Court Strongly Criticizes Performance of Counsel for The Satanic Temple

In March 2021, The Satanic Temple and one of its members filed suit in a Texas federal district court challenging Texas' requirement that a woman have a sonogram prior to an abortion. The complaint alleged that in light of the Satanic Temple's Satanic Abortion Ritual, the Texas requirement violated plaintiffs' free exercise, substantive due process and equal protection rights. (See prior posting.) After the U.S. Supreme Court's Dobbs decision, The Satanic Temple filed a Third Amended Complaint.  In The Satanic Temple, Inc. v. Young, (SD TX, July 3, 2023), the Texas district court then dismissed the suit for lack of standing and on sovereign immunity grounds.  The court added:

Without any supporting detail, Plaintiffs assert two causes of action under the First Amendment, one being a claim swirling together the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses, and the other pertaining to the Establishment Clause. Young argues that these claims are so inadequately pleaded as to deprive her of fair notice as to what exactly this suit is about in the wake of Dobbs....

The court also refused to grant plaintiffs leave to replead their claims.  In doing so, the court set out an unusually strong criticism of the performance of plaintiffs' counsel, saying in part:

Given the detail of the prior complaints and these substantial changes in the law, the deficiencies in the operative complaint are no doubt intentional. And indeed, the filing of a willfully deficient amended complaint is of a piece with the mulish litigation conduct by counsel for Plaintiffs, Attorney Matt Kezhaya, in this and other actions representing The Satanic Temple. Recently considered in this regard was whether to revoke his permission to proceed pro hac vice in light of sanctions entered against him in other federal courts after his appearance here. For example, [in one of those cases:]

He ... filed a second motion for TRO containing negligible legal analysis, with six pages of the main analysis dedicated to presentation of what’s purported to be a five-act play.....

Litigation of constitutional claims is a serious matter. Such issues deserve serious attention from counsel desiring to be taken seriously. As it turns out, Plaintiffs might have been better served by proceeding pro se, as applicable standards would dictate that their filings would be “liberally construed” and “held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.”...

And any repleading at this stage would manifest undue prejudice to a range of current and former Defendants who still have little clue as to the exact nature of the claims brought in this case. The Court is also of the firm belief that any further attempt at repleading would be futile, given that Attorney Kezhaya’s filings become more conclusory, reductive, and intemperate over time, in line with his performative and obstinate conduct to date.

Suit Challenges Georgia Ban on Treatment of Minors for Gender Dysphoria

Suit was filed last week in a Georgia federal district court challenging the constitutionality of Georgia Senate Bill 140 which prohibits irreversible sex reassignment surgery and hormone replacement treatment of minors for gender dysphoria. The complaint (full text) in Koe v. Noggle, (ND GA, filed 6/29/2023), alleges in part:

The Health Care Ban violates the fundamental rights of parents to make medical decisions to ensure the health and well-being of their children. By prohibiting medical providers from treating minors with gender dysphoria—a rare condition often requiring medical and therapeutic treatment and care—in accordance with the standards of care and clinical practice guidelines, the Ban prohibits Georgia parents from seeking and obtaining appropriate medical treatment for their children.

... [It] also violates the guarantees of equal protection by denying transgender youth essential, and often lifesaving, medical treatment based on their sex and on their transgender status.

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

Defendant's Beliefs About Psilocybin Were Personal, Not Religious

In State of Ohio v. Sobel, (OH App., June 30, 2023), an Ohio appellate court rejected appellant's claim that his sentence for drug possession was based in part on his statements about his use of mushrooms as part of his religion. The court said in part:

... Sobel failed to establish that he uses psilocybin mushrooms in connection with a sincerely held religious belief. He described the “Church of Freewater” as consisting of three people providing life coaching to drug and alcohol addicted persons in the manner of Tony Robbins (a noted inspirational, self-help, motivational personality). Sobel does not describe any particular religious beliefs or tenets of the organization, other than to help people “be themselves, through mind, body, and spirit.” Freewater’s core belief appears to be allowing people to believe whatever he or she wants to believe....

Sobel also does not describe how the mushrooms are utilized in furtherance of the religion as part of a rite or ceremony. He only states opaquely, “mushrooms are a holy sacrament and [unintelligible] medicine for myself and for the Freewater organization that helps me with past traumas both immediate and ancestral and tap into the divine knowledge that is only accessible with the aid of these divine teachers.” ...

[T]hroughout the proceedings, rather than claiming a religious use, Sobel represented that mushrooms were used to treat chronic pain and PTSD.

Under the circumstances of this case, the alleged belief that was infringed would be most accurately characterized as a personal preference, rather than as a deeply held religious conviction.

Monell Claims Opposing Transcendental Meditation Program in Chicago Schools Move Ahead

In Hudgins v. Board of Education of the City of Chicago, (ND IL, June 30, 2023), two former high school students and the mother of one of the students sued claiming that a Quiet Time transcendental meditation program in the Chicago public schools violated the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses as well as the Illinois Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Plaintiffs claim that the program contained hidden Hindu religious elements. A number of plaintiffs' claims were dismissed, primarily on statute-of-limitations grounds. However, the court allowed plaintiffs to move ahead with their Section 1983 Monell claims for damages against the Chicago Board of Education and the David Lynch Foundation which operated the program under contract in the schools.

4th Circuit Panel Members Disagree on Use of Ministerial Exception Doctrine in Suit Against Liberty University

 In Palmer v. Liberty University, Inc., (4th Cir., June 30, 2023), the three judges on the panel of the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed on whether they should consider the ministerial exception doctrine in deciding an age discrimination case brought by a Liberty University art professor.  In 2018, the University notified plaintiff who was then 79 years old that her teaching contract would not be renewed for the following year. Judge King's majority opinion held that the professor had not produced evidence of age discrimination. Instead, the university dismissed her because she was not meeting its expectations regarding digital art skills. 

Despite that favorable ruling, the University, in a cross-appeal, asked the court to also rule that the ministerial exception doctrine applied. Judge King held that the court need not reach that issue.

Judge Richarson filed a concurring opinion contending that dismissal of the professor's claim should be based on the ministerial exception doctrine, saying in part:

Though Palmer did not perform formal religious instruction, her job description required her to integrate a “Biblical worldview” into her teaching. And Palmer admits to regularly praying with students, indeed starting her classes with a psalm or a prayer. Accordingly, Liberty viewed her as an official “messenger” of its faith...

If a court imposes a minister on a congregation that doesn’t want her—even if the court does so based on employment-law principles—it nonetheless impinges on the church’s religious interest in choosing who speaks for it....

Skirting the ministerial exception by dismissing an employment-discrimination claim on its merits forces us to inquire into the church’s motives for firing its minister. But, as discussed already, the church’s decision is intrinsically bound up in religious doctrine. To subject such a decision to the scrutiny of temporal courts threatens the church’s “power to decide for themselves, free from state interference, matters of . . . faith.”...

Because Palmer—like every professor at Liberty—served as the school’s religious “messenger” to its students, she was its “minister” for First Amendment purposes. The ministerial exception thus bars her employment-discrimination claim.

Judge Motz filed a concurring opinion responding to Judge Richardson's opinion.  Judge Motz said in part:

Make no mistake: the conception of the ministerial exception advanced by my concurring colleague is no mere application of existing precedent. It is a dramatic broadening of the ministerial exception that would swallow the rule.... 

The ministerial exception effectively “gives an employer free rein to discriminate because of race, sex, pregnancy, age, disability, or other traits protected by law when selecting or firing their ‘ministers,’ even when the discrimination is wholly unrelated to the employer’s religious beliefs or practices.”... It is no exaggeration to say that the ministerial exception “condones animus.”...  Thus, the necessary implication of greatly expanding the ministerial exception is that far fewer employees would be protected from employment discrimination.

When it comes to key religious figures, this is a necessary tradeoff.... 

But Palmer was not a key religious figure or a minister. She was an art professor. Indeed, if basic acts like praying with one’s students and referencing God in the classroom are enough to transform an art professor into the type of key faith messenger who qualifies for the ministerial exception, one can only speculate as to who else might qualify for the exception...

An employee does not shed her right to be free from workplace discrimination simply because she believes in God, prays at work, and is employed by a religious entity.

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Patrick E. Reidy, C.S.C., Sacred Easements, (Virginia Law Review, Forthcoming).
• Julie Ada Tchoukou, Mothering Practices and Human Rights Abuses of Girls in Marginalized Contexts: Examining the Moral Culpability of Women who Abuse Children, (International Journal of Law, Policy and The Family, 2022, 00, 1–24).
• Jason T. Long, Navigating Scylla and Charybdis: For-Profit, Religious Businesses and Religious Exceptions to Title VII, (6 Business and Finance Law Review, Vol. 6:2 2023).
• Falco Muscante, “Play in the Joints” Among the Religion Clauses: Rebuilding the Strong Joints the Framers Formed, (May 13, 2023).
• Beatrice Jessie Hill, Big, Bad Roe, (14 ConLawNOW 65 (2022)).
• Michael L. Smith, Constitutional Interpretation and Zombie Provisions, (Georgia State University Law Review, Vol. 40, (Forthcoming)).
• Paul-Olivier Klein & Shee-Yee Khoo, P(r)aying for Religion? Religious Priming in Financial Contracts (June 9, 2023).

From SmartCILP:

• Jeremy P. Kehr, Fundamental Rights in the United States Court of Federal Claims, 35 Regent University Law Review 233-256 (2023).
• Ariel J. Liberman, Educational Permutations: The Church's Canon Law as Inspiration for Changes to Education Regulation, [Abstract], 35 Regent University law Review 257-294 (2023).
• Mallory B. Rechtenbach, Personal Foul-- Encroachment: How Kennedy v. Bremerton School District Blurs the Line between Government Endorsement of Religion and Private Religious Expression, [Abstract], 35 Regent University Law Review 295-338 (2023).

Indiana Supreme Court Rejects Facial Challenge to State's Abortion Law

In Members of the Medical Licensing Board of Indiana v. Planned Parenthood Great Northwest, Hawai’i, Alaska, Indiana, Kentucky, Inc., (IN Sup. Ct., June 30, 2023), the Indiana Supreme Court rejected a facial challenge under the Indiana Constitution to Indiana's 2022 abortion law. The law bans abortions except when necessary to save a woman’s life or to prevent a serious health risk, or during limited time periods when there is a lethal fetal anomaly or when the pregnancy results from rape or incest. Interpreting the broad language of Art. I, Sec, 1 of the Indiana Constitution, the court said in part: 

... Article 1, Section 1 protects a woman’s right to an abortion that is necessary to protect her life or to protect her from a serious health risk. Yet, this holding does not support Plaintiffs’ claim for a preliminary injunction. That is because they framed their claim as a facial challenge to the entire statute in all conceivable circumstances rather than an as-applied challenge to the law’s application in any particular set of circumstances where a pregnancy endangers a woman’s life or health. So this appeal does not present an opportunity to establish the precise contours of a constitutionally required life or health exception and the extent to which that exception may be broader than the current statutory exceptions....

We do not diminish a woman’s interest in terminating a pregnancy because, for starters, it is a privately held interest—informed by privately held considerations. Moreover, we recognize that many women view the ability to obtain an abortion as an exercise of their bodily autonomy. Yet, and however compelling that interest is, it does not follow that it is constitutionally protected in all circumstances....

In sum, our State’s history and traditions, as reflected in our Court’s precedents, indicate that the common understanding of Section 1 among those who framed and ratified it was that it generally left the General Assembly with broad legislative discretion to limit abortion....

Justice Slaughter filed an opinion concurring only in the judgment, saying in part:

For the first time in our state’s history, the Court holds that the Indiana Constitution protects a woman’s right to terminate her pregnancy. The Court’s unprecedented conclusion is both momentous and unnecessary on this record. The only issue before us is the propriety of the trial court’s preliminary injunction. That narrow issue can, and thus should, be resolved without reaching any of the constitutional questions upon which the Court opines gratuitously...

Justice Goff filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, saying in part:

To be sure, Senate Bill 1 itself recognizes a woman’s liberty interest, if only in part, by allowing time-limited exceptions for victims of rape and incest and pregnancies involving a lethal fetal anomaly. But by holding that the legislature retains the discretion “to prohibit abortions which are unnecessary to protect a woman’s life or health,” the Court puts these exceptions at risk, effectively inviting the legislature to repeal even the most basic protections to a woman’s liberty....

It seems to me that reproductive liberty is too personal and too important for the General Assembly to set at naught when weighed in the balance against the protection of fetal life.

Indy Star reports on the decision.

Certiorari Granted in Case on Interpretation of Title VII

On Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court granted review in Muldrow v. St. Louis, MO, (Docket No. 22-193, certiorari granted 6/30/2023) (Order List), a Title VII employment discrimination case. The grant of certiorari was limited to the question of:

Does Title VII prohibit discrimination in transfer decisions absent a separate court determination that the transfer decision caused a significant disadvantage?

At issue is a Title VII sex discrimination claim by a female police sergeant who was transferred from the St. Louis police department's Intelligence Division to work in the city's Fifth District and was subsequently denied a transfer to the Second District. The Court of Appeals in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, (8th Cir., April 4, 2022), held that absent a showing of harm resulting from a transfer, there has been no adverse employment action for purposes of Title VII. The Court's decision will impact religious discrimination in employment cases under Title VII as well as sex discrimination cases. Here is SCOTUSblog's case page with links to all the filings in the Supreme Court in the case.

Supreme Court GVR's Case on Bakers' Refusal To Design Cake For Same-Sex Wedding

On Friday, in Klein v. Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries, (Docket No. 22-204, GVR'd June 30, 2023) (Order List) the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari, vacated the lower court's judgment and remanded the case to the Oregon Court of Appeals for further consideration in light of the Supreme Court's decision the same day in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis. At issue in Klein was a finding by the state Bureau of Labor and Industries that the owners of Sweetcakes bakery violated Oregon's public accommodation law when they refused on religious grounds to design and create a wedding cake for a same-sex wedding. (See prior posting.)

Supreme Court: Web Designer's Free Speech Rights Allow Her to Refuse to Design Websites for Same-Sex Weddings

The U.S. Supreme Court today in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, (Sup. Ct., June 30, 2023), in a 6-3 decision, held that the 1st Amendment's free speech protections bars Colorado from using its public accommodation anti-discrimination law to require a wedding website designer to design websites for same-sex weddings in violation of her religious beliefs. Justice Gorsuch's majority opinion says in part:

The Tenth Circuit held that the wedding websites Ms. Smith seeks to create qualify as “pure speech” under this Court’s precedents.... We agree....

Under Colorado’s logic, the government may compel anyone who speaks for pay on a given topic to accept all commissions on that same topic—no matter the underlying message—if the topic somehow implicates a customer’s statutorily protected trait.... Taken seriously, that principle would allow the government to force all manner of artists, speechwriters, and others whose services involve speech to speak what they do not believe on pain of penalty. The government could require “an unwilling Muslim movie director to make a film with a Zionist message,” or “an atheist muralist to accept a commission celebrating Evangelical zeal,” so long as they would make films or murals for other members of the public with different messages.....

Of course, as the State emphasizes, Ms. Smith offers her speech for pay and does so through 303 Creative LLC, a company in which she is “the sole member-owner.”... But none of that makes a difference. Does anyone think a speechwriter loses his First Amendment right to choose for whom he works if he accepts money in return? Or that a visual artist who accepts commissions from the public does the same? Many of the world’s great works of literature and art were created with an expectation of compensation. Nor, this Court has held, do speakers shed their First Amendment protections by employing the corporate form to disseminate their speech. This fact underlies our cases involving everything from movie producers to book publishers to newspapers....

In this case, Colorado seeks to force an individual to speak in ways that align with its views but defy her conscience about a matter of major significance. In the past, other States in Barnette, Hurley, and Dale have similarly tested the First Amendment’s boundaries by seeking to compel speech they thought vital at the time. But, as this Court has long held, the opportunity to think for ourselves and to express those thoughts freely is among our most cherished liberties and part of what keeps our Republic strong.

Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson, filed a dissenting opinion, saying in part:

A public accommodations law has two core purposes. First, the law ensures “equal access to publicly available goods and services.”...

Second, a public accommodations law ensures equal dignity in the common market. Indeed, that is the law’s “fundamental object”: “to vindicate ‘the deprivation of personal dignity that surely accompanies denials of equal access to public establishments.’”...

Time and again, businesses and other commercial entities have claimed constitutional rights to discriminate. And time and again, this Court has courageously stood up to those claims—until today. Today, the Court shrinks....

This Court has long held that “the First Amendment does not prevent restrictions directed at commerce or conduct from imposing incidental burdens on speech.”...

CADA’s Accommodation Clause and its application here are valid regulations of conduct. It is well settled that a public accommodations law like the Accommodation Clause does not “target speech or discriminate on the basis of its content.”... Rather, “the focal point of its prohibition” is “on the act of discriminating against individuals in the provision of publicly available goods, privileges, and services.”...

Petitioners remain free to advocate the idea that same-sex marriage betrays God’s laws.... Even if Smith believes God is calling her to do so through her for-profit company, the company need not hold out its goods or services to the public at large. Many filmmakers, visual artists, and writers never do....

The decision threatens to balkanize the market and to allow the exclusion of other groups from many services. A website designer could equally refuse to create a wedding website for an interracial couple, for example. How quickly we forget that opposition to interracial marriage was often because “‘Almighty God . . . did not intend for the races to mix.’”... Yet the reason for discrimination need not even be religious, as this case arises under the Free Speech Clause. A stationer could refuse to sell a birth announcement for a disabled couple because she opposes their having a child.... And so on.....

AP reports on the decision.

Court Refuses To Enjoin New York's Ban On Firearms In Places of Worship

In Goldstein v. Hochul, (SD NY, June 28, 2023), a New York federal district court refused to issue a preliminary injunction in a challenge to New York's 2022 Concealed Carry Improvement Act that bans carrying firearms in "sensitive locations," including "any place of worship or religious observation."  The suit, filed by an Orthodox Jewish congregation, its president, and Jewish residents of New York who say that they have carried handguns for self-defense in synagogues. The court rejected Second Amendment, First Amendment Free Exercise, Equal Protection, and void-for vagueness challenges to the law. Discussing plaintiffs' Second Amendment challenge, the court said in part:

Beyond the historical record of laws restricting the carrying of firearms in places of worship, there is also historical precedent for the restriction of firearm-carry for law-abiding citizens either in specific physical locations or for public safety reasons....

The laws cited by Plaintiffs concerning the mandatory carry of firearms in places of worship are rooted in racial supremacy, and had the reprehensible and shameful goal of preserving slavery. They should not be considered or at a minimum deserve little or no weight in the analysis of the history and tradition of the regulation of firearm carry by law-abiding citizens for self-defense. However, the fact that these regulations existed suggests that legislatures have long exercised significant regulatory power over firearm carry, and individuals’ ability to carry firearms in houses of worship.

Responding to plaintiffs' Free Exercise and equal protection claims, the court said in part:

Plaintiffs’ claim that their religious practice is burdened by the Challenged Provision of the CCIA because they would prefer to worship while carrying a firearm does not establish a free exercise claim. Having a preference to worship while carrying a firearm is not a religious practice.....

The Challenged Provision applies to all individuals, regardless of their religious beliefs, practices, or identity. Individuals of all religions or no religion are forbidden from possession of firearms in places of worship.

Preliminary Injunction Issued Against Tennessee's Ban on Gender-Affirming Treatment for Minors

In L.W. v. Skrmetti,(MD TN, June 28, 2023), a Tennessee federal district court issued a preliminary injunction against enforcement of SB1 insofar as it bans health care personnel from providing or offering minors puberty blockers or hormone treatments for gender dysphoria. (Plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the law's ban on gender-affirming surgery.) The court concluded that plaintiffs demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on their due process claim, saying in part:

The Court ... agrees with Plaintiffs that under binding Sixth Circuit precedent, parents have a fundamental right to direct the medical care of their children, which naturally includes the right of parents to request certain medical treatments on behalf of their children....

It similarly found that plaintiffs had demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on their equal protection claim, saying in part:

Defendants’ argument that SB1 does not discriminate based on transgender status is unpersuasive....

The Court is satisfied that current precedent supports the finding that transgender individuals constitute a quasi-suspect class under the Equal Protection Clause....

[T]he Court finds that SB1 discriminates on the basis of sex, which in turn provides an alternative basis for the application of intermediate scrutiny.

ACLU issued a press release announcing the decision. [Posting updated to clarify scope of holding.]

Supreme Court Says "De Minimis" Is Incorrect Standard for Religious Accommodation Under Title VII

The U.S. Supreme Court today in Groff v. DeJoy,(Sup. Ct., June 29, 2023), held that lower courts have largely been misreading the Hardison case's standard for determining when accommodation of religious practices of employees imposes an "undue hardship on the conduct of the employer's business." The case involves a postal worker who was seeking accommodation of his Sabbath observance. In a unanimous decision, written by Justice Alito, the Court said in part:

Today, the Solicitor General disavows its prior position that Hardison should be overruled—but only on the understanding that Hardison does not compel courts to read the “more than de minimis” standard “literally” or in a manner that undermines Hardison’s references to “substantial” cost....With the benefit of comprehensive briefing and oral argument, we agree.

We hold that showing “more than a de minimis cost,” as that phrase is used in common parlance, does not suffice to establish “undue hardship” under Title VII. Hardison cannot be reduced to that one phrase. In describing an employer’s “undue hardship” defense, Hardison referred repeatedly to “substantial” burdens, and that formulation better explains the decision. We therefore, like the parties, understand Hardison to mean that “undue hardship” is shown when a burden is substantial in the overall context of an employer’s business....

[B]oth parties agree that the language of Title VII requires an assessment of a possible accommodation’s effect on “the conduct of the employer’s business.”... As the Solicitor General put it, not all “impacts on coworkers . . . are relevant,” but only “coworker impacts” that go on to “affec[t] the conduct of the business.”...

An employer who fails to provide an accommodation has a defense only if the hardship is “undue,” and a hardship that is attributable to employee animosity to a particular religion, to religion in general, or to the very notion of accommodating religious practice cannot be considered “undue.” If bias or hostility to a religious practice or a religious accommodation provided a defense to a reasonable accommodation claim, Title VII would be at war with itself....

Second, ... Title VII requires that an employer reasonably accommodate an employee’s practice of religion, not merely that it assess the reasonableness of a particular possible accommodation or accommodations.... Faced with an accommodation request like Groff’s, it would not be enough for an employer to conclude that forcing other employees to work overtime would constitute an undue hardship. Consideration of other options, such as voluntary shift swapping, would also be necessary.

Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justice Jackson, filed a concurring opinion, saying in part:

Petitioner Gerald Groff asks this Court to overrule Hardison.... The Court does not do so. That is a wise choice because stare decisis has “enhanced force” in statutory cases.De   

Court Issues Preliminary Injunction Against Kentucky Ban on Puberty Blockers and Hormonal Treatment for Minors

 In Doe v. Thornbury, (WD KY, June 28, 2023), a Kentucky federal district court issued a preliminary injunction barring the state from enforcing the portions of SB150 that prohibit health care providers from prescribing puberty blockers or testosterone, estrogen, or progesterone to minors suffering from gender dysphoria. The court held that the ban violates the equal protection rights of minors as well as parents' due process rights to make medical decisions for their children. CNN reports on the decision.

ADL Reports Rise in Online Hate and Harassment

 On Tuesday, the Anti-Defamation League released its report titled Online Hate and Harassment: The American Experience 2023 (full text). The Executive Summary reads in part:

Over the past year, online hate and harassment rose sharply for adults and teens ages 13-17. Among adults, 52% reported being harassed online in their lifetime, the highest number we have seen in four years, up from 40% in 2022. Both adults and teens also reported being harassed within the past 12 months, up from 23% in 2022 to 33% in 2023 for adults and 36% to 51% for teens. Overall, reports of each type of hate and harassment increased by nearly every measure and within almost every demographic group.

Axios discusses the report.

Michigan Legislature Bans Conversion Therapy-- 22nd State To Do So

The Michigan legislature yesterday gave final passage to HB 4616 (full text) and HB 4617 (full text), bills which together prohibit mental health professionals from engaging in conversion therapy with a minor. HB4617 contains an elaborate definition of "conversion therapy" which explicitly excludes, among other things, "counseling that provides acceptance, support, or understanding of an individual or facilitates an individual's coping, social support, or identity exploration and development ...  as long as the counseling does not seek to change an individual's sexual orientation or gender identity."  When signed by the Governor, Michigan will become the 22nd state (plus the District of Columbia) to ban conversion therapy for those under 18. M Live reports on the new legislation.

6th Circuit: Michigan Prisons Must Recognize Christian Identity As A Religion

In Fox v. Washington, (6th Cir., June 26, 2023), the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals held that the Michigan Department of Corrections had not adequately justified its refusal to recognize Christian Identity as a religion for purposes of the Michigan prison system. The court had previously remanded the case for the state to demonstrate that it met the requirement under RLUIPA that it has a compelling governmental interest in not recognizing Christian Identity, and that it has employed the least restrictive means in doing so. The state focused on the safety concerns growing out of the white supremacist ideology of the religious movement. The 6th Circuit concluded that this is insufficient, in part because the prison system had not considered alternatives short of non-recognition, saying in part:

Begin with the Department’s “policy directive” for “religious beliefs and practices of prisoners.” It plainly does not allow unfettered group worship simply because the Department recognizes a religion....

RLUIPA ... requires an individual inquiry even when group worship is the sought accommodation.... Indeed, each plaintiff testified that he was nonviolent and would prevent others from acting aggressively at group services. The Department offered silence in response—it did not, for example, present any evidence that plaintiffs or any other inmates who follow Christian Identity are violent. True, Bechler linked Christian Identity to racial violence outside the prison setting. But nothing in the record links plaintiffs to any prison violence, racially motivated or otherwise. In short, the Department presented evidence regarding Christian Identity as a whole, but not concerning plaintiffs. In failing to conduct an individualized inquiry, the Department’s decision-making process was deficient....

Although the record links Christian Identity to white nationalist groups, nothing in the record addresses how many Christian Identity adherents are members of those groups. The Department has the burden to show that refusing to recognize Christian Identity is the least restrictive means to advance facility security.... It cannot meet that burden by simply gesturing toward some Christian Identity adherents being members of white supremacist groups and rely on this court to fill in the gaps....

AP reports on the decision.

Islamic Marriage Contract Enforceable in Civil Court

In Alulddin v. Alfartousi, (AZ App., June 27, 2023), an Arizona state appeals court held that civil courts can enforce an Islamic marriage contract's dowry provision (mahr) as a valid premarital agreement without violating the 1st Amendment's free exercise clause. The court said in part:

By its plain terms, the Agreement required Husband to pay Wife a total dowry of $25,000 “when she demands it.” These clear, unambiguous contractual provisions are subject to interpretation under neutral principles of law.... Thus, the superior court did not need to assume the role of a religious court or consider ecclesiastical matters forbidden by the First Amendment to enforce the agreement as written.

... A premarital agreement is “an agreement between prospective spouses that is made in contemplation of marriage and that is effective on marriage.” A.R.S. § 25-201(1).... It “is enforceable without consideration.” ...

Husband contends that the parties did not enter into the Agreement in contemplation of marriage because under Islamic law the Agreement constituted their marriage. The record controverts this contention. The parties signed the Agreement five months before their legal marriage. Although Husband testified that it signified their cultural marriage, he also stated that they signed it on their “engagement.” Moreover, he testified that their actual marriage occurred after the execution of the Agreement....

Next, Husband asserts that he did not sign the Agreement voluntarily because it was a compulsory religious act....

Here, the superior court did not err in finding that Husband failed to meet his burden of proof. He did not present any evidence to suggest that his religion “mandated” or “compelled” him to sign the Agreement. In his prehearing statement, he described the Agreement as “customary”—not compulsory—in a Muslim marriage....

Certiorari Denied In Case Holding Charter Schools Are State Actors

Yesterday the U.S. Supreme Court denied review in Charter Day School, Inc. v. Peltier, (Docket No. 22-238, certiorari denied 6/26/2023). (Order List.) In the case, the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals sitting en banc in a 10-6 decision (full text of opinions) held that a publicly funded North Carolina charter school is a state actor and thus subject to the equal protection clause.  At issue was the school's promulgation of a dress code requiring female students to wear skirts.

Kansas AG Says Previously Modified Birth Certificates Must Be Changed Back to Reflect Biological Sex

In April, the Kansas legislature overrode Governor Kelly's veto of Senate Bill 180 which defines "sex" as biological sex for purposes of various state laws, rules and regulations. Yesterday, Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach issued Attorney General Opinion 2023-2 (full text) which interprets the new law as requiring birth certificates that have previously been modified to now be changed back to reflect the individual's sex assigned at birth. Similarly, driver's license records that have been modified must be changed back and future licenses must be issued on the basis of biological sex. However, the individual may present themselves as the opposite sex in their driver's license photo. The Attorney General also concluded that the new law does not apply to housing decisions by state correctional facilities since those decisions are not mandated by state rules or regulations.

3 Courts Rule on Claims for Religious Exemptions from Covid Vaccine Mandates

Last week, federal district courts in three states handed down decisions in cases in which a former employee was suing his or her employer for refusing to provide them with a religious exemption from the employer's Covid vaccine mandate.

In Crocker v. Austin, (WD LA, June 22, 2023) a Louisiana federal district court dismissed as moot a suit for injunctive relief brought by seven military service members who faced involuntary separation from the Air Force when they filed suit. However, in January 2023 the military rescinded the vaccine mandate and updated personnel records to remove any adverse actions associated with the denial of requested exemptions. Any remaining suit for damages falls under the Tucker Act and must be brought in the Court of Federal Claims.

In Leek v. Lehigh Valley Health Network, (ED PA, June 23, 2023), a Pennsylvania federal district court refused to dismiss a Title VII religious discrimination claim filed by a nurse who was denied religious exemptions from a hospital's requirement to receive Covid and influenza vaccines. The hospital claimed that the nurse's objections were not religious in nature. The court held that the nurse's belief that chemical injections may make her body impure in the eyes of the Lord, and her objections to some vaccines because they were developed using aborted fetal cells, are both religious objections.  The fact that some of her other objections were more medical or political did not negate the presence of religious objections.

In Algarin v. NYC Health + Hospitals Corp., (SD NY, June 23, 2023), a New York federal district court dismissed claims by an Internet technology professional at a health care facility that denial of his request for a religious exemption from the state's Covid vaccine mandate violated Title VII and the New York State and City Human Rights Laws. The court disagreed, holding that requiring the employer to violate a state rule would place an undue burden on the employer. The court also rejected plaintiff's 1st Amendment free exercise claim, finding that the vaccine mandate was a neutral law of general applicability.

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• T. Wolff, Cogency, Seriousness, Cohesion, and Importance: Assessing the Strasbourg Case-Law on Religion or Belief, (Oxford Journal of Law and Religion, 2023, 00, 1–20).
• Douglas Mulliken, “It’s not just money; you are investing in your identity”: Israel, the Jewish Diaspora, and the Israel Bonds Program, (May 11, 2023).
• Dimitry Gegenava, Insults to Religious Feelings v. Freedom of Expression: Lessons from Aiisa's Case,   (Studia z Prawa Wyznaniowego, 2022, Vol. 25, 91-105).
• Conor Casey,  Briefing Document for the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Assisted Dying, (Oireachtas Joint Committee on Assisted Dying (19 June 2023)).
• Stephen J., Choi, Mitu Gulati & Eric A. Posner, Trump's Lower-Court Judges and Religion: An Initial Appraisal, (Virginia Public Law and Legal Theory Research Paper No. 2023-49 (2023).
• Paul-Olivier Klein & Shee-Yee Khoo, Paying for Religion? The Effect of Religious Statements in Financial Contracts, (June 9, 2023).
• Assaf Likhovski, Jurisprudence and Nationalism in the British Empire in the Early Twentieth Century: India, Egypt, and Palestine Compared, (The English Historical Review (Forthcoming).
• Roger Colinvaux, Strings Are Attached: Shining a Spotlight on the Hidden Subsidy for Perpetual Donor Limits on Gifts, (Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review, Forthcoming).
• Enda Hargaden & Nicolas Duquette, The U-Shaped Charitable-Giving Curve, (Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, Forthcoming).

From SmartCILP:

• Journal of Law & Religion, Vol. 38, Issue 1 (January 2023):
• Rafael Domingo, The Spirit of Christianity and Law
• Linda C. McClain, "Do Not Ever Refer to My Lord Jesus Christ with Pronouns": Considering Controversies over Religiously Motivated Discrimination on the Basis of Gender Identity
• Patrick Parkinson, Gender Identity Discrimination and Religious Freedom
• Laura Portuondo & Claudia E. Haupt, The Limits of Defining Identity in Religion-Gender Conflicts: A Response to Patrick Parkinson
• Shannon Gilreath, Gender Inequality and Biological Supremacy: A Sex Equality Analysis of Patrick Parkinson's "Neutral" Proposal
• Maria E. Doerfler, Bishops and Friends: History and Legal Interpretation in Recent Amicus Curiae Briefs before the Supreme Court
• Roisin Aine Costello & Sahar Ahmed, Citizenship, Identity, and Veiling: Interrogating the Limits of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights in Cases Involving the Religious Dress of Muslim Women
• Lili Levi, Racialized, Judaized, Feminized: Identity-Based Attacks on the Press, 20 First Amendment Law Review 147-229 (2022).
• Peter J. Smith & Robert W. Tuttle, Gordon College and the Future of the Ministerial Exception, 47 Journal of College & University Law 1-46 (2022).

High School's Failure to Supervise Student Did Not Violate Parents' Free Exercise Rights

In Doe v. Alpine School District, (D UT, June 21, 2023), a Utah federal district court rejected claims by the parents of a high school student that the school's practice of giving students long periods of unsupervised time during the last week of the school year violated their religious free exercise rights.  According to the court:

The Does are members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and have raised their son under its doctrines and to follow its practices, one of which prohibits premarital sex. The Does had previously discovered that JD had begun having sex with his girlfriend and had placed restrictions on JD’s activity to prevent him from having premarital sex thereafter, such as requiring him to be accompanied by other persons when he was with his girlfriend.... The Does learned that JD had had sex with his girlfriend in the parking lot next to the school during school hours three times during the final week of school....

The Does’ claim under the Free Exercise Clause fails because they have not alleged that the Alpine School District coerced them to abandon a religious tenet or belief. First, the school district did not coerce JD into acting against his religious beliefs. He freely chose to have premarital sex with his girlfriend, even though this was against the teachings of his religion. 

Second, the Alpine School District did not coerce the Does to act contrary to their religious principles. The Does allege that they have a religious duty to encourage JD to abstain from premarital sex. The district did nothing to pressure or force the Does to refrain from passing on those teachings to her son. The Does instead argue that the district’s policies allowed JD a window of opportunity to have sex, thwarting their attempts to prevent him from doing so. In essence, the Does assert that the Alpine School District did not do enough to help them perform their religious obligations. But the Free Exercise Clause does not impose such a duty on government entities....

The court also rejected plaintiffs' 14th Amendment parental rights claim.

Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine Bars Court From Interpreting Foundation's Bylaws

In Foundation for the Advancement of Catholic Schools, Inc. v. The Most Reverend Leonard P. Blair, (CT Super, June 15, 2023), a Connecticut trial court held that "the constitutional bar on court jurisdiction over religious matters" required it to dismiss a suit over interpretation of the bylaws of an organization that provides scholarships for students attending Catholic schools in the Archdiocese of Hartford. At issue was whether the Archbishop could appoint Board of Trustee members other than those recommended by the Governance Committee. The court said in part:

Notwithstanding its formal status as a nonstock corporation, the court finds that FACS is a religious organization with ecclesiastical doctrine and practices. While FACS may be akin to a mutual fund in how it accepts contributions, diversifies assets, and distributes money, the mission and character of the organization is wholly marked by "clear and obvious religious characteristics."...

[T]he court cannot neutrally apply principles of corporate bylaw interpretation without intruding upon the archbishop's religious decision-making authority. Instead, the court is being asked to entangle the Superior Court of the State of Connecticut into matters of religious doctrine, religious practices and church polity.

Florida's Ban On Medicaid Payments For Puberty Blockers and Cross-Sex Hormones Is Invalid

In Dekker v. Weida, (ND FL, June 31, 2023), a Florida federal district court held that Florida Statutes §286.31(2) and Florida Administrative Code Rule 59G-1.050(7) which bar the expenditure of state funds, including Medicaid funds, for puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones violate the Equal Protection Clause and the Affordable Care Act's ban on sex discrimination, as well as provisions of the Medicaid Act. The statute and rule also ban Medicaid coverage for gender-affirming surgery, but none of the plaintiffs had standing to challenge these provisions. The court said in part:

The record establishes that for some minors, including Susan Doe and K.F., a treatment regimen of mental-health therapy followed by GnRH agonists and eventually by cross-sex hormones is the best available treatment. They and their parents, in consultation with their doctors and multidisciplinary teams, have rationally chosen this treatment. The State of Florida’s decision to ban payment for GnRH agonists and cross-sex hormones for transgender individuals is not rationally related to a legitimate state interest. 

Dissuading a person from conforming to the person’s gender identity rather than to the person’s natal sex is not a legitimate state interest. The defendants apparently acknowledge this. But the State’s disapproval of transgender status—of a person’s gender identity when it does not match the person’s natal sex—was a substantial motivating factor in enactment of the challenged rule and statute....

The rule and statute at issue were motivated in substantial part by the plainly illegitimate purposes of disapproving transgender status and discouraging individuals from pursuing their honest gender identities. This was purposeful discrimination against transgenders....

Florida Politics reports on the decision.

Biden, Modi Respond To Questions About Religious Freedom In India

Yesterday, President Biden and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi who is making a state visit to the United States held a joint Press Conference (full transcript) at the White House. Reporters raised questions regarding India's treatment of religious minorities. Here is the relevant portion of the questions and answers:

Q    So, as you raise these broader issues of human rights and democracy, what is your message to those — including some members of your own party — who believe that your administration is overlooking the targeting of religious minorities and a crackdown on dissent in India?

PRESIDENT BIDEN:  Well, look, the Prime Minister and I had a good discussion about democratic values.  And ... that’s the nature of our relationship: We’re straightforward with each other, and — and we respect each other.

One of the fundamental reasons that I believe the U.S.-China relationship is not in the space it is with the U.S.- Indian relationship is that there’s an overwhelming respect for each other because we’re both democracies.  And it’s a common democratic ... character of both our countries that — and our people — our diversity; our culture; our open, tolerant, robust debate. 

And I believe that we believe in the dignity of every citizen.  And it is in America’s DNA and, I believe, in India’s DNA that the whole world — the whole world has a stake in our success, both of us, in maintaining our democracies.  It makes us appealing partners and enables us to expand democratic institutions across — around the world.  And I believe this, and I still believe this.

Q    Mr. Prime Minister, India has long prided itself as the world’s largest democracy, but there are many human rights groups who say that your government has discriminated against religious minorities and sought to silence its critics.  As you stand here in the East Room of the White House, where so many world leaders have made commitments to protecting democracy, what steps are you and your government willing to take to improve the rights of Muslims and other minorities in your country and to uphold free speech?

PRIME MINISTER MODI:  (As interpreted.)  I’m actually really surprised that people say so.  And so, people don’t say it.  Indeed, India is a democracy. 

And as President Biden also mentioned, India and America — both countries, democracy is in our DNA.  Democracy is our spirit.  Democracy runs in our veins.  We live democracy.  And our ancestors have actually put words to this concept, and that is in the form of our constitution.

Our government has taken the basic principles of democracy.  And on that basis, our constitution is made and the entire country runs on that — our constitution and government.  We have always proved that democracy can deliver.  And when I say deliver, this is regardless of caste, creed, religion, gender.  There’s absolutely no space for discrimination. 

And when you talk of democracy, if there are no human values and there is no humanity, there are no human rights, then it’s not a democracy.

And that is why, when you say “democracy” and you accept democracy and when we live democracy, then there is absolutely no space for discrimination.  And that is why India believes in moving ahead with everybody with trust and with everybody’s efforts.

These are our foundation principles, which are the basis of how we operate, how we live our lives.  In India, the benefits that are provided by the government is accessible to all.  Whoever deserves those benefits is available to everybody.  And that is why, in India’s democratic values, there’s absolutely no discrimination neither on basis of caste, creed, or age, or any kind of geographic location.

Teachers May Move Ahead with Suit Challenging Denial of Exemption from Covid Vaccine Mandate

 In Brandon v. Board of Education of the City of St. Louis, (ED MO, June 21, 2023), a Missouri federal district court refused to dismiss Free Exercise and Equal Protection claims, as well as Missouri Human Rights Act and Title VII claims by 41 of the 43 teachers and staff, in a suit challenging the denial of religious exemptions from the school district's Covid vaccine mandate. Discussing plaintiffs' First Amendment claim, the court said in part:

[Eighth Circuit precedent] instructs district courts to apply Jacobson to laws passed and enforced while an emerging public-health emergency is “developing rapidly, poorly understood, and in need of immediate and decisive action,.., but the tiers of scrutiny when “time [was] available for more reasoned and less immediate decision-making by public health officials” and “the immediate public health crisis [had] dissipated,”.... Again, which standard applies depends upon a “factual determination,”..., and the Court must at this point accept Plaintiffs’ well-pleaded factual allegations as true.... Because Plaintiffs have pleaded the existence of a late-2021 policy apparently lacking the urgency that characterized the regulations and executive orders issued early in the pandemic, [precedent] compels the Court—at least for now—to apply the ordinary tiers of scrutiny to the District’s Policy as alleged.

Among the claims dismissed by the court was the claim that refusal to grant the religious exemptions violated a Missouri statute that prohibits discrimination for refusal to participate in abortions.

Biden Announces Intent to Nominate Charlotte Burrows For Third Term on EEOC

Yesterday, President Biden announced his intent to nominate Charlotte A. Burrows for a third term as a Member of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. She has served as Chair of the Commission since 2021. Before her appointment to the EEOC, Burrows served as Associate Deputy Attorney General at the U.S. Department of Justice.  Burrows' nomination must be confirmed by the Senate. The EEOC enforces federal employment anti-discrimination laws, including the ban on religious discrimination.

Christian Pre-School Challenges Exclusion from Colorado State Aid Program

Suit was filed this week in a Colorado federal district court challenging requirements that Colorado has imposed on pre-schools in order for them to participate and receive funding in the state's universal pre-school program. The complaint (full text) in Darren Patterson Christian Academy v. Roy, (D CO, filed 6/20/2023), alleges in part:

9.... [T]he Colorado Department of Early Childhood ... is requiring religious preschools like Darren Patterson Christian Academy to forgo their religious character, beliefs, and exercise to participate in UPK.

10. The Department does so through two provisions that prohibit discrimination against any person based on religion, sexual orientation, or gender identity.

11. So even though the school welcomes all families and children, these provisions would force it to hire employees who do not share its faith and to alter internal rules and policies that are based on the school’s religious beliefs about sexuality and gender, including those that relate to restroom usage, pronouns, dress codes, and student housing during school expeditions and field trips....

Plaintiff contends that the requirements violate its rights under the federal Constitiuion's Free Exercise, Free Speech and Equal Protection Clauses. ADF issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

2nd Circuit Rejects Challenge to Abortion Clinic Bubble Zone Law

In Vitagliano v. County of Westchester, (2d Cir., June 21, 2023), the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals held that plaintiff, who the court describes as "an aspiring pro-life sidewalk counselor who wishes to approach women entering abortion clinics and engage them in peaceful conversation about abortion alternatives," has standing to challenge Westchester County's recently-enacted 8-foot "bubble-zone" law. The court concluded that plaintiff has standing.  She had demonstrated a credible threat of enforcement of the law against her. Plaintiff conceded that the bubble-zone law survived constitutional attack under existing Supreme Court precedent.  She brought suit hoping to convince the Supreme court to overrule its 2000 decision that upheld a similar law. The 2nd Circuit thus affirmed the district court's dismissal of the challenge to Westchester County's ordinance, opening the way for appellant to seek Supreme Court review. Becket has background on the case.

Colorado Window to Bring Expired Child Sex Abuse Claims Is Unconstitutional

In Aurora Public Schools v. A.S., (CO Sup.Ct., June 20, 2023), the Colorado Supreme Court held that the Child Sexual Abuse Accountability Act 

is unconstitutionally retrospective [under Art. II, Sec. 11 of the Colorado Constitution] to the extent that it permits a victim to bring a claim for sexual misconduct based on conduct that predates the Act and for which previously available causes of action were time-barred.

The Act created a 3-year window during which victims could bring claims for any child sexual abuse that occurred between 1960 and 2022. In the case, plaintiffs sued a former high school coach and his school district for sexual abuse that occurred between 2001 and 2005. The court said in part:

The legislature was careful with S.B. 21-088 not to directly revive time-barred claims, which would plainly impair vested rights.... Instead, it created a three-year window to bring a new cause of action to accomplish the same ends. But the retrospectivity clause prohibits the legislature from “accomplish[ing] that indirectly, which it could not do directly.”...

... Our holding does not affect claims brought under the CSAAA for which the previously applicable statute of limitations had not run as of January 1, 2022.

AP reports on the decision.

RFRA Requires Title VII Exemption for Business Operating on Christian Gender Beliefs

In Braidwood Management, Inc. v. EEOC, (5th Cir., June 20, 2023), the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals held that RFRA requires an exemption from the sex discrimination provisions of Title VII for a company that operates three related health and wellness businesses on the basis of Christian beliefs regarding sexual orientation and gender identity.  The court said in part: 

RFRA requires that Braidwood ... be exempted from Title VII because compliance with Title VII post-Bostock would substantially burden its ability to operate per its religious beliefs about homosexual and transgender conduct. Moreover, the EEOC wholly fails to carry its burden to show that it has a compelling interest in refusing Braidwood an exemption, even post-Bostock....

Although the Supreme Court may some day determine that preventing commercial businesses from discriminating on factors specific to sexual orientation or gender identity is such a compelling government interest that it overrides religious liberty in all cases, it has never so far held that....

Under RFRA, the government cannot rely on generalized interests but, instead, must demonstrate a compelling interest in applying its challenged rule to “the particular claimant whose sincere exercise of religion is being substantially burdened.”...

[T]he EEOC fails to carry its burden. It does not show a compelling interest in denying Braidwood, individually, an exemption. The agency does not even attempt to argue the point outside of gesturing to a generalized interest in prohibiting all forms of sex discrimination in every potential case. Moreover, even if we accepted the EEOC’s formulation of its compelling interest, refusing to exempt Braidwood, and forcing it to hire and endorse the views of employees with opposing religious and moral views is not the least restrictive means of promoting that interest.

Reuters reports on the decision.

Court Enjoins Arkansas Ban on Gender-Affirming Medical Care

In Brandt v. Rutledge, (ED AR, June 20, 2023), an Arkansas federal district court in an 80-page opinion permanently enjoined the state from enforcing Act 626, the state's ban on gender-affirming medical care for minors.  The court, finding that the Act violates the14th Amendment's equal protection and due process clauses, as well as the 1st Amendment's free speech protections, said in part:

Act 626 prohibits a physician or other healthcare professional from providing “gender transition procedures” to any individual under eighteen years of age and from referring any individual under eighteen years of age to any healthcare professional for “gender transition procedures.”...

The State claims that by banning gender-affirming care the Act advances the State’s important governmental interest of protecting children from experimental medical treatment and safeguarding medical ethics. Throughout this litigation, the State has attempted to meet their heavy burden by offering the following assertions in support of banning gender-affirming medical care for adolescents: (i) that there is a lack of evidence of efficacy of the banned care; (ii) that the banned treatment has risks and side effects; (iii) that many patients will desist in their gender incongruence; (iv) that some patients will later come to regret having received irreversible treatments; and (v) that treatment is being provided without appropriate evaluation and informed consent. The evidence presented at trial does not support these assertions....

Even if the Court found that Act 626 passed constitutional muster under the Equal Protection Clause, it fails under due process analysis.... 

As the Court has previously found, the Parent Plaintiffs have a fundamental right to seek medical care for their children and, in conjunction with their adolescent child’s consent and their doctor’s recommendation, make a judgment that medical care is necessary. “[T]the Fourteenth Amendment ‘forbids the government to infringe . . . ‘fundamental’ liberty interests at all, no matter what process is provided, unless the infringement is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest.’”...

Act 626 is a content and viewpoint-based regulation of speech because it restricts healthcare professionals from making referrals for “gender transition procedures” only, not for other purposes. As a content and viewpoint-based regulation, it is “presumptively unconstitutional” and is subject to strict scrutiny...

 Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffen in a statement said that he plans to appeal the decision to the 8th Circuit.  The Hill reports on the court's decision.

Supreme Court Denies Review in Christian College's Challenge to Fair Housing Act Enforcement

The U.S. Supreme Court yesterday denied review in The School of the Ozarks v. Biden, (Docket No. 22-816, certiorari denied, 6/20/2023). (Order List). In the case, the U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals held in a 2-1 decision that a Christian college lacks standing to challenge a memorandum issued by an acting assistant secretary of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. The memorandum directs the HUD office that enforces the Fair Housing Act to investigate all discrimination complaints, including discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. The school's religiously-inspired Code of Conduct specifies that biological sex determines a person's gender. The school maintains single-sex residence halls and does not permit transgender individuals to live in residence halls that do not match their biological sex. (See prior posting.)

Supreme Court GVR's South Carolina Planned Parenthood Defunding Case

In Kerr v. Planned Parenthood, (Sup. Ct., Docket No. 21-1431, June 20, 2023) (Order List), the Supreme Court remanded for further consideration South Carolina's appeal of a 4th Circuit decision that barred South Carolina from terminating Medicaid funding to Planned Parenthood. The Court's action today granted certiorari, vacated the judgment below and remanded the case in light of the Court's June 8, decision in Health and Hospital Corporation of Marion Cty. v. Talevski. That case held that 42 USC §1983 may be used to enforce rights created by statutes enacted under Congress' spending power, a holding consistent with the 4th Circuit's decision below in Kerr. Here is the SCOTUSblog's case page for the Kerr case, with links to all the pleadings and briefs in the case. Reuters reports on today's Supreme Court ruling.

Army Appeals Court: Poisoning Through Vodou Not Protected by Free Exercise Clause or RFRA

In United States v. Lindor, (ACCA, June 14, 2023), the Army Court of Criminal Appeals rejected appellant's claim that his murder sentence violated his free exercise rights under the 1st Amendment and RFRA.  The case involves a Staff Sergeant who, after multiple attempts, succeeded in murdering his wife through the use of rituals and poisons recommended by a Vodou practitioner in Haiti. The court said in part:

[A]ppellant's actions to summon Vodou rituals ... were consistent with his First Amendment right to freely exercise his religious beliefs.... [T]he record contains no indication that they called for any illegal activity or result.... The stipulation's derogatory references to these Vodou rituals—after all, they were categorized as "aggravation" evidence—violated the First Amendment's free exercise clause. The government, consistent with the Constitution's guarantee of free exercise, "cannot act in a manner that passes judgment upon or presupposes the illegitimacy of religious beliefs and practices."...

However, our analysis does not end there,.... [Appellant] waived his objection to evidence of these particular spells in two ways.... First, the military judge directly advised appellant and his counsel that, if he admitted it, he would consider the stipulation of fact to decide whether appellant was guilty, and, if so, an appropriate sentence; appellant and his counsel agreed. Second, the military judge specifically asked appellant's counsel whether he had any objections to the stipulation; counsel responded, "No, Your Honor."...

Turning to appellant's violence toward RL, we view this as substantially different from the rituals about AD and government officials. We have searched for, but cannot find, any authority to support appellant's tacit argument that the First Amendment's "free exercise" clause can broadly shield one from government action to describe, prosecute, and punish conduct that unlawfully endangers another person's life...

Put plainly, we decline to characterize appellant's violent misconduct toward RL as the free exercise of religious belief.... [A]ctivities that harm others are not protected by the free exercise clause. To characterize appellant's chosen techniques to plan, express, and actuate his intent to murder RL as the free exercise of his religious beliefs would expropriate the free exercise clause of any principled, reasonable meaning. The United States Constitution's framers and the various ratifying conventions plainly and deliberately did not contemplate that one could seek protection in the clause for an act that violated another's right to be free from malicious violence.

FBI Charges Michigan Man with Plotting Mass Casualty Attack at Synagogue

Last week, the FBI filed a Criminal Complaint charging a 19-year-old Michigan man with taking steps to plan a mass casualty suicide attack on a synagogue in Lansing, Michigan. The Criminal Complaint (full text) in United States v. Seann Patrick Pietila, (WD MI, filed 6/16/2023) sets out extensive Instagram postings and alleges in part:

[Pietla] communicated Neo-Nazi style ideology, antisemitism, suicidal ideologies, glorification of past mass shooters (that advocate similar ideology), and a desire and his intent to mimic past mass shooters/mass casualty incidents.

... [He] specifically references admiration for Brenton Tarrant.... Tarrant committed acts of mass murder in New Zealand. On March 15, 2019, Tarrant committed two consecutive mass shootings on Mosques located in New Zealand. Tarrant killed 51 people and injured 40 more. Tarrant live-streamed his attack via Facebook Live.

The Criminal Complaint alleges violation of 18 U.S.C. § 875(c) which bans sending in interstate commerce any communication containing a threat to injure another person, reports:

During the execution of the search warrant, investigators located the following items of evidence: .40 caliber pistol ammunition, .22 caliber ammunition, 12 gauge shotgun ammunition, a 12-gauge shotgun, a .22 caliber rifle, a Sig Sauer .40 caliber pistol (serial # 24B049058), .223 rifle magazines, an Apple iPhone 11, various knives and bladed instruments, scopes and firearms accessories, a camouflage tactical vest, a black tactical vest, black skull masks, a red and white Nazi flag, a ghillie suit, gas masks, and military sniper/survival manuals.

 Law & Crime reports on the charges.

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Richard W. Garnett, Justice Breyer and the Establishment Clause: Notes on 'Appeasement,' 'Legal Judgment,' and 'Divisiveness', (First Amendment Law Review (2023)).
• Rohan Tigadi, The Anatomy and Constitutionality of Religious Conversion Laws in India, (Feb 18, 2023).
• Brady Earley, Data-Driven Accommodations: Religious Exemptions in Markets of Discrimination, (May 23, 2023).
• Perry Dane, Weaponization, Polarization, and the Structure of Religious Exemptions, (June 11, 2023).
• Susan Frelich Appleton & Laura A. Rosenbury, Reflections on “Personal Responsibility” after COVID and Dobbs: Doubling Down on Privacy, 972 Wash. U J.L. & Pol'y 129 (2023)).
• Teneille R. Brown, Abortion and the Extremism of Bright Line Rules,  (Northwestern University Law Review, Forthcoming).

From SmartCILP:

• Abner S. Greene, The Dilemma of Liberal Pluralism, 70 Buffalo Law Review 1637-1753 (2022).
• Sebastian Guidi, Law over Legalism: International Court Legitimacy in Lautsi v. Italy, 33 Duke Journal of Comparative & International Law 45-96 (2022).
• Shalini Bhargava Ray, Noncitizen Harboring and the Freedom of Association,101 North Carolina Law Review 677-728 (2023).
• Radhika Saxena & Rajarshi Sen, The Instant Triple Talaq Judgment—Its Contents and Discontents, 25 University of Pennsylvania Journal of Law & Social Change 53-80 (2021).

Reports:

• Inter-Parliamentary Union, Parliamentary Report on Religion and Belief: Working Towards More Peaceful and Inclusive Societies, (June 2023).

California Law Does Not Interfere With Pre-Schools' Religious Curriculum

In Foothills Christian Church v. Johnson, (SD CA, June 15, 2023), a California federal district court dismissed a free exercise challenge by Christian pre-schools to California's child care licensing requirement. It held that California's Child Day Care Facilities Act does not prevent the schools from offering a program that includes compulsory participation in religious activities and events. While the Act requires that schools make attendance at religious activities voluntary in the discretion of the child's parents or guardian, it also allows schools to refuse to admit children whose parents or guardians are unwilling to agree that their children will attend religious instruction and activities. The court thus held that since plaintiffs inaccurately assessed the Act's requirements, they lack standing to pursue their free exercise claims.

Iowa Supreme Court, 3-3, Affirms Invalidation Of Heartbeat Abortion Law

As previously reported, in 2019 an Iowa state trial court judge held that Iowa's "fetal heartbeat" abortion law violates the Iowa state constitution. The case was not appealed. However, in 2022 the state filed a motion to dissolve the injunction and revive the law. The trial court refused to do so, and that decision was appealed to the Iowa Supreme Court.  Now in Planned Parenthood of the Heartland, Inc. v. Reynolds, (IA Sup. Ct., June 16, 2023), the Iowa Supreme Court announced that it was evenly divided, 3-3, on the case (with one Justice recused), so that by operation of law the trial court's decision stands. However individual Justices filed opinions in the case. 

The newly decided case was made more complicated by a decision of the Iowa Supreme Court last year in which it rejected subjecting a different abortion regulation to strict scrutiny under the state Constitution, but did not decide what level of scrutiny should apply.  This left the standard to be the undue burden test imposed by federal law. (See prior posting.)

Now in last week's decision on the fetal heartbeat law, Justice Waterman (joined by Chief Justice Christensen and Justice Mansfield ) wrote that they would not grant the discretionary writ of certiorari, thus refusing to review the trial court decision. He went on to indicate that even if review were granted, they would affirm the trial court, saying in part:

The law as of today has not changed in a way that removes the “constitutional defect” in the fetal heartbeat bill. The undue burden test remains the governing standard under the Iowa Constitution, and the State concedes, as it must, that the fetal heartbeat bill is unconstitutional under that test. The State therefore has failed to establish that the district court acted illegally. There is no basis for certiorari relief.

Justice McDonald filed a separate opinion, joined by Justices McDermott and May, saying in part:

Because there was no controlling decision from this court..., the district court should have applied this court’s other controlling precedents to constitutional claims of this type. Under this court’s controlling precedents, where there is no fundamental right at issue, statutes are subject only to rational basis review.

Justice McDermott filed a separate opinion, joined by Justices McDonald and May, saying in part:

Last year, we were presented with an appeal challenging the constitutionality of a different statute regulating abortion, yet we failed to declare the constitutional standard that applied. This case again presented that same basic task. And for the second time in as many years, we’ve ducked it. It isn’t for us to dictate abortion policy in the state, but simply to interpret and apply the law as best we can in cases that come before us. We fail the parties, the public, and the rule of law in our refusal today to apply the law and decide this case. 

Des Moines Register reports on reactions to the decision.

Maine Sued Over New Limits On Religious Schools In Tuition Payment Program

 On Tuesday, a Catholic school in Maine and parents who would like to send their children to that school under Maine's tuition payment program for students from districts without public high schools filed suit in a Maine federal district court challenging new restrictions which the Maine legislature imposed on schools participating in the tuition payment program. The complaint (full text) in St. Dominic Academy v. Makin, (D ME, filed 6/13/2023), contends that the legislature enacted the new provisions to exclude religious schools after the U.S. Supreme Court in Carson v. Makin invalidated a requirement that participating schools be nonsectarian. The complaint explains: 

Among other things, Maine:

• Imposed a new religious neutrality requirement on schools, stating that “to the extent that an educational institution permits religious expression, it cannot discriminate between religions in so doing”;

• Imposed a new religious nondiscrimination requirement on schools; and

• Removed the religious exemption that had previously allowed religious (but “nonsectarian”) schools to handle sensitive issues relating to sexual orientation and gender identity in a way that reflected their faith commitments....

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

Religion Is Relevant In Trial For Marketing Unlicensed Drug

In United States v. Grenon, (SD FL, June 12, 2023), a Florida federal district court, ruled on a motion in liwas through which the government was seeking to exclude various pieces of evidence in the criminal trial of defendants for manufacturing, marketing and distributing an unlicensed drug. The court summarized the charges against defendants:

Defendants are members of Genesis II Church of Health and Healing ... which the Government alleges is “an explicitly nonreligious entity that [Defendant, Mark Scott Grenon] co-founded[.]”...

Under the guise of Genesis, Defendants promoted MMS as a miracle cure to various illnesses and ailments, even though “[w]hen ingested orally as directed by [] Defendants, MMS became chlorine dioxide, a powerful bleaching agent typically used for industrial water treatment or bleaching textiles, pulp, and paper.”...

The court ruled in part:

The Government first seeks to prevent Defendants from suggesting that their conduct was “a religious exercise, constitutionally protected under the First Amendment.”...

... [C]onsidering the Government’s accusations regarding Defendants and Genesis..., it would likely be impossible to conduct this trial without discussion of Defendants’ alleged religion, as well as their personal beliefs regarding the First Amendment...

The court also refused to preclude defendants from raising a defense under RFRA, but did rule that the applicability of RFRA is a pure question of law so that no jury instruction on the applicability of RFRA should be permitted.

Church Autonomy Doctrine Requires Dismissal of Title VII Claim By Non-Ministerial Employee

In McMahon v. World Vision Inc., (WD WA, June 12, 2023), a Washington federal district court dismissed a Title VII sex discrimination suit, finding it is barred by the Church Autonomy Doctrine.  A Christian ministry's job offer to plaintiff for the full-time position of Donor/Customer Service Representative Trainee was rescinded when defendant learned that plaintiff was in a same-sex marriage. The court discussed the relationship between the Church Autonomy Doctrine and the Ministerial Exception, concluding that the Church Autonomy Doctrine may be invoked when a non-ministerial employee brings a Title VII action.  The court said in part:

... [T]he Church Autonomy Doctrine requires the court to abstain from resolving employment discrimination claims where a religious institution takes an adverse action pursuant to a religious belief or policy—regardless of whether the employer allegedly discriminated on religious or other protected grounds—unless it is possible for the court resolve the claims without resolving underlying controversies over religious doctrine or calling into question the reasonableness, validity, or truth of a religious doctrine or practice....

The court joins other courts ... in cautioning religious employers against over-reading the impact of the court’s holding. It is by no means the case that all claims of discrimination against religious employers are barred....  [I]f a religious employer does not offer a religious justification for an adverse employment action against a non-ministerial employee or if the plaintiff presents sufficient secular evidence that would allow a factfinder to conclude that the religious justification was pretext without wading into the plausibility of the asserted religious doctrine, it is unlikely that serious constitutional questions will be raised by applying Title VII.

New York Sues Anti-Abortion Group That Physically Obstructs Clinics

New York Attorney General Letitia James announced last week that she has filed suit against the anti-abortion group Red Rose Rescue and various of its members seeking to enjoin them from physically interfering with persons seeking abortions or providing abortion services. The complaint (full text) in People of the State of New York v. Red Rose Rescue, (SD NY, filed 6/8/2023), alleges in part:

8. Red Rose Rescue is an anti-abortion group whose members conspire to illegally trespass into private medical facilities that perform abortions and shut down or physically obstruct the provision of all reproductive health services, refusing all requests to leave by staff and law enforcement. 

9. Criminal trespass at reproductive health facilities is not incidental to Red Rose Rescue members’ activism, but rather is the core mission of their group.

The complaint alleges violations of the federal Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act and New York's Clinic Access Act. In addition to injunctive relief, the suit also seeks damages and civil penalties. Catholic News Agency reports on the lawsuit.

9th Circuit: U.S. Has Not Waived Sovereign Immunity For Damages Under RFRA

In Donovan v. Vance, (9th Cir., June 13, 2023), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held that claims for injunctive and declaratory relief by Department of Energy employees who objected to the government's Covid vaccine mandate are moot because the Executive Orders being challenged have been revoked. Insofar as employees with religious objections to the vaccine were seeking damages, the court held that the United States has not waived sovereign immunity for damages under RFRA. Plaintiffs had sued federal officials in their official capacity.