Court Preliminarily Enjoins Montana's Ban on Transgender Treatments for Minors

 In Van Garderen v. State of Montana, (MT Dist. Ct., Sept. 27, 2023), a Montana trial court granted a preliminary injunction against enforcement of SB 99, the state's ban on surgical and hormonal treatments for minors suffering from gender dysphoria.  It concluded that the law likely violates the Equal Protection and Privacy provisions of the Montana Constitution.  The court said in part:

The Court finds that SB 99 likely violates Montana's Equal Protection Clause because it classifies based on transgender status—making it a sex-based classification—and because it infringes on fundamental rights, subjecting it to strict scrutiny. The Court finds that SB 99 likely does not survive strict scrutiny because it does not serve its purported compelling governmental interest of protecting minor Montanans from pressure to receive harmful medical treatments. Alternatively, the Court finds that SB 99 is unlikely to survive any level of constitutional review. The Court also finds that SB 99 likely violates Plaintiffs’ right to privacy under Montana’s Constitution because the Court does not find that the treatments proscribed by SB 99 constituted “medically-acknowledged, bonafide health risk[s][,]” and because, again, SB 99 likely cannot survive strict scrutiny.....

LawDork reports at greater length on the decision. [Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.] 

School Board Member Sues to Vindicate Her Reading of Bible at Board Meetings

Suit was filed this week in an Arizona federal district court by Heather Rooks, a member of the Peoria, Arizona school board, seeking a declaratory judgment to vindicate her practice of quoting Scripture during the period of each Board meeting devoted to members making their own comments.  Advocacy organizations had complained about Rook's practice, and legal counsel to the Board furnished an opinion that reading Scripture during Board meetings violates the Establishment Clause. The complaint (full text) in Rooks v. Peoria Unified School District, (D AZ, filed 9/26/2023) seeks a judicial ruling that plaintiff's practice does not violate the Establishment Clause or the Arizona Constitution, that punishment for her practice violates her free speech and free exercise rights, and that she is entitled to absolute legislative immunity for her recitation of Scripture. Fox News reports on the lawsuit.

EEOC Sues on Behalf of Muslim Employee

 On Tuesday, the EEOC announced that it has filed a Title VII lawsuit against Blackwell Security Services, Inc., a hotel and condominium staffing company, for refusing to accommodate a Muslim employee's religious practice.  According to the EEOC:

[T]he employee, who worked as a concierge in Chicago, Illinois, is a practicing Muslim who wears a beard as required by his religious beliefs. Soon after he was hired, he was told by a Blackwell supervisor that it was company policy that all employees be clean shaven. The employee requested an exemption from the policy to accommodate his religious practice. However, according to the EEOC’s complaint, Blackwell told him to shave his beard or be terminated. To avoid losing his job, the employee complied.

Michigan Supreme Court Adopts New Rule Requiring Use of Preferred Pronouns, or Respectful Alternative

In Amendment of Rule 1.109 of the Michigan Court Rules, (MI Sup. Ct., Sept. 27, 2023), the Michigan Supreme Court by a vote of 5-2 adopted a Rule requiring Michigan courts to use the name and personal pronouns listed by parties and attorneys on pleadings in the case when addressing, referring to or identifying a party or attorney orally or in writing. Alternatively, the court may use "other respectful means of address not inconsistent with the individual’s designated salutation or personal pronouns." Two Justices filed opinions concurring in the adoption of the Rule, and two other Justices filed dissents. Justice Welch, concurring, said in part:

[P]eople object to honoring a person’s specified pronouns on the basis that they do not personally agree with the notion that someone can switch genders or be nonbinary. This was the subject of a great deal of the input we received after publishing the proposed amendments. Whether for religious or other reasons, many comments reflected a personal belief that gender could not change. But the rule provides that “other respectful means” can be used to address a party who makes a specific pronoun request. Certainly, asking our judges to be respectful to litigants using other general neutral means (such as addressing a party as “Attorney Smith” or “Plaintiff Smith”) does not force anyone to violate their beliefs.

Justice Bolden concurring said in part:

Some commenters have raised First Amendment concerns, arguing that the amendment compels speech and/or infringes upon religious liberty. However, Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 2(A) ...requires judges to “accept restrictions on conduct that might be viewed as burdensome by the ordinary citizen and [they] should do so freely and willingly.”... Similarly, the United States Supreme Court has explained that government employees have certain limitations on their freedom that they must accept in the workplace....

Justice Zahra, dissenting, said in part:

Some believe that the use of preferred pronouns is simply a matter of courtesy and that those who oppose it are stubborn, perhaps even bigoted. Others, however, believe they should not be compelled, especially under oath and/or in conflict with their deeply held religious beliefs, to affirm a person’s preferred pronouns that are inconsistent with the biological gender on that person’s birth certificate. All told, this is a fluid political debate into which our judicial branch of state government should not wade, let alone dive headfirst and claim to have resolved. Such hubris has no place within the operation of a judicial branch of state government. As aptly stated by the Catholic Lawyers Society of Metropolitan Detroit, “[t]he Court should decline to insert itself into one of the most controversial social issues of our time, declare a winner, dismiss objections as mere products of bigotry, and threaten to punish dissenters whilst ignoring their constitutional rights.” I am deeply troubled by the Court’s willingness to do so.

Justice Viviano, dissenting, said in part:

... [A]ll the arguments that the concurrences employ against the constitutional concerns with the present action could in turn be employed to support the opposite rule. I have my doubts that the majority would be so cavalier about the First Amendment implications of their actions if the shoe was on the other foot.

CBS Detroit reports on the new rule.

Israel's High Court Orders Government To Explain Its Inaction Against Top Rabbi's Hateful Remarks

 Times of Israel and Jerusalem Post report that on Tuesday Israel's Supreme Court, sitting as the High Court of Justice, issued a temporary injunction ordering the government to explain why it has not taken disciplinary action against Jerusalem's Sephardi Chief Rabbi Shlomo Amar for the severely derogatory remarks he has made about Reform Judaism, the LGBTQ community and the Women of the Wall Movement.  For example, Amar has blamed small earthquakes in Israel earlier this year on the LGBTQ community and has called Reform Jews "evil people who do every injustice ... against the Torah." Petitioners-- the Reform Movement, the Women of the Wall, and the Jerusalem Open House for Pride and Tolerance-- say they have asked the government to take action 16 times in the last four years, but nothing was done.

Employees Failed to Show Sincere Religious Beliefs for Vaccine Exemptions

In Gardner-Alfred v. Federal Reserve Bank of New York, (SD NY, Sept. 25, 2023), a New York federal district court dismissed RFRA, Title VII and First Amendment claims by two Federal Reserve Bank employees who were denied religious exemptions from the FRB's Covid vaccine mandate.  The court, in a 52-page opinion, concluded that neither Lori Gardner-Alfred nor Jeanette Diaz had demonstrated that their objections to the vaccine were based on sincere religious beliefs. The court said in part:

Gardner-Alfred claims to be a member of the Temple of Healing Spirit, which is a belief system that she describes as “oppos[ing] the invasive techniques of traditional Western medicine.” ...

Defendant argues that no reasonable jury could find that Gardner-Alfred’s objections to the vaccine were grounded in sincerely held religious beliefs.,,,  Defendant argues that there is no evidence Gardner-Alfred enjoyed any relationship with the Temple of Healing Spirit beyond paying for a vaccination exemption package and that her medical history, both before and after she made her request for a religious accommodation, is inconsistent with her alleged religious beliefs....

 No reasonable jury thus would be able to conclude that her claimed religious beliefs were anything other than contrived....

... [T]here is undisputed evidence that Diaz would have a motive to “fraudulently hid[e] secular interests behind a veil of religious doctrine.”... Diaz submitted her accommodation request days after attending a secular anti-vaccination webinar featuring materials entitled “White Paper—Experimental Covid Vaccines,” and “Review of Ivermectin Efficacy.”...  [S]he subscribed to at least eight newsletters, which sent her several hundred emails, from sources opposing the vaccine on secular grounds.... 

There also is evidence of Diaz acting in a manner inconsistent with her claimed religious views.... Diaz concedes that she has on many occasions taken medications and received injections without first checking whether they contain or were made or manufactured with aborted fetal cell lines...

Diaz further does not dispute that the views that she now claims to hold are different from those held by the church of which she claims to be a member..... 

... She bases her objection on the letter she received from the Colorado Catholic Conference, an organization with which she had no prior affiliation and has no current affiliation.... The letter is available for download from the internet from anyone who seeks it....

DOJ Announces Outreach Programs on RLUIPA

In a press release last Friday, the Justice Department announced that to mark the 23rd anniversary of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, it will hold a series of outreach events to highlight the Department's enforcement efforts, saying in part:

The department’s first RLUIPA outreach event will take place at Seton Hall Law School in Newark, New Jersey, on Oct. 30. The event will include remarks from officials with the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of New Jersey, religious leaders in New Jersey whose organizations have benefited from RLUIPA’s protections and attorneys who have experience litigating RLUIPA cases. The department will host additional events across the country in the coming months, including in California and Michigan.

The Department has also posted updated material about RLUIPA, including information on identifying and reporting violations.

President Sends Yom Kippur Greetings

The White House today posted a Statement from President Biden (full text) sending best wishes for Yom Kippur to Jewish communities in the United States, Israel and around the world.  The Statement says in part:

The blessing of Yom Kippur is that it is not just a day of reflection, repentance, and reverence – but a day of transformation, forgiveness, and hope. God invites us to write a new chapter in the story of our lives, and in the life of our nation. As the High Holidays conclude, let us all summon the courage to make the changes required to bridge the gap between the world we see and the world we seek.

Yom Kippur begins at sundown this evening. 

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Rabiat Akande & Faisal Bhabha, Insulating the Church: Ethiopian Orthodox Church of Canada v. Aga and the Suppression of Public Law in the Construction of Religious Communities, (Osgoode Legal Studies Research Paper Forthcoming, (2023) 108 SCLR (2d) 191 - 212).
• Rabiat Akande, An Imperial History of Race-Religion in International Law, (American Journal of International Law Forthcoming).
• Rabiat Akande, Centring the Black Muslimah: Interrogating Gendered, Anti-Black Islamophobia, (Forthcoming in Systemic Islamophobia in Canada : a Research Agenda. Edited by Anver M. Emon, University of Toronto Press, 2023).
• Nasrin Sultana, Women's Property and Inheritance Rights: Application of Laws from the Perspective of Two Major Religions in Bangladesh, (Social Science & Humanities Open (2023).
• Tejaswini Kaushal, Position Of Women In Indian Society In Light Of Divorce And Allied Laws: A Critical Discourse (September 30, 2022).
• Rabiat Akande, The Construction of Minorities: Self-Determination and the Legal Politics of Religious Difference in Late Northern Nigeria, circa 1949-1960, (Forthcoming, in Religion, Race and Democracy in Africa, University of Virginia Press (under review)).
• Sarah Craig, et. al., European Union Developments in Equality and Human Rights: The Impact of Brexit on the Divergence of Rights and Best Practice on the Island of Ireland, (Equality Commission for Northern Ireland and the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission, 2022).
• Scott Skinner-Thompson, Trans Animus, (Boston College Law Review, Forthcoming).
• Helen Flannery & Brian Mittendorf, Charitable Objectives or Donor Interests? What Sponsor Language Reveals about Donor-Advised Fund Priorities and Resource Flows, (September 7, 2023).

From SmartCILP:

• Lydia E. Lavelle, Freedom of Speech: Freedom to Creatively Discriminate?, 29 Cardozo Journal of Equal Rights and Social Justice 69-110 (2022).
• Shlomo Pill & Ariel J. Liberman, Roadmap to Reconciliation II: Ruminations on the Need for Integrity in Intellectual Interfaith Engagement, 38 Touro Law Review 847-870 (2022).

Expanded Protection of Utah Lands Did Not Violate Establishment Clause

In Huck v. United States, (D UT, Sept. 21, 2023), a Utah federal district court rejected Establishment Clause, equal protection, due process and other challenges to Congress' 2019 designation of certain public lands in Utah as wilderness areas. The designation resulted in the lands being subject to more stringent use restrictions, including a ban on motor vehicles. Plaintiffs alleged that the designation was done to support Earth-religions and their beliefs regarding the ‘sacredness’ of public lands, in violation of the Establishment Clause. The court said in part:

 Given the recency of the Kennedy v. Bremerton School District decision, there is limited case law interpreting and applying the Supreme Court’s new [Establishment Clause] standard....

Recognizing these are relatively unchartered waters, the court considers Plaintiffs’ challenge with an eye toward the historical practice and understanding of the Establishment Clause and federal public lands management. While the concept of designated wilderness areas and motor vehicles might have seemed outlandish to the Founding Fathers, there is substantial legal authority supporting the federal government’s historically broad authority to designate public lands and restrict the public’s access to them. These actions, without more, do not raise the specter of government coercion of religious practices or observances....

Similarly, Plaintiffs have not plausibly alleged BLM’s motor vehicle restrictions violate “governmental neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion.”

The court also rejected plaintiffs' equal protection claim, saying in part:

Though Plaintiffs speculate that “[t]he BLM (as well as other . . . agencies) [conspired] with Earth-religionists [to] . . . deprive the aged, disabled or handicapped . . . from being able to access and travel upon many of the public lands,” these conclusory allegations—or speculations—fall short of satisfying Plaintiffs’ burden of alleging that the challenged actions were driven by discriminatory intent. On the contrary, Plaintiffs stress that the Dingell Act and motor vehicle restrictions were the result of the Earth-religionists’ efforts to “preserve and protect ‘Gaia’ or ‘Mother Earth,’” rather than an attempt to hinder the elderly or disabled.

Physician Assistant Can Move Ahead with Challenges to Her Dismissal for Her Views on Gender Identity

In Kloosterman v. Metropolitan Hospital, (WD MI, Sept. 20, 2023), a Michigan federal district court refused to dismiss a physician assistant's free exercise, equal protection and Title VII religious discrimination and failure to accommodate claims against a hospital that dismissed her for her unwillingness, on religious grounds, to refer gender transitioning patients for various drugs and procedures, or to use pronouns that do not correspond to a patient’s biological sex. Plaintiff asserted that as a Christian she believes that one’s sex is ordained by God and that one should not attempt to erase or to alter his or her sex.

The court concluded in part that:

Plaintiff plausibly alleges that Defendants’ hostility toward her religious beliefs motivated them to terminate her employment.

The court however dismissed certain other claims by plaintiff, including her free speech claim. 

First Liberty Institute issued a press release announcing the decision. 

4th Circuit Hears Oral Arguments on Catholic School's Firing of Teacher Who Entered Same-Sex Marriage

The U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday heard oral arguments (audio of full oral arguments) in Billard v. Charlotte Catholic High School.  In the case, a North Carolina federal district court held that a Catholic high school is liable under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act for firing a substitute drama teacher after he entered a same-sex marriage and stated on Facebook his disagreement with Catholic teaching on marriage. (See prior posting.) As reported by Reuters, during oral argument the judges pressed the parties on the applicability of the ministerial exception doctrine, even though the school had stipulated that it would not raise the doctrine as a defense in order to avoid protracted discovery on the teacher's job duties.

New Decisions on Covid Vaccine Religious Objection Claims

Decisions have been handed down in the past few days in several cases in which employees who were denied a religious exemption or accommodation from an employer's Covid vaccine mandate have sued:

In Dicapua v. City of New York, (Richmond Cty. NY Sup. Ct., Sept 18, 2923), 16 employees of the Department of Education brought suit.  A New York state trial court held that ten of the employees should have been granted a religious exemption, saying in part:

This Court sees no rational basis for not allowing unvaccinated classroom teachers in amongst an admitted population of primarily unvaccinated students.

In Mora v. New York State Unified Court System, (SD NY, Sept. 19, 2023), a New York federal district court dismissed a suit by a Poughkeepsie City Court Judge, saying in part:

Here, the Vaccine Mandate has been repealed, and plaintiff has been reinstated to his full in-person duties. Therefore, plaintiff has not alleged an ongoing violation of federal law, or a need for prospective relief...

Damage claims were  dismissed in part on the basis of 11th Amendment immunity and in part because Title VII does not apply to government appointees on the policymaking level. His Free Exercise claim was denied because the vaccine mandate was a neutral, generally applicable rule. Retaliation and equal protection claims were also rejected.

In Trusov v. Oregon Health & Science University, (D OR, Sept. 20, 2023), an Oregon federal district court dismissed some of the claims brought by a registered nurse who was denied a religious accommodation, and deferred consideration of another of her claims.  The court said in part:

Regarding Defendants’ challenge to Plaintiff’s First Claim, alleging religious discrimination in employment, the Court finds that OHSU’s arguments about undue hardship must await a motion for summary judgment, at which time the Court may consider matters outside the pleadings and, if necessary, motions to exclude expert testimony. Regarding Defendants’ challenge to Plaintiff’s second claim brought under § 1983 against the individual Defendants, the Court dismisses that claim under the doctrine of qualified immunity. Regarding, Defendants’ challenge to Plaintiff’s request for prospective declaratory relief, the Court dismisses that request for lack of standing.

In Mathisen v. Oregon Health & Science University, (D OR, Sept. 19, 2023), an Oregon federal district court rejected claims brought by a research laboratory manager who was denied a religious exemption as well as a medical exemption. The court said in part:

In support of their motion to dismiss, Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s Title VII claim fails because OHSU offered to accommodate Plaintiff’s religious beliefs by offering an accommodation—masking—to which Plaintiff has alleged no objection based on religion....

Plaintiff’s assertion that masking would not promote safety is a secular objection, not a religious one. That objection, therefore, does not establish that the offered accommodation to her religious objection was not reasonable for purposes of her claim of religious discrimination.

Other of Plaintiff's claims were dismissed on qualified immunity and standing grounds.

Ohio Supreme Court Upholds Most of Ballot Board's Description of Reproductive Rights Initiative

In State ex. rel. Ohioans United for Reproductive Rights v. Ohio Ballot Board, (OH Sup. Ct., Sept. 19, 2023), the Ohio Supreme Court, in a per curiam opinion concurred in fully by Justice Fischer and (with a short opinion) by Donnelly, upheld most of the ballot language drafted by the Ohio Ballot Board to describe a Reproductive Freedom initiative that will be on the November ballot.  The Board substituted its description for the proponent's request that the full text of the amendment appear on the ballot. (See prior related posting.) The majority of the Court disapproved only the Ballot Board's substitution of "citizens of the State of Ohio" for the term "State" used in the proposed amendment.  One of the Ballot Board's changes approved by the majority was its substitution of the term "unborn child" for the term "fetus" in the text of the proposed amendment.  The majority said in part:

According to relators, “[o]ne’s judgment about the developmental stage at which the ethical status of ‘unborn child’ attaches has obvious implications for whether and how one believes abortion should be regulated.” Relators argue that the terms “fetus” or “fetal viability,” which appear in the proposed amendment’s text, are scientifically accurate and do not carry the same moral judgment as “unborn child.”

We reject relators’ argument. Importantly, relators do not argue that the term “unborn child” is factually inaccurate. To the contrary, their argument asserts that “unborn child” is a divisive term that elicits a moral judgment whereas the terms “fetus” and “fetal viability” are more neutral and scientific. But this argument does not establish that the ballot board’s language constitutes improper persuasion.

Justice Stewart and Justice Brunner each filed an opinion finding all of the Ballot Board's language unacceptable. Justice Brunner said in part:

A majority of respondent Ohio Ballot Board’s members ... obfuscated the actual language of the proposed state constitutional amendment by substituting their own language and creating out of whole cloth a veil of deceit and bias in their desire to impose their views on Ohio voters about what they think is the substance of the proposed amendment. And they did this by completely recrafting simple and straightforward amendment language into a version that contains more words than the amendment itself. The evidence in the record makes clear that it was their intent to use their positions on the board to influence the outcome of the election with the ballot language the board certified for the proposed amendment.

Justice Deters, in an opinion concurred in by Chief Justice Kennedy and Justice DeWine, concluded that they would have upheld all of the Ballot Board's language, saying that it "does not mislead, deceive, or defraud voters."

NBC News reports on the decision.

Suit Says High Schoolers Deceived Into Attending Christian Religious Event

Suit was filed this week in a Louisiana federal district court by two plaintiffs suing on behalf of themselves and their high-school age daughters alleging that the Baton Rouge school board and its superintendent, along with a Christian youth organization, in 2022 created a religious "Day of Hope" event that was falsely promoted to public school students and their parents as a college and career fair. The complaint (full text) in Roe v. East Baton Rouge Parish School Board, (MD LA, filed 9/19/2023), alleges in part:

When students, parents, and other volunteers arrived for the “Day of Hope” event ..., it very quickly became evident to them that the event was nothing like what had been advertised. The event immediately took the form of a Christian church service, with speakers and presenters praying and making repeated, overt appeals to Jesus and God.....

Later that morning, students were segregated by gender....  [P]resenters and facilitators of the event acted with hostility toward transgender and gender non-binary students, ... forcing them into either the male or female segregated gender group based on their outward appearance and without their consent....

While the boys competed in physical activity contests for prize money, girls were graphically lectured by pastors and other religious figures about virginity, rape, abuse, and suicide and were even told to “forgive” their rapists and abusers....

Intimidation and harassment of LGBTQ+ students at this church event were likewise rampant....

The suit alleges claims under the Establishment Clause as well as various civil rights and state law violations. BRProud reports on the lawsuit.

EEOC Sues Over Refusal of Religious Exemption from Vaccine Mandate For Remote-Working Emloyee

The EEOC announced yesterday that it has filed suit against the healthcare provider United Healthcare Services for refusing to grant a religious exemption from the company's Covid vaccine mandate to an employee whose duties were performed entirely remotely. The EEOC said in part:

“Neither healthcare providers nor COVID-19 vaccination requirements are excepted from Title VII’s protections against religious discrimination.”

European Court Says Homophobic Posting Was Not Protected by Human Rights Convention

 In Lenis v. Greece, (ECHR, Aug. 31, 2023), the European Court of Human Rights declared inadmissible an application filed by a former Metropolitan of the Greek Orthodox Church who contended that his Freedom of Expression protected by Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights was infringed when he was convicted by Greek courts of public incitement to violence or hatred against people because of their sexual orientation.  The European Court pointed out that:

Speech that is incompatible with the values proclaimed and guaranteed by the Convention is not protected by Article 10 by virtue of Article 17 of the Convention.... The decisive points when assessing whether statements, verbal or non-verbal, are removed from the protection of Article 10 by Article 17 are whether the statements are directed against the Convention’s underlying values.... 

At issue was a homophobic article that the Metropolitan posted on his personal blog as Parliament was about to debate civil unions for same-sex couples. He titled the article "The Scum of Society Have Reared Their Heads! Let's Be Honest! Spit on Them". The Court said in part:

54.  ... [C]riticism of certain lifestyles on moral or religious grounds is not in itself exempt from protection under Article 10 of the Convention. However, when the impugned remarks go as far as denying LGBTI people their human nature, as in the present case, and are coupled with incitement to violence, then engagement of Article 17 of the Convention should be considered.

55.  ... [T]aking account firstly of the nature of the disputed article, which included incitement to violence and dehumanising hate speech ...; secondly, of the applicant’s position as a senior official of the Church who could influence many people; thirdly, of the fact that the views expressed in the article were disseminated to a wide audience through the Internet; and, fourthly, of the fact that they related directly to an issue which is of high importance in modern European society – protection of people’s dignity and human value irrespective of their sexual orientation – the applicant’s complaint does not, in the light of Article 17 of the Convention, attract the protection afforded by Article 10.

EEOC Sues Over Refusal of Religious Accommodation from Vaccine Mandate

The EEOC announced yesterday that it has filed a Title VII suit against Arkansas-based Hank’s Furniture, Inc. for refusing to grant an employee a religious exemption from the company's Covid vaccine mandate. According to the EEOC:

When the Pensacola assistant store manager requested an accommodation exempting her from the requirement due to her Christian beliefs, her store manager and immediate supervisor informed her that the company would strip her of her management position if she refused to comply with the policy, no matter the reason. Despite her verbal and written requests for a religious accommodation, which Hank’s Furniture could have honored without undue hardship, the EEOC says, the company denied her requests and terminated her employment.

Denying Inmate Permission to Marry Was RFRA Violation

In Davis v. Wigen, (3d Cir., Sept. 19, 2023), the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a district court's dismissal of a RFRA claim brought by a former federal inmate and his fiancée.  The suit was brought against a private prison that primarily houses alien inmates claiming that the prison denied all inmate marriage requests, even when the inmate met the criteria set out in Bureau of Prison policies for approval of the request.  The court, finding that plaintiffs adequately alleged that the denials imposed a substantial burden on religious exercise, said in part:

The District Court dismissed Plaintiffs’ RFRA claim because they failed to allege that Defendants pressured Plaintiffs to either refrain from conduct that their faith prescribed or participate in conduct that their faith prohibited....  Because neither Christian tradition nor doctrine requires adherents to marry, Defendants argue that the denial of Plaintiffs’ marriage request did not cause them to violate any religious precept or belief....

Here, Plaintiffs desired to marry because marriage “had profound religious significance for them” and because they “viewed their marriage as an expression of” their Christian faith.... Although marriage may not be required of every Christian, Plaintiffs allege that their desire to marry has significant religious meaning for them. They contend that marriage is an expression of their faith. By denying Plaintiffs’ marriage request, Defendants caused them to refrain from such religious expression and thereby “violate their beliefs.”...

... While not every government-imposed hurdle to the practice of sincere faith-based conduct will be a substantial burden, the more proximate the government action is to an outright bar, the more likely it is a substantial burden. We conclude, therefore, that Plaintiffs have adequately alleged a substantial burden on their religious beliefs. 

Suit Challenges Federal Terrorist Watchlist

Suit was filed yesterday in a Massachusetts federal district court challenging the federal government's terrorist watchlist system.  In a 185-page complaint, 12 Muslim plaintiffs sued 29 federal officials claiming violations of the 4th and 5th Amendments, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the Administrative Procedure Act.  The complaint (full text) in Khairullah v. Garland, (D MA, filed 9/18/2023), alleges in part:

3. Plaintiffs were placed on the federal terrorist watchlist by Defendants’ interagency watchlisting system, which evaluates individuals for inclusion under a vague, rubberstamp-at-best standard that is satisfied nearly 100% of the time. Plaintiffs were not notified of their nomination to or inclusion in the watchlist. They have no idea why the government considers them worthy of permanent suspicion, have no opportunity to dispute the government’s decision or confront the supposedly derogatory information on which their placement is based....

5. The stigma and harm of watchlisting placement lasts a lifetime, even if Defendants eventually ... remove an individual from the watchlist. Several agencies retain records of past watchlist status and continue to use that historic status to deny formerly-listed individuals ...  security clearances, employment, access to government buildings, and other licenses and permissions....

9. ... Over 98% of the names on leaked portions of the watchlist from 2019 are identifiably Muslim.... Defendants consider origin from Muslim-majority countries, travel to Muslim-majority countries, attending mosques and Islamic events, zakat donations to Muslim charities, the wearing of typical Muslim dress, Muslim-sounding names, the frequency of Muslim prayer, adherence to Islamic religious practices, Islamic religious study, the transfer of money to individuals residing in Muslim-majority countries, affiliations with Muslim organizations, and associations with Muslims in the United States or abroad to be suspicious, and routinely nominate Muslims to the watchlist on the basis of those characteristics and activities....

12. Defendants create, maintain, administer, and use the watchlisting system without congressional approval and oversight, targeting Plaintiffs and thousands of other American Muslims in the shadowy corners of federal agency power.

CAIR announced its filing of the lawsuit as well as the release of its 2023 Muslim Community Travel Discrimination Survey.   VOA also reports on the lawsuit.

Prof's Suit Over Display of Prophet Muhammad Paintings Will Move Ahead In Federal Court On Religious Discrimination Claim

In López Prater v. Trustees of Hamline University of Minnesota, (D MN, Sept. 15, 2023), a Minnesota federal district court upheld defendant's removal to federal court of a suit initially filed against it in state court by an Adjunct Art Instructor at Hamline University whose teaching contract was not renewed after she showed slides of two classic paintings of the Prophet Muhammad in her World Art class. (See prior posting.) The court held that because many of plaintiff's allegations involve matters covered by the collective bargaining agreement, her state law claims are pre-empted by §301(a) of the federal Labor-Management Relations Act that creates a federal cause of action for "[s]uits for violation of contracts between an employer and a labor organization representing employees in an industry affecting commerce."

The court went on to dismiss several of plaintiff's claims, but refused to dismiss her claim under the Minnesota Human Rights Act for religious discrimination, saying in part:

Contrary to Hamline’s position, the Court finds that Ms. López Prater plausibly alleges that Hamline discriminated against her because she was not a Muslim or did not conform to a belief that certain Muslims share....

Ms. López Prater maintains that Hamline would not have labeled the act of showing the images “Islamophobic” if she were Muslim....

... [C]aselaw recognizes that an employer can discriminate against an employee if it acts on the preference of third parties such as customers or clients....  Therefore, Ms. López Prater alleging that Hamline discriminated against her by acting on the preferences of certain Muslim students and staff members is sufficient at this stage.

The court however dismissed plaintiff's reprisal claim under the Minnesota Human Rights Act, as well as her claims for defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress and her claims under the Minnesota Whistleblower Act. Volokh Conspiracy also reports on the decision.

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Duane Rudolph, Dignity. Reverence. Desecration, (Seton Hall Law Review, Vol. 53, No. 1173, 2023).
• Kanak Kanti Karmakar, Hindu Personal Laws in Bangladesh: Challenges and Prospects of Women’s Rights, (International Journal of Law Management & Humanities, Volume 6, Issue 3, Page 2540 - 2565 (2023)).
• Christopher Ryan, Nearer to Thee: Cy Près and Religious Discrimination, (September 11, 2023).
• Marc Greendorfer, Trading Places: The Intersection of LGBTQ Rights and Zionist Rights under Federal Civil Rights Laws, (September 13, 2023).
• Jaclyn L. Neo, Constitutional Identity as Discourse: Mis-identity and Dis-identity, (Forthcoming in Ran Hirschl and Yaniv Roznai (eds.), Deciphering the Genome of Constitutionalism: The Foundations and Future of Constitutional Identity (Cambridge University Press)).
• Muhammad Mushtaq Ahmad, et. al., An Islamic Perspective on Restraint in War: A Pakistan Case Study, (International Committee of the Red Cross, 2022).
• Elizabeth Katz, Fostering Faith: Religion in the History of Family Policing, (Fordham Law Review, Forthcoming).
• SpearIt, Muslim Prisoner Litigation: An Unsung American Tradition (Introduction), (University of California Press, 2023).
• Abdul Aziz Shamhuna, Effects of Divorce on the Educational Performance of Muslim Child, (September 14, 2023).

From SmartCILP:

• Peretz Laine, To Keep or Not to Keep: Comparing Jewish Law, the Common Law, and Florida's Statutory Law on Finds, 47 Nova Law Review 1-30 (2022).
• Francine Klarsfeld, Connecticut's Path to Achieving Herd Immunity, 26 Quinnipiac Health Law Journal 251-286 (2023).

President Sends Rosh Hashanah Greetings

The White House today posted a Rosh Hashanah Statement from the President saying in part:

I’ve always believed that the message of Rosh Hashanah is universal. As Americans, the power lies within each of us to make our country more free and fair, to transform the story of our time, and to heal the soul of our nation.

Throughout the High Holidays and in the year ahead, let us summon the courage to reflect on who we are and extend compassion, love, and kindness to all. Let us celebrate and protect generations of Jewish Americans whose values, culture, and contributions have shaped our character as a nation, and enriched every part of American life. And let us remember the common values that bind us together as fellow Americans.

Jill and I extend our warmest wishes to all those celebrating Rosh Hashanah in the United States, Israel, and around the world.

Rosh Hashanah begins at sundown this evening.

Teachers Get Religious Exemption from School Policy Barring Disclosure to Parents of Gender Identity Changes

In Mirabelli v. Olson, (SD CA, Sept. 14, 2023), a California federal district court granted a preliminary injunction prohibiting the Escondido Union School District from taking any adverse employment action against two teachers who have religious objections to the school district's policy of faculty confidentiality when communicating with parents about a student's change in gender identity. The court said in part:

The result of the new EUSD policy is that a teacher ordinarily may not disclose to a parent the fact that a student identifies as a new gender, or wants to be addressed by a new name or new pronouns during the school day – names, genders, or pronouns that are different from the birth name and birth gender of the student. Under the policy at issue, accurate communication with parents is permitted only if the child first gives its consent to the school....

The plaintiffs in this action are two experienced, well-qualified, teachers. The teachers maintain sincere religious beliefs that communications with a parent about a student should be accurate; communications should not be calculated to deceive or mislead a student’s parent....

... Mirabelli believes that the relationship between parents and children is an inherently sacred and life-long bond, ordained by God, in which the parents have the ultimate right and responsibility to care for and guide their children..... In a similar vein, West believes that the relationship between parents and their child is created by God with the intent that the parents have the ultimate responsibility to raise and guide their child. Both Mirabelli and West believe that God forbids lying and deceit...

EUSD contends that the government purpose of protecting gender diverse students from (an undefined) harm is a compelling governmental interest and the policy of non-disclosure to parents is narrowly tailored.... This argument is unconvincing. First, both the Ninth Circuit and the Supreme Court have found overly broad formulations of compelling government interests unavailing.... Second, keeping parents uninformed and unaware of significant events that beg for medical and psychological experts to evaluate a child, like hiding a gym student’s soccer concussion, is precisely the type of inaction that is likely to cause greater harm and is not narrowly tailored. ....

In the end, Mirabelli and West face an unlawful choice along the lines of: “lose your faith and keep your job, or keep your faith and lose your job.”... The only meaningful justification the District offers for its insistence that the plaintiffs not reveal to parents gender information about their own children rests on a mistaken view that the District bears a duty to place a child’s right to privacy above, and in derogation of, the rights of a child’s parents....

[Thanks to Jeffrey Trissell for the lead.]

Kim Davis Assessed $100K Damages In One Case, $0 in Another

Last year, in a long-running case, a Kentucky federal district court held that Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis violated the constitutional rights of two same-sex couples when she refused, on religious grounds, to issue them marriage licenses. The court said that damages should be assessed by a jury.  (See prior posting.) That case, along with another making similar claims, were recently tired in parallel before two separate juries. In one of the cases-- Yates v. Davis -- the jury yesterday awarded zero damages.  In a second case-- Emold v. Davis-- a different jury awarded $100,000 damages. Liberty Counsel says the decision will be appealed. USA Today reports on the cases.

Suit Challenges Adoption of Ethnic Studies Courses That Contain Anti-Jewish Materials

Suit was filed last week in a California state trial court by several Jewish groups who contend that the ethnic studies curriculum adopted by the Santa Ana Unified School District Board of Education includes antisemitic and anti-Israel content.  The complaint (full text) in Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law v. Santa Ana Unified School District Board of Education, (CA Super. Ct., filed 9/8/2023), alleges violations of California's open meeting law ("Brown Act") that prevented adequate participation in school board meetings by members of the Jewish community.  The complaint alleges both inadequate notice of meetings and harassment during the meetings.  The complaint alleges in part:

Comments made by members of the public during the May 23, 2023 meeting included classic antisemitic tropes as well as threatening and violent language against Jews and Israelis. Furthermore, audience members hissed as the names of Jewish attendees were called, applause broke out in response to antisemitic slurs, and during a presentation by two Jewish high school students, Board meeting attendees shouted, “you’re racists” and “you’re killers.” A Jewish student reported being followed to her car and harassed by a meeting attendee, and that SAUSD’s security was unable to provide sufficient protection or support.

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

9th Circuit En Banc: California School District Must Recognize Fellowship of Christian Athletes Clubs

In Fellowship of Christian Athletes v. San Jose Unified School District board of Education, (9th Cir., Sept. 13, 2023), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals sitting en banc, in a set of opinions spanning 134 pages, held that Fellowship of Christian Athletes (FCA) is entitled to a preliminary injunction requiring the school district to restore recognition to FCA chapters as student clubs. Because FCA requires its officers to affirm a Statement of Faith and abide by a sexual purity policy, i.e. because a homosexual student could not be an officer of FCA, the District had revoked FCA's recognition. The court said in part:

While it cannot be overstated that anti-discrimination policies certainly serve worthy causes—particularly within the context of a school setting where students are often finding themselves—those policies may not themselves be utilized in a manner that transgresses or supersedes the government’s constitutional commitment to be steadfastly neutral to religion. Under the First Amendment’s protection of free exercise of religion and free speech, the government may not “single out” religious groups “for special disfavor” compared to similar secular groups.... 

The District, rather than treating FCA like comparable secular student groups whose membership was limited based on criteria including sex, race, ethnicity, and gender identity, penalized it based on its religious beliefs. Because the Constitution prohibits such a double standard—even in the absence of any motive to do so—we reverse the district court’s denial of FCA’s motion for a preliminary injunction....

Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their Free Exercise claims because the District’s policies are not neutral and generally applicable and religious animus infects the District’s decision making.

Judge Forrest filed a concurring opinion contending that the case should be seen as a free-speech care more than a religious freedom case.

Judge Smith filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, with two other judges partially joining his opinion. Judge Sung filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part. Chief Judge Murguia filed a dissenting opinion, joined in part by Judge Sung.

National Review reports on the decision.

Plaintiffs Must Seek Narrower Relief Against Restrictions on LGBTQ Books in Children's Section of Library

In Virden v. Crawford County, Arkansas, (WD AR, Sept. 12, 2023), the court denied plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction because the proposed injunction was too broad, but left open the possibility of a narrower injunction later on.  The court described the dispute:

According to Plaintiffs’ amended complaint, in late 2022 or early 2023 the Crawford County Library System implemented a policy under which its library branches must remove from their children’s sections all books containing LGBTQ themes, affix a prominent color label to those books, and place them in a newly-created section called the “social section.” Plaintiffs allege this policy was imposed on the Library System by the Crawford County Quorum Court in response to political pressure from constituents who objected, at least partly on religious grounds, to the presence of these books in the children’s section.

Plaintiffs claimed that this policy violates the Establishment Clause as well as their 1st Amendment free speech right.  The court said in part:

First, with respect to the Establishment Clause claim, it must be noted that—as Defendants acknowledge—there is little useful precedent to guide this Court’s analysis. The United States Supreme Court’s most recent guidance on such claims amounts to little more than the extremely general and abstract direction that “the Establishment Clause must be interpreted by ‘reference to historical practices and understandings.’” Kennedy v. Bremerton Sch. Dist..... In the face of this instruction, the County resorts to arguing that book banning and censorship, for reasons both religious and otherwise, have a centuries-long history in America and the broader Western world....

Neither side’s argument regarding the Establishment Clause claim is satisfactory. Plaintiffs’ argument simply sidesteps the “historical practices and understandings” analysis altogether. But the County’s argument, which is essentially that the Establishment Clause does not prohibit state-sponsored religious viewpoint discrimination because state actors have been violating the Free Speech Clause for centuries, seems out of step with the Kennedy Court’s admonition that the First Amendment’s Establishment, Free-Exercise, and Free-Speech Clauses “have complementary purposes, not warring ones where one Clause is always sure to prevail over the others.”.... 

The court found that plaintiffs had alleged sufficient facts to avoid dismissal of their claim that their 1st Amendment right to receive information had been infringed. However, it refused to enter a preliminary injunction requiring the library to return to its prior procedures for classifying and processing books, saying in part:

... Plaintiffs’ proposals would essentially freeze in perpetuity the Library’s method for processing all types of books—not only children’s books relating to LGBTQ topics. The Court does not see any reason, on the record before it, why it should curtail the Library’s discretion in processing books on such disparate topics as caring for houseplants, playing chess, or mystery novels. Furthermore, the requested injunctions are so vague and general that they could potentially prevent the Library from altering these processes even for reasons that could be perfectly benign, prudent, and constitutionally inoffensive. 

6th Circuit Says Zoning Restrictions on Prayer Trail Violate RLUIPA

In Catholic Healthcare International, Inc. v. Genoa Charter Township, (6th Cir., Sept. 11, 2023), the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals ordered a Michigan federal district court to promptly enter a preliminary injunction that will allow a Catholic healthcare organization to restore a Stations of the Cross prayer trail along with a stone altar and mural. Genoa Township zoning officials had insisted that the Prayer Trail should be treated as a church for zoning purposes. Plaintiffs sued contending that the zoning ordinance as applied to them violates RLUIPA. The court said in part:

The question here is whether the Township’s decision to treat the prayer trail as the equivalent of a church building—thereby requiring plaintiffs to apply for a special land-use permit—imposed a substantial burden on their “religious exercise[.]”...

The only factor that the Township mentions, in arguing that plaintiffs have not borne a substantial burden, is whether “a plaintiff has imposed a burden upon itself[.]” Id. This factor reflects that, when a plaintiff has good reason to know in advance that its proposed usage will be subject to an onerous review process, the burdens of that process are not likely to count as substantial for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(a)(1). But here the Township’s zoning ordinance gave plaintiffs little reason to expect the treatment they have received....

... [P]laintiffs had reason to think that their prayer trail would be treated in the same manner as “[p]rivate non-commercial parks, nature preserves and recreational areas”—none of which require a special land-use permit in the type of zoning district ... in which plaintiffs’ parcel is located....

The court also held that a Township ban on organized gatherings on plaintiffs' property would likely substantially burden their religious exercise.

Judge Clay filed a concurring opinion expanding on the legal standards governing claims under RLUIPA.  CBS News reports on the decision.

Former Israeli Prime Minister Wins Defamation Action

Times of Israel reports that a Tel Aviv Magistrate's Court yesterday ruled in favor of former Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett in his defamation action against Rabbi Yosef Mizrachi.  Mizrachi had falsely claimed that Bennett's mother is not Jewish. The court ordered Mizrachi to pay damages and to post an apology on his YouTube channel. The suit is part of a series of defamation actions that Bennett has filed since he left office seeking to “clean the internet” of "poison and fake news" in Israel.

Bulgaria Violates European Convention by Failing to Recognize Same-Sex Married Couple

In Koilova and Babulkova v. Bulgaria, (ECHR, Sept 5, 2023) (full text of decision in French) (Court's English Summary of decision), the European Court of Human Rights ruled that Bulgaria violated Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (Respect for private and family life) by failing to have a procedure for recognizing or registering a same-sex marriage entered in another country. According to the English language summary of the decision, the Court said in part:

... [I]n the absence of official recognition, same-sex couples were nothing more than de facto unions for the purposes of national law, even where a marriage had been validly contracted abroad. The partners were unable to regulate fundamental aspects of life as a couple such as those concerning property, family matters and inheritance, except as private individuals entering into contracts under the ordinary law, where possible, rather than as an officially recognised couple. They were not able to rely on the existence of their relationship in dealings with the judicial or administrative authorities or with third parties. Even assuming that national law had allowed the applicants to apply to the domestic courts for protection of their basic needs as a couple, the necessity of taking such a step would have constituted in itself a hindrance to respect for their private and family life.

[Thanks to Law & Religion UK for the lead.]

Florida Supreme Court Hears Arguments On 15-Week Abortion Ban

On Friday the Florida Supreme Court heard oral arguments (video of full oral arguments) in Planned Parenthood of Southwest and Central Florida v. State of Florida, (FL Sup. Ct., 9/8/2-23). At issue in the case is a state constitutional challenge to Florida's 15-week abortion ban.  The Florida Supreme Court has links to all the pleadings and briefs in the case.

France's Conseil D'Etat Upholds Ban on Wearing Abayas in Schools

On Thursday, France's Council of State upheld the government's ban Muslim girls wearing the abaya at school.   France 24 explains:

President Emmanuel Macron's government announced last month it was banning the abaya in schools, saying it broke the rules on secularism in education that have already seen Muslim headscarves banned on the grounds that they constitute a display of religious affiliation. 

But an association representing Muslims filed a motion with the State Council, France's highest court for complaints against state authorities, for an injunction against the ban on the abaya and the qamis, its equivalent dress for men.

The association argued the ban was discriminatory and could incite hatred against Muslims, as well as racial profiling.

The court's decision, available in French (Association Action Droits des Musulman, (Conseil D'Etat, Sept. 7, 2023) (full text), is summarized by Daily News:

Wearing the abaya "is part of a logic of religious affirmation", estimated the judge in summary proceedings....

Accordingly, its prohibition "does not constitute a serious and manifestly unlawful interference with the right to respect for private life, freedom of worship, the right to education and respect for the best interests of the child or principle of non-discrimination,” he said.

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Ronald J. Colombo, The Repeal of Religious Accommodations – A Constitutional Analysis, (American University Law Review, Forthcoming 2024 Volume 73, Issue 3).
• Laetitia-Ann Greeff, A Critical Analysis of Parental Corporal Punishment: A Call for Legislative Reform (October 18, 2022).
• Elizabeth Platt, The Abortion Exception: A Response to 'Abortion and Religious Liberty', (124 Colum. L. Rev. Forum (2024 Forthcoming)).
• Siddharth Kamath, Reservation in India With Special Reference to EWS Quota, (March 6, 2023).
• Ronnie R. Gipson Jr, The Interjurisdictional Abortion Wars Have Arrived , (University of North Texas at Dallas Law Review On the Cusp, Forthcoming).
• Sai Jahnavi Thota & Shreya Dubey, Succession Rights of Women in India and Muslim Countries: Comparative Analysis, (May 2, 2023).

From SmartCILP:

• David N. Wecht, William O. Douglas Lecture. Majoritarianism Run Riot: Christian Supremacism and the Religion Clauses, 58 Gonzaga Law. Review 93-108 (2022-2023).
• Adam Mestyan & Rezk Nori, The Probate Regime: Enchanted Bureaucracy, Islamic Law, and the Capital of Orphans in Nineteenth-Century Egypt, 40 Law & History Review 597-624 (2022).
• Thomas C. Berg, Freedom in Serving Others: Arguments and Sources for Religious Institutional Freedom, 19 University of St. Thomas Law Journal 33-62 (2023).

Video Pressing Estranged Husband to Give Wife a Get Is Protected Speech

In S.B.B. v. L.B.B., (NJ App., Sept. 6, 2023), a New Jersey appellate court vacated a Final Restraining Order (FRO) issued by a trial court under the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act. The court said in part:

The FRO was based on the predicate act of harassment. The communication underlying the trial judge's finding of harassment was defendant's creation and dissemination of a video accusing her estranged husband of improperly withholding a get, a Jewish bill of divorce, and asking community members to "press" her husband to deliver the get. Because defendant's communication constituted constitutionally protected free speech, we reverse.

In reaching that conclusion, the appellate court said in part:

[The trial court] judge's finding that the Jewish community was prone to violence against get refusers—and the implicit holding that defendant was aware of and intentionally availed herself of such violent tendencies—is not supported by the record. The video was intended to get a get. The video did not threaten or menace plaintiff, and nothing in the record suggests that plaintiff's safety or security was put at risk by the video.... Without credible evidence that the video incited or produced imminent lawless action or was likely to do so, defendant's speech does not fall within the narrow category of incitement exempted from First Amendment protection.

Volokh Conspiracy has more on the decision.

Consent Decree Affirms Public Accommodation Law Exemption for Catholic Bookstore

 A Florida federal district court entered a Consent Order (full text) yesterday in The Catholic Store, Inc. v. City of Jacksonville, (MD FL, Sept. 7, 2023).  The Order concludes that plaintiff, a privately-owned, for-profit Catholic bookstore qualifies for the religious-organization exemption in Jacksonville, Florida's public accommodation law. This exempts the bookstore from the non-discrimination provisions relating to sexual orientation and gender identity. In its original complaint, the store contended that the public accommodation law would have required that employees address customers using their preferred pronouns and titles, regardless of their biological sex. The store also said it wants to post its Catholic beliefs about sexuality on its website and on social media. (See prior posting.) ADF issued a press release announcing the settlement in the case.

Coach Kennedy Resigns After One Post-Game Prayer

Last year, in a widely publicized Supreme Court decision, Bremerton, Washington high school football coach Joe Kennedy won the right to offer a personal prayer on the 50-yard line immediately after football games. After his Supreme Court win, Kennedy was reinstated as coach.  AP now reports that on Wednesday, after one game back at which he offered a brief post-game prayer, Kennedy resigned his coaching position and returned to Florida where he had been living full time. Kennedy posted a statement on his personal website, saying in part: "I believe I can best continue to advocate for constitutional freedom and religious liberty by working from outside the school system so that is what I will do."

California AG Challenges School District's Policy On Disclosure To Parents of Students' Gender Dysphoria

Suit was filed last week by California's Attorney General against the Chino Valley Unified School District challenging the district's policy that requires school personnel to notify parents whenever a student asks to be identified or treated as a gender other than the biological sex listed on the student's birth certificate.  The complaint (full text) in People ex rel. Bonta v. Chino Valley Unified School District, (CA Super. Ct., filed 8/28/2023), alleges in part:

Policy 5020.1 has placed transgender and gender nonconforming students in danger of imminent, irreparable harm from the consequences of forced disclosures. These students are currently under threat of being outed to their parents or guardians against their express wishes and will. They are in real fear that the District’s policy will force them to make a choice: either “walk back” their constitutionally and statutorily protected rights to gender identity and gender expression, or face the risk of emotional, physical, and psychological harm from non-affirming or unaccepting parents or guardians.

Policy 5020.1 unlawfully discriminates against transgender and gender nonconforming students, subjecting them to disparate treatment, harassment, and abuse, mental, emotional, and physical. This is by design: the Board’s plain motivations in adopting Policy 5020.1 were to create and harbor animosity, discrimination, and prejudice towards these transgender and gender nonconforming students, without any compelling reason to do so.

The Attorney General issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Yesterday, in an oral ruling from the bench, the court issued a temporary restraining order barring the school district from enforcing its disclosure policy. The Attorney General issued a press release announcing the court's ruling and providing links to briefs in the case.

California Legislature Passes Amendment to Outlaw Caste Discrimination

California's Unruh Civil Rights Act already bars discrimination, among other things, on the basis of "ancestry". The California legislature this week gave final passage to an amendment to the Act (full text) that adds a definition of "ancestry", making it clear that it includes discrimination on the basis of caste. The amendment defines "caste" as "a system of social stratification on the basis of inherited status". The bill now goes to Governor Gavin Newsom for his signature. The Independent reports on the passage of the bill and on those who opposed its passage.

Church Member's Defamation Suit Dismissed on Church Autonomy Grounds

In David v. South Congregational Church, (MA Super. Ct., Sept. 1, 2023), a Massachusetts trial court dismissed on church autonomy grounds a defamation suit against a Church, its Pastor and its Moderator brought by a Church member who was removed from the Church's Leadership, Finance and Investment Committees.  Plaintiff, a financial advisor, claims that he was inaccurately charged with unethical conduct in handling the funds of another church member. He seeks damages and other remedial action, including reinstatement on church committees. The court said in part:

... [T]here is no evidence that the defendant Moderator Figueroa's email to six Church leaders advising of the plaintiff's removal from the three Church leadership committees was ever communicated or published by the defendant Church officials beyond those leadership officials.... The sole disciplinary action taken by the church defendants was the plaintiff's removal from Church committees and positions of [Church] leadership.... Plaintiff's claimed defamation damages ... are necessarily limited exclusively to his reputation amongst the internal Church leadership.

But even limiting the scope of plaintiff's tort damage claim will not save his cause of action against the defendant Church, its Pastor and Moderator. A jury ... may not be permitted to second-guess church officials' and require them to pay damages because the jury disagrees with internal church discipline decisions...

The plaintiff is improperly asking this court to interject itself into-- and moreover reverse-- the internal disciplinary action imposed by the Church Pastor and Moderator upon another Chruch member.

[Thanks to John Egan for the lead.]

CT Supreme Court Upholds Refusal to Enforce Ketubah in Divorce Action

In Tilsen v. Benson, (CT Sup. Ct., Sept. 5, 2023), the Connecticut Supreme Court upheld a trial court's refusal to enforce the provisions of the parties' ketubah (Jewish marriage document) in setting alimony in a marital dissolution action. The husband, a rabbi, sought enforcement of the ketubah as a prenuptial agreement.  The ketubah provided that any divorce would be "according to Torah law."  Husband contended that meant a 50/50 division of property and no obligation to pay alimony, but conflicting interpretations of Jewish law were presented to the trial court.  The Supreme Court said in part:

... [W]e conclude that the plaintiff’s desired relief violates the establishment clause under the neutral principles of law doctrine. Most significant, the parties’ ketubah is facially silent as to each spouse’s support obligations in the event of dissolution of the marriage, thus leaving the court to determine those obligations from external sources as to Jewish law, namely, the parties’ expert witnesses, whose proffered opinions differed in this case, instantly alerting the court as to the establishment clause dilemma....

The court also rejected husband's argument that refusal to enforce the ketubah violated his free exercise rights by preventing him from divorcing according to Jewish law and denying him the generally available benefit of enforcing a prenuptial agreement only because of the agreement's religious nature.  The court said in part:

... [E]nforcement of this vaguely worded ketubah in the guise of protecting the plaintiff’s free exercise rights would have put the trial court on the horns of an establishment clause dilemma.

Second, the trial court did not deny the plaintiff access to the court or otherwise exact some kind of penalty in connection with his religious beliefs or practices; its decision simply meant that this dissolution action would be governed by generally applicable principles of Connecticut law as expressed in our alimony and equitable distribution statutes. Parties who desire specific tenets of their religious beliefs to govern the resolution of marital dissolution actions remain free to contract for that relief via a properly executed antenuptial, postnuptial, or separation agreement that is specifically worded to express those beliefs in a way that avoids establishment clause concerns under the neutral principles of law doctrine.

Religious Organization Lacks Standing to Challenge Interpretation of State Anti-Discrimination law

In Union Gospel Mission of Yakima, Wash. v. Ferguson, (ED WA, Sept. 1, 2023), a Washington federal district court dismissed for lack of standing a suit challenging the constitutionality of the Washington Supreme Court's interpretation of the state's anti-discrimination law. The state Supreme Court in a prior case interpreted the statute's exemption for non-profit religious organizations to be limited to situations covered by the ministerial exemption doctrine.  In this case, plaintiff that operates a homeless shelter and thrift store and also provides social services sought a declaration that religious organizations have a constitutional right to hire, even in non-ministerial positions, only those who agree with its religious beliefs and who will comply with its religious tenets and behavior requirements. In dismissing the lawsuit, the court found that there was no credible threat of enforcement against plaintiff, and that this suit was a disguised attempt to appeal a Washington Supreme Court decision in violation of the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine.

Hindu Organization Lacks Standing to Challenge State's Caste Discrimination Charges

In Hindu American Foundation, Inc. v. Kish,(ED CA, Aug. 31, 2023, a California federal district court held that a national education and policy organization that promotes religious freedom for Hindu Americans lacks standing to sue the California Civil Rights Department for asserting in enforcement actions that the caste system and caste discrimination is part of Hindu teachings and practices.

... [P]laintiff’s complaint fails to allege facts that, if proven, would show that plaintiff is “sufficiently identified with and subject to the influence” of the individuals it seeks to represent in this lawsuit.... Indeed, it is unclear even which specific individuals plaintiff seeks to represent in this action because its complaint merely alleges that it seeks to protect the constitutional rights of “all Hindu Americans” and “all Americans of faith.”...

See prior related posting.  Courthouse News Service reports on the decision.

Recent Articles and Books of Interest

From SSRN:

• Shelley Ross Saxer, Owning Church Property, (Florida State University Law Review, Forthcoming).
• Hershey H. Friedman, The Art of Argumentation: A Jewish Approach, (August 15, 2023).
• Elizabeth Sepper, Free Exercise of Abortion, (Brigham Young University Law Review, Vol. 49, 2023).
• Marc Spindelman, Trans Sex Equality Rights After Dobbs, (172 U. Pa. L. Rev. Online 1 (2023)).
• Rona Kaufman Kitchen, Privacy: Pre- and Post-Dobbs, (Duquesne University Law Review, Vol. 61, No. 1, 2023).
• Naomi R. Cahn, Mary E. Ziegler & Maxine Eichner, Erosion by Misdirection: The New Uses and Abuses of Parental Rights, (Virginia Public Law and Legal Theory Research Paper No. 2023-62 (2023)).

From SSRN (Islamic Law):

• Nzube Udechukwu, Critical Analysis of the Punishments of Canning and Amputation Under the Penal Code Act and Other Sharia Criminal Legislation Vis-à-vis the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, as Amended, (August 15, 2023).
• Nasratullah Nasrat, Rohullah Hamidi, Abdul Rahman Mubashir & Shahidullah Safi, Ways to Reduce Poverty in the Economic System of Islam, (Integrated Journal for Research in Arts and Humanities, Volume-3 Issue-4, July 2023, pp. 113-120).
• Abdulrasaq Ariwoola, Challenges and Prospects of Cryptocurrency in Islamic Finance in Nigeria, (August 22, 2021).
• Zainuddin, Sahban & Andi Risma, Halal Certification as Sharia Legitimacy for Economic Empowerment of Zakat Mustahiq, (Journal of Law, Policy and Globalization, Vol.127, 2022).

From SmartCILP:

• Michael D. McNally, The Sacred and the Profaned: Protection of Native American Sacred Places That Have Been Desecrated, 111 California Law Review 395-464 (2023).
• Khaled A. Beydoun & Nura A. Sediqe, Unveiling: The Law of Gendered Islamophobia,111 California Law Review 465-527 (2023).
• Patricia McGuire, Title IX and Catholic Colleges' Long March into Modernity, [Abstract], 56 Creighton Law Review 341-358 (2023).
• Pooja R. Dadhania, Gender-Based Religious Persecution, 107 Minnesota Law Review 1563-1619 (2023).
• Thomas John Paprocki, Foreword. The Essential Relationship of the Judeo-Christian Intellectual Tradition to Ethics, Law & Public Policy, 37 Notre Dame Journal of Law Ethics & Public Policy 1-10 (2023).
• John S. Ehrett, Virtue and the Administrative State, [Abstract], 37 Notre Dame Journal of Law Ethics & Public Policy 43-80 (2023).

Recent Books:

• Nathan S. Chapman & Michael W. McConnell, Agreeing to Disagree: How the Establishment Clause Protects Religious Diversity and Freedom of Conscience, (Oxford University Press, June 27, 2023). reviewed in the Wall Street Journal.
• Paul L. Heck, Political Theology and Islam From the Birth of Empire to the Modern State, (Notre Dame University Press, November 2023).
• Thomas C. Berg, Religious Liberty in a Polarized Age, (W.D. Eerdmans Publishing Co., (July 11, 2023). Reviewed in a University of St. Thomas press release.

Court Refuses Stay Pending Appeal of Order That Attorneys Get Religious-Liberty Training

As previously reported, last month a Texas federal district court ordered sanctions against Southwest Airlines for its failing to comply with an earlier Order in the case that found the Airline had violated Title VII when it fired a flight attendant because of her social media messages about her religiously-motivated views on abortion. Southwest then filed a motion to stay the sanctions while the case is appealed. In Carter v. Transport Workers Union of America, Local 556, (ND TX, Aug. 31, 2023), the court denied the motion to stay the sanctions. Among other things, Southwest objected to the court's requirement that three of the Airline's attorneys who were responsible for non-compliance with the earlier Order attend at least 8 hours of religious liberty training conducted by the Christian legal non-profit Alliance Defending Freedom. The court said in part:

... Southwest complains that “[r]equiring religious-liberty training from an ideological organization with a particular viewpoint on what the law requires” is “unprecedented.” That appears to be more of a gripe than a legal objection, because Southwest doesn’t make any legal argument for why training with an “ideological organization” is unconstitutional or otherwise contrary to law.

In any event, the Court selected ADF for the following reason: Southwest does not appear to understand how federal law operates to protect its employees’ religious liberties. ADF has won multiple Supreme Court cases in recent years on the topic of religious liberties, evidencing an understanding of religious liberties.  And because ADF has agreed to conduct topical trainings in the past, ADF appears well-suited to train Southwest’s lawyers on a topic with which the lawyers evidently struggle.

In a footnote, the court added:

This doesn’t appear to be a First Amendment argument, as Southwest doesn’t cite the First Amendment or any First Amendment caselaw, so it appears that Southwest forfeited any First Amendment arguments concerning ADF’s viewpoint.

LawDork reports on the decision.

Texas Supreme Court Allows Ban on Transgender Care for Minors to Go into Effect

The Texas Supreme Court yesterday in State of Texas v. Loe, (TX Sup. Ct., Aug. 31, 2023), issued an Order allowing SB 14 to go into effect.  The law prohibits treating minors for gender dysphoria with surgery, puberty blocker or hormones. According to an ACLU press release:

A Travis County District Court had granted a temporary injunction last week that blocked implementation of the ban, but the Texas Attorney General immediately appealed to the Texas Supreme Court, thereby staying the injunction. The Texas Supreme Court did not provide any written explanation for allowing the law to remain in effect.

Court OK's Denial of Unemployment Benefits for Religious Objector to Covid Vaccine Mandate

In In re Parks v. Commissioner of Labor, (NY App., Aug. 31, 2023), a New York state appellate court affirmed the decision of the state Unemployment Insurance Appeal Bord denying unemployment compensation to a medical center security guard who was fired for refusing to comply with a Covid vaccine mandate. The court said in part:

Although claimant refused to comply with the mandate for personal reasons that he characterized as based upon his religious beliefs, the state mandate did not authorize a religious exemption. Contrary to claimant's contention that the vaccine mandate violates his First Amendment religious and other constitutional rights, religious beliefs do not excuse compliance with a valid, religion-neutral law of general applicability that prohibits conduct that the state is free to regulate, as the Board recognized.... When employment is terminated as a consequence of the failure to comply with such a law, including noncompliance with a religious motivation, the First Amendment does not prohibit the denial of unemployment insurance benefits based upon that noncompliance where, as here, the mandate has a rational public-health basis and is justified by a compelling government interest....

[Thanks to Eugene Volokh via Religionlaw for the lead.]

Reproductive Rights Proponents Sue Ohio Ballot Board Over Ballot Language

On Monday, a suit seeking a writ of mandamus was filed in the Ohio Supreme Court by backers of Issue 1, "Right to Reproductive Freedom with Protections for Health and Safety." The suit challenges the Ohio Ballot Board's revised language describing the state constitutional amendment that will be on the November ballot in the state. (See prior posting.) Instead of placing the text of the proposed Amendment on ballots, the Ballot Board drafted new language which plaintiffs say misrepresents the proposed amendment. The complaint (full text) in State of Ohio ex rel. Ohioans United for Reproductive Rights v. Ohio Ballot Board, (OH Sup. Ct. filed 8/28/2023), alleges in part:

Article XVI of the Ohio Constitution requires the Ohio Ballot Board to prescribe ballot language for the Amendment that “properly identif[ies] the substance of the proposal to be voted upon” and does not “mislead, deceive, or defraud” voters. The language the Ballot Board adopted at its August 24, 2023, meeting flouts those requirements and aims improperly to mislead Ohioans and persuade them to oppose the Amendment. Accordingly, Relators request that the Court issue a writ of mandamus directing the Ballot Board to reconvene and adopt the full text of the Amendment as the ballot language. That remedy is appropriate because the Ballot Board’s prescribed language is irreparably flawed. In the alternative, Relators request that the Court issue a writ of mandamus directing the Ballot Board to reconvene and adopt ballot language that properly and lawfully describes the Amendment, correcting the numerous defects in the existing language....

CBS News reports on the lawsuit.

8th Circuit Rejects Satanic Temple's Complaint Over Closing Park to Its Display

 In The Satanic Temple v. City of Belle Plaine, Minnesota,(8th Cir., Aug. 30, 2023), the U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals held that the district court was correct in dismissing free speech, free exercise, equal protection, and RLUIPA claims brought by The Satanic Temple (TST) against the City of Belle Plaine.  As summarized by the court:

In March 2017, the City gave two groups permits [to place monuments in Veterans Memorial Park]: the Belle Plaine Veterans Club and the Satanic Temple. The Veterans Club returned the kneeling soldier statue to the Park in April, but the Satanic Temple’s display wasn’t ready yet. While the Satanic Temple’s display was being built, people objected to it being placed in the Park. In June, the Satanic Temple told the City that its display was ready. The City Council then passed a “Recission Resolution,” closing the Park as a limited public forum, terminating both permits, and instructing the Veterans Club to remove its statue.

The court held:

The City closed the limited public forum to everyone, not just speakers with certain views. The Satanic Temple has not plausibly alleged that closing the Park as a limited public forum was unreasonable or viewpoint discriminatory....

...The Satanic Temple has not alleged any facts showing that its religious conduct was targeted for “distinctive treatment.”...

... The Satanic Temple has not plausibly alleged that the City’s resolutions burden its religious conduct or philosophy....

The Satanic Temple has not plausibly alleged that it and the Veterans Club were similarly situated or that it was treated differently. Nor has it plausibly alleged that the Rescission Resolution was discriminatory on its face or had a discriminatory purpose or impact. The City gave a permit to both groups, had no control over the fact that the Veterans Club placed its statue first, and closed the Park as a limited public forum to everyone. So the Satanic Temple has not plausibly alleged an equal protection claim.

Muslim Call to Prayer Can Be Amplified In New York City

Yesterday, New York City Mayor Eric Adams announced a new initiative to permit mosques to broadcast the call to public prayer on Fridays and during Ramadan. According the announcement from the Mayor's office:

 “Today, we are cutting red tape and saying clearly that mosques and houses of worship are free to amplify their call to prayer on Fridays and during Ramadan without a permit necessary....

... The NYPD’s new legal guidance clarifies for mosques and masjids that the call to prayer is allowed in New York City and not prohibited despite sound restrictions in city neighborhoods.

Under the new guidance, a mosque or masjid can broadcast the call to prayer every Friday between 12:30 PM and 1:30 PM as well as during the sunset prayers every evening during Ramadan....

The NYPD Community Affairs Bureau and Muslim faith leaders will work collaboratively in every neighborhood with mosques and masjids to communicate the new plans for Adhan to local community leaders and stakeholders. They will work to ensure that any sound device used to broadcast an Adhan is set at appropriate decibel levels and in accordance with the rules of the noise code within the city’s administrative code.