Church Challenges City's Limits On Its Offering Meals To Homeless

Suit was filed last week in an Oregon federal district court by a church challenging a city's ordinance that limits it from offering free meals to the needy more than two days per week.  The complaint (full text) in  St. Timothy’s Episcopal Church v. City of Brookings, (D OR, filed 1/28/2022), says that the new limits were imposed after city residents complained of the homeless gathering around the church. It contends that the restrictions violate RLUIPA as well as the 1st and 14th Amendments, saying in part:

Plaintiffs believe that God and scripture have directed them to continue serving their community by offering St. Timothy’s meal program more than two days per week to ensure that people in need can have access to at least one hot, nutritious meal every day of the week.

... The City’s land use and zoning regulations ... deny and restrict, and will deny and restrict, Plaintiffs’ religious use of St. Timothy’s’ property, is not supported by a compelling government interest, and is not the least restrictive means of furthering any compelling governmental interest.

Reason reports on the lawsuit.

High Schooler Sues Over Suspension For Religiously Motivated Anti-Gay Remarks

 A Michigan high school student sued this week for injunctive and declaratory relief as well as damages contending that his 3-day suspension violated his free speech rights as well as various other rights under state law and the Michigan and U.S. constitutions.  The school contended that the student had violated the school's Bullying/ Cyberbullying/ Harassment policy.  The complaint (full text) in Stout v. Plainwell Community Schools, (WD MI, filed 1/27/2022), alleges that:

Plaintiff is a Christian, who adheres to the historic and traditional Christian doctrine contained in the Bible regarding all life issues, including homosexual conduct....

According to the complaint, school officials told plaintiff's parents that their student:

was accused of “laughing” at some racial and homophobic “jokes” that other kids had told during the summer band camp months ago; that he had participated in an off campus, private group chat/text session during which he texted that God would not accept homosexual conduct because it is a sin; and that he had private, on campus conversations regarding religious beliefs with friends in the band that, while not directed towards any particular person, was overheard by another student.

MLive reports on the lawsuit.

Part Of Texas Anti-BDS Law Held Unconstitutional

In A & R Engineering and Testing, Inc. v. City of Houston, (SD TX, Jan. 28, 2022), a Texas federal district court held unconstitutional a portion of the Texas statute requiring companies entering contracts with governmental entities to certify that they do not, and will not during the term of the contract, boycott Israel. The court said in part:

[Plaintiff] denies any anti-Jewish motivation and testified that his desire to boycott has nothing to do with Jewish people (American or Israeli) but is focused on the acts of the Israeli government.... Nevertheless, the legislation at issue did not originate in an historical vacuum.... [A]nyone with a basic knowledge of modern history knows that one of the first anti-Jewish acts taken by the Nazis after they took power in Germany was the boycott of Jewish businesses in 1933.

The court found a portion of the law unobjectionable:

[T]he court agrees that the mere refusal to engage in a commercial/ economic relationship with Israel or entities doing business in Israel is not "inherently expressive" and therefore does not find shelter under the protections of the First Amendment.

However the court went on to find a First Amendment problem with the provision in the statute that requires businesses also to refrain from "otherwise taking any action that is intended to penalize, inflict economic harm on, or limit commercial relations" with Israel or Israeli entities.  The court said in part:

[A]ctions intended to penalize or inflict economic harm on Israel could include conduct protected by the First Amendment, such as giving speeches, nonviolent picketing outside Israeli businesses, posting flyers, encouraging others to refuse to deal with Israel or Israeli entities, or sponsoring a protest which encourages local businesses to terminate business activities with Israel.

The court issued a preliminary injunction limited to this plaintiff, refusing a state-wide injunction or one covering other businesses.  Arab News reports on the decision.

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Michael J. Broyde & Shlomo Pill, Building the Set Table: An Introduction to the Jurisprudence of Rabbi Yehiel Mikhel Epstein’s Arukh ha-Shulhan in Contrast to the Mishnah Berurah, (33 Dine Israel 1 (2020)).
• Sofia Dash, Decoding Female Genital Mutilation through A Sociological Lens, (January 17, 2022).
• Chad G. Marzen, The Gospels and American Jurisprudence,       (January 20, 2022).
• Barbara P. Billauer, JOB and Justice: The Tortious Liability of God for Wrongful Interference, (December 5, 2021).
  Antony Kolenc, Religious Liberty in the Age of COVID, (UNT Dallas College of Law, Accessible Law 2021).
• Pritam Baruah, Human Dignity in Indian Constitutional  Adjudication, (Jimmy Chia-Shin Hsu (ed.) Human Dignity in Asia: A Dialogue Between Law and Culture (Cambridge University Press, Forthcoming 2023)).
• Richard W. Garnett, et. al., Roe and Casey Were Grievously Wrong and Should Be Overruled, (Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, Vol. 17, 2021).
• Guha Krishnamurthi & Peter Salib, Bostock and Conceptual Causation, (Yale J. Reg. Notice & Comment (July 22, 2020)).
• Raphaela Andres & Olga Slivko, Combating Online Hate Speech: The Impact of Legislation on Twitter, (ZEW - Centre for European Economic Research Discussion Paper No. 21-103 (2021)).
• Zahra Takhshid, Kidney, Money, and the Shī‘ah Implementation of the Rule of Necessity, (UCLA Journal of Islamic and Near Eastern Law, Vol. 19, No. 1, 2021).

Court Refuses To Enjoin Medical Campus' Vaccination Mandate

In Jane Does 1-11 v. Board of Regents of the University of Colorado, (D CO, Jan. 27, 2022), a Colorado federal district court refused to grant a preliminary injunction against the COVID vaccination requirements of the University of Colorado's Medical Campus.  Under a revised policy, employees are entitled to a religious accommodation if the accommodation would not unduly burden the health and safety of others.  Medical students are not entitled to religious accommodations.  The court found the policy neutral and generally applicable, and so subject only to rational basis review.  The court said in part:

[T]he Court does not see how offering employees the opportunity to request a religious accommodation could amount to treating comparable secular activity more favorably than religious exercise. For one thing, Plaintiffs have not shown that employees and students are comparable in this context....

[A]lthough the University has determined it can accommodate some employees by allowing them to work remotely, Plaintiffs have made no showing that a similar accommodation for students is practicable.  And ... the ... Policy treats employees and students differently because of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which protects the former but not the latter....

The court also concluded that the presence of medical exemptions does not prevent the Policy from being generally applicable.

Michigan Settles Suit Over Placement Policy Of Catholic Adoption Agency

 A Michigan federal district court this week in Buck v. Hertel,(WD MI, Jan. 26, 2022), issued an Order implementing a settlement agreement between the state of Michigan and St. Vincent Catholic Charities which is a licensed child placement agency placing children for foster care and adoption. The Order provides in part:

MDHHS shall not take any action against St. Vincent’s CPA license or terminate or not renew the Contracts because St. Vincent does not: i. certify or approve a same-sex or unmarried couple as a foster parent or adoptive parent, or ii. conduct a home evaluation for a same-sex or unmarried couple, or iii. place a foster child with a same-sex or unmarried couple for foster care or adoption.

Under the settlement, the state also agreed to pay St. Vincent's attorneys' fees of $550,000. As reported by Fox 47 News, the state agreed to the settlement after the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia

Delivery Service Settles EEOC Suit Charging Failure To Accommodate Church Attendance

The EEOC announced yesterday that Tampa Bay Delivery Service, an Amazon delivery provider, has settled a religious discrimination suit brought by the EEOC on behalf of a driver who was fired for refusing Sunday shifts in order to attend church services. The company will pay $50,000 in damages, will provide training on religious discrimination to managers and dispatchers, and will designate a religious accommodation coordinator.

Transit System's Rejection Of Religious Ads Violates Synagogue's Free Speech Rights

In Young Israel of Tampa, Inc. v. Hillsborough Regional Transit Authority, (MD FL, Jan. 20, 2022), a Florida federal district court held that the free speech rights of an Orthodox Jewish synagogue were violated when the local transit system (HART) refused to accept its display ad promoting its "Chanukah on Ice" event. HART refused the ad under its rule against advertisements that primarily promote a religious faith or religious organization. The court said in part:

Here, HART’s Advertising Policy constitutes viewpoint discrimination.... HART allowed advertisements for a secular holiday event with ice skating and seasonal food ..., but it disallowed an ice skating event with seasonal food that was in celebration of Chanukah. Thus, HART’s ban ... targets the “specific motivating ideology or the opinion or perspective of the speaker.”

The court added that even if HART's policy were viewpoint neutral, it does not have objective, workable standards for applying it.

Trial Set On Why Street Preachers Were Removed From Gay Pride Event

In Waldrop v. City of Johnson City, Tennessee,(ED TN, Jan. 26, 2022), a Tennessee federal district court, in a case on remand from the 6th Circuit, set for trial a suit by two street preachers who were removed from a Pride event. The court said in part:

A genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether the officers removed Plaintiffs from Founders Park, and if so, whether they did so for a content-neutral or content-based reason.

11th Circuit Undercuts State Attempt To Limit Inmate's Right To Sue

In a prisoner Free Exercise case, the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals has issued an opinion which bars a tactic by which prison officials might obtain dismissal of a prisoner suit without reaching the merits of the case.  The so-called "three-strike" provision in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) limits an inmate's ability to bring a suit in forma pauperis, i.e. without paying the usual filing fee, if the inmate has previously had three suits dismissed for lack of merit.  In Maldonado v. Baker County Sheriff's Office, (11th Cir., Jan. 25, 2022), a three-strike plaintiff (along with a co-plaintiff) filed suit in forma pauperis in Florida state court contending that they were prevented from attending Jummah prayer services. Defendants then removed the case to federal court and sought dismissal under the three-strike provision.  The court held

The plain and ordinary meaning of § 1915(g) is clear—it only applies to cases commenced in federal court by a prisoner who sought and was granted in forma pauperis status in that court.  As such, § 1915(g) does not apply to actions, like the one here, brought by a three-strikes litigant in state court that was removed to federal court by another party.

Nevada Prison's Ban On Prayer Oil Violates RLUIPA

In Johnson v. Baker, (9th Cir., Jan. 26, 2022), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held that the Nevada prison system violated RLUIPA when it banned a Muslim inmate from possessing a small amount of scented oil in his cell for use when he prayed, saying in part:

Given that Nevada’s prison regulation prevents Johnson from praying according to his faith, it has substantially burdened his religious exercise. Nevada also fails to show that its regulation is the least restrictive means of furthering its compelling interest....

Nevada argues that prison officials depend on their sense of smell to detect contraband and scented oil could be used to cover the smell of contraband, such as drugs....

Nevada’s prison regulations as to other scented products undermines the State’s argument. It’s undisputed that Nevada prisoners may keep many scented products in their cells....  [T]hese products all have “strong scents” and are available to purchase in larger quantities than the half-ounce of scented oil sought by Johnson.

Oregon Court Rejects Part Of Its Earlier Decision In Wedding-Cake Dispute

In Klein v. Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries, (OR App., Jan. 26, 2022), the Oregon Court of Appeals, in a case on remand from the U.S. Supreme Court, reaffirmed its prior decision in part in a challenge to the religious refusal by a bakery (Sweetcakes by Melissa) to provide a wedding cake for a same-sex marriage. The court reaffirmed its conclusion that the refusal violates the anti-discrimination provisions of the state's public accommodation law that prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. It held that the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia does not change its earlier conclusion, saying in part:

the Kleins have not demonstrated that Fulton alters our prior conclusion that ORS 659A.403 is a “generally applicable” law for purposes of Smith, nor our related conclusion that, under Smith, the application of the law to Aaron’s conduct of denying cake-making services based on sexual orientation does not violate the Kleins’ rights under the Free Exercise Clause.

The court however did set aside the damage order entered by the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries, finding that, in light of the U.S. Supreme Court's Masterpiece Cakeshop decision, BOLI’s decision on damages violates the Free Exercise Clause.  The court said in part:

[T]he prosecutor’s closing argument apparently equating the Kleins’ religious beliefs with “prejudice,” together with the agency’s reasoning for imposing damages in connection with Aaron’s quotation of Leviticus, reflect that the agency acted in a way that passed judgment on the Kleins’ religious beliefs, something that is impermissible under Masterpiece Cakeshop.

The Oregonian reports on the decision.

Universal Life Church Can Move Ahead With Suit On Marriage Solemnization Right

In Universal Life Church Monastery Storehouse v. McGeever, (WD PA, Jan. 25, 2022), a Pennsylvania federal district court refused to dismiss a suit against Allegheny County, Pennsylvania court officials who refuse to allow Universal Life Church ministers to solemnize marriages. the court said in part:

[A[ live case or controversy exists. Universal has alleged that its ministers are being singled out as “illegitimate” and unworthy of solemnizing marriages in the Commonwealth. According to Universal, this “singling out” has chilled the exercise of its ministers’ First Amendment rights. This harm is ongoing and exists whether Defendants’ offices, in fact, refuse to issue licenses for marriages performed by Universal’s ministers.

Today Is International Holocaust Remembrance Day

Today is International Holocaust Remembrance Day as designated by United Nations Resolution 60/7 (full text), adopted by the General Assembly in 2005.  January 27 is the anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz-Birkenau. Yesterday, President Biden announced the names of 12 individuals he intends to appoint to the United States Holocaust Memorial Council.  As chair, he will appoint Stuart Eizenstat.

3rd Circuit Hears Oral Arguments In Title VII Reasonable Accommodation Case

Yesterday, the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments (audio of full arguments) in Groff v. DeJoy.  In the case, a Pennsylvania federal district court (full text of district court opinion) dismissed Title VII claims brought by an Evangelical Christian postal worker who resigned after receiving warning letters and suspensions for refusing to work on Sundays. The district court rejected claims of religious discrimination and held that plaintiff had been offered shift swapping that met the "reasonable accommodation" requirement of Title VII.  The Third Circuit has not previously decided an issue on which the Circuits are split-- whether an employer must wholly eliminate a conflict between work and religion in order for an accommodation to be reasonable under Title VII. The district court concluded that complete elimination is not required.

9th Circuit: Fact Issues Remain As To Prison's Confiscation of NOI Texts

 In Jones v. Slade, (9th Cir., Jan. 24, 2022), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a district court's grant of summary judgment and held that there remains genuine issues of fact in connection with an Arizona prison's confiscation of six hip-hop music CD's and two Nation of Islam texts which plaintiff received by mail.  The Court held that questions remain as to selective enforcement of prison rules as to the music CD's.  It concluded that plaintiff's RLUIPA and Free Exercise claims relate to his religious practice of reading Nation of Islam texts authored by Elijah Muhammad during Ramadan.  The court said in part:

RLUIPA defines “religious exercise” to include “any exercise of religion, whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief.” ... That means that RLUIPA protects not only practices deemed orthodox by some recognized religious organization,  but also idiosyncratic practices—practices “not compelled by, or central, to a [given] system of religious belief.”

The court held that as to both plaintiff's RLUIPA claim and his 1st Amendment Free Exercise claim, "there is a genuine issue of fact as to whether denying Jones essential religious texts during Ramadan is a substantial burden on his religious exercise...."  Tucson Sentinel reports on the decision.

Biden and Harris Issue Statement In Support Of Roe v. Wade

Last Saturday (Jan. 22) was the 49th anniversary of the decision in Roe v. Wade that established a constitutional right to abortion.  On Saturday, the White House issued a statement from President Biden and Vice President Harris (full text), saying in part:

The Biden-Harris Administration strongly supports efforts to codify Roe, and we will continue to work with Congress on the Women’s Health Protection Act. All people deserve access to reproductive health care regardless of their gender, income, race, zip code, health insurance status, immigration status, disability, or sexual orientation. And the continued defense of this constitutional right is essential to our health, safety, and progress as a nation.

We must ensure that our daughters and granddaughters have the same fundamental rights that their mothers and grandmothers fought for and won on this day, 49 years ago....

10th Circuit Affirms Dismissal Of Churches Challenge To Colorado COVID Restrictions

In Denver Bible Church v. Polis, (10th Cir., Jan. 24, 2022), the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a district court's denial of a preliminary injunction in a free exercise challenge by two churches and one of their pastors to COVID restrictions imposed by the state of Colorado.  It similarly affirmed the dismissal of a challenge to the federal government's award of COVID relief aid to the state.  The court dismissed most of the claims against the state on mootness grounds, finding that changes in state restrictions have lifted all COVID limits on churches. The facial challenge to the state's emergency disaster statute was dismissed because the statute is neutral and generally applicable.  The court then dismissed for lack of standing plaintiffs' claim that the federal government violated RFRA by distributing COVID relief aid to Colorado while the state was violating plaintiffs' free exercise rights.

Free Exercise Challenges To OSHA Vaccine Mandate Dismissed By Supreme Court In Light Of NFIB Decision

 As has been widely reported, earlier this month in National Federation of Independent Business v. OSHA, (Sup. Ct., Jan. 13, 2022), the Supreme Court held that OSHA exceeded its statutory authority in ordering vaccination of employees in all businesses with more than 100 employees.  Today, the Supreme Court dismissed 13 cases in which the same OSHA regulation was challenged. (Order List). Among those dismissed were two cases brought by religious institutions that raised specific religious freedom objections to the vaccine mandate: Southern Baptist Theological Seminary v. OSHA, (Docket No. 21A246, dismissed 1/24/2022) and Word of God Fellowship, Inc. v. OSHA, (Docket No. 21A250, dismissed 1/24/2022). More details of the challenges in those two cases are discussed in this prior posting.

Recent Articles of Interest

 From SSRN:

• SpearIt, 9/11 Impacts on Muslims in Prison, (Michigan Journal of Race & Law, Vol. 27, p. 101, 2021, forthcoming).
• Gila Stopler, From Private Prejudice to Public Policy: How Religious Conservatives Use Liberalism to Control Women’s Bodies the U.S. and Israel in Comparative Perspective,  (Forthcoming in 30 William and Mary Bill of Rights Journal,).
• Bruce A. Green & Rebecca Roiphe, ABA Model Rule 8.4(g), Discriminatory Speech, and the First Amendment, (Hofstra Law Review, Vol. 50, 2022).
• Ronit Irshai, Tanya Zion-Waldoks & Bana Shoughry, The First Female Qadi in Israel's Shari`A (Muslim) Courts: Nomos and Narrative, (Shofar 38.2 (2020): pp. 229–262).

From SmartCILP:

• Therese M. Stewart, Judicial Words Matter, 21 Journal of Appellate Practice & Process 433-454 (2021).
• George Nicholson, Appendix A: Court-Clergy Outreach, 21 Journal of Appellate Practice & Process 505-520 (2021).

Senate Confirms Joseph Donnelley As Ambassador To The Vatican

On Jan. 20, the U.S. Senate, by voice vote, confirmed Joseph Donnelley of Indiana to be U.S. Ambassador to the Vatican. AP reports:

Donnelly is a Democrat who served six years in the U.S. House from a South Bend-area district before winning election to the Senate in 2012. He lost his 2018 reelection bid to Republican Mike Braun.

Donnelly has bachelor’s and law degrees from the University of Notre Dame, where he has been a part-time professor while also working for the Washington law firm Akin Gump.

Notre Dame President Rev. John Jenkins called Donnelly “a person of deep Catholic faith and commitment to public service.”

 [Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]

Pastor's Suit Against Church For Mishandling Investigation Dismissed On Ecclesiastical Abstention Grounds

In Taylor v. Evangelical Covenant Church, (IL App., Jan. 12, 2022), an Illinois state appeals court dismissed on ecclesiastical abstention grounds a suit by a pastor against his former church for breach of contract and intentional interference with economic advantage. Plaintiff claimed that the church carelessly handled an investigation into malicious accusations against him of sexual assault supposedly occurring some forty years earlier, before plaintiff became a pastor. Plaintiff was suspended during the investigation, and after the suspension was lifted he was never returned to his former position. The court said in part:

Even viewed in the light most favorable to him, plaintiff’s claims arise from a wholly internal investigation and suspension conducted by his church. Plaintiff’s claims are inexorably intertwined with defendant’s investigation as to whether he was fit to serve as a pastor, given the accusation of sexual misconduct against him. That is, the substance of plaintiff’s complaint relates to internal matters of church governance and discipline. Ecclesiastical abstention is required because this case necessarily involves matters of internal discipline....  [N]o matter how egregiously defendant may have departed from proper investigatory procedures, the subject matter of the dispute makes abstention compulsory.

Ann Arbor, Michigan City Council Condemns Synagogue Picketers

The Ann Arbor, Michigan City Council on January 18 adopted a Resolution Condemning Antisemitism (full text) which explicitly condemns a group of individuals who have picketed the local Conservative synagogue every Saturday for the last 18 years.  The Resolution reads in part:

Whereas, A small group has picketed the Beth Israel Congregation, an Ann Arbor synagogue, every Saturday for 18 years, erecting antisemitic signs along the Washtenaw Avenue right-of-way including those that allege conspiracy and tarnish the Star of David, creating an atmosphere of hate;

RESOLVED, That the Ann Arbor City Council condemns all forms of antisemitism, and in particular the weekly antisemitic rally on Washtenaw Avenue; calls upon the persons who rally to express antisemitism on Washtenaw Avenue to renounce extremism, disband, and cease their weekly show of aggressive bigotry; and declares its support for the Beth Israel Congregation, their guests, and all members of the Jewish Community in Ann Arbor, each of whom has the right to worship, gather, and celebrate free from intimidation, harassment, and fear of violence.

Last year, the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed a suit against the picketers finding that their actions are protected by the 1st Amendment. (See prior posting.) MLive has a detailed report on the Council meeting at which the resolution was adopted.

Supreme Court Assures Further Delay In Challenge To Texas Heartbeat Abortion Law

Yesterday, in In re Whole Woman's Health, (Sup.Ct., Jan. 20, 2022),  the U.S. Supreme Court in a brief Order refused to issue a writ of mandamus requested by Texas abortion providers who are seeking a speedy adjudication of the constitutionality of Texas SB8, the state's "heartbeat" abortion law that essentially bans almost all abortions after six weeks of pregnancy.  Courts, including the Supreme Court, have refused to enjoin enforcement of the Texas law while its constitutionality is being litigated. Earlier this week, the 5th Circuit assured further delay by certifying a state law issue in the case to the Texas Supreme Court instead of remanding the case to the Texas federal district court for it to act on the constitutional question. (See prior posting.) Yesterday, Justice Breyer filed a dissenting opinion that was joined by Justices Sotomayor and Kagan, and Justice Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion joined by Justices Breyer and Kagan, objecting to the Court's denial of mandamus.  Justice Sotomayor said in part:

Today’s decision shows that any hope that Whole Woman’s Health II might protect the Constitution’s guarantees in this case was illusory. As it turns out, Texas did not even have to amend its law to sidestep the minimal relief this Court left available. Instead, Texas wagered that this Court did not mean what little it said in Whole Woman’s Health II or, at least, that this Court would not stand behind those words, meager as they were. That bet has paid off.... [This Court] accepts yet another dilatory tactic by Texas.... 

This case is a disaster for the rule of law and a grave disservice to women in Texas, who have a right to control their own bodies. I will not stand by silently as a State continues to nullify this constitutional guarantee.

Texas Tribune reports on the decision.

Report Criticizes Cardinal Who Later Became Pope For Not Acting On Sex Abuse Reports

A German law firm yesterday released a lengthy report (full text in German) on sexual abuse by clerics and employees in the Archdiocese of Munich and Freising from 1945 to 2019.  The report is of particular interest because then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger who later became Pope Benedict XVI headed the Archdiocese from 1977 to 1982. Vatican News Service summarizes the Report's findings:

At least 497 people were abused in the Archdiocese of Munich-Freising over a period of almost 74 years (from 1945 to 2019). Most of them were young; 247 are male victims and 182 are female. Sixty percent of the victims were between the ages of 8-14. The report identifies 235 perpetrators of abuse including 173 priests, nine deacons, five pastoral workers, 48 people from the school environment.

According to NPR:

The report ... contradicts Benedict's long-running denial that he covered up or ignored abuse.

Two of the cases involved two perpetrators who committed the abuse while Ratzinger was in office.... The two were kept in pastoral work after being punished by the judicial system. A third case involved a cleric who had been convicted by a court outside Germany and was put back into service in the Munich archdiocese despite evidence showing Ratzinger knew of the man's past....

The law firm's report also criticizes Cardinal Reinhard Marx, who is currently the archbishop of Munich and Freising, for his role in two cases in 2008.

RFRA Defense Successful For Tribal Member Charged In Protest Over Border Wall Construction

In United States v. Ortega, (D AZ, Jan. 19, 2022), an Arizona federal district court reversed its earlier ruling (see prior posting) and allowed Amber Ortega, a member of the Tohono O’odham Nation, to raise a Religious  Freedom Restoration Act defense in her trial on two misdemeanor charges for violating a closure order at the Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument. Ortega was protesting construction of a border wall at Organ Pipe. At the hearing on Wednesday, the court went on to acquit Ortega.  According to KJZZ News, at the hearing Ortega's new lawyer argued:

[T]he religious act in question was not prayer at Quitobaquito.  It was the act of standing at the construction line and witnessing what she saw as the destruction of her ancestral land.

Former Scientology Members No Longer Bound By Arbitration Agreement

In Bixler v. Superior Court for the State of California, (CA App., Jan. 19, 2022), a California state appellate court, reversing the trial court, held that former Church of Scientology members were not bound by their agreement to submit all disputes with the Church to the Church's Religious Arbitration system when the dispute involves conduct that occurred after plaintiffs left the Church. Plaintiffs reported to the police that "That 70’s Show" star Danny Masterson, who was also a Scientology member, had raped them. In retaliation for their reporting, plaintiffs claim that the Church encouraged its members to engage in an elaborate harassment campaign using the Church's so-called Fair Game tactics. The court summarized its holding:

Individuals have a First Amendment right to leave a religion. We hold that once petitioners had terminated their affiliation with the Church, they were not bound to its dispute resolution procedures to resolve the claims at issue here, which are based on alleged tortious conduct occurring after their separation from the Church and do not implicate resolution of ecclesiastical issues.

New York Post reports on the decision.

U.N. Adopts Resolution Condemning Holocaust Denial

The United Nations General Assembly yesterday adopted by consensus a Resolution (full text) that condemns Holocaust denial or distortion. The Resolution, among other things, calls attention to the role of social media in spreading disinformation and misinformation. A United Nations press release announcing the Resolution points out:

The vote comes on the same day, 80 years ago, during the Wansee Conference, when top Nazi officials discussed and coordinated the genocide of the Jewish people, establishing the system of Nazi death camps.

According to The Hill, Iran "disassociated" from the Resolution.

Faculty Seek To Sever Ties With Their Union Because Of Its Anti-Semitic Positions

Suit was filed last week in a New York federal district court by six faculty members at City University of New York who are seeking to sever all ties with the faculty union known as the Professional Staff Congress. They contend that they are required to use PSC as their exclusive bargaining agent. The complaint (full text) in Goldstein v. Professional Staff Congress/CUNY, (SD NY, files 1/12/2022), alleges in part:

3. All but one of the plaintiffs are Jewish, and several of them resigned from PSC following its adoption in June 2021 of a “Resolution in Support of the Palestinian People” ... that Plaintiffs view as anti-Semitic, anti-Jewish, and anti-Israel. Since the Resolution, PSC has continued to advocate positions and take actions that Plaintiffs believe to be anti-Semitic, anti-Jewish, and anti-Israel, in a manner that harms the Jewish plaintiffs and singles them out for opprobrium, hatred, and harassment based on their religious, ethnic, and/or moral beliefs and identity....

JNS reports on the lawsuit.

Jewish Couple Challenge Denial Of Services By Christian Foster Care Placement Agency

Suit was filed yesterday in a Tennessee state trial court challenging the state's contracting with a Christian child placement agency that refuses to provide foster parent training to those who do not share its Christian beliefs.  A Jewish couple who were denied services sued, along with several other plaintiffs.  A Tennessee statute enacted in 2020 specifically allows faith-based adoption and foster care agencies to refuse to provide services that violate their religious convictions. The complaint (full text) in Rutan-Ram v. Tennessee Department of Children's Services, (TN Chanc. Ct., filed 1/19/2022), alleges that this religious discrimination violates several provisions of the Tennessee state constitution.  Americans United issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

5th Circuit Certifies Texas Heartbeat Abortion Case To Texas Supreme Court

In Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson, (5th Cir., Jan. 17, 2022), the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision, certified to the Texas Supreme Court the question of whether under Texas law, any state officials have authority to take disciplinary action against doctors who violate Texas' Heartbeat Act.  The Act bans abortions if the physician has detected a fetal heartbeat-- usually at around 6 weeks of a pregnancy. The case is on remand from the U.S. Supreme Court (see prior posting), which has previously refused to enjoin enforcement of the Texas law while appeals are under way. (See prior posting.) The ability of Texas state officials to enforce the law in some way was crucial to the Supreme Court's decision that abortion providers could sue the state in a challenge to the law. (See prior posting.)  Judge Higginson dissented from the 5th Circuit's decision to certify the question to the Texas Supreme Court, saying in part:

By granting the defendants’ certification motion, we contravene the Supreme Court’s mandate, effectively telling the Court that its opinion was advisory.

Yahoo News reports on the 5th Circuit's decision.

Certiorari Denied In Virginia Ministerial Residence Tax Exemption Dispute

The U.S. Supreme Court today denied review in Trustees of New Life In Christ Church v. City of Fredericksburg, Virginia,  (certiorari  denied, 1/18/2022), over the dissenting opinion of Justice Gorsuch. In the case, a Virginia state court denied the state's "ministerial residence" tax exemption to a local Presbyterian church because the Youth Ministers living in the home at issue were not ordained clergy and were not listed by the church as one of its primary pastors. (See prior related posting.) The city claimed that this meant they did not qualify as "ministers" under the Presbyterian Church's Book of Church Order, despite the local church's insistence that they do qualify.  Justice Gorsuch, in his opinion dissenting from the denial of certiorari, said in part:

[T]he City continues to insist that a church’s religious rules are “subject to verification” by government officials....

I would grant the petition and summarily reverse. The First Amendment does not permit bureaucrats or judges to “subject” religious beliefs “to verification.”...

This case may be a small one, and one can hope that the error here is so obvious it is unlikely to be repeated anytime soon. But I would correct it....

Courthouse News Service reports on the case.

Court Will Hear Arguments Today In "Christian Flag" Case

The U.S. Supreme Court this morning will hear oral arguments in Shurtleff v. City of Boston. In the case, the U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, applying the "government speech" doctrine, upheld 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. (See prior posting.) (The flag features a red Latin Cross on a blue background in the upper left portion of an otherwise blank white flag.)  The SCOTUSblog case page has links to amicus briefs, briefs of the parties and other filings in the case. The oral arguments, which begin at 10:00 am EST, will be broadcast live at this link.  When the transcript and recording of the arguments become available later today, I will update this post to link to them.

UPDATE: Here are links to the transcript and audio of today's arguments.

Religious Freedom Day, January 16, 2022

Largely lost in a flood of other developments, yesterday (January 16) was Religious Freedom Day, the anniversary of the adoption of the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom by the Virginia General Assembly in 1786. President Biden last week issued a Proclamation (full text) officially marking the day.

Virginia Governor Creates Commission To Combat Antisemitism

Virginia's newly-inaugurated Governor Glenn Youngkin has issued an Executive Order (full text) creating a Commission to Combat Antisemitism. According to the Executive Order:

The purpose of this Commission is to study antisemitism in the Commonwealth, propose actions to combat antisemitism and reduce the number of antisemitic incidents, as well as compile materials and provide assistance to Virginia’s public school system and state institutions of higher education in relation to antisemitism and its connection to the Holocaust.

The Commission shall make recommendations to the Governor and General Assembly with the goal of identifying ways to reverse increasing antisemitic incidents in the Commonwealth.

According to a press release from the Governor's office, the Order was one of nine Executive Orders and two Executive Actions taken by Youngkin on Saturday, the day on which he was inaugurated.

California Settles Suit Over Aztec Prayer In Ethnic Studies Curriculum

A Settlement Agreement (full text) was reached last week (Jan. 13) with the California Department of Education in a suit that had been filed (see prior posting) challenging a prayer to Aztec gods that was in included in the state's Ethnic Studies Model Curriculum. According to an announcement of the agreement by the Thomas More Society:

As a result of the settlement, that the California Department of Education will promptly remove prayers (also labeled as chants or affirmations) from the Aztec and Yoruba (or Ashe) religions from the state-approved curriculum and will issue a public notice of such to all California school districts, charter schools and county offices of education. The department, along with the State Board of Education, also agreed not to encourage the use of the two challenged chants in California public schools.

NY City Council Member Loses Claim This His Expulsion Was Because Of Hostility To His Christian Anti-LGBT Views

In King v. City of New York, (SD NY, Jan. 14, 2022), a New York federal district court rejected a group of 1st and 14th Amendment, as well as state law, challenges by former New York City Council member Andy King to his expulsion from City Council.  He was removed from Council because of alleged ethical misconduct. However King claims that the true motivation of the Council members who voted to expel him was their dissatisfaction with his routine opposition to pro-LGBT issues stemming from his Christian beliefs that sex between members of the same sex is a sin. The court rejected both his free speech and free exercise claims.  Discussing King's free exercise claims, the court said in part:

In support of his Free Exercise claim, King relies on the same factual allegations as those that buttress his Free Speech claim-- namely, Defendants' hostility toward his political views on LGBT issues. But these allegations do not raise the plausible inference that Defendants acted out of hostility against King on the basis of his Christian faith.

Recent Articles of Interest

 From SSRN:

• Cyra Akila Choudhury, Racecraft and Idntity in the Emergence of Islam as Race, (January 6, 2022).
• Vivencio Ballano, Law, Morality, and Catholic Social Teaching on Family Living Wage: Analyzing the Adequacy and Morality of the Minimum Wage in the Philippines, (Cogent Social Sciences, 8:1 (2022).
• Noah Kane, Treat Thy Neighbor as Thyself? Equal Protection and the Scope of RLUIPA's Equal Terms Clause, (Cardozo Law Review, Vol. 43, No. 2, 2022).
• Shlomo Pill, Freedom to Sin: A Jewish Jurisprudence of Religious Free Exercise, (Regent University Law Review, Vol. 34, No. 1, 2021-2022).
• David Abraham, Group Rights and Individual Minority Rights in Immigrant Societies, then and Now, (November 15, 2021).
• Justin Aimonetti, Derivative Immunity as Savior from State Actor Status, (34 Regent University Law Review 107 (2021)).

From SmartCILP:

• Matthew J. Stanford, Practical Piety: Divining Religion's Role in Reproductive Policymaking, [Abstract], 39 Boston University International Law Journal 1-40 (2021)).
• Symposium: Jewish Law in Comparative Context, Touro Law Review, Vol. 36, Issue 4 (2021).
• Adena Berkowitz, My Body, My Choice: Biblical, Rabbinic, and Contemporary Halakhic Responses to Abortion, 37 Touro Law Review 1133 (2021).
• Yehiel Kaplan, Mercy in American Law: The Promise of the Adoption of the Outlook of Jewish Law, 37 Touro Law Review 1193 (2021).

Split En Banc 9th Circuit Denies Review of Refusal To Enjoin School Vaccine Mandate that Lacks Religious Exemption

The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has denied en banc  reconsideration of the refusal to enjoin, pending appeal, a school district's COVID vaccine mandate that does not provide for religious exemptions. In Doe v. San Diego Unified School District, (9th Cir., Jan. 14, 2022), the court denied en banc review of the panel's decision, with various judges filing opinions dissenting from, or concurring with, the denial. Judge Bumatay, in a 21-page opinion joined by six other judges (and concurred in by one judge with senior status), dissented, saying in part:

Simply put, the District can’t have it both ways by allowing secular exemptions but prohibiting religious ones. If the District offers any secular vaccine exemption with a similar risk profile to a religious exemption, it must satisfy strict scrutiny to exclude a religious exemption. The Constitution forbids the District from picking and choosing its preferred secular exemptions while disfavoring religious exemptions. And this remains true in times of crisis.

Judges Berzon and Bennett filed an opinion concurring in the denial of reconsideration which offered rebuttals to each point made by Judge Bumatay in his dissent. Judge Bress, joined by Judge Bade, and Judge Forrest filed a briefer dissenting opinions as well.

Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine Bars Adjudication Of Some Claims In Dispute Between Church Factions

In In re Thomas, (TX App., Jan.14, 2022), Jan. 14, 2022), a Texas state appellate court ruled on the extent to which the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine bars various claims in a dispute between two factions in a Baptist church over who should be its pastor and which faction controls its large bank account. The court held that the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine bars civil courts from ruling on the deacons' authority to terminate the church's pastor and on whether one group is obligated to relinquish control over the church's financial records and bank account. However, the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine did not necessarily bar adjudication of claims for breach of fiduciary duty, conversion of church funds and access to the church's books, records and bank statements.

Supreme Court Grants Review In Case Of Football Coach's Praying At 50-Yard Line

Yesterday the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, (Docket No. 21-418, cert. granted, 1/14/2022). (Order List.)  In the widely followed case, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a high school's actions against a football coach who insisted on prominently praying at the 50-yard line immediately after football games. The coach was placed on paid administrative leave and given negative performance reviews. He did not reapply to coach the following year. A divided 9th Circuit denied en banc review. (See prior posting.) SCOTUS blog reports on the Supreme Court's grant of review. [Corrected. An earlier version of this post inaccurately stated that the coach was "fired".]

Air Force Officer Sues After Accommodation For Religious Objection To COVID Vaccine Is Denied

Suit was filed last week in a Georgia federal district court by a female Air Force officer who has served in the military for 25 years and who was forced into retirement when she refused for religious reasons to take any of the current COVID vaccines.  Her request for a religious accommodation was denied.  The complaint (full text) in Air Force Officer v. Austin, (MD GA, filed 1/6/2022), alleges in part:

52. As a Christian, Plaintiff believes that abortion is a grave evil and contrary to her faith.

53. Plaintiff sincerely believes that receiving a vaccine that was derived from or tested on aborted fetal tissue in its development would violate her conscience and is contrary to her faith....

55. In addition, in accordance with her faith, Plaintiff believes that her “body is the temple of the Holy Spirit” (1 Cor. 6:19-20), and that injection with a novel substance of unknown long-term effects would violate this belief.

Plaintiff claims that the Air Force's actions violate RFRA and the 1st Amendment. Thomas More Society issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit. 

Challenge to Louisiana COVID Worship Restrictions Dismissed As Moot

In Spell v. Edwards, (MD LA, Jan. 12, 2022), a Louisiana federal district court, on remand from the 5th Circuit, again dismissed a challenge to a now expired COVID Order limiting the size of religious gatherings. The court explained:

On July 6, 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit vacated this Court’s November 10 dismissal order, and remanded with instructions to reconsider Plaintiffs’ First Amendment Free Exercise Clause claim in light of new guidance from the U.S. Supreme Court, specifically, Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo, ... South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom, ... and Tandon v. Newsom....

Now, with the benefit of the Supreme Court’s guidance, the Court reaches the same result as before: Plaintiffs’ consolidated actions will, again, be dismissed. In short, the Supreme Court’s most recent jurisprudence cannot save Plaintiffs’ claims for injunctive relief because the challenged restrictions have expired on their own terms and there is no indication whatsoever that crowd-size limits on indoor assembly will be reinstated. Thus, an injunction is a moot point. Further, Plaintiffs’ demand for damages fails because there is not now, and never has been, a “clearly established” right to unrestricted religious assembly.... Thus, Defendants are shielded from liability by qualified immunity.

RNS reports on the decision.

California Sues Health Care Sharing Ministry For Fraud

California's Attorney General announced yesterday that the state has filed a false statements and fraudulent business practices civil lawsuit against a company purporting to operate as a Health Care Sharing Ministry. The complaint (full text) in State of California v. Aliera Companies, Inc., (CA Super., filed 1/12/2022), alleges in part:

Aliera created and marketed its health insurance products as “health care sharing ministry” (HCSM) plans. HCSMs are nonprofit corporations historically comprised of members of a particular religious community, who contribute money to a shared pool with the understanding that the money would pay for catastrophic or surprise healthcare costs pursuant to the members’ shared religious tenets....

... Aliera ...  advertised that members’ monthly payments would go towards the healthcare costs of other members. To the contrary, Aliera retained as much as 84% of every member payment, leaving around 16 cents of every dollar for member expenses. Aliera arbitrarily rejected member requests for payment of healthcare costs in order to continue retaining these member payments for itself and the individual defendants.

Fourteen states and the District of Columbia, have initiated actions against Aliera for its sale and operation of its purported HCSM plans. This includes the California Department of Insurance, which issued a cease and desist order on or about March 8, 2020.

7th Circuit: Church's Suit Against Rescinded COVID Order Is Moot

In Elim Romanian Pentecostal Church v. Pritzker, (7th Cir., Jan. 11, 2022), the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed an Illinois federal district court's denial of an injunction against a now-rescinded COVID order by the Governor of Illinois limiting the number of people who could attend a religious service. The district court based its decision on mootness grounds, even though the 7th Circuit had previously held the case was not moot. The 7th Circuit now said however:

More than 19 months have passed since they were last subject to an attendance limit, and the Governor has not suggested that another is likely.  A legal conclusion that a rescinded order violated the Constitution would not entitle anyone to an injunction....

Connecticut Elimination Of Religious Exemption From School Vaccination Requirement Is Upheld

 In We the Patriots USA, Inc. v. Connecticut Office of Early Childhood Development, (D CT, Jan. 11, 2022), a Connecticut federal district court upheld a Connecticut statute that eliminates the religious exemption from the state requirement for vaccinations for school children. Medical exemptions remain in the statute, and students with previous religious exemptions are allowed to retain them. The court summarized its conclusions in part as follows:

Count One, alleging a violation of the Free Exercise Clause, is dismissed because mandatory vaccination as a condition to school enrollment does not violate the Free Exercise Clause. However, even if P.A. 21-6 was not foreclosed by Supreme Court and Second Circuit precedent, it is constitutional because it is a neutral law of general applicability which is rationally related to a legitimate state purpose.

CT Insider reports on the decision.

6th Circuit Tells District Court To Reconsider Injunction Denial Against School Mask Order

In Resurrection School v. Hertel, (6th Cir., Jan, 12, 2022), the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals vacated a Michigan federal district court's denial of a preliminary injunction against Ingham County, Michigan's COVID order requiring elementary school students, including those in religious schools, to wear masks in the classroom. It sent the case back to the district court for it to reconsider  the question of whether parents of religious school students are entitled to an injunction pending appeal. The court based its order on the fact that the district court relied on a 6th Circuit decision that was subsequently vacated by an en banc order.

Tai Chi Class Sites Are Not Places of Worship For Tax Exemption Law In Ontario

In Fung Loy Kok Institute of Taoism v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, (ON Super. Ct., Jan. 6, 2022), an Ontario (Canada) appellate court held that a Taoist organization was not entitled to a municipal property tax exemption for its satellite sites at which Tai Chi classes are held. The court concluded that these sites are not "places of worship" as that term is used in Ontario's Assessment Act. The court said in part:

Use of a property as a place of worship is different than other uses to which religious organizations can put property.  Evangelization efforts for example....

MPAC argues that the application judge accepted that religious expression and activities occur at the Satellite Sites.  However, in order to create an exemption for those properties, those activities must constitute acts of worship, a more narrow form of activity than the simple act of conducting a practice that has religious connotation.

CTV News reports on the decision.

"Spiritual Distress" From Employer's Vaccine Mandate Is Not "Irreparable Injury"

In Romano v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, (ED MI, Jan. 3, 2022), a Michigan federal district court denied a preliminary injunction to an employee who was to be fired because he refused to comply with his employer's COVID vaccine mandate.  Plaintiff's refusal was based on religious objections and he claimed the employer's denial of his request for a religious exemption violated Title VII, the Michigan Elliot-Larsen Civil Rights Act, the Free Exercise Clause and the Michigan Constitution. However, the court concluded that plaintiff did not meet the "irreparable injury" requirement necessary to support an injunction.  The court said in part:

Plaintiff claimed that his damages are irreparable because he will be fired, lose prestige and seniority, have his reputation marred, and suffer "spiritual distress."... But none of the alleged harms are irreparable....

Although the Court is sympathetic to religious persons who must confront the "impossible choice," Plaintiff never developed a sound legal argument for why the injury attributable to "impossible choice" is irreparable.... Plaintiff instead cited cases that enjoined government COVID19 vaccine mandates—not private COVID-19 vaccine mandates.... As Judge Pittman noted in a similar case, although "[t]he loss of First Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury," the First Amendment does not apply to private companies like Defendant....

Going forward, other plaintiffs may have an avenue for injunctive relief in Title VII COVID-19 vaccine mandate cases based on stronger legal arguments and facts.... Yet it is not the Court's role to advance legal and factual arguments for litigants; the Court resolves disputes based on the arguments that litigants assert.

National Law Review reports on the decision.

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Lawrence G. Sager & Nelson Tebbe, Discriminatory Permissions and Structural Injustice, (Minnesota Law Review, Vol. 106, p. 803, 2021).
• Eric R. Claeys, Dobbs and the Holdings of Roe and Casey,    (Georgetown Journal of Law & Public Policy, Vol. 20, No. 1, 2022, Forthcoming).
• Stephan Sonnenberg, Adrian Von Bernstorff & Thinley Namgay, Finding the Right Path: Towards a Buddhist Sense of Corporate Ethics in Bhutan, (Seoul National University Asia Center - Asia Review Vol. 11(3) (2021)).

From SmartCILP:

• Yael Efron, Michelle LeBaron, Maged Senbel & Mohammed Wattad, Like a Prayer? Applying Conflicts with Religious Dimensions Theory to the "Muezzin Law" Conflict, 63 Washington University Journal of Law & Policy 119-142 (2020).
• Kevin W. Connell, The Bad News of Good News Club: Obliterating the Wall between Church & State, 28 William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal 569-586 (2020).

Rhode Island Vaccine Mandate For Health Care Workers Upheld

In Dr. T v. Alexander-Scott, (D RI, Jan. 7, 2022), a Rhode Island federal district court refused to issue a preliminary injunction in a free exercise challenge to a Rhode Island Department of Health regulation requiring all health care workers to be vaccinated against COVID.  The Regulation contains a narrow medical exemption, but no religious exemption. The court (which had previously denied a temporary restraining order) concluded that the regulation is both neutral and generally applicable. The court said in part:

The Regulation’s medical exemption serves the state’s principal purpose of protecting public health. A failure to exempt the limited number of individuals whose health a vaccine may jeopardize would be counterproductive to that goal to the extent of illogicality. There is no suggestion of a discriminatory bias against religion.

The court also concluded that since the regulation is silent as to religious exemptions, it does not preclude compliance with the reasonable accommodation requirements of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Ministerial Exception Does Not Apply To Liberty University Art Teacher

In Palmer v. Liberty University, Inc., (WD VA, Dec. 1, 2021), a Virginia federal district court held that the ministerial exception doctrine does not apply to prevent an age discrimination suit by an art professor at Liberty University whose contract was not renewed. Concluding that the teacher is not a "minister" for purposes of the ministerial exception, the court said in part:

Palmer's educational background is largely secular.... At the core of Palmer's daily responsibilities was teaching art classes on subjects like drawing and sculpture. For a brief time in the mid-1990s, she also taught humanities courses.... She concedes that she began each class with a short prayer or psalm reading, but she did not otherwise integrate Christian lessons into her classes....  Occasionally, her art lessons would reflect Biblical stories or lessons...., but this was not, apparently, the norm....

Outside of class, Palmer did not significantly participate in her students' spiritual lives. She did not bring her students to church services.... She occasionally counseled them on personal matters outside the immediate scope of her teaching duties, and would have periodic conversations about spirituality with students, but she never led them in Bible study, guided them in scripture, or gave them sermons.

European Court Dismisses Challenge To Baker's Refusal To Supply Cake With Pro-Gay Marriage Inscription

In a much-awaited decision, the European Court of Human Rights managed to avoid dealing directly with the central question in a case pitting LGBTQ rights against religious freedom rights of owners of commercial establishments. In Lee v. United Kingdom, (ECHR, Jan. 6, 2022), Gareth Lee, a gay man, ordered a cake from a bakery in Belfast. He asked for the cake to be decorated with the slogan "Support Gay Marriage."  He planned to take it to a private event being held to mark the end of Northern Ireland Anti-Homophobia and Transphobia Week and being held to gather political support for pending legislation to legalize same-sex marriage. The bakery, Ashers Baking Company, rejected the order because the company owners' Christian religious beliefs were opposed to same-sex marriage.

Lee filed suit in a county court in Northern Ireland claiming a violation of Northern Ireland's Equality Act and its Fair Employment and Treatment Order, which, among other things, bar sexual orientation discrimination in the provision of goods or services and discrimination on the basis of religious belief or political opinion. The case wound its way up to the U.K.'s Supreme Court which concluded that there was no sexual orientation discrimination because the bakery would have refused to supply the cake with that inscription to anyone. It also rejected the political opinion discrimination claim.

Lee appealed to the European Court of Human Rights. In yesterday's decision, the court dismissed the appeal, finding that Lee "did not invoke his Convention rights expressly at any point in the domestic proceedings.  Instead he formulated his claim by reference to [Northern Ireland's domestic law]." By failing to assert his rights under the European Convention in the courts of Northern Ireland, Lee failed to exhaust his domestic remedies.  The court said in part:

75.  ... As the Supreme Court of the United States pointed out in Masterpiece Cakeshop Ltd, these disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market.... This is particularly so in Northern Ireland, where there is a large and strong faith community, where the LGBTIQ community has endured a history of considerable discrimination and intimidation, and where conflict between the rights of these two communities has long been a feature of public debate....

Reuters reports on the decision. [Thanks to several readers for alerting me to the decision.]

Biden Resubmits Lipstadt's Nomination As Special Envoy to Monitor Antisemitism

With Congress beginning a new session, the nominations which the President sent to the Senate last year need to be resubmitted if the Senate has failed to act on them. On Tuesday, President Biden resubmitted a large number of nominations. Among them was the nomination of Deborah Lipstadt to be Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism, with the rank of Ambassador. Lipstadt's nomination was originally sent to the Senate last July. (See prior posting.) According to a CNN report, Senate Democrats accuse Republicans of stalling the nomination.  Republicans on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee have refused so far to agree to hold hearings on her nomination. This is variously attributed to a broad effort to stall President Biden's nominees, or more narrowly to concerns by Foreign Relations Committee member Ron Johnson about tweets from Lipstadt last March critical of him. Lipstadt is a professor of Modern Jewish History and Holocaust Studies at Emory University.

Poway Synagogue Rabbi Sentenced To 14 Months In Custody For Fraud

The U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of California announced that yesterday a California federal district judge sentenced Rabbi Yisroel Goldstein -- rabbi of Chabad of Poway during a much-publicized shooting in 2019-- to 14 months in custody for his part in a multi-million dollar fraud scheme.  Goldstein plead guilty to fraud charges in 2019. (See prior posting.) He was also ordered to pay $2.8 million in restitution.  According to the U.S. Attorney's Office:

[W]hile Rabbi Goldstein was director of the Poway synagogue, he received at least $6.2 million in phony contributions to the Chabad and affiliated charities and secretly refunded up to 90 percent of the donations to the “donors.” After Rabbi Goldstein provided these donors with fake receipts, they illegally claimed huge tax deductions for these nonexistent donations, and the rabbi kept about 10 percent ... for himself....

Rabbi Goldstein also admitted that he defrauded three different Fortune 500 companies by tricking them into matching supposed charitable donations of their employees....

Rabbi Goldstein ... also helped his brother ... conceal approximately $700,000 in income by allowing him to use Chabad bank accounts to deposit his income, thereby hiding it from the IRS.  As his cut, Rabbi Goldstein kept 10 percent.... 

... Goldstein and another defendant ... used false information and fabricated invoices and other records to pretend to be eligible for emergency funds, grants or donations, and private loans [from FEMA and the state of California].

According to The Forward's report on the sentencing, prosecutors had recommended a much more lenient sentence-- 8 months of home confinement and 4 years probation.

Public School Districts Challenge Expansion Of Ohio's Voucher Program

Suit was filed yesterday in an Ohio state trial court by five school districts and an organization comprised of dozens more, as well as by parents of school students, challenging the Ohio legislature's recent expansion of the EdChoice voucher program. The complaint (full text) in Columbus City School District v. State of Ohio, (OH Com. Pl., filed 1/4/2022), alleges that the expanded program violates Article VI, Sec. 2 of the Ohio Constitution which calls for creation of "a thorough and efficient system of common schools throughout the State" and provides that "no religious or other sect, or sects, shall ever have any exclusive rights to, or control of, any part of the school funds of this state." The complaint alleges in part:

148. The General Assembly’s continuing efforts to expand the EdChoice Program have been undertaken with full knowledge that these state funds would overwhelmingly benefit parochial schools, at the expense of Ohio’s public school students.

149. These private sectarian institutions will receive exclusive and unfettered control of approximately $250 million of Ohio’s school funding in Fiscal Year 2022....

150. Diverting almost a quarter of a billion dollars of taxpayer funding to the exclusive control of parochial schools violates the framers’ intent in retaining the full text of Article VI, Section 2 to ensure that public education funds would not be used to support religious sects, including parochial schools.

Columbus Dispatch reports on the lawsuit.

Consent Decree Entered In Suit Claiming Religious Discrimination In Action Against Mosque Construction

 A consent decree (full text) was entered yesterday in a Mississippi federal district court in Abraham House of God and Cemetery, Inc. v. City of Horn Lake, (ND MS, Jan. 3, 2022). The suit alleged that the City of Horn Lake denied approval of the site plan for a proposed mosque because of religious animus. (See prior posting.) The consent decree requires the city to approve the site plan within two weeks, and to act promptly on future applications for permits relating to construction of the mosque.  ACLU issued a press release announcing the filing of the consent decree.

11th Circuit: Punitive Damages For Non-Physical Injuries Are Available To Inmate Under RLUIPA

In Mays v. Joseph, (11th Cir., Jan. 3, 2022), the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals held that a prisoner may recover punitive damages for violation of his religious exercise rights under RLUIPA in a suit against a prison warden in the warden's individual capacity.  In the case, plaintiff claimed that the Georgia Department of Corrections' grooming policy that barred him from growing his hair or a goatee longer than three inches violated his rights to express his religion. The court held that while an incarcerated plaintiff may not recover compensatory damages for mental or emotional injuries absent physical injury, he can recover punitive damages and nominal damages. Here plaintiff had waived his nominal damage claim.

Maneuvering Continues In Challenge To Texas Heartbeat Abortion Law

Procedural maneuvering continues in the challenge by abortion providers to the Texas "heartbeat" abortion law. The courts have kept the Texas law in effect while the maneuvering goes on, with Texas seeking to delay proceedings as long as possible and plaintiff abortion providers seeking to speed them forward.  

The U.S. Supreme Court held that the law could be challenged despite the state's attempt to draft the law to prevent anyone from being able to do so because there were still some state officials involved in enforcing the law. The Supreme Court then remanded the case to the 5th Circuit (which had previously allowed the law to remain in effect), instead of to the district court (which had previously enjoined the law while appeals were pending). In the 5th Circuit, Texas is seeking to have the question of whether state officials are in fact still involved in enforcing the law certified to the Texas Supreme Court for resolution, while the abortion providers challenging the law contend that the U.S. Supreme Court has already decided that issue. The 5th Circuit has scheduled oral arguments for Friday on the appropriateness of certifying the case, as well as on other jurisdictional questions.

 So yesterday, in In re Whole Woman's Health, (U.S. Sup. Ct., filed 1/3/2022), the plaintiffs in the case filed a petition (full text) with the U.S. Supreme Court asking it to issue a writ of mandamus directing the Court of Appeals to remand the case immediately to the district court. Texas Tribune reports on these developments.

Navy Enjoined From Applying Vaccine Mandate To Plaintiff Religious Objectors

 In U.S. Navy SEALs 1-26 v. Biden, (ND TX, Jan. 3, 2022), a Texas federal district court issued a preliminary injunction barring the U.S. Navy from imposing its COVID-19 vaccine mandate on 35 Navy service members who are plaintiffs in the case.  The court held that plaintiffs need not exhaust their military remedies before suing because, while the Navy's policy provides for religious exemptions, the denial of each exemption request is predetermined.  Also, even if a religious exemption is granted, the service member is then permanently barred from deployment.

The court concluded that applying the vaccine mandate to plaintiffs violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, saying in part:

Because the Plaintiffs have demonstrated a substantial burden, Defendants must show that this burden furthers a compelling interest using the least restrictive means....

Even if Defendants have a broad compelling interest in widespread vaccination of its force, they have achieved this goal without the participation of the thirty-five Plaintiffs here. At least 99.4% of all active-duty Navy servicemembers have been vaccinated.... The remaining 0.6% is unlikely to undermine the Navy’s efforts.... With a 99.4% vaccination rate, the Navy’s herd immunity is at an all-time high. COVID-19 treatments are becoming increasingly effective at reducing hospitalization and death....

Moreover, the Navy is willing to grant exemptions for non-religious reasons. Its mandate includes carveouts for those participating in clinical trials and those with medical contraindications and allergies to vaccines.... Because these categories of exempt servicemembers are still deployable, a clinical trial participant who receives a placebo may find himself ill in the high-stakes situation that Defendants fear.... As a result, the mandate is underinclusive.

The court also concluded that applying the mandate to plaintiffs violates the 1st Amendment's free exercise clause because the mandate is not neutral and generally applicable.

First Liberty issued a press release announcing the decision.

Australian Court Holds Diocese Vicariously Liable For Abuse By Priest

In the Australian state of Victoria, a trial court has held a Catholic Diocese vicariously liable for sexual abuse of a five-year old in 1971 by Bryan Coffee, an assistant parish priest. In DP (a pseudonym) v. Bird, (Sup. Ct. Victoria, Dec. 22, 2021), the court, in a very lengthy opinion, said in part:

278 By reason of —(a) the close nature of the relationship between the Bishop, the Diocese and the Catholic community in Port Fairy; (b) the Diocese’s general control over Coffey’s role and duties within St Patrick’s parish; (c) Coffey’s pastoral role in the Port Fairy Catholic community; and (d) the relationship between DP, his family, Coffey and the Diocese, which was one of intimacy and imported trust in the authority of Christ’s representative, personified by Coffey — the Diocese is vicariously liable for his conduct....

280 I am also satisfied that Coffey’s role as a priest under the direction of the Diocese placed him in a position of power and intimacy vis-à-vis DP that enabled him to take advantage of DP when alone — just as he did with other boys. This position significantly increased the risk of harm to DP....

However the court refused to hold the Diocese liable on a direct negligence claim, concluding that Coffee's actions were not a foreseeable risk.  Law and Religion Australia and ABC Australia News reports at length on the decision, saying that this is the first time that an Australian court has found a diocese vicariously liable for actions of a priest.  [Thanks to Law & Religion UK for the lead.]

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• John Witte, 'Foreword,' to Norman Doe, ed., Church Laws and Ecumenism: A New Path for Christian Unity, (London: Routledge, 2020, vii-ix).
• John Witte, “Foreword,” to Robert F. Cochran, Jr., and Michael P. Moreland, eds., Christianity and Private Law (London: Routledge, 2021, viii-x).
• John Witte, The Right of Freedom of Religion: An Historical Perspective from the West, (in Silvio Ferrari, et al., eds., Routledge Handbook on Freedom of Religion and Belief (London: Routledge, 2020, 9-24).
• John Witte & Andrea Pin, Faith in Strasbourg and Luxembourg: The Fresh Rise of Religious Freedom Litigation in the Pan-European Courts , (Emory Law Journal 70 (2021): 587-661).
• John Witte, 'Introduction,' to John Witte, Jr., et al., eds., The Impact of the Law on Character Formation, Ethical Education, and the Communication of Values in Late Modern Pluralistic Societies,  (Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt GmbH, 2021), 15-30).
• John Witte, 'Foreword,' to Paul Valliere and Randall Poole, eds., Law and the Christian Tradition in Modern Russia, (London: Routledge, 2021, ix-xi).
• John Hasnas, Free Speech on Campus: Countering the Climate of Fear, (Georgetown Journal of Law & Public Policy, Forthcoming).
• David A. Kaye, The Troubled World of Hate Speech Regulation,  (Journal of Human Rights, 2022, forthcoming).
• Teresa D. Harrison & Jeremy P. Thornton, Further Evidence on Competition in Nonprofit Donor Market, (Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 2021).

Happy New Year 2022!

Dear Religion Clause Readers:

Happy New Year 2022! I hope that you continue to find Religion Clause a valuable source of information on the intersection of law, religion and public policy.  This past year, we saw a continuation of the trend to convert cultural and political disagreements with legislative or executive decisions into religious freedom or church-state claims that can be asserted before the courts.  Faced with this deluge, the Supreme Court's increased use of its "shadow docket" to decide important free exercise cases without full briefing and argument has become the subject of controversy.

In reporting on these and other developments, I have attempted to retain Religion Clause's objectivity and its policy of linking to extensive primary source material. I hope that the blog continues to have a reputation for reliability at a time when the objectivity of social media is increasingly called into question.  

Religion Clause is a niche blog whose readership includes lawyers at advocacy organizations, law school faculty, journalists, clergy, governmental agency personnel, students and others working professionally dealing with church-state relations and religious liberty concerns in the U.S. and around the world. I attempt to avoid excessive technical matters in my posts in order to make the blog accessible as well to non-lawyers with a general interest in the area.

2022 promises to be another year of interesting and important developments. I hope you will continue to follow them on Religion Clause.  In addition to accessing the blog directly, links to Religion Clause postings are available on Twitter, Facebook and through e-mail alerts from services listed near the bottom of the blog's sidebar.

Thanks again to all of you who are loyal readers-- both those who have followed Religion Clause for years and those of you who have only recently discovered the blog.  A special thanks to readers who have quickly sent me leads on recent developments, and to those who have alerted me to mistakes. I encourage you to recommend Religion Clause to colleagues, students and friends who might find it of interest.

Best wishes as we all face the challenges that 2022 brings to us.  I hope that we are able to deal with these challenges by respecting divergent viewpoints and supporting the foundational institutions of American democracy.

Feel free to contact me by e-mail (religionclause@gmail.com) in response to this post or throughout the year with comments or suggestions. Best wishes for 2022.

Howard Friedman

Hebrew Israelite Student Seeks $4M In Damages For Coach's Punishment That Violated His Religious Dietary Requirements

Suit was filed yesterday in an Ohio federal district court by a Hebrew-Israelite high school football team member who was told to eat a pepperoni pizza as discipline for missing a mandatory weight class. When the student objected that eating pork was a violation of his religious beliefs, he was allowed to remove the pepperoni, but still was forced to eat the pizza with pork residue on it. The complaint (full text) in K.W. (Junior) v. Canton City School District, (ND OH, filed 12/29/2021) alleges 1st and 14th Amendment, as well as other, claims saying in part:

All Defendants were fully aware of Junior’s religious beliefs; however, Defendants established practices and implemented actions that were antisemitic and/or in direct violation of Plaintiffs’sincere religious beliefs. therefore violating 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand compensatory damages of $3,000,000.00 and punitive damages of $1,000,000.00.... [as well as] injunctive relief....

Other dollar amounts are sought for other causes of action set out in the complaint.  WKYC News reports on the lawsuit.

Church Dispute Dismissed On Ecclesiastical Abstention Grounds

In Iglesia Pentecostal Filadelfia, Inc. v. Rodriguez, (TX App., Dec. 29, 2021), a Texas state appellate court affirmed a trial court's dismissal of an internal church dispute on ecclesiastical abstention grounds. Jose  Rodriguez, Jr. took over as pastor of the church when his mother passed away. Plaintiffs sued on behalf of the church challenging Rodriguez's actions in that role. The court said in part:

Here, the trial court found that neither side complied with the Church’s organizational and governing documents, including the Bylaws, a decision we find support for in the record .... Therefore, we find that a determination of the Church’s claims at issue would impermissibly embroil the trial court in a religious controversary to include choosing its church leaders....

Further, the Church’s second declaration is clearly a matter of church authority or governance as opposed to substantively and effectively a property dispute as it asks the trial court to declare that “[Jose Jr.] has no right or authority to act on the behalf of [the Church] and its congregation.”

Moreover, to develop the Church’s conversion claim would impermissibly force the trial court to decide the Church’s corporate governance because to do so would require it to determine which board to inquire of for the reason behind the alleged unlawful use of funds.

India Refuses To Allow Mother Theresa's Charity To Receive Further Funds From Abroad

The Guardian reports that on Christmas Day, India's Ministry of Home Affairs refused to renew the license allowing Missionaries of Charity to continue to receive financial support from abroad.  Missionaries of Charity, which runs a network of charities across India, was founded by Mother Theresa in 1950. Accusations, denied by the Charity, are that it lures poor young Hindu women into becoming Christians by forcing them to read the Bible, recite Christian prayers and wear a cross around their neck. Hardline Hindus say that the Charity is intentionally hurting the religious sentiments of Hindus.

Muslim Woman Sues Gun Range For Religious Discrimination

A religious discrimination suit was filed yesterday in a Missouri federal district court against a "faith, family and freedom" based indoor gun range that refuses admission to Muslim women wearing hijabs. The complaint (full text) in Barakat v. Brown, (WD MO, filed 12/28/2021) alleges that this policy of the Frontier Justice gun range, owned by a Christian family, violates the public accommodation anti-discrimination provisions in Title II of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.  CAIR issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.