Universal Life Church Prevails In Pennsylvania Settlement Over Conducting Marriages

In Universal Life Church Monastery Storehouse v. McGeever, (WD PA, June 6, 2022), a Pennsylvania federal district court issued an Order based on a agreed settlement by the parties. The Order bars Allegheny County court personnel from telling members of the public that Universal Life Church ministers cannot solemnize marriages in Pennsylvania. the Order reads in part:

[A] government policy or practice that applies 23 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 1503 in a manner that denies, discourages, or otherwise chills the religious practice of the Universal Life Church and its ministers by proclaiming that Universal Life Church ministers have no legal authority to solemnize marriages under 23 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. §1503(a)(6) would violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution by (a) preferring certain religions over others in violation of the Establishment Clause, (b) burdening the Universal Life Church’s and its members’ religious practices in violation of the Free Exercise Clause, and (c) discriminating against the Universal Life Church and its members in violation of the Equal Protection Clause, to the extent the policy or practice treats Universal Life Church ministers less favorably than those similarly situated.

GoSkagit reports on the court order.

10th Circuit: No Interlocutory Appeal Of Ministerial Exception Determination

 In Tucker v. Faith Bible Chapel International, (10th Cir., June 7, 2022), the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision, held that interlocutory appeals from the denial of a ministerial exception defense are not permitted.  The 50-page majority opinion said in part:

the “ministerial exception” is an affirmative defense to employment discrimination claims, rather than a jurisdictional limitation on the authority of courts to hear such claims....

In the case, a former high school teacher and administrator/ chaplain contends that he was fired for opposing alleged racial discrimination by a Christian school.

Judge Bacharach filed a 44-page dissent, saying in part:

The ministerial exception also advances values of a high order, protecting religious bodies from burdensome litigation over religious doctrine and preserving the structural separation of church and state. These values compel courts to resolve application of the ministerial exception at an early stage of the litigation.

EEOC Sues Restaurant For Failing To Accommodate Employee's Church Attendance

The EEOC announced this week that it has filed suit against Del Frisco’s of Georgia, an Atlanta restaurant, for refusing to accommodate an employee's religious beliefs. The EEOC alleges:

[T]he employee requested and was granted an accommodation of not working on Tuesday evenings and Sunday mornings so she could attend prayer and church services. Del Frisco’s scheduled the employee to work on Tuesday, Dec. 31, 2019, in conflict with her existing religious accommodation and her need to attend prayer services that evening. The employee reminded her supervisors of her religious conflict, but she was not taken off the schedule. When the employee did not appear for work on that day, Del Frisco’s fired her.

Court Resolves Details Of Last Rites During Inmate's Execution

In Atwood v. Shinn, (D AZ, June 6, 2022), an Arizona federal district court entered a preliminary injunction detailing the manner in which a Greek Orthodox priest could administer last rites to a prisoner before and during the prisoner's execution by lethal injection.  The state consented to many of the provisions of the injunction. However the court, relying on RLUIPA as a basis, resolved the remaining areas of disagreement: (1) The inmate may be in a wheelchair rather than a restraint chair so he can fully participate in the tonsure ceremony; (2) the priest may be at the inmate's head during the execution so he can place a priestly stole over his head.

New York Court Reaffirms Its Decision Upholding Required Coverage For Medically Necessary Abortions

In Roman Catholic Diocese of Albany v. Vullo, (NY App., June 2, 2022), a New York intermediate appellate court, in a case on remand from the U.S. Supreme Court, reaffirmed its holding rejecting a challenge by several religious organizations and other plaintiffs to a New York administrative regulation  requiring health insurance policies in New York to provide coverage for medically necessary abortion services. (See prior posting) The U.S. Supreme Court had vacated the original judgment and remanded the case for further consideration in light of Fulton v. Philadelphia. (See prior posting.)

NY School Districts Not Required To Provide Bussing For Religious Schools On Days Public Schools Are Closed

In In the Matter of United Jewish Community of Blooming Grove, Inc. v. Washingtonville Central School District, (NY App., June 2, 2022), a New York state appellate court held that under New York statutory law, school districts are not required (but are permitted) to provide bus transportation to non-public school students on days when those schools are in session but public schools are closed. The suit was brought seeking to require the school district to provide transportation to students in Jewish schools in Kiryas Joel on all days when those schools were open.

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Alex Deagon, Creating Peaceful Coexistence Through Virtue: A Theological Approach to Institutional Religious Freedom, Equality and the First Amendment , (Liberty & Law Center Research Paper No. 22-01 (2022).
• Steven Douglas Smith, The Church in the Twilight, (Liberty & Law Center Research Paper No. 22-02 (2022)).
• Elizabeth Clark, The Impact of Religion and Religious Organizations, (Liberty & Law Center Research Paper No. 22-03 (2022).
• Helen M. Alvare, Families, Schools, and Religious Freedom,      (Liberty & Law Center Research Paper No. 22-05 (2022).
• Gerard V. Bradley, The Death and Resurrection of the Establishment Clause, (Liberty & Law Center Research Paper No. 22-06 (2022).
• Francis Beckwith, What’s So Special About Religious Liberty? Law, Philosophy, and Serving God, (Liberty & Law Center Research Paper No. 22-07 (2022).
• Kristen Dagher, What's One More? Another Paper Attempting to Reconcile Abortion Jurisprudence and the Doctrine of Precedent Considering Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health, (May 9, 2022).
• Mehdi J. Hakimi, Relentless Atrocities: The Persecution of Hazaras, (Michigan Journal of International Law, Vol. 44 (Forthcoming 2022)).
• Muhammad Munir, John Finnis’ Modern Natural Law Theory: An Overview, (May 15, 2022).

From SSRN (Canadian Law):

• Dwight G. Newman, God in the Constitution: The Supremacy of God Clause in the Preamble to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, ((2022) 105 Supreme Court Law Review (2d) 39-56).
• Kristopher Kinsinger, Bringing About a Reformation? Religious Freedom and Canadian Constitutionalism, 1759-1774, ((2022) 105 SCLR (2d) 395).

From SSRN (Law of China and Hong Kong)

• Johannes Man-mun Chan, From Elimination of Discrimination on the Ground of Sexual Preference to Same-Sex Marriage: The Hong Kong Experience, ((2022) Vol 27, No 2, Australian Journal of Human Rights 442-466).
• Hui Jing, The Legal Nature of the Chinese Charitable Trust ,(in Matthew Harding and Ying Khai Liew (eds), Asia-Pacific Trusts Law: Theory and Practice in Context (Hart Publishing, 2021) 271-289).

From SSRN (Islamic Law):

• Zakaria Aamou, Feminist and Islamist Movements in Morocco: Allegations of Compatibility and Revolt, (May 19, 2022).
• Dr. Sulaiman Lebbe Rifai, War and Peace in Islam, (May 19, 2022).
• Dr. Sulaiman Lebbe Rifai, Islam and the Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, (May 16, 2022).

Certiorari Denied In Wisconsin Parochial School Bussing Case

The U.S. Supreme Court today denied review in St. Augustine School v. Underly, (Docket No. 21-1295, certiorari denied 6/6/2022). (Order List). In the case, the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals sent back to the district court a suit challenging Wisconsin's refusal to provide bus transportation to students at St. Augustine School. The decision was based on a Wisconsin statute that requires school districts to bus private school students, but limits the obligation to only one private school affiliated with the same religious denomination or sponsoring group in each attendance district. The case has a complicated litigation history. (See prior posting.)

Oversight Report Issued On Philadelphia Archdiocese Compensation Of Abuse Claimants

Yesterday, the Catholic Archdiocese of Philadelphia released the Final Report (full text) of the Oversight Committee monitoring the Archdiocese's Independent Reconciliation and Reparations Program. The Program was designed to to provide compensation and support to victims of childhood sexual abuse committed by clergy of the Archdiocese. The Report says in part:

Of the 623 claims filed, 619 received final determination letters. Three of the 623 claims filed remain "on hold" as a result of ongoing criminal investigations of these claims, and one claim was withdrawn by the Claimant prior to determination.

Of the 619 Claimants who received determination letters, 475 were determined to be eligible for compensation, while 144 were determined to be ineligible.

Of the 475 eligible claims, as of the writing of this report:

438 Claimants (more than 90% of those eligible) have accepted their offers and been paid a combined total of $78,465,000;

one claim was withdrawn after the determination was made;

fifteen claims missed the acceptance deadline....; and

twenty-one offers (totaling $2,040,000) were rejected by the Claimants.... 

...We also confirmed that the Archdiocese reports all allegations of criminal conduct to law enforcement regardless of when the conduct is alleged to have occurred or the status of the alleged perpetrator. The Archdiocese does not make a determination of an allegation's potential viability for prosecution, but rather leaves that determination to the law enforcement authorities with appropriate jurisdiction over the allegation.

Catholic Philly has additional details. The victim advocacy organization SNAP also issued a press release reacting to the Report.

High School Rules Barring Religious Requirements For Christian Student Organization Leaders Is Upheld

In Fellowship of Christian Athletes v. San Jose Unified School District Board of Education, (ND CA, June 1, 2022), a California federal district court upheld a high school's non-discrimination policy for recognized student groups that precluded Fellowship of Christian Athletes from requiring its leaders to agree with and live in accordance with the group's Christian beliefs. In rejecting challenges to the policy, the court said in part:

[P]olicies meant “to ensure that the school’s resources are open to all interested students without regard to special protected classifications” are similar to the antidiscrimination laws intended to ensure equal access that the Supreme Court has concluded are viewpoint and content neutral.... The fact that the Policy allows clubs to set “non-discriminatory criteria” but not criteria based on religion, sexual orientation, or other protected classifications does not mean the Policy aims at the suppression of speech....

Plaintiffs have not shown that the Policy, as written, clearly violates their right to free exercise of their religion. The District’s Policy applies to all ASB student clubs. It does not “impose special disabilities” on Plaintiffs or other religious groups, but instead affects those groups in ways incidental to the general application of the Policy....

COVID Testing Requirement Survives Free Exercise Challenge

In Villareal v. Rocky Knoll Health Care Center, (ED WI, June 1, 2022), a Wisconsin federal district court refused to allow a nurse who objected on religious grounds to a COVID testing requirement of a county-run nursing center to file an amended complaint.  The nurse's employment had been terminated her for refusing to comply with the center's testing policy. The court said in part:

Rocky Knoll’s COVID-19 testing policy is neutral. It does not refer to a religious practice.... Nor is its purpose to suppress “religion or religious conduct.”...

It is also generally applicable: Rocky Knoll’s policy does not prohibit religious conduct while permitting other conduct that may undermine its interest in preventing the spread of COVID-19 in its facility and ensuring the safety of its residents and employees....

The court also held that plaintiff cannot recover damages or obtain injunctive relief in federal court for a claim under the right of conscience provisions of the Wisconsin constitution.

Parents Can Move Ahead With Challenge To School's Transgender Transition Policy

 In T.F. v. Kettle Moraine School District, (WI Cir. Ct., June 1, 2022), a Wisconsin state trial court held that parents could proceed with their action challenging a school district's policy to honor minor students’ requests to transition to a different gender identity at school without parental consent. One set of plaintiffs withdrew their child from the school after the school insisted on using the name and pronouns favored by the student. The court held that they could still proceed with a claim for nominal damages. As to other plaintiffs whose children were in the school but were not presently impacted by the policy, the court said in part:

[Parents] need not wait for potential harm from Kettle Moraine’s policy to occur for their children before they are entitled to seek declaratory relief on whether the policy violates their parental rights.

ADF issued a press release announcing the decision. 

2nd Circuit: Rabbinical College's Zoning Challenge Is Not Ripe For Review

In Congregation Rabbinical College of Tartikov, Inc. v. Village of Pomona, New York, (2d Cir., May 27, 2022), the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of a suit challenging two Village zoning laws that prevent plaintiffs from building a rabbinical college on its 100-acre property.  The court held that the challenge to the laws fails on ripeness grounds. It concluded that the Village Board of Trustees' refusal to consider plaintiffs' petition to repeal completely the two laws cannot be considered to be the Board's final decision on the particular building plans, since the petition did not set out any details of the plans. It also concluded that the U.S. Supreme Court's decision last year in Pakdel v. City and County of San Francisco did not change the ripeness rules for challenging a zoning denial. (See prior related posting.) Rockland/Westchester Journal News reports on the 2nd Circuit's decision.

Louisiana Legislature Clarifies Child Sex-Abuse Look-Back Window

The Louisiana legislature yesterday gave final passage to HB402 (full text). The law clarifies that the 3-year look-back window to bring child sex abuse claims that was enacted last year applies to sex abuse claims, no matter how long ago they arose.  As explained by Louisiana Illuminator:

[O]ver the past year, the Catholic Church has repeatedly argued in Louisiana courts that some of the claims being brought under the lookback window should be thrown out because the window only applies to abuse that has happened since 1993.  Attorneys for the church said last year’s law is restrictive because it references an old statute regarding child abuse that wasn’t enacted until that year....

HB402 eliminates that ambiguity. 

Suit Challenges California Group's Ethnic Studies Curriculum As Antisemitic

Last month, suit was filed in a California federal district court seeking to enjoin the Los Angeles public schools from using an ethnic studies curriculum which plaintiffs contend is antisemitic. The complaint (full text) in Concerned Jewish Parents and Teachers of Los Angeles v. Liberated Ethnic Studies Model Curriculum Consortium, (WD CA, filed 5/12/2022), alleges that defendants oppose the broad Ethnic Studies Curriculum approved by the state of California, and instead are attempting to convince schools to teach a curriculum that focuses only on Black Americans, Chicano/Latinos, Native Americans, and Asian American/Pacific Islanders. The complaint alleges in part:

This case is brought to compel public disclosure of, and to enjoin, Defendants’ efforts to insert into the Los Angeles public school curriculum, overtly racist as well as antisemitic teaching material which, as its authors intend, discriminates against a segment of California residents on the basis of their religious beliefs and their national origin—namely American and Middle Eastern-Americans Jews who embrace their religion’s foundational belief in Zionism....

The 55-page complaint alleges that use of the Liberated Ethnic Studies Model Curriculum violates plaintiffs' rights under the 1st and 14th Amendments, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the California Education Code. Among other relief, it seeks an injunction barring the Los Angeles Unified School district from:

including any language, in any teaching materials, asserting that Zionism is not a Jewish belief; denouncing the Jewish belief in the land of Israel as the land promised by God to the Jewish people, or the Jewish belief in Zionism, or asserting that the State of Israel, as the Nation-State of the Jewish people, is illegitimate, or asserting as a fact that the Jewish State is guilty of committing such horrific crimes against others as ethnic cleansing, land theft, apartheid or genocide, or that the Jewish people are not indigenous to the land of Israel or to the Middle East, or denying the State of Israel the right to self-defense; and/or denying the historical or religious connection between the Jewish people and the land of Israel....

The Deborah Project's website has more on the lawsuit.

7th Circuit Hears Oral Arguments On Reinstatement Of Doctor Who Refuses Vaccination On Religious Grounds

The U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday heard oral arguments (audio of full arguments) in Halczenko v. Ascension Health, Inc., (Docket No. 22-1040, 5/31/2022). In the case, an Indiana federal district court last December (full text of district court opinion) denied a preliminary injunction to a pediatric intensive care doctor who was denied a religious exemption from a hospital's COVID vaccination requirement and was placed on unpaid leave. The court held that plaintiff had not shown irreparable injury necessary to obtain an injunction.  Compensatory and other relief will be available if he ultimately prevails. Bloomberg Law reports on the oral arguments, saying in part:

One judge during oral argument ... homed in on the speculative nature of Paul Halczenko’s alleged irreparable harm from not getting rehired by Ascension St. Vincent Hospital right away—that not practicing medicine would cause his skills to atrophy and cost him his career.

Other members of the three-judge panel—all of whom were appointed by President Donald Trump—focused on apparent factual and legal shortcomings in the doctor’s bid for a preliminary injunction against Ascension Health Inc. and the hospital.

Certiorari Denied In Church's Challenge To Colorado COVID Restrictions

The U.S. Supreme Court today denied review in Community Baptist Church v. Polis, (Docket No. 21-1328, certiorari denied 5/31/2022). (Order List). In the case, 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. (See prior posting.)

Class Action Filed To Challenge Air Force Vaccine Mandate

Another lawsuit has been filed by religious objectors challenging the military's COVID vaccine mandate.  Brought in a Texas federal district court by nine members of the Air Force as a class action on behalf of all Air Force members with religious objections to the COVID vaccine, the complaint (full text) in Spence v. Austin, (ND TX, filed 5/27/2022), alleges violations of plaintiffs' rights under the 1st Amendment and RFRA.  It alleges in part:

Defendants  have  mandated  that  all  members  of  the  Air  Force  receive  a COVID-19  vaccine,  or  be involuntarily  separated.  In theory, Defendants  offer medical, administrative,  and  religious  accommodations  to  that  mandate.  But  in  practice, only servicemembers with medical or administrative reasons for an exemption from the mandate are accommodated. Religious accommodation requests (“RARs”) are universally denied unless the requester is already imminently leaving the Air Force. 

First Liberty issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit. 

President's Memorial Day Proclamation

Today is Memorial Day. Last week, President Biden issued a Proclamation titled Prayer for Peace, Memorial Day 2022 (full text) which reads in part:

In honor and recognition of all of our fallen service members, the Congress, by a joint resolution approved May 11, 1950, as amended (36 U.S.C. 116), has requested that the President issue a proclamation calling on the people of the United States to observe each Memorial Day as a day of prayer for permanent peace and designating a period on that day when the people of the United States might unite in prayer and reflection.  The Congress, by Public Law 106-579, has also designated 3:00 p.m. local time on that day as a time for all Americans to observe, in their own way, the National Moment of Remembrance.

Virginia Governor Signs Act Broadly Defining "Religion" In Civil Rights Laws

On Friday, Virginia Governor Glen Younkin signed House Bill 1063 (full text) which defines "religion" as used in the state's anti-discrimination laws as:

"Religion" means all aspects of religious observance, practice, or belief.

ADF issued a press release on the new law.

Washington's State Employee Vaccine Mandate Upheld

In Pilz v. Inslee, (WD WA, May 27, 2022), a Washington federal district court upheld a Proclamation by Washington's governor that requires health care, education, and state-agency workers to be vaccinated against COVID.  Among other challenges in a suit brought by 100 state employees, plaintiffs claim the Proclamation infringes on religious beliefs that conflict with vaccination in violation of the Free Exercise clause. The court said in part:

[T]he Proclamation is in no way directed at any religious exercise and, at most, has an incidental impact on some state employees with particular religious beliefs. Therefore, the Court finds that the Proclamation is neutral and generally applicable. The Proclamation is accordingly subject to rational basis review and must be upheld if it is “rationally related to a legitimate governmental purpose.”

Recent Articles of Interest

 From SSRN:

• Meghan J. Ryan, A Catholic Perspective on Prison Conditions and Human Dignity, (Catholicism and Criminal Law (2022/2023 Forthcoming)).
• Marina Bán & Uladzislau Belavusau, Memory Laws, (Bloomsbury History: Theory and Method (2022)).
• Kurt T. Lash, Roe and the Original Meaning of the Thirteenth Amendment, (May 20, 2022).
• Cass R. Sunstein, The Alito Draft, (May 23, 2022).
• Hayden Richard, Louisiana Senate Bill 156: Exclusion, or Fairness in Women’s Sports?, (Southern University Law Review Vol. 49 No. 2, Forthcoming).
• Dr. Sulaiman Lebbe Rifai, Politics and the Muslim World, (May 19, 2022).
• Christine Abely, The Uncertain Role of Reliance in the Enforcement of Charitable Subscriptions, (26 Lewis & Clark L. Rev. 113 (2022)).

From SmartCILP:

• Linda Przybyszewski, Religious Liberty Sacralized: The Persistence of Christian Dissenting Tradition and the Cincinnati Bible War, [Abstract], 39 Law & History Review 707-736 (2021).

6th Circuit: Suit Over Marriages By Clergy Ordained Online Can Move Ahead In Part

In Universal Life Church Monastery Storehouse v. Nabors, (6th Cir., May 27, 2022), the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals allowed claims against a portion of the original defendants to move ahead in the Universal Life Church's challenge to a Tennessee law that prohibits persons receiving online ordination from solemnizing marriages.  Various defendants asserted standing and sovereign immunity defenses. Summarizing its holding, the court said in part:

No plaintiff has standing to seek relief against Governor Lee, Attorney General Slatery, District Attorney General Helper, or County Clerks Crowell, Anderson, and Knowles.... As a result, those portions of the district court’s preliminary injunction that purport to bind [them] ... are VACATED. By contrast, however, we AFFIRM the district court’s determination that plaintiffs have standing to sue District Attorneys General Dunaway, Pinkston, and Jones, along with County Clerk Nabors. We also AFFIRM the district court’s denial of these officials’ sovereign immunity at the motion-to-dismiss stage, and so we do not disturb those portions of the preliminary injunction binding [them].... Last, we REMAND what remains of this suit to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine Does Not Apply To Dispute Over Church's Form Of Governance

In Bogle v. Sewell, (MI App., May 26, 2022), a Michigan state appellate court held that the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine did not preclude the trial court from deciding whether 2011 and 2019 amendments to the bylaws of Evangel Echos Church of the Air validly changed the church from a membership-based to a directorship-based governance. The court said in part:

Whether the Church was organized on a membership basis or a directorship basis was not an ecclesiastical question—it was a corporate law question. To answer this question, the trial court needed to look no further than the Church’s Articles of Association and the MNCA. Resolving the parties’ dispute did not require the trial court to interpret any of the Church’s religious doctrine or to pass judgment on what it believed to be the form of corporate governance most in line with the Church’s discipline or values. It simply required the trial court to apply Michigan statutory law against the language of the Articles of Association

Michigan City Revises Policy On Hijab In Booking Photos

CAIR-Michigan announced yesterday that a settlement has been reached with the city of Ferndale in a suit charging the Ferndale police department with forcibly removing a Muslim woman's hijab for a booking photo after her arrest:

... Ferndale and Bowe have reached a full and satisfactory settlement of this matter that involved the city instituting new policies allowing Muslim women to maintain their hijab when a booking photo is taken and prohibiting cross-gender searches in the absence of an emergency as well as a monetary settlement. 

3rd Circuit: Accommodation Of Sabbath Observer Would Create Undue Hardship For Postal Service

In Groff v. DeJoy, (3d Cir., May 25, 2022), the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision, held that accommodating a Sunday sabbath observer by allowing him not to report for work on Sunday would cause an "undue hardship" to the U.S. Postal Service.  Thus, failure to grant that accommodation did not violate Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. In reaching that conclusion, the court agreed with those circuits that interpret "reasonable accommodation" under Title VII to mean an accommodation that totally eliminates the conflict between job requirements and religious practice. Judge Hardiman, dissenting, said that USPS had not satisfied its burden at the summary judgment stage to prove undue hardship, though it might be able to do so with more facts at trial. Courthouse News Service reports on the decision. [Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]

6th Circuit En Banc Dismisses Mask Mandate Challenge As Moot

In Resurrection School v. Hertel, (6 Cir., May 25, 2022), an en banc panel of the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals held by a vote of 13-1-3 that a free exercise challenge to Michigan's COVID mask mandate for school children is moot. The mandate is no longer in effect. The suit was brought by a private religious school and two parents of school children. One judge concluded that the preliminary injunction appeal moot, but the proceedings for a declaratory judgment and permanent injunction are not. The majority said in part:

For all the reasons recited above—the changed circumstances since the State first imposed its mask mandate, the substantially developed caselaw, the lack of gamesmanship on the State’s part—we see no reasonable possibility that the State will impose a new mask mandate with roughly the same exceptions as the one originally at issue here. This claim is moot—indeed palpably so.

Judge Bush in a 31-page dissent joined by two other judges said in part:

[T]he majority’s decision to declare the entire case against MDHHS moot—rather than simply deciding the preliminary-injunction appeal—has stripped us of a valuable opportunity to clarify the law of our circuit. What the majority should have done, instead, is rule solely on the interlocutory order before us.

Fox2 Detroit reports on the decision.

Suit Challenging Bible In Schools Program Is Settled

An Order of Dismissal was entered last week in Freedom From Religion Foundation v. Mercer County Board of Education, (SD WV, May 16, 2022). According to Christian Post, in January 2019 the school board ended the Bible In The Schools program that was being challenged in the lawsuit. According to an FFRF press release:

The Mercer County Board of Education, through its insurance coverage, agreed to pay $225,000 to cover the costs and attorneys fees of the plaintiffs. Those payments will reimburse two private law firms and FFRF for hundreds of hours of time spent by attorneys litigating the case.

Certiorari Denied In Synagogue Picketers Case

On May 16, the U.S. Supreme Court denied review in Gerber v. Herskovitz, (Docket No, 21-1263, certiorari denied, 5/16/2022) (Order List). In the case, the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed a suit by synagogue members against anti-Israel pickets who have picketed services at the Beth Israel Synagogue in Ann Arbor, Michigan every week since 2003. (See prior posting).

Three Chabad Rabbis Are On Russia's List Of Those Banned From Travel To Russia

As reported by Axios, Russia last Saturday released a list of 963 Americans who are banned from traveling to Russia in retaliation for American sanctions against Russia for its invasion of Ukraine. JTA reports that included in the list are three rabbis who are leaders of Agudas Chassidei Chabad which has been attempting for years to force Russia to return to it in the U.S. two expropriated collections of valuable Jewish religious books and manuscripts:

Rabbi Avraham Shemtov, a founder of the Washington office of the movement, American Friends of Lubavitch (Chabad), that has led lobbying for U.S. pressure on Russia;

Rabbi Yehuda Krinsky, the umbrella group’s secretary, who heads the educational and social arms of Chabad-Lubavitch; and

Rabbi Shlomo Cunin, a West Coast leader of the movement who is prominent in the branch of the movement seeking the return of the texts.

It has been suggested recently that Chabad now has a better chance of getting at assets to satisfy fines imposed on Russia by an American court for Russia's refusal to return the books.

University's Vaccine Mandate Did Not Violate Free Exercise Rights Of Students

In America's Frontline Doctors v. Wilcox, (CD CA, May 5, 2022), a California federal district court dismissed the associational plaintiff for lack of standing and rejected individual plaintiffs' free exercise challenge (as well as their other challenges) to the University of California Riverside's COVID vaccine mandate. The court said in part:

Plaintiffs contend that Defendants' enforcement of the Policy violates their right to free exercise of religion. The SAC alleges that Defendants "coerc[e] students to make an unnatural choice...either quickly injecting themselves...[with a COVID-19 vaccine] ... or ...disclosing under duress their religious beliefs to Defendants' religious exemption approval panels."... They also contend that Defendants "prejudicially segregate religious people in order to subject them to...testing."... Plaintiffs have religious exemptions from the Policy. Even so, Plaintiffs contend that testing and masks "substantially interfere with students' religious practices of prayer, speech, and deed."...

The Policy is a neutral and generally applicable. It applies to all students, professors, and staff at the University of California and seeks to protect public health and safety. Defendants offer exemptions for religious beliefs, medical reasons, and disability.... The Policy's exemptions pass constitutional muster.... Plaintiffs allege that they requested religious exemptions under "duress" but fail to explain how their decisions to voluntarily submit a one-page exemption form were executed under "duress." Plaintiffs also fail to describe how masks and testing interfere with the students' religious practices of prayer, speech, and deed. Plaintiffs are only required to mask while indoors—a restriction that also applied to vaccinated students at the time the SAC was filed. Presumably Plaintiffs would be indoors to attend class, so it is unclear how the Policy interferes with religious practices.

Anti-SLAPP Motion Denied In Suit Against Archdiocese Over Priest's Molestation of Children

In Ratcliff v. Roman Catholic Archbishop of Los Angeles, (CA App., May 19, 2022), a California state appellate court affirmed the denial of an anti-SLAPP motion sought by the Los Angeles Archdiocese.  The court explained:

Seven adults allege they were molested by a priest when they were children. They brought suit against The Roman Catholic Archbishop of Los Angeles and related entities ..., alleging defendants were vicariously liable for ratifying the molestation and directly liable for their own negligence in failing to supervise the priest, and related acts and omissions. The Archdiocese moved to strike the operative complaint under the anti-SLAPP law (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16), arguing that some of the acts by which it purportedly ratified the molestation or acted negligently constituted speech or litigation conduct protected by the anti-SLAPP statute....

The court concluded however that:

The Archdiocese, both in its anti-SLAPP motion before the trial court, and in its briefing on appeal, goes to great lengths to overlook the actual allegations of ratification, namely the acts of failing to investigate and supervise (and, instead, transferring to different parishes)... 

The four purported negligence claims identified by the Archdiocese have one key factor in common: they are all based on a decision not to speak, not speech itself.... We conclude the failure to speak alleged as a basis for liability here is not conduct in furtherance of the right of free speech.

Report Ranks Large Corporations' Commitment To Religious Diversity and Inclusion

On Tuesday. the Religious Freedom & Business Foundation released its third annual report on the Fortune 500’s Commitment to Workplace Religious Inclusion. (Summary)(Full Text). The top four companies in its Corporate Religious Equity, Diversity & Inclusion (REDI) Index 2022 are: American Airlines, Intel, Dell Technologies and PayPal.

New York Enacts One-Year Window To Bring Old Adult Sex Abuse Cases

Yesterday New York Governor Kathy Hochul signed S66A (full text), a bill which creates a one-year window to bring previously time-barred civil actions for sexual assaults that were committed on an adult. New York Post reports on the bill. Previously, in 2019, New York enacted the Child Victims Act applying to prior child sexual abuse. (See prior posting.)

Dispute Over Kosher Certification Agencies Dismissed On Ecclesiastical Abstention Grounds

In Chimichurri v. Vaad Hakashrusof the Five Towns Far Rockaway, (Sup Ct Nassau Cnty NY, May 17, 2022), a New York state trial court dismissed on ecclesiastical abstention grounds a suit by a restaurant owner against a kosher certification agency.  The monopoly of a community-wide certification agency was broken when two rabbis formed a competing agency.  53 rabbis issued a letter urging members of the community not to patronized establishments certified by the new agency.  A restaurant making use of the new agency sued, claiming the letter cost it $156,000 per year in revenue. In dismissing the suit, the court said in part:

Here, the dispute is essentially one that involves the religious principles concerning the Kashrut, or Jewish dietary laws. Cases have long recognized that such disputes are ecclesiastical in nature....

It is apparent that the Defendant represents the efforts of the Five Towns and Rockaway community to break away from the historical disagreement over the laws of Kashrut and to develop generally agreed upon standards for that particular community. The Plaintiff chose to deviate from that. This Court is precluded, by the First Amendment, from considering the merits of the Plaintiff’s contentions arising from these facts.

The Forward reports on the decision.

Cert. Denied In Challenge To NY Repeal Of Religious Exemption To School Vaccinations

The U.S. Supreme Court yesterday denied review in F.F. v. New York, (Docket No. 21-1003, certiorari denied 5/23/2022). (Order List). In the case, a New York state appellate court rejected parents' constitutional challenges to New York's repeal of the religious exemption from mandatory vaccination for school children. (See prior posting). SCOTUSblog's case page has links to the filings in the case.  Christian Post reports on the denial of certiorari.

European Court Upholds Custody Order Barring Father From Involving Daughter In Jehovah's Witness Practices

In T.C. v. Italy, (ECHR, May 19, 2022), the European Court of Human Rights in a 5-2 Chamber Judgment upheld an Italian court's order in a custody case in which an 8-year old's mother who was a nominal Catholic, and who had the daughter enrolled in catechism classes, objected to the girl's father involving her in his Jehovah's Witness religion.  The court ordered the father to refrain from actively involving the daughter in his religion. The European Court rejected the father's argument that the Italian court's order disproportionately interfered with his right to family life and his freedom of religion.  The European Court said in part:

[I]n the present case the domestic courts ... had regard above all to the child’s interests. The child’s interests lay primarily in the need to maintain and promote her development in an open and peaceful environment, reconciling as far as possible the rights and convictions of each of her parents.

... [I]nvolving E.[the daughter]  in the applicant’s religious practices would destabilise her in that she would be induced to abandon her Roman Catholic religious habits.... 

... [T[he contested measure had little influence on the applicant’s religious practices and was in any event aimed solely at resolving the conflict arising from the opposition between the two parents’ educational concepts, with a view to safeguarding the child’s best interests.

The Court also published a summary of its decision. Law & Religion UK has more on the decision.

Report Finds Southern Baptist Convention Mishandled Sexual Abuse Allegations

Yesterday, the report of an independent investigation into the Southern Baptist Convention Executive Committee’s Response to Sexual Abuse Allegations was released. The 288-page report (full text) (Appendix 1 & 2) summarizes its findings in part:

For almost two decades, survivors of abuse and other concerned Southern Baptists have been contacting the Southern Baptist Convention (“SBC”) Executive Committee (“EC”) to report child molesters and other abusers who were in the pulpit or employed as church staff. They made phone calls, mailed letters, sent emails, appeared at SBC and EC meetings, held rallies, and contacted the press…only to be met, time and time again, with resistance, stonewalling, and even outright hostility from some within the EC.

Our investigation revealed that, for many years, a few senior EC leaders, along with outside counsel, largely controlled the EC’s response to these reports of abuse. They closely guarded information about abuse allegations and lawsuits, which were not shared with EC Trustees, and were singularly focused on avoiding liability for the SBC to the exclusion of other considerations. In service of this goal, survivors and others who reported abuse were ignored, disbelieved, or met with the constant refrain that the SBC could take no action due to its polity regarding church autonomy – even if it meant that convicted molesters continued in ministry with no notice or warning to their current church or congregation....

The Report also disclosed:

During the course of our investigation, an SBC pastor and his wife came forward to report that former SBC President Johnny Hunt (2008-2010), who was the immediate past SBC President at the time, had sexually assaulted the wife on July 25, 2010. The allegations include grooming of the wife during Dr. Hunt’s term as SBC President. At the time of the allegations, Dr. Hunt was also Senior Pastor at First Baptist Church, Woodstock, Georgia.

The Report also sets out a series of recommendations to improve SBC's response to sexual abuse and misconduct allegations in the future.

Houston Chronicle has more on the Report.

Appeals Court Asked To Dismiss Michigan Abortion Law Challenge

As previously reported, In Planned Parenthood of Michigan v. Attorney General of the State of Michigan, the Michigan Court of Claims issued a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of the state's 1931 pre-Roe abortion ban while a challenge to that law under the Michigan state constitution is being litigated. On Friday, instead of filing an appeal in that case, plaintiffs filed a Complaint (full text) with the Michigan Court of Appeals captioned In re Jarzynka, (Ct. App., filed 5/20/2022) seeking an Order of Superintending Control and filed a Motion for Immediate Consideration.  In the Complaint, petitioners allege:

Judge Gleicher refused to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction even though the Attorney General—a preeminent supporter of abortion rights—admits there is no adversity between the parties or actual controversy because the Attorney General refuses to defend or enforce the challenged law. The ACLU and Planned Parenthood’s claims are obviously moot and not ripe.

Prosecutors Jarzynka and Becker, Right to Life of Michigan, and the Michigan Catholic Conference respectfully ask this Court to issue an order of superintending control requiring the Hon. Elizabeth Gleicher of the Court of Claims to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction. Doing so will not prevent other adverse cases from moving forward.... 

At a minimum, Prosecutors Jarzynka and Becker, Right to Life of Michigan, and the Michigan Catholic Conference respectfully ask the Court to issue an order vacating the preliminary injunction order and requiring Judge Gleicher to adhere to the objective appearance-of-impropriety standard and recuse herself.

ADF issued a press release announcing the filing.

Recent Articles of Interest

 From SSRN:

• Samuel J. Levine, Foreword to the Symposium: The Life and Work of Robert M. Cover, (37 Touro L. Rev. 1735 (2022)).
• Alex Reed, Religious Organization Staffing Post-Bostock, (Berkeley Journal of Employment and Labor Law, Vol. 43, No. 1, 2022).
• Reva B. Siegel, Serena Mayeri & Melissa Murray, Equal Protection in Dobbs and Beyond: How States Protect Life Inside and Outside of the Abortion Context, (43 Columbia Journal of Gender and Law (2023 Forthcoming)).
• Michael Conklin, Buck v. Bell: Understanding Its Past, Present, and Future, (May 2022).
• Patrick McKinley Brennan, Punishment Among Friends: Charity-love and Redress of Violations of the Common Good, (May 17, 2022).

From SSRN (Non-U.S Law):

• Quianna Canada, Out of the Miqlaatun Into the Fire: The Shariazation of Ireland’s Direct Provision Institution and its Impact on Transgender Asylum Seekers, (May 12, 2022).
• Hui Jing, Bringing Proceedings Against Trustees of Australian Charitable Trusts - The Standing of Objects, (Third Sector Review 2022, Forthcoming).
• Hui Jing, Risk Allocation: The Contractual Practice of Chinese Charitable Trusts, (Chinese Journal of Comparative Law 2022, Forthcoming).
• Hui Jing, Conceptualising the Chinese Charitable Trust, (Journal of Equity 2022, Forthcoming).
• Mansi Mathur, Critical Analysis of Mass Conversion Laws in India through the Lens of Uttar Pradesh’s Anti-Conversion Ordinance, (April 20, 2021).
• M. Mohsin Alam Bhat, Doubtful Citizens: Irregularization and Precarious Citizenship in Contemporary India, (Statelessness in Asia (Forthcoming)).
• Lilian Tsourdi & Philippe De Bruycker, The Evolving EU Asylum and Migration Law, (Forthcoming in: Evangelia (Lilian) Tsourdi & Philippe De Bruycker (eds.), Research Handbook on EU Migration and Asylum Law, Edward Elgar, 2022).

From SmartCILP:

• Mark R. Killenbeck, Sober Second Thought? Korematsu Reconsidered, 74 Arkansas Law Review 151-254 (2021).
• Robert L. Tsai, A Proper Burial, 74 Arkansas Law Review 307-322 (2021).

NYT Details Russian Orthodox Patriarch's Important Support For Invasion Of Ukraine

The New York Times yesterday posted a long article detailing the crucial support given by Russian Orthodox Church leader Patriarch Kirill I to Vladimir Putin's actions in Ukraine, saying in part:

Patriarch Kirill I has provided spiritual cover for the invasion of Ukraine, reaping vast resources for his church in return. Now, in an extraordinary step, the E.U. is threatening him with sanctions....

Kirill has called Mr. Putin’s long tenure “a miracle of God,” and has characterized the war as a just defense against liberal conspiracies to infiltrate Ukraine with “gay parades.”...

Kirill has in recent years aspired to expand his church’s influence, pursuing an ideology consistent with Moscow being a “Third Rome,” ... in which Mr. Putin’s Russia would become the spiritual center of the true church after Rome and Constantinople.

It is a grand project that dovetails neatly with — and inspired — Mr. Putin’s mystically tinged imperialism of a “Russkiy Mir,” or a greater Russian world.

Archbishop Bars Pelosi From Communion Because Of her Support For Abortion Rights

On Thursday, San Francisco Catholic Archbishop Salvatore J. Cordileone formally notified Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House of Representatives, of the consequences under Church law of her support for codifying Roe v. Wade into law:

you are not to present yourself for Holy Communion and, should you do so, you are not to be admitted to Holy Communion, until such time as you publically repudiate your advocacy for the legitimacy of abortion and confess and receive absolution of this grave sin in the sacrament of Penance.

The Notification (full text) also says in part:

The Second Vatican Council, in its Decree on the Church in the Modern World, Gaudium et spes, reiterated the Church’s ancient and consistent teaching that “from the first moment of conception life must be guarded with the greatest care while abortion and infanticide are unspeakable crimes”....

... A Catholic legislator who supports procured abortion, after knowing the teaching of the Church, commits a manifestly grave sin which is a cause of most serious scandal to others....

The Archbishop also sent a lengthy Letter to the Faithful (full text) explaining his action, saying in part:

Please know that I find no pleasure whatsoever in fulfilling my pastoral duty here.  Speaker Pelosi remains our sister in Christ.  Her advocacy for the care of the poor and vulnerable elicits my admiration.  I assure you that my action here is purely pastoral, not political.

He also sent a Letter to the Priests of the Archdiocese (full text) explaining the Canon Law basis of his decision and giving them further background.  It reads in part:

Canon 915 is found in Book IV of the Code of Canon Law, which has to do with the Sanctifying Office of the Church.  It is not in Book VI, which is the Church’s legislation on penal law.  Thus, this is not a sanction, or a penalty, but rather a declaration of fact: the Speaker is “obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin” (canon 915).  A sanction, on the other hand, such as excommunication, has its own particular process and reasons for being applied.  This is quite distinct from the application of canon 915....

Let us not fool ourselves: this is, essentially, a spiritual battle.  It is not poetic rhetoric to call the proliferation of abortion demonic.  The prophets of old excoriated the people of Israel when they passed over to the worship of Moloch, sacrificing their children to this pagan idol (cf. Lev 18:21; Lev 20:2; Ps 106:37-38).  Recall that in the biblical mentality, pagan idols are synonymous with demons.  It should come as no surprise, then, that the first one to challenge the Texas heartbeat law was the Satanic Temple, and precisely on the grounds of denial of religious freedom: they need abortion to carry out their rituals....

In closing, allow me to observe that what we are facing in this particular moment of history is a powerful reminder to us that the Priesthood is not for the faint-hearted.  Of course, it never was.  But for a long time, up until recently, we lived in a society that allowed us to imagine that it was.  Let us not fool ourselves any longer.

NPR reports on the Archbishop's action.

House Overwhelmingly Passes Resolution Condemning Antisemitism

On Thursday, the U.S. House of Representatives by a vote of 420-1 passed House Resolution 1125 (full text) condemning rising antisemitism. Among the various actions called for by the Resolution, it:

(1) calls on elected officials, faith leaders, and civil society leaders to use their bully pulpit to condemn and combat any and all manifestations of antisemitism;

(2) calls on elected officials to condemn and combat any and all denials and distortions of the Holocaust and to promote Holocaust and antisemitism education;...

(5) calls on social media platforms to institute stronger and more significant efforts to measure and address online antisemitism while protecting free speech concerns;

The only Representative voting against the Resolution was Thomas Massie of Kentucky. Seven Representatives were listed as "not voting." JNS reports on the Resolution.

Court Denies Relief To Air Force Members With Religious Objections To COVID Vaccine

In a 61-page opinion in Roth v. Austin, (D NE, May 18, 2022), a Nebraska federal district court denied a preliminary injunction to 36 members of the Air Force, Air Force Reserve and Air National Guard who have religious objections to complying with the military's COVID vaccine mandate. The court said in part:

One objection made by several airmen is that part of the science giving rise to approved COVID19 vaccines involved use of research derived from aborted fetal cell tissue that was developed decades ago. Certain major religions of the world have long strenuously objected to the use of such research in medicine. However, having lost that battle in significant regard over the decades, many of those same religions have concluded that the remote impact of what they deem to be religiously or ethically objectionable research utilized for the vaccines does not support refusal to take the vaccines on religious grounds today....

The Court concludes, at least at this preliminary stage, that the Air Force has demonstrated it has a compelling interest in the health and readiness of its forces, including individual service members like Plaintiffs. The Court also concludes that the Air Force’s COVID-19 vaccination mandate is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling interest, as to both the Air Force generally and as to individual Plaintiffs in particular. The Air Force has demonstrated that its process for consideration of religious exemptions was not simply “theater” or “a sham,” but was a process that adhered to the requirements of the law, most specifically RFRA. These conclusions mean that Plaintiffs do not have sufficient likelihood of success on the merits of either their RFRA claim or their Free Exercise of Religion claim to warrant issuance of a preliminary injunction.

Yesterday a notice of appeal to the U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals was filed.

Employee Sues After Being Fired For Religious Objection To Rainbow As Gay Pride Symbol

Suit was filed this week in an Iowa federal district court by a former employee of a metal engineering and manufacturing company who says he was fired for expressing his Christian beliefs. The complaint (full text) in Snyder v. Arconic, Inc., (SD IA, filed 5/18/2022), charges religious discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII and state law. It alleges:

In June 2021, in attempting to respond to an anonymous company survey, Mr. Snyder briefly commented that the company’s use of the rainbow to promote “Gay Pride Month” was “an abomination to God,” as the rainbow “is not meant to be a sign for sexual gender.”

... Arconic informed Mr. Snyder that his comment had been posted publicly on the company “intranet”—which was not Mr. Snyder’s intent—and that it had offended a fellow employee. Mr. Snyder was summarily suspended and then terminated, allegedly for violating the company’s “diversity policy.”

Thomas More Society issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit. 

Posting Of National Motto In School Does Not Violate Establishment Clause

In JLF v. Tennessee State Board of Education, (MD TN, May 18, 2022), a Tennessee federal district court upheld Tennessee's statute that requires all public schools to post the national motto "In God We Trust" in a prominent location. The law was challenged under the Establishment Clause by the father of a kindergartener on behalf of his daughter whose school has posted the motto as part of a display in the entryway to the school.  The court said in part:

The court finds ... in light of the substantial body of law ... repeatedly concluding in a variety of contexts that the national motto has a secular purpose and that its display does not violate the Establishment Clause, that the Lemon test is of limited utility in this context.... The fact that the display is in a public school does not require enhanced scrutiny.... [T]he posting of the national motto in schools “involves no coercion,” “does not purport to compel belief or acquiescence,” “does not command participation in any form of religious exercise,” “does not assert a preference for one religious denomination or sect over others, and it does not involve the state in the governance of any church.”...

Oklahoma Legislature Bans Most Abortions From Time Of Fertilization

The Oklahoma legislature yesterday gave final passage to HB4327 (full text), a bill that bans abortions beginning at the time of fertilization.  However, it does not ban  Plan B, morning-after pills, or any other type of contraception or emergency contraception. It also contains exclusions for abortions to save the life of the mother in a medical emergency resulting from a physical condition, or in cases of rape, sexual assault or incest, and for procedures aimed at saving the life or health of the unborn child or removing a fetus in case of a miscarriage or ectopic pregnancy. 

Enforcement is solely by private lawsuits for injunctions or damages of not less than $10,000. Suit may be brought against anyone (other than the mother) who performs and abortion, or aids and abets procurement of an abortion, including anyone who reimburses the costs of an abortion through insurance or otherwise. State courts are deprived of jurisdiction over suits to prevent a private person from suing. Civil actions under the law are not covered by the Oklahoma Religious Freedom Act, but the Act should not be construed to authorize a government entity to substantially burden any religious belief. KJRH News reports on the bill.  Earlier this year, Oklahoma enacted a ban on abortions after six weeks of pregnancy. (See prior posting.)

Biden Issues Greetings To Buddhists Celebrating Vesak

Earlier this week, President Biden issued a Statement (full text) extending warm wishes to Buddhists in the United States and around the world celebrating Vesak. The Statement says in part:

This sacred day is a time to reflect on the Buddha’s teachings, including the need to work for peace and justice, recognize our common humanity, respect and preserve the nature that surrounds us, and cultivate humility and compassion.

Vesak was celebrated this year on May 16.

South Carolina Governor Signs Law On Transgender Students In Sports

On Monday, South Carolina Governor Henry McMaster signed  H4608, the Save Women's Sports Act (full text). The law requires school athletic teams to be designated based on biological sex at birth of team members, and provides in part:

(2)    Athletic teams or sports designated for males, men, or boys shall not be open to students of the female sex, unless no team designated for females in that sport is offered at the school in which the student is enrolled.

(3)    Athletic teams or sports designated for females, women, or girls shall not be open to students of the male sex.

The law applies to interscholastic, intercollegiate, intramural, or club athletic teams or sports that are sponsored by a public elementary or secondary school or public postsecondary institution, and to private school teams that compete against public schools. Washington Examiner reports on the new law.

In Israel, Jewish Group Sues Haredi News Site Over Policy On Photos Of Women

Times of Israel reported yesterday that the Israel Religious Action Center, a branch of the Judaism's Reform movement, is suing an ultra-Orthodox Jewish news website in Israel for $100,000(US) in damages because of its policy of digitally blurring faces of females in news photos it posts. Last year, the news site B'hadrei Haredim blurred the faces of female leaders of Jewish movements in a photo of their meeting with Israel's President Isaac Herzog. A number of Orthodox news sites follow this policy in order to observe religious doctrines regarding modesty.

State Court Enjoins Enforcement Of Michigan's Pre-Roe Abortion Ban

In Planned Parenthood of Michigan v. Attorney General of the State of Michigan, (MI Ct. Cl., May 17, 2022), the Michigan Court of Claims issued a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of the state's 1931 pre-Roe abortion ban while a challenge to that law under the Michigan state constitution is being litigated. The 1931 ban contains an exception only for preserving the life of the mother. The court said in part:

After 50 years of legal abortion in Michigan, there can be no doubt but that the right of personal autonomy and bodily integrity enjoyed by our citizens includes the right of a woman, in consultation with her physician, to terminate a pregnancy. From a constitutional standpoint, the right to obtain a safe medical treatment is indistinguishable from the right of a patient to refuse treatment. Based on the due process principles discussed above, the Court finds a substantial likelihood that MCL 750.14 violates the Due Process Clause of Michigan's Constitution.

ACLU of Michigan issued a press release announcing the decision.

U.S. Sanctions On Russia May Lead To Chabad Recovering Assets In Suit Over Return Of Jewish Library Collection

As previously reported, in 2013 the D.C. federal district court held the Russian government and three of its agencies in civil contempt for not complying with a 2010 default judgement ordering it to return two expropriated collections of valuable Jewish religious books and manuscripts to Chasidei Chabad of United States.  Despite objections by the United States government, the court imposed civil sanctions of $50,000 per day until defendants comply with the court's order. Chabad ever since has been seeking Russian assets to satisfy the continually accruing civil sanctions. 

This week, JTA published an interesting analysis suggesting that Ukraine-related U.S. sanctions on Russia may set the stage for Chabad to recover assets:

By late 2021, two entities had emerged as Chabad’s primary targets: Russia’s main development bank, VEB, and Tenex, a subsidiary of a Russian state-run company called Rosatom that sells uranium to nuclear power plants in the United States.

The United States announced sanctions on VEB on Feb. 22 in the lead-up to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, freezing the bank’s U.S. assets. Its determination that VEB is effectively state wealth has given [Steven] Lieberman [Chabad's attorney] confidence that Chabad can eventually convince the U.S. Treasury Department to turn over VEB assets....

If VEB’s U.S. assets are all tied up in sanctions, Tenex remains entirely unrestricted. That’s because when the Biden administration imposed sanctions on Russia’s energy industry on March 8, it exempted nuclear power, allowing the continued import of Russian uranium. 

“If we’re allowed to seize the assets of Tenex, Chabad will be the only religious organization in the world that has its own nuclear power supply,” Lieberman said, half-jokingly.

City Council's Opening Of Meetings With Lord's Prayer Violates Establishment Clause

In Cobranchi v. City of Parkersburg, (D WV, May 17, 2022), a West Virginia federal district court held that Parkersburg's City Council violated the Establishment Clause by opening each of its meetings with The Lord's Prayer.  The court said in part:

The City Council’s prayer practice most clearly runs afoul of the Fourth Circuit’s concern with identifying the government with a single preferred religious sect. As noted, the Lord’s Prayer is sourced from a biblical translation of the gospel of Matthew, and the version utilized by the town council includes a concluding Christian doxology.... [I]t seems apparent that a reasonable observer to City Council meetings would be aware of the origin, or at the least Christian nature, of the prayer. By continually reciting, over a number of years, the same prayer clearly identifiable with a particular faith, without the opportunity for other faiths to be heard, the City Council impermissibly identified itself with a preferred religion.

FFRF issued a press release announcing the decision.

Christian Flight Attendants Sue After Being Fired For Their Posted Views On LGBTQ Rights

Suit was filed yesterday in a Washington federal district court by two Alaska Air flight attendants who allege, under Title VII and state anti-discrimination laws, illegal religious discrimination, hostile work environment, workplace harassment and retaliation.  The flight attendants were fired after they posted on an internal employee message board their opposition to the Airline's support for the federal Equality Act which would add sexual orientation and gender identity as groups protected against workplace discrimination. According to the complaint (full text) in Brown v. Alaska Airlines Inc., (WD WA., filed 5/17/2022):

3.... Marli and Lacey felt compelled by their Christian faith to post one comment each, asking about the impact of the Equality Act on civil rights for religion and women in the workplace.

4. Alaska Airlines responded to Marli and Lacey’s posts by immediately removing Marli and Lacey from their flight schedules, terminating their employment, and disparaging their religious expression and beliefs as “discriminatory,” “hateful,” and “offensive.”

5. When Marli and Lacey—both union members—faced termination because of their religious practices and beliefs, AFA failed to effectively represent them, ignoring civil rights laws prohibiting both employers and unions from discriminating on the basis of religion.

First Liberty issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit. 

Court Enjoins Application To Christian Employers Of Protections For Gender Transition Services

In Christian Employers Alliance v. U.S. Equal Opportunity Commission, (D ND, May 16, 2022), a North Dakota federal district court, responding to a suit by an employers' organization challenging federal agency interpretations of anti-discrimination requirements, issued a preliminary injunction barring the EEOC from interpreting Title VII to require plaintiff's members to provide insurance coverage for gender transition services. It also enjoined HHS from using Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act to impose on plaintiff's members who are health care providers an obligation to furnish or facilitate gender transition services or to restrict their speech on gender identity issues. The court said in part:

Defendants argue they will comply with RFRA but cannot predict ahead of time how RFRA will apply to the facts of a particular matter.... Religious freedom cannot be encumbered on a case-by-case basis.... The Alliance maintains if the government interest is to increase access to gender transition services, the government itself could assume the costs for those unable to afford them or obtain them under their employer’s religious objections in the health insurance policies. The Alliance reiterates the government could also provide subsidies, reimbursements, tax credits or deductions. Defendants must demonstrate a compelling interest to the Alliance’s substantial burden and have failed to do so. Determining on a case-by-case basis if a religious exemption should apply is certainly not the least restrictive means.

Bloomberg Law reports on the decision. (See prior related posting.)

Charity Fraud Claims May Proceed Against Christian Apologetics Ministry

In Carrier v. Ravi Zacharias International Ministries, Inc., (ND GA, May 13, 2022), a Georgia federal district court allowed plaintiffs to move ahead with some of their charity fraud claims against RZIM, a Christian apologetics ministry, and the estate of its founder Ravi Zacharias. Plaintiffs claims include ones of unjust enrichment and violation of the state's Fair Business Practice Act. The court describes plaintiffs' claims:

They allege that the Defendants “bilked hundreds of millions of dollars from well-meaning contributors who believed RZIM and Zacharias to be faith-filled Christian leaders,” when “[i]n fact, Zacharias was a prolific sexual predator who used his ministry and RZIM funds to perpetrate sexual and spiritual abuse against women.”... 

Responding to defendants' assertion of the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine as a defense, the court said in part:

The Court will exercise jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs’ claims to the extent they are predicated on misuse-of-funds allegations but not faith-based allegations. At bottom, the faith-based allegations ask the Court to examine the theology and customs of Christianity and Christian apologetics to determine whether Zacharias and RZIM fulfilled the religion’s (and the Plaintiffs’) moral standards. The Court would have to make inherently ecclesiastical determinations as part of this inquiry, such as what it means to be a “faith-filled, moral, and upstanding Christian leader” ..., and whether Zacharias’s alleged sexual misconduct is “diametrically opposed to the teachings of Christianity.”... It is not the role of federal courts to answer these kinds of questions “because that would require defining the very core of what the religious body as a whole believes.”... 

On the other hand, the Court believes that the Plaintiffs’ misuse-of funds allegations do not pose the same First Amendment concerns. Those allegations, and the claims associated with them, raise what amounts to a secular factual question: whether the Defendants solicited funds for one purpose (i.e., Christian evangelism) but instead used those funds for another purpose (i.e., to perpetrate and cover up sexual abuse). That dispute “concerns the [D]efendants’ actions, not their beliefs,” and can be decided according to state statutes and common law principles. 

7th Circuit Hears Oral Arguments In Ministerial Exception Case Involving Catholic School

Yesterday, the US. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments (audio of full arguments) in Starkey v. Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Indianapolis. In the case, an Indiana federal district court  held that the ministerial exception doctrine bars Title VII retaliation, discrimination and hostile work environment claims as well as state law claims of interference with contractual and employment relationships in a suit brought by the former Co-Director of Guidance at a private Catholic high school. The school refused to renew its contract with Lynn Starkey, who had been employed by the school for nearly forty years, after the school learned of Starkey's same-sex marriage. (See prior posting.)

Louisiana Supreme Court Quashes Charges Against Pastor Who Violated COVID Orders

In State of Louisiana v. Spell (Parish of East Baton Rouge), (LA Sup. Ct., May 13, 2022), the Louisiana Supreme Court quashed bills of information that had been issued against a pastor, charging him with violating the governor's COVID orders early in the pandemic.  The Orders limited gatherings and imposed stay-at-home mandates. The pastor continued to lead in-person worship services in violation of the Orders. The majority said in part:

Orders 30 and 33 contain exemptions allowing certain secular activities to proceed as normal without limiting the number of people permitted in a single space at the same time. In many of those gatherings, the risk of spreading the virus appears no  less prevalent than at a comparable gathering in a church. At the very least, the state offered no evidence proving otherwise. The executive orders grant preferential treatment only to secular conduct. This disparate treatment “strike[s] at the very heart of the First Amendment’s guarantee of religious liberty.”

Chief Justice Weimer, joined by Justice Griffin, dissented, saying in part:

In the absence of an evidentiary record, the majority opinion takes the position that if any exceptions whatsoever were carved out from the orders, then strict scrutiny is warranted, and it was the State’s burden to establish that the orders were narrowly tailored. However, this position ignores the circumstances under which the orders were issued and, instead, holds the emergency orders to a standard of scrutiny that has thus far only been applied by the Supreme Court at a much later stage in the pandemic and at a time with much greater evidentiary knowledge

Justice Crichton filed a concurring opinion.  KAKE News reports on the decision, [Thanks to Steven H. Sholk for the lead.]

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Bruce P. Frohen, Common Good Constitutionalism and the Problem of Administrative Absolutism, (April 14, 2022).
• Jennifer Lee Koh, Race, Immigration Law, and Christianity: Reflections and Tensions Raised by United States v. Wong Kim Ark, (Political Theology (2022, Forthcoming).
• Kyle Velte, The Precarity of Justice Kennedy's Queer Canon, (13 ConLawNOW 75 (2022)).
• Beatrice Jessie Hill, Look Who's Talking: Conscience, Complicity, and Compelled Speech, (97 Indiana Law Journal 913 (2022)).
• Rachel Morrison, Gender Identity Policy Under the Biden Administration, (23 Federalist Society Review 85 (2022)).
• Ken Levy & Jody Lynee Madeira, Sophistry at the Supreme Court, (The Hill (May 6, 2022)).
• Gabriella Kamran, The Things We Bear: On Guns, Abortion, and Substantive Due Process, (Georgetown Journal of Gender and the Law, Vol. XXIV, 2022).
• Philip Hackney, Written Testimony for the Hearing on Laws and Enforcement Governing the Political Activity of Tax-Exempt Entities, (U.S. Senate Finance Committee Subcommittee on Taxation and IRS Oversight, May 4, 2022).

From SSRN (Non-U,S, Law):

• Alba Ruibal, Using Constitutional Courts to Advance Abortion Rights in Latin America, (International Feminist Journal of Politics 2021).
• Holning Lau & Suzanne A. Kim, Nonmarriage and Choice in South Africa and the United States, (Washington University Law Review, Vol. 99, 2022).
• Mischa Gureghian-Hall, Abortion Rights in International Law: The Inter-American Human Rights System and a Post-Roe v. Wade America, (21 UCLA Undergraduate Law Journal 63 (2022)).

Alabama Enjoined From Enforcing Ban On Medical Treatments For Transgender Minors

In Eknes-Tucker v. Marshall, (MD AL, May 13, 2022), an Alabama federal district court issued an injunction pending trial of  the portion of the Alabama Vulnerable Child Compassion and Protection Act that restricts transgender minors from being treated with puberty blockers and hormone therapies. The court said in part:

Parent Plaintiffs have a fundamental right to direct the medical care of their children. This right includes the more specific right to treat their children with transitioning medications subject to medically accepted standards. The Act infringes on that right and, as such, is subject to strict scrutiny. At this stage of litigation, the Act falls short of that standard because it is not narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling government interest. Accordingly, Parent Plaintiffs are substantially likely to succeed on their Substantive Due Process claim,

The court also found that parents were substantially likely to succeed on their equal protection challenge because "discrimination based on gender-nonconformity equates to sex discrimination." GLAD and other advocacy groups representing plaintiffs issued a press release announcing the decision.

Space Force Captain With Religious Objections To Vaccine Mandate Is Denied Injunction

In Creghan v. Austin, (D DC, May 12, 2022), the D.C. federal district court refused to grant a preliminary injunction to a captain in the U.S. Space Force who has religious objections to the military's COVID vaccine mandate,  The military refused to grant her a religious accommodation, but has not taken steps to separate from the military. The court said in part:

As the Court explained in a similar case, requests for religious exemptions from military-mandated medical requirements “raise particularly difficult questions that implicate a storm of colliding constitutional interests.” Navy SEAL v. Austin, 2022 WL 1294486, at *1 (D.D.C. Apr. 29, 2022). Although this case is much closer than Navy SEAL, the Court remains concerned that it lacks the competence to “evaluate the merits of military [epidemiological and tactical] expertise” or to “weigh technical issues of public health and immunology” necessary to resolve the case. Id. at *5. Justiciability is all the more uncertain given the unfixed, evolving science on which this vaccination mandate is based. These concerns permeate the merits of Plaintiff’s claims as well.

Intervenors Say USAF Senior Leaders Told To Deny All Religious Exemptions To Vaccine Mandate

In a Memorandum In Support of a Preliminary Injunction (full text) filed on behalf of 230 intervening plaintiffs in Doster v. Kendall, (SD OH, filed 5/3/2022), plaintiffs allege:

The 2021 CORONA Conference was held at  the United States Air Force Academy. (Id.) Whistleblowers have reported that all Chaplains and all persons other than those MAJCOM commanders responsible for adjudicating accommodation requests to the Air Force’s vaccine mandate, were asked to leave the room, so that the Secretary of the Air Force’s expectations concerning religious accommodation requests could be communicated to Air Force senior leaders....  Upon information and belief, the Secretary of the Air Force and/or his designees, communicated that no religious accommodations could or should be approved for anyone who would be remaining in the Department of the Air Force....

As of the date of the Intervening Complaint, the Department of the Air Force has received thousands of requests for religious accommodation, has only approved 42 – all of them at the end of their careers, who were otherwise eligible for an administrative exemption, and has denied 5,129 initial requests; and 1,692 final appeals, for a total of 6, 821 denials. In the meantime, the Air Force currently has granted 1,013 medical exemptions, and 1,273 administrative exemptions....  As of April 12, the Air Force has administratively separated 261 active-duty Airmen.... The granting of more than two thousand medical and administrative exemptions belies any assertion that vaccination is mission-critical and that no exemptions can be granted....

(See prior related posting.) Coffee or Die Magazine reports on the filing.

Tribe Is Required Party In Challenge To Directive On Repatriation of Native American Remains

 In Weiss v. Perez, (ND CA, May 10, 2022), a California federal district court dismissed a suit brought by a San Jose State University anthropology professor who objects to the University president's directive that denied her access to Native American remains housed at the University. The directive was issued to prepare the remains for repatriation to the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe. Plaintiff, Prof. Elizabeth Weiss is an opponent of repatriation. The court held in part:

The Court finds that the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe is a required party under Rule 19 to adjudication of Professor Weiss’s claims about the Directive. Because the Tribe has sovereign immunity from suit and thus cannot be joined, Professor Weiss’s claims regarding the Directive must be dismissed with prejudice. The Court will, however, give Professor Weiss leave to amend her complaint as to her allegations about retaliation in the form of restricting access to and use of non-Native American remains and retaliation for her protected speech as it may pertain to her teaching and curational responsibilities.

Certiorari Filed On Whether Falun Gong Tables Are Protected Under FACEA

A petition for certiorari (full text) was filed yesterday in Zhang Jingrong v. Chinese Anti-Cult World Alliance, Inc., (Docket No. 21-1429, filed 5/10/2022). In the case, the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals held that five tables on the sidewalk in Flushing, Queens, New York where Falun Gong adherents passed out flyers and displayed posters were not a "place of religious worship" under the Freedom of Access To Clinics Entrances Act that prohibits intentionally injuring, intimidating, or interfering with anyone who is exercising 1st Amendment religious freedom rights “at a place of religious worship.” (See prior posting.) [Thanks to James A. Sonne for the lead.]

Court Enjoins Part Of School's Policy On Transgender Students' Preferred Names

Ricard v. USD 475 Geary County, KS School Board, (D KS, May 9, 2022), is a suit brought by a Christian middle school math teacher who objects on religious grounds the school's policy of requiring teachers to refer to transgender students by their preferred names and pronouns, and requiring teachers not to disclose those names and pronouns to parents without the student's consent. A Kansas federal district court enjoined the school district from from disciplining the teacher for referring to a student by the student’s preferred name and pronouns in communications with the student’s parents in the regular course of the teacher's duties. The parties reached an agreement on the other aspect of the school's policy. The teacher would use students' preferred names, but not their preferred pronouns.

Plaintiff Lacks Standing To Challenge No-Fault Divorce Law Under 1st Amendment

 In King v. State of New York, (2d Cir., May 9, 2022), the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals held that plaintiff lacked standing to challenge New York's no-fault divorce law on free exercise or Establishment Clause grounds. The court said in part:

Ms. King alleges that this law and the resulting divorce violated her Free Exercise and Establishment Clause rights by requiring her to become divorced despite her religious belief in marriage until death..... Because Ms. King alleges only the termination of a civil contract, she has not plausibly alleged that the civil judgment of divorce entered against her “sever[ed] the holy marriage covenant made before God,” ... or “chang[ed] her status under . . . the laws of God”....