory manner in that "Black Lives Matter" and "Defund the Police" protesters were not prosecuted. The court said in part, however:

It seems far more plausible, rather, that law enforcement opted against enforcing the Ordinance [against Black Lives Matter protesters] in light of the foreseeable risks of intervention in the moment — e.g., inflaming what may well have already been a tense, fervent, and chaotic protest scene.

South Dakota Governor Issues Executive Orders On Transgender Women In Sports After Vetoing Legislation On The Issue

On March 8, the South Dakota Legislature gave final passage to HB1217 which banned transgender women from participating on women's athletic teams or sports in schools and colleges in the state. It also included various enforcement provisions. On March 19, Governor Kristi Noem, instead of signing the bill, returned it to the legislature with a number of suggested changes. When the legislature failed to act on those changes, the Governor instead issued two executive orders to deal with the issue. Executive Order 2021-05 bans transgender girls from participation in girl's athletics in Grade K-12 public schools, but eliminates the causes of action and much of the paper work that was in HB1217. Executive Order 2021-06 calls for the Board of Regents to take the steps necessary within state law to implement a similar policy for colleges and universities controlled by the Board of Regents. CNN reports on the governor's actions.

Recent Articles of Interest

 From SSRN:

• Giancarlo Anello, The Concept of 'Contractual Citizenship' in the Charter of Medina (622 C.e.): A Contemporary Interpretation, (Islamochristiana, Journal of the PISAI Rome (2021)).
• Engy Abdelkader, Myanmar's Rohingya Population: The Case for Genocide, (Oxford University Press,  2021).
• Howard Kislowicz & Kathryn Chan, Divine Intervention, Part II: Narratives of Norm Entrepreneurship in Canadian Religious Freedom Litigation, (Dalhousie Law Journal (Forthcoming)).
• Arnab Kumar Banerjee, Uniform Civil Code: A Need Of Hour, March 1, 2021).
• Brian Miller, Changing Demographics and the Future of Religious Exercise, (January 28, 2021).
• Kanstantsin Dzehtsiarou, et. al., Human Rights in Action. Assessing the Positive Impact of the Human Rights Act 1998 in the UK, (March 3, 2021).
• Nathan Moelker, Beyond Bostock: Justice Gorsuch's Free Exercise Jurisprudence as a Model in Addressing the Contemporary Crisis in Religious Liberty, (December 23, 2020).
• Ronli Sifris & Tania Penovic, Barriers to Abortion Access in Australia before and during the COVID-19 Pandemic, (Women's Studies International Forum (2021)).
• Dr. Rifai Sulaiman Lebbe, Some Challenges in Sri Lankan Muslim Education Today, (March 21, 2021).
• Eric Franklin Amarante, States as Laboratories for Charitable Compliance: An Empirical Study, (George Washington Law Review, Forthcoming).

DC's Capacity Restrictions On Churches Held Invalid

In Roman Catholic Archbishop of Washington v. Bowser, (D DC, March 25, 2021), the D.C. federal district court granted a preliminary injunction against D.C.'s COVID-19 capacity restrictions on houses of worship, finding that they violate the 1st Amendment as well as RFRA. The limit of the lesser of 25% or 250 congregants particularly affects the  Basilica of the Shrine of the Immaculate Conception which seats at least 3000 people. The court said in part:

In practical terms, this means that the Archdiocese’s churches must stop admitting parishioners once they become a quarter full, but Whole Foods or Target can take in as many customers as they wish while complying with social-distancing requirements. “[O]nce a State creates a favored class of businesses, as [the District] has done in this case, [it] must justify why houses of worship are excluded from that favored class.”....

The District’s restrictions are also problematic because the 250-person cap uniquely burdens churches. The Mayor’s order explained that the District set the hard cap at 250 based on the number of persons that “the largest restaurant” could serve at 25 percent capacity....   But as the District admits, “no restaurant in the District has a room that can hold 1,000 people.”

Courthouse News Service reports on the decision.

Arkansas Enacts Conscience Protections For Medical Personnel

Last Friday, Arkansas Governor Asa Hutchinson signed SB289, the Medical Ethics and Diversity Act (full text). The law gives broad protection for medical practitioners, healthcare institutions, and healthcare payers who have religious, moral or ethical objections to participating in a particular healthcare service. Protections extend to a long list of providers, including doctors, nurses, pharmacists, researchers. counselors and student counselors. In his signing statement, the Governor said in part:

I support this right of conscience so long as emergency care is exempted and conscience objection cannot be used to deny general health service to any class of people. Most importantly, the federal laws that prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, sex, gender, and national origin continue to apply to the delivery of health care services.

ADF issued a press release regarding the signing. 

Certiorari Denied In Church's Challenge To Illinois COVID Restrictions

The U.S. Supreme Court today denied review in Elim Romanian Church v. Pritzker, (Docket No. 20-569, certiorari denied, 3/29/2021). (Order List).  In the case, the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected a church's challenge to Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker's COVID-19 orders which restrict-- or in their latest form urge restriction-- on the size of worship services. (See prior posting.)

Supreme Court Will Decide If State AG Can Intervene To Defend Abortion Statute

The U.S. Supreme Court today granted review in Cameron v. EMW Women’s Surgical Center, P.S.C., (Docket No. 20-601, certiorari granted 3/29/2021). (Order List). In the case, the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals refused to allow the state attorney general to intervene to defend the constitutionality of a Kentucky statute which banned D&E abortions prior to fetal demise. EMW Women's Surgical Ctr., P.S.C. v. Friedlander, 831 Fed. Appx. 748 (LEXIS link). The AG sought to intervene after the 6th Circuit held the statute unconstitutional and no state official would seek a rehearing or an appeal. The certiorari petition raises the issue of whether intervention should be allowed. Here is the SCOTUSblog's discussion of the grant of review and its case page on the case.

6th Circuit: Prof Has 1st Amendment Right To Refuse To Call Transgender Student By Preferred Pronoun

In Meriwether v. Hartop, (6th Cir., March 26, 2021), the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals held that Shawnee State University violated the free speech and free exercise rights of a philosophy professor when the school insisted that the Professor address a transgender student by her preferred gender pronoun. The professor objected because of his Christian religious beliefs that God created human beings as either male or female at the time of conception and this cannot be changed. Upholding plaintiff's free speech rights, the court said in part:

Never before have titles and pronouns been scrutinized as closely as they are today for their power to validate—or invalidate—someone’s perceived sex or gender identity. Meriwether took a side in that debate. Through his continued refusal to address Doe as a woman, he advanced a viewpoint on gender identity. …  In short, when Meriwether waded into the pronoun debate, he waded into a matter of public concern….

We begin with “the robust tradition of academic freedom in our nation’s post-secondary schools.” … That tradition alone offers a strong reason to protect Professor Meriwether’s speech. After all, academic freedom is “a special concern of the First Amendment, which does not tolerate laws that cast a pall of orthodoxy over the classroom.”

The court also reversed the trial court's dismissal of Prof. Meriwether's free exercise claim:

Meriwether has plausibly alleged that Shawnee State’s application of its gender-identity policy was not neutral for at least two reasons. First, officials at Shawnee State exhibited hostility to his religious beliefs. And second, irregularities in the university’s adjudication and investigation processes permit a plausible inference of non-neutrality.

Inside Higher Ed reports on the decision.

Massachusetts City Council Recognizes Polyamorous Domestic Partnerships

On March 8, Cambridge, Massachusetts City Council adopted amendments to the city's Domestic Partnership Ordinance allowing polyamorous domestic partnership.  The ordinance now provides that

"Domestic partnership" means the entity formed by two or more persons who meet the following criteria and jointly file a registration statement proclaiming that: 1. They are in a relationship of mutual support, caring and commitment and intend to remain in such a relationship; ... 5. They consider themselves to be a family.

CNA reporting on the amendment points out that Cambridge becomes the second town, after Somerville, to legally recognize such domestic partnerships.

British Court Holds Jehovah's Witness Parent Body Vicariously Liable For Rape By Elder

 In Trustees of the Barry Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses v. BXB,(EWCA, March 15, 22021), Britain's Court of Appeals upheld a trial court's conclusion that the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania and the Trustees of the Barry Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses were vicariously liable for the rape of a woman congregant by a church elder. Justice Davies said in part:

Elders were integral to the organisation, the nature of their role was directly controlled by it and by its structure. The judge was entitled to conclude that the relationship between elders and the Jehovah's Witnesses was one that could be capable of giving rise to vicarious liability....

UK Human Rights blog has a long analysis of the decision.

Emhoff Hosts Online White House Seder

As reported by The Forward, the White House yesterday held an online Passover Seder hosted by Second Gentleman Douglas Emhoff, the first Jewish spouse of a President of Vice-President.  President Joe Biden delivered brief remarks during the one-hour program in which Los Angeles Rabbi Sharon Brous led the nearly 10,000 online viewers through the major parts of the Seder. Various White House staffers took participated in the presentation.

Scottish Court Invalidates COVID Regulations Closing Churches

In In the cause of Philip for Judicial Review of the closure of places of worship in Scotland, (Ct. Sess. O.H., March 24. 2021), Scotland's Outer House of the Court of Session held that Regulations closing places of worship during the COVID-19 pandemic violate petitioner's right to worship under Art. 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The court said in part:

[S]ince the Regulations do interfere with the constitutional right of the petitioners to worship, notwithstanding that they have as their primary purpose the protection of health and preservation of life, they will be beyond the constitutional competence of the respondents (at least insofar as the petitioners and the additional party are concerned) if that interference is not proportionate...

[W]ithout in any way questioning the science which underlay the respondents’ decision-making, I conclude that the respondents have failed to show that no less intrusive means than the Regulations were available to address their aim of reducing risk to a significant extent. Standing the advice they had at the time, they have not demonstrated why there was an unacceptable degree of risk by continuing to allow places of worship which employed effective mitigation measures and had good ventilation to admit a limited number of people for communal worship.... Even if I am wrong in reaching that conclusion, the respondents have in any event not demonstrated why it was necessary to ban private prayer, the reasons which were given for that recommendation being insufficient to withstand even the lowest degree of scrutiny.

Law & Religion UK and Christian Post report on the decision.

Anti-Mask Protesters Arrested At Religious Protest Assembly Sue

As reported by KREM News, three individuals who were arrested in September 2020 by Moscow, Idaho police for not wearing masks or social distancing at a protest have sued in an Idaho federal district court.  The complaint (full text) in Rench v. City of Moscow, (D ID, filed 3/24/2021) says that the arrests took place at a religious assembly organized by Christ Church "to sing praise to their God in a 'Psalm Sing' in front of the Moscow City Hall to protest the mask mandate in the Amended Public Health Emergency Order...." Plaintiffs contend that the arrests violated their free speech and free exercise rights, and say that the Public Health Order by its terms excluded constitutionally protected speech, assembly and religious activity.

Removing Roadside Cross Did Not Violate Father's 1st Amendment Rights

In Kelly v. Montana Department of Transportation, (D MT, March 23, 2021), a Montana federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendations, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55046 (D MT, March 9, 2021). The magistrate recommended dismissing 1st Amendment objections to the removal of a "spiritual cross" that plaintiff had erected along side of a highway in memory of his stepson.  Rejecting free speech claims, the magistrate held that "a spiritual cross erected on public land adjacent to a highway constitutes government speech." Rejecting free exercise claims, the magistrate said in part:

Kelly does not allege that the Defendants prohibited him from freely exercising his religious beliefs though private speech. Kelly alleges that the Defendants removed a spiritual cross that he had erected on public land.... [T]he spiritual cross constituted government speech. Kelly has therefore failed to state a cognizable claim under the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause.

Prominent Ex-Mormon Sues Church For Fraud In The Use Of Members' Tithes

Suit was filed this week in a California federal district court against the Mormon church by a prominent former member who had contributed millions of dollars to it alleging fraud in the solicitation of contributions from members. The complaint (full text) in Huntsman v. Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, (CD CA, filed 3/22/2021), alleges: 

For decades, in a fraudulent effort to elicit the donation of tithing funds from Mr. Huntsman and other devout Church members, the LDS Corporation repeatedly and publicly lied about the intended use of those funds, promising that they would be used for purely non-commercial purposes consistent with the Church’s stated priorities – namely, to fund missionary work, member indoctrination, temple work, and other educational and charitable activities. Behind the scenes, however, rather than using tithing funds for the promised purposes, the LDS Corporation secretly lined its own pockets by using the funds to develop a multi-billion dollar commercial real estate and insurance empire that had nothing to do with charity.

According to an RNS report on the lawsuit, plaintiff is a filmmaker, the son of a prominent philanthropist and the brother of a former governor of Utah.

The complaint says:

Mr. Huntsman ... will ... use the recovered funds to benefit organizations and communities whose members have been marginalized by the Church’s teachings and doctrines, including by donating to charities supporting LGBTQ, African-American, and women’s rights.

KUTV News has published a statement from the LDS Church responding to the allegations in which it denies using tithed funds for a commercial development.

Court Dismisses Challenge To Book Used In High School Literature Curriculum

In Coble v. Lake Norman Charter School, (WD NC, Mrch 23, 2021), a North Carolina federal district court dismissed 1st Amendment challenges to a high school's use in its literature curriculum of the award-winning book The Poet X by Elizabeth Acevedo. Plaintiffs, parents of a high school student (JHC), claim that the book is hostile to religion and disparages Catholicism. Rejecting plaintiffs' Establishment Clause argument, the court said in part:

The problem with the Cobles’ claim is that, without any factual allegations of how LNC uses The Poet X in the classroom, the Court has no ability to determine whether that specific use conveys an endorsement or disapproval of religion. The content of the book itself is not sufficient to prove a violation of the second Lemon prong even if the book’s content is disparaging toward a particular faith....

Rejecting a free exercise challenge, the court said in part:

In the present case, the Cobles claim that the potential exposure of their son to The Poet X violates the Free Exercise Clause because it violates JHC’s religious beliefs. But this claim ignores the fact that JHC was not required to read The Poet X. Rather, LNC offered an alternative to the book.... LNC’s offer of an alternative text tends to establish that LNC has done nothing to burden JHC’s religious practices.

Cert. Petition Filed In Maine Church's Challenge To COVID Limitations

A petition for certiorari (full text) was filed on Monday with the U.S. Supreme Court in Calvary Chapel of Bangor v. Mills. In the case, the U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed a church's interlocutory appeal of the denial of a temporary restraining order against enforcement of the Maine governor's COVID Orders. Those orders, which have been amended since the 1st Circuit's decision, continue to limit the number of persons that can gather at a faith-based event. (See prior posting.) Liberty Counsel issued a press release announcing the filing of the petition for review.

8th Circuit: No Qualified Immunity On Christian Student Group's Free Speech Claim

In Business Leaders In Christ v. University of Iowa, (8th Circuit, March 22, 2021), the U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals held that the district court erred in granting qualified immunity to the individual defendants on plaintiff's free speech and expressive association claims. Plaintiff claims that the University selectively applied its human rights policy to prevent it from becoming a recognized student organization because the organization required its leaders to sign a statement of faith that would disqualify individuals on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. The court held that it is clearly established that a nondiscrimination policy neutral on its face violates a student group’s rights to free speech and expressive association if not applied in a viewpoint-neutral manner. Two judges held, however, that the district court correctly granted qualified immunity on plaintiff's free-exercise claim.

Judge Kobes dissented in part, contending that University officials should also not be granted qualified immunity on the free-exercise claim, saying in part:

[S]tate organizations may not target religious groups for differential treatment or withhold an otherwise available benefit solely because they are religious. That is what happened here. The individual defendants may pick their poison: they are either plainly incompetent or they knowingly violated the Constitution. Either way, they should not get qualified immunity.

Courthouse News Service reports on the decision.

Treasury Department Imposes Sanctions On Chinese Officials Over Uyghur Human Rights

The Treasury Department announced yesterday that its Office of Foreign Assets Control has imposed sanctions on two Chinese government officials in connection with human rights abuses against ethnic minorities in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region. The officials sanctioned are Wang Junzheng and Chen Mingguo who are connected with arbitrary detention and severe physical abuse targeting Uyghurs and other ethnic minorities in the region.

Court Continues 30-Year Old Church Factional Dispute

In Trustees of the General Assembly of the Lord Jesus Christ of the Apostolic Faith, Inc. v. Patterson, (ED PA, March 19, 2021), a Pennsylvania federal district court, in an 85-page opinion, granted a preliminary injunction to prevent the county sheriff from carrying out a Writ of Possession and Eviction Notice against plaintiff Church and Church Corporation which holds title to Church property. As explained by the court:

The instant action is one in a long line of other cases ... over the past three decades, in state court and federal court alike. The heart of each case is the same, though the procedural postures may differ. They all seek to resolve, once and for all, a question that has been posed since 1991, after the death of the late Bishop McDowell Shelton and the subsequent schism in the Church: Who gets to control the Church and Church Corporation and their assets?

The Writ of Possession at issue grew out of a 2006 Arbitration Award which was upheld in 2017. The court concluded, however, that the case giving rise to the arbitration award was between individual leaders of the two factions seeking control. Since the Church and the Church Corporation were not parties to that action, it was not binding on them. Thus a judgment is being enforced against them when they never had the opportunity to litigate the matter.