School Did Not Violate Title VII in Denying Religious Exemption to Covid Rules

In Russo v. Patchogue-Medford School District, (ED NY, Jan. 12, 2024), a New York federal district court held that a school district did not violate title VII's ban on religious discrimination in employment when it refused to accommodate a school psychologist's religious objection to a state mandate to either test weekly for Covid or show proof of vaccination.  Plaintiff considered both of these alternatives to be medical interventions that would violate her faith in God's ability to protect her and keep her healthy.  She instead sought as an accommodation either periodically completing a health questionnaire or working remotely. Rejecting those alternatives, the school placed her on unpaid leave. The court said in part:

The state’s test-or-vaccination requirement was a neutral law of general applicability that only incidentally affected employees with religious objections and did not “target[] religious conduct for distinctive treatment.” ... The requirement is, therefore, constitutionally permissible if it survives rational basis review.... The state’s requirement clearly satisfies this standard....

Plaintiff’s claim that she was unlawfully denied a religious accommodation also fails....

A proposed accommodation becomes an undue hardship for an employer if it would cause the employer to violate the law....

Defendant’s rejection of Plaintiff’s proposed accommodation of working remotely also did not violate Title VII.... [H]er proposal that she be permitted to work remotely going forward included a request that Defendant cut back on her job responsibilities to accommodate remote work.... Plaintiff, therefore, implicitly conceded that her proposed accommodation would “involve the elimination of an essential function of [her] job,” thereby rendering the proposal unreasonable....

The court also concluded that plaintiff's employer did not violate the Genetic Information Nondisclosure Act.

State Department Issues Updated List of Religious Freedom Violators; USCIRF Reacts

On January 4, the State Department, pursuant to the International Religious Freedom Act, released its annual list of countries and entities that have engaged in or tolerated serious violations of religious freedom.  Secretary of State Blinken's announcement (full text) said in part:

I have designated Burma, the People’s Republic of China, Cuba, the DPRK, Eritrea, Iran, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Tajikistan, and Turkmenistan as Countries of Particular Concern for having engaged in or tolerated particularly severe violations of religious freedom.  In addition, I have designated Algeria, Azerbaijan, the Central African Republic, Comoros, and Vietnam as Special Watch List countries for engaging in or tolerating severe violations of religious freedom.  Finally, I have designated al-Shabab, Boko Haram, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, the Houthis, ISIS-Sahel, ISIS-West Africa, al-Qa’ida affiliate Jamaat Nasr al-Islam wal-Muslimin, and the Taliban as Entities of Particular Concern.

Reacting to the State Department's designations, the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom issued a press release stating in part:

The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) calls for a congressional hearing after reiterating its extreme disappointment that the U.S. Department of State yet again failed to designate Nigeria and India as Countries of Particular Concern (CPC), despite both countries repeatedly meeting the legal standard. Despite this disappointment, USCIRF welcomed the State Department’s decision to include Azerbaijan on its Special Watch List (SWL) for committing or tolerating severe violations of religious freedom pursuant to the International Religious Freedom Act (IRFA).

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Marc Spindelman, Dobbs' Sex Equality Troubles, (William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal, Vol. 32, No. 1, 2023).
• Stephanie H. Barclay, Strict Scrutiny, Religious Liberty, and the Common Good, (Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, Vol. 46, No. 937, 2023).
• Ori Aronson & Shahar Lifshitz, A Jewish and Democratic State: Intra-Jewish Perspectives, (forthcoming, Oxford Handbook of the Israeli Constitution (Aharon Barak, Barak Medina, & Yaniv Roznai eds., 2024)).
• Josh Blackman, Reviewing The Three Trump Appointees: Ex Ante and Ex Post, (1 Texas A&M Journal of Law and Civil Governance, Forthcoming).

Court Supervision of Church Election Invalidated by Mississippi Supreme Court

In Melton v. Union Hill Missionary Baptist Church, (MS Sup. Ct., Jan. 11, 2024), the Mississippi Supreme Court reversed and vacated a decision of a state Chancery Court in a dispute over whether a church had dismissed its pastor.  After an initial vote to oust the pastor, the pastor continued to preach at the church.  The church filed suit and the chancellor ordered the congregation to hold a second vote at a church meeting at which the chancellor would preside. That meeting voted to retain the pastor. Invalidating the chancellor's order to hold a new meeting, the Supreme Court said in part:

The chancellor’s self appointment to oversee a congregational election outside the courthouse and inside a house of worship is far removed from the judicial function and treads heavily upon Mississippi’s Constitution and the Establishment Clause. Thus, the chancellor’s actions, though undoubtedly well intended, amounted to a constitutional violation, resulting in a blending of church and state. This unusual arrangement was the antithesis of the constitutional doctrine that historically has demanded separation of church and state....

Because the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine applies, this Court reverses and vacates the orders of the Madison County Chancery Court.

Students Sue Harvard for Antisemitism Violating Title VI

Suit was filed this week in a Massachusetts federal district court by Harvard University students against the University charging that the University is in violation of Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act by failing to protect Jewish students from "rampant anti-Jewish hatred and harassment." It also alleges breach of contract claims. The 77-page complaint (full text) in Kestenbaum v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, (D MA, filed 1/10/2024) says in part:

Harvard’s antisemitism cancer—as a past Harvard president termed it—manifests itself in a double standard invidious to Jews. Harvard selectively enforces its policies to avoid protecting Jewish students from harassment, hires professors who support anti-Jewish violence and spread antisemitic propaganda, and ignores Jewish students’ pleas for protection. Those professors teach and advocate through a binary oppressor-oppressed lens, through which Jews, one of history’s most persecuted peoples, are typically designated “oppressor,” and therefore unworthy of support or sympathy. Harvard permits students and faculty to advocate, without consequence, the murder of Jews and the destruction of Israel, the only Jewish country in the world. Meanwhile, Harvard requires students to take a training class that warns that they will be disciplined if they engage in sizeism, fatphobia, racism, transphobia, or other disfavored behavior....

Harvard’s purported excuse for refusing to take disciplinary measures and sitting by idly as the Jew-bashing on campus escalates—that antisemitic harassment is protected by free expression principles—confirms its antisemitic double standard. Considering that Harvard aggressively enforces policies to address bias against other minorities and regularly disciplines students and faculty members who harass other groups or espouse viewpoints Harvard deems inappropriate, its refusal to discipline students attacking, harassing, or intimidating Jews is glaring. Based on its track record, it is inconceivable that Harvard would allow any group other than Jews to be targeted for similar abuse or that it would permit, without response, students and professors to call for the annihilation of any country other than Israel....

Harvard must now be compelled to implement institutional, far-reaching, and concrete remedial measures, including, among other things: (i) disciplinary measures, including the termination of, deans, administrators, professors, and other employees responsible for antisemitic discrimination and abuse, whether because they engage in it or permit it; (ii) disciplinary measures, including suspension or expulsion, against students who engage in such conduct; (iii) declining and returning donations, whether from foreign countries or elsewhere, implicitly or explicitly conditioned on the hiring or promotion of professors who espouse antisemitism or the inclusion of antisemitic coursework or curricula; (iv) adding required antisemitism training for Harvard community members; and (v) payment of appropriate damages for lost or diminished educational opportunities, among other things.

Harvard Crimson reports on the lawsuit.

State Regulation of Catholic Childcare Program Upheld

In South Hills Catholic Academy v. Department of Human Services, (PA Commonwealth Ct., Jan. 11, 2024), a Pennsylvania appellate court rejected a Catholic school's challenges to regulatory requirements imposed on it.  The state asserted that the school's program allowing parents to drop students off 45 minutes early and pick them up 90 minutes late constitutes an uncertified child care center. The school contended that the Department's regulations violate the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses of the 1st Amendment and the freedom of conscience and religious practices clause of the Pennsylvania constitution. The court said in part:

Private School believes the Department’s regulations impermissibly infringe upon a religious school’s ability to hire staff “based upon their religious beliefs and their ability to transmit those beliefs to the individuals they instruct.”...

The Department’s regulations continue to require only “compliance” with existing civil rights statutes and regulation, from which religious schools are exempt. Therefore, we reject Private School’s contention that reference in the regulations to various civil rights laws infringes upon a religious school’s employment decisions.

With regard to Private School’s other asserted concerns, ..., Private School “has not explained how the regulations at issue interfere with the facility’s ability to communicate Church teachings,” and has “failed to identify any actual or imminent infringement upon [its] right.”... Accordingly, Private School’s “constitutional claims necessarily fail.”

11th Circuit: Transit Agency's Policy Barring Religious Ads Violates Free Speech Protections

In Young Israel of Tampa, Inc. v. Hillsborough Area Regional Transit Authority, (11th Cir., Jan. 10, 2024), the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals held unconstitutional a public transit agency's policy on the sale of advertising space on its vehicles and property.  While selling advertising space, the agency prohibited ads that "primarily promote a religious faith or religious organization." Applying this policy, the transit agency rejected an ad from plaintiff promoting a "Chanukah on Ice" event. The court concluded that the policy violates plaintiff's free speech rights, saying in part:

Though the analysis would not change one way or another, we’ll assume, without deciding, that the HART vehicles and property at issue here are nonpublic forums as opposed to limited public forums. Even so, when the government restricts speech in nonpublic forums, it “must avoid the haphazard and arbitrary enforcement of speech restrictions in order for them to be upheld as reasonable.”...

Given the inherent ambiguity of the word “religious,” the uncertainty and potential breadth of the term “primarily promote,” and the lack of any definitions, we agree with the district court that the policy fails to provide any objective or workable standards. The policy therefore fails under [the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Minnesota Voters Alliance v.] Mansky....

Judge Newsom filed a concurring opinion, saying in part:

I'm not sure that any religious-speech restriction could survive a reasonableness inquiry under Mansky—because I’m not sure that any policymaker could define or identify “religious” speech using “objective, workable standards.”

Judge Grimberg filed a concurring opinion, saying in part:

By constructing a policy that is so clearly and completely incapable of reasonable application, HART has successfully evaded a ruling on the viewpoint-versus-subject-matter dispute that is at the heart of this case. And that evaded ruling, in my view, has long been settled by the Supreme Court’s “trilogy” of cases....

Where the same advertisement, with the same content is welcomed when references to religion are removed and replaced with secular ones, I see no way around concluding ... that the public transportation system engaged in unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination.

See prior related posting.

Inmate's Speech and Religion Challenges to His Execution Method Are Not Dismissed, But Execution Not Enjoined

In Smith v. Hamm, (MD AL, Jan. 10, 2024), plaintiff, who is scheduled for execution by nitrogen hypoxia on January 25, challenges the legality of his execution on several grounds.  Among these are his claims that his free speech rights as well as his free exercise rights are violated because masking him will interfere with his making an audible statement and praying audibly during his execution.  The court concluded that plaintiff had made plausible claims that the execution protocol violates his First Amendment free speech rights and his religious free exercise rights under RLUIPA, the First Amendment and the Alabama Religious Freedom Act (as well as his 8th Amendment rights).  Therefore, it denied defendants' motion to dismiss those claims.  The court went on, however, to conclude that plaintiff had not shown a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of those claims. Therefore, the court refused to issue a preliminary injunction to bar execution of plaintiff. At issue in the case is the state's second attempt to execute plaintiff. A previous attempt to execute him by lethal injection failed when after 90 minutes of trying, authorities were unable to access his veins.

9 Arrested In New York During Conflict Between Chabad Factions Over Secret Tunnel

In Brooklyn on Monday, nine people were arrested on charges of criminal mischief and reckless endangerment and three others were issued summonses for disorderly conduct after factional chaos broke out at Chabad's headquarters, known as 770.  As described by NBC New York:

A historic Brooklyn synagogue that serves as the center of an influential Hasidic Jewish movement was trashed this week during an unusual community dispute that began with the discovery of a secret underground tunnel and ended in a brawl between worshippers and police.

The conflict erupted in the global headquarters of the Chabad-Lubavitch movement in Crown Heights, a deeply revered Jewish site that each year receives thousands of visitors, including international students and religious leaders....

But on Tuesday, the synagogue remained closed off by police barricades as New York City building safety agents inspected whether a tunnel dug without official permission may have caused structural damage to the famed property.

Officials and locals said young men in the community recently built the passage to the sanctuary in secret. When the group’s leaders tried to seal it off Monday, they staged a protest that turned violent as police moved in to make arrests....

Those who supported the tunnel, meanwhile, said they were carrying out an “expansion” plan long envisioned by the former head of the Chabad movement, Rebbe Menachem Mendel Schneerson...

The Forward has additional background.

British Columbia Court Says Jehovah's Witness Elders Must Submit Confidential Documents to Privacy Commissioner

In Vabuolas v. British Columbia (Information and Privacy Commissioner), (BC Sup. Ct., Jan. 8, 2024), the British Columbia Supreme Court upheld an order issued by the B.C. Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner over the objections raised by two elders of the Jehovah's Witness congregations. Petitioners claimed that the Order violated their rights under Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms. As the court explained:

Two former members of the Jehovah's Witnesses each sought disclosure from their former congregations of all records that include their personal information. The elders of the congregations refused, arguing that disclosure of confidential religious notes would be contrary to their religious beliefs....

[Under B.C. Personal Information Protection Act] Where an individual has made an access request to an organization for a copy of personal information about the individual held by the organization, and the individual is dissatisfied with the organization’s response to the access request, they may ask the Commissioner to conduct a review. This is what happened in this case....

Of particular concern to the petitioners is that the groups of elders who meet to determine membership must be able to discuss matters in confidence and without fear of having their confidential discussions disclosed. The petitioners are concerned that if the elders’ confidential communications are disclosed, they may be further disseminated for the purposes of mocking either the petitioners or elders, causing unnecessary embarrassment....

I am not satisfied that disclosure of the Disputed Records by the congregational elders to the Commissioner for review for the purpose of determining whether disclosure to the Applicants will be required would preclude the elders from continuing to follow their religious practices when weighing the rights of individuals to control over their personal information on the one hand and the religious freedom of the elders on the other. The Production Order represents a balancing of the competing interests, and I conclude that the infringement on the congregational elders’ religious freedoms that results from the Production Order is proportionate....

I conclude that while ss. 23(1)(a) and 38(1)(b) of PIPA infringe the petitioners’ rights under s. 2(a) of the Charter, those rights are limited in a manner that is reasonably justified in a free and democratic society.

CBC News reports on the decision.

Church May Move Ahead with RFRA Challenge to Limits on Its Use of Ayahuasca

In Church of the Celestial Heart v. Garland, (ED CA, Jan. 9, 2023), a California federal magistrate judge refused to dismiss a suit under RFRA challenging the application of the Controlled Substances Act to use of sacramental tea by a church whose beliefs are based on the Santo Daime religion. The court concluded that plaintiffs had adequately alleged that application of the CSA would substantially burden a sincere religious exercise, saying in part:

Similar to part of Defendants’ arguments above relating to standing, and additionally the alternative request for stay below, Defendants argue under 12(b)(6) that the complaint fails to state a claim because, fundamentally, all of Plaintiffs’ grievances stem from their failure to obtain, much less apply for, a registration through DEA’s exemption process. Defendants argue that to prevail on the RFRA claim, Plaintiffs must demonstrate how DEA’s exemption process substantially burdens their allegedly sincere exercise of religion, and Plaintiffs have not attempted to plead such burden.

The Court rejects this argument....

The court also refused to stay proceedings and require the Church to apply for a religious exemption from the Drug Enforcement Administration before reaching a decision on plaintiff's claims. 

HHS Adopts Rules Implementing Conscience Protections in Federal Law

The Department of Health and Human Services has made available a 100-page Release (full text) titled Safeguarding the Rights of Conscience as Protected by Federal Statutes that will be published in the Federal Register on January 11. The Release adopts the final version of amendments to rules initially adopted in 2011 and amended in 2019. though the 2019 version never took effect because of litigation. (See prior posting.) The new Rules seek to implement conscience protections in various statutes that bar recipients of federal funds from requiring health care personnel and organizations to participate in conduct that violates their religious or moral beliefs.  The new Rules provide in part:

OCR considers the posting of a notice consistent with this part as a best practice towards achieving compliance with and educating the public about the Federal health care conscience protection statutes, and encourages all entities subject to the Federal health care conscience protection statutes to post the model notice provided in Appendix A to this part. OCR will consider posting a notice as a factor in any investigation or compliance review under this rule.

(See prior related posting.) 

In a Release (full text) criticizing the new Rule, Alliance Defending Freedom said in part:

In its rule, HHS suggests it will continue its misguided use of the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act to require doctors to perform abortions even though that federal law has no abortion requirement, and conscience laws provide no exception allowing forced performance of abortion.

In a Release (full text) commending the Biden Administration for the Rule change, the ACLU said in part:

The Biden administration announced it would partially repeal a dangerous and unnecessary Trump-era rule, which numerous courts had declared unlawful, that would have allowed health care institutions and providers to deny patients treatment and information based on personal religious or moral beliefs.

Pope Calls for Universal Ban on Surrogate Motherhood

In remarks (full text) yesterday at his Audience with the Diplomatic Corps Accredited to the Holy See for the Presentation of Greetings for the New Year, Pope Francis addressed a wide range of issues. Among those making news was his call for a ban on surrogate motherhood.  The Pope said in part:

The path to peace calls for respect for life, for every human life, starting with the life of the unborn child in the mother’s womb, which cannot be suppressed or turned into an object of trafficking. In this regard, I deem deplorable the practice of so-called surrogate motherhood, which represents a grave violation of the dignity of the woman and the child, based on the exploitation of situations of the mother’s material needs. A child is always a gift and never the basis of a commercial contract. Consequently, I express my hope for an effort by the international community to prohibit this practice universally.

AP reports on the Pope's remarks. The Pope's call echoes the position taken in 1987 by Pope John Paul II in Instruction on Respect for Human Life in Its Origin and on the Dignity of Procreation: Replies to Certain Questions of the Day (full text).

Art Institute School Sued for Antisemitic Discrimination and Hostility

Three weeks ago, suit was filed in an Illinois federal district court against the School of the Art Institute of Chicago by a Jewish Israeli student claiming a long-running pattern of discrimination and hostility at the school toward Jews and Israelis. The complaint (full text) in Canel v. School of the Art Institute of Chicago, (ND IL, filed 12/22/2-23), alleges discrimination against plaintiff in the admissions process and increasing harassment by faculty and students since the October 7 Hamas terror attack on Israel. Also named as a defendant was one Art Therapy faculty member who has taken a leading role in facilitating anti-Israel actions aimed at plaintiff. The complaint alleges violation of Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act the Illinois Human Rights Act and the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, as well as breach of contract and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Jewish News Service reports on the lawsuit.

Ohio Adopting Administrative Rules on Gender Transition Treatments

 As previously reported, last month Ohio Governor Mike DeWine vetoed a bill which prohibited physicians from performing gender reassignment surgery or prescribing cross-sex hormones or puberty blockers to minors, and prohibited transgender women from participating on women's athletic teams in schools that participate in interscholastic athletics and in public and private colleges. However, in his veto message he urged the Ohio Department of Health to adopt rules to carry out part of what the vetoed legislation provided-- a ban on gender transition surgeries for minors and rules to prevent pop-up clinics for treating gender dysphoria. On January 5, the Department of Health published a draft of rules (full text) to carry out the Governor's proposal.  The Health Department's Release describes the rules:

The emergency rules filed today:

• Prohibit health care facilities, including ambulatory surgical facilities, and hospitals from performing gender surgeries on minors.

The draft rules proposed for public comment:

• Obligate the Department of Health to report deidentified data to the General Assembly and the public every six months.
• Set forth quality standards for those hospitals and ambulatory surgical facilities that wish to treat gender-related conditions.

On January 5, Governor DeWine signed an Executive Order (full text) allowing the Department of Health to adopt on an emergency basis without the usual comment procedures its proposed rules banning gender transition surgeries on minors and setting quality standards for facilities that treat gender dysphoria.  Under Ohio law, the emergency rules will be effective for 120 days. (It should be noted that there is a slight discrepancy in the rule numbers set out in the Health Department's Release and those set forth in the Governor's Executive Order.)

Court Limits Discussion of Religion in Trial for Blocking Abortion Clinic Entrance

In United States v. Gallagher, (MD TN, Jan. 5, 2024), a Tennessee federal district court ruled on the extent to which defendants can refer to their religious activities or beliefs and to the First Amendment in their upcoming criminal trial for violation of the Free Access to Clinic Entrances Act. Defendants are charged criminally with barricading the entrance to a Mt. Juliet, Tennessee abortion clinic in a so-called "rescue" operation. The court said in part:

It does not appear to be disputed that these defendants’ actions were motivated, at least in part, by their religious objections to the intentional termination of pregnancies. The Government argues, however, that evidence of those motivations would be “totally extraneous” to the “nature of the” charged offenses and should, therefore, be excluded.... The Government’s argument, however, is in significant tension with the FACE Act itself, which affirmatively places the defendants’ states of mind at issue by criminalizing only “intentional” acts taken “because [the victim] is or has been, or in order to intimidate such person or any other person or any class of persons from, obtaining or providing reproductive health services.” 18 U.S.C. § 248(a)(1). The defendants’ subjective motivations are, therefore, an unavoidable aspect of this case, and it is not clear to the court that those motivations can be accurately represented without at least some incidental reference to the details of their beliefs—which happen, in this instance, to be based in religion....

The court has already ruled that, as a matter of well-settled law, religious motivations are not a defense to a violation of either the FACE Act or the conspiracy statute.... The court, however, will not go so far as to wholly forbid the discussion of the defendants’ religious beliefs for the limited purpose of establishing or refuting intent or purpose.... 

... The defendants cannot turn an ounce of relevance into a gallon of irrelevant political messaging. The court, however, will not bar discussion of the defendants’ views altogether.

... When the defendants prayed or discussed their religious views, those specific actions were protected by the First Amendment. But if, in the next breath, they turned to discussing a plan to unlawfully obstruct the entrance of a clinic, then that conspiracy was just as illegal as it would have been if it had been the sole topic of conversation. Similarly, if they engaged in activities that would, in isolation, be protected by the First Amendment, but they did so while also violating the FACE Act through physical obstruction or intimidation, then the non-criminal components of their actions are no shield against prosecution for the criminal ones. Any argument to the contrary would be improper and will be barred.

The court also ruled that defendants may not present evidence or arguments at trial on various other matters including jury nullification, selective prosecution, potential sentences and good character. (See prior related posting.)

Recent Articles and Books of Interest

From SSRN:

• Ira C. Lupu, The Centennial of Meyer and Pierce: Parents’ Rights, Gender-Affirming Care and Issues in Education, Vol. 24, Journal of Contemporary Legal Issues (Univ. of San Diego) (forthcoming 2024).
• Lama Abu-Odeh, Gaza Shoah, Georgetown University Law Center Research Paper No. 2568 (2024).
• Miranda Perry Fleischer, The Morality of Charitable Bequests, (Inheritance and the Right to Bequeath: Legal and Philosophical Perspectives, ed. by Daniel Halliday, Thomas Gutmann, and Hans-Christoph Schmidt am Busch, Routledge (2022)).

Recent and Forthcoming Books:

• Norman Doe & Aetios Nikiforos, Legal Thought and Eastern Orthodox Christianity: The Addresses of Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I, (Routledge, Nov. 3, 2023).
• Robert Wuthnow, Faith Communities and the Fight For Racial Justice, (Princeton University Press, Nov. 14, 2023).
• Bruce Hoffman & Jacob Ware, God, Guns and Sedition, (Columbia University Press, Jan. 2024).
• Mun'im Sirry, Youth, Education, and Islamic Radicalism: Religious Intolerance in Contemporary Indonesia, (University of Notre Dame Press, March 2024).
• Tom Navon, Radical Assimilation in the Face of the Holocaust-- Otto Heller 1897-1945, (SUNY Press, January 2024).

Supreme Court Grants Review of EMTALA's Impact on State Abortion Restrictions

Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review an Idaho federal district court decision (see prior posting) that preliminarily enjoined the state of Idaho from enforcing its nearly total abortion ban to the extent it conflicts with the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act. The Supreme Court Order (full text) comes in the companion cases of Moyle v. United States, (Docket No. 23-726) and Idaho v. United States, (Docket No. 23-727) (certiorari granted, 1/5/2024). In September 2023, a 3-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals stayed the district court's injunction pending appeal. (See prior posting.)  However, the full 9th Circuit in an en banc Order vacated the panel's opinion that stayed the injunction and granted en banc review. In yesterday's Order, the Supreme Court allowed plaintiffs to bypass review by the 9th Circuit and present the case to the Supreme Court.  The Supreme Court also again stayed the district court's preliminary injunction that limited enforcement of Idaho's abortion ban. It granted review on the Question Presented in Idaho's Application:

Whether EMTALA preempts state laws that protect human life and prohibit abortions, like Idaho's Defense of Life Act.

The Court set arguments for the April 2024 argument session. Here is the SCOTUSblog case page that will link to pleadings in the Supreme Court.

AP reports on the Supreme Court's decision. Yesterday President Biden issued a Statement (full text) criticizing the Supreme Court's action, saying in part:

Today’s Supreme Court order allows Idaho’s extreme abortion ban to go back into effect and denies women critical emergency abortion care required by federal law. The overturning of Roe v. Wade has enabled Republican elected officials to pursue dangerous abortion bans like this one that continue to jeopardize women’s health, force them to travel out of state for care, and make it harder for doctors to provide care, including in an emergency. These bans are also forcing doctors to leave Idaho and other states because of laws that interfere with their ability to care for their patients. This should never happen in America.

Constitutional Challenge to RLUIPA Dismissed on Sovereign Immunity Grounds

In Coritsidis v. Khal Bnei Torah of Mount Ivy, (SD NY, Jan. 3, 2024), a New York federal district court dismissed the portion of the lawsuit naming the United States as defendant. Plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment that the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act discriminates in favor of religion in violation of the Establishment Clause. The court did not get to the merits of the constitutional argument, saying in part:

Because Plaintiffs fail to meet their burden to establish an applicable waiver or exception to the doctrine of sovereign immunity, the Court dismisses all claims against the United States without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1).

The court went on to refuse to exert supplemental jurisdiction over state law nuisance claims against defendant synagogue. Rcbizjournal reports on the decision.

Ministerial Exception Does Not Bar Whistleblower Suit by Liberty University Dean

 In Markley v. Liberty University, Inc., (VA Cir. Ct., Dec. 8, 2023), a Virginia state trial court held that the ministerial exception doctrine does not prevent a former Administrative Dean for Acedemic Operations from suing Liberty University, a Christian University, for unlawfully terminating his employment because he engaged in whistleblower activities. According to the court:

Markley, who holds a Bachelor of Science degree in Speech Communications, a Master of Divinity degree in Biblical Studies, a Master of Arts degree in Biblical Exegesis, and a Doctor of Philosophy degree in New Testament and Christian Origins, was employed by Liberty University from 2008 to 2022. During his employment, he held various positions. Though Markley never held a position that carried a religious title, such as minister, pastor, or deacon, Dr. Scott Hicks, Liberty University's Provost and Chief Academic Officer, testified that Liberty University considers all of its faculty to be ministers in the sense that they are ministering and spreading the university's religious doctrine to its students.

From 2008 until 2017, Markley taught Biblical Studies courses....

In 2018, Markley transitioned from being a full-time professor to being a full-time administrator.....

While Markley's administrative job carried no teaching responsibilities or requirements, he nonetheless did continue to teach online courses....

After considering Markley's job description and ...after taking all relevant circumstances into account, the Court finds that Markley's position as Administrative Dean for Academic Operations did not implicate the fundamental purpose of the ministerial exception. None of the essential functions or responsibilities of that administrative position involved Markley leading a religious organization, conducting worship services or important religious ceremonies or rituals, or serving as a messenger or teacher of the faith.... For purposes of the ministerial exception, the Court finds that Markley, as Administrative Dean for Academic Operations, was not a "minister."

The complaint in the case (full text) provides details of Markley's whistleblowing.

Denial of Religious Exemption to Vaccine Mandate Did Not Violate Title VII

 In Craven v. Shriners Hospital for Children, (D OR, Jan. 2, 2024), an Oregon federal district court dismissed a Title VII religious discrimination claim brought by a hospital maintenance technician who was fired after his claim for a religious exemption from the hospital's Covid vaccine mandate was denied. The court concluded that plaintiff had not adequately alleged that his objections to the vaccine were religious in nature. It also concluded that filing an amended complaint would be futile.  The court said in part:

As Plaintiff wrote, he objected to the COVID-19 vaccine because its “ingredients include carcinogens, neurotoxins, animal viruses, animal blood, allergens, and heavy metals,” which “can cause serious harm and even death to the body.” ... This judgment—on the potential danger of the vaccine due to its physical composition—was scientific and medical, not religious. Of course, this Court does not question the sincerity of Plaintiff’s belief that his “body is a temple of the Holy Spirit.”...  But Plaintiff’s beliefs about the composition of his body and that of the vaccine are independent of one another; whether Plaintiff’s body is a temple has no bearing on whether the vaccine contains carcinogens or whether, as a result of its ingredients, it “can cause serious harm.” 

Therefore, Plaintiff’s allegations, even if fleshed out in a subsequent filing, would fail to state a claim of religious discrimination under Title VII.

City Could Not Require Pastor's Certificate as Condition of Vaccine Exemtpion

In Carrero v. City of Chicago, (ND IL, Jan. 2, 2024), an Illinois federal district court allowed a Chicago city employee who has been placed on unpaid leave for refusing to comply with the city's Covid vaccine mandate to move ahead with several claims.  The employee was denied a religious exemption from the vaccine mandate because he did not furnish a signed affirmation of belief from his pastor who had a policy of not signing such forms for his 15,000 mega-church members. Allowing plaintiff to move ahead with his 1st Amendment Free Exercise claim, the court said in part:

... At this point of the proceedings, it is reasonable to infer that the City denied Carrero’s application because his religious leader did not confirm the validity of his belief....

Carrero’s beliefs may not be sincerely held or religious in nature. The City is free to challenge those points in the exemption process and in this case....

But the City may not single out religious beliefs merely because they do not conform to the tenets of a religion as interpreted by a spiritual leader. Because that is what Carrero alleges the City’s Policy did to him, he has sufficiently pled that the Policy’s exemption language is not neutral as applied to him....

The court also allowed plaintiff to move ahead with claims under the Illinois Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the Illinois Human Rights Act and Illinois' Civil Rights Act.

5th Circuit: EMTALA Does Not Require Emergency Abortions

In State of Texas v. Becerra, (5th Cir., Jan. 2, 2024), the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed an injunction issued by a Texas federal district court barring enforcement of a Guidance document on emergency abortion care issued by the Department of Health and Human Services. (See prior posting.) The Department of Health and Human Services' Guidance to hospitals (and accompanying Letter) stated that the federal Emergency Medical Treatment & Labor Act (EMTALA) requires hospital emergency rooms to perform certain abortions, even when they violate Texas law, when an abortion is the stabilizing treatment necessary to resolve an emergency medical condition. The 5th Circuit said in part:

While EMTALA directs physicians to stabilize patients once an emergency medical condition has been diagnosed, ..., the practice of medicine is to be governed by the states. HHS' argument that "any" type of treatment should be provided is outside EMTALA's purview....

 ... EMTALA requires hospitals to stabilize both the pregnant woman and her unborn child....

... EMTALA leaves the balancing of stabilization to doctors, who must comply with state law.... We agree with the district court that EMTALA does not provide an unqualified right for the pregnant mother to abort her child especially when EMTALA imposes equal stabilization obligations....

Texas Tribune reports on the decision.

Review of Religious Beliefs of the 12 Remaining Presidential Candidates

Religion Unplugged reviews information on the religious affiliation of 12 candidates still in the Presidential primaries for 2024. It also quotes notable things each candidate has said about faith. For example:

Joe Biden (Catholic): “Like so many people, my faith has been the bedrock foundation of my life: it’s provided me comfort in moments of loss and tragedy, it’s kept me grounded and humbled in times of triumph and joy.”

Donald Trump (Raised Presbyterian, now a non-denominational Christian): “I grew up going to church with my family in New York City. My parents taught me the importance of faith and prayer from a young age...."

Nikki Haley (Raised Hindu, converted to Christianity ): “When you have God, you quickly understand there's nothing you can't overcome.”

Happy New Year 2024!

Dear Religion Clause Readers:

Happy New Year 2024! 

I hope that you continue to find Religion Clause a valuable source of information on the intersection of law, religion and public policy. 

As many commentators have pointed out, the Internet has changed dramatically over the last two decades.  Long-form blog posts have become a less popular form of online communication. Videos and podcasts have supplanted blogs in many areas.  However, if one can be an online troglodyte, I must plead guilty. Religion Clause has always been a niche blog which has particularly attracted lawyers, social scientists, advocacy organization personnel, law school faculty, journalists, clergy, legislative and executive branch staff, students and others working professionally or avocationally interested in church-state relations and religious liberty issues.  I invite your feedback on the continued effectiveness of the current format.

Access to Religion Clause posts is also available through e-mail subscriptions, through X (formerly known as Twitter) and through Facebook, though the format, accompanying advertising, and availability of posts through these channels are handled by third parties over whom I have no control.

During 2023, two issues from past years continued to play out at length-- abortion rights and religious exemptions from health care mandates.  Two other issues, while hardly new, seemed to have particular salience this past year-- increasing antisemitism and issues of gender identity.

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

I also urge you to look at the blog's Sidebar which has dozens of links to useful sites. Scroll down and you will also find resources to subscribe for e-mails giving you access to the latest posts, and access to the X (Twitter) account.

Thank you to all who are loyal readers of Religion Clause-- both those who have followed it for many years and those who have only recently discovered it. I hope you will continue to follow Religion Clause in 2024. Please recommend the blog to colleagues, students and friends who may find it useful and interesting.

Best wishes as we all face the challenges of an increasingly fractured world in 2024.  Many of you who are readers of Religion Clause are also influencers who are playing important roles in dealing with the many issues facing us.  I hope that Religion Clause can play a small part in giving you background to inform your efforts.

To all my readers, feel free to contact me by e-mail (religionclause@gmail.com) in response to this post or throughout the year with comments or suggestions.

Howard Friedman                      

Recent Articles of Interest

 From SSRN:

• Michael Stokes Paulsen, Freedom for Religion, (Yale Law Journal Forum (2023)).
• Stephanie H. Barclay, Replacing Smith, (Yale Law Journal, (2023)).
• Trudo Lemmens, When Death Becomes Therapy: Canada’s Troubling Normalization of Health Care Provider Ending of Life, (American Journal of Bioethics (2023) 23(11): 79-84).
• Indri Kurnia, et. al., Understanding the Governance of Family Endowments in the Context of Dual Accountability, (International Journal of Scientific and Management Research, Volume 06 Issue 11, pp. 88-100 (2023)).
• Christopher Ryan, Confusing Cy Près, (Georgia Law Review, Vol. 58, 17-96 (2023)).
• Nicolas Duquette, Wealth Shocks Don't Affect Charitable Giving Much, (December 18, 2023).

From SmartCILP:

• Symposium: The Religiously Affiliated Law Schools Conference, Touro Law Review, Vol. 38, No. 4 (2023).
• Shamshad Pasarlay & Clark Lombardi, The Constitutional Imagination of the Mujahidin: A History and Translation of Two Constitutions Proposed by Afghan Islamist Militias in the 1990s, [Abstract], 32 Washington International Law Journal 283-305 (2023).

School Board Not Liable for Teacher's Proselytization of Muslim Student

In Chaudhry v. Community Unit School District 300 Board of Education, (ND IL, Dec. 29, 2023), an Illinois federal district court dismissed Establishment Clause, Due Process and Equal Protection claims by Muslim parents against an Illinois school board that employed teacher Pierre Thorsen who convinced their daughter to convert to Christianity.  The court said in part:

[T]he complaint continues to state an implausible theory of Monell liability because it does not plead enough factual matter to raise the inference that any assertedly unconstitutional practice had become so widespread that the Board was bound to have noticed it. It likewise continues to fail to plausibly allege that anyone other than Thorsen was the moving force behind any of the Parents’ asserted injuries.... At best, the Parents have alleged facts consistent only with the “isolated wrongdoing of one . . . rogue employee[].”... Because Monell does not allow for respondeat superior liability, these claims are not plausibly pleaded, and they therefore fail.

Ohio Governor Vetoes Ban on Gender Affirming Treatments for Minors and Women's Sports Provisions: Proposes Administrative Alternatives

 Ohio Governor Mike DeWine today vetoed HB 68 which prohibited physicians from performing gender reassignment surgery or prescribing cross-sex hormones or puberty blockers to minors, and prohibited transgender women from participating on women's athletic teams in schools that participate in interscholastic athletics and in public and private colleges. (Full text of Governor's Veto Message, his prepared Statement at a News Conference, and a video of his lengthy News Conference on the veto.) Focusing only on the ban on treatment of minors, the Governor said in part:

Were I to sign Substitute House Bill 68 or were Substitute House Bill 68 to become law, Ohio would be saying that the State, that the government, knows what is best medically for a child rather than the two people who love that child the most, the parents...

I have listened to the concerns the Legislature ... and agree that action is necessary regarding a number of issues raised.

I believe we can address a number of goals in Substitute House Bill 68 by administrative rules that will have a better chance of surviving judicial review and being adopted....

I adamantly agree with the General Assembly that no surgery of this kind should ever be performed on those under the age of 18. I am directing our agencies to draft rules to ban this practice in Ohio.

I share with the legislature their concerns that there is no comprehensive data regarding persons who receive this care, nor independent analysis of any such data. I am today directing our agencies to immediately draft rules to require reporting to the relevant agencies and to report this data to the General Assembly and the public every six months. We will do this not only when patients are minors, but also when the patients are adults.

I also share with the legislature’s concerns about clinics that may pop up and try to sell patients inadequate or even ideological treatments. This is a concern shared by people I spoke with who had both positive experiences and negative experiences with their own treatments....

Therefore, I am directing our agencies to draft rules that establish restrictions that prevent pop-up clinics or fly-by-night operations and provide important protections for Ohio children and their families and for adults.

Israel's Top Court OK's Adoption by Same-Sex Couples

 As reported by Times of Israel, a 3-judge panel of Israel's Supreme Court sitting as the High Court of Justice yesterday ruled that under Israel's 1981 adoption law, same-sex couples are eligible to adopt children. The court said in part:

Though the language of clause 3 [of the child adoption law, 1981] is more consistent, on its face, with the interpretation according to which the phrase of ‘a man and his wife together’ refers to heterosexual couples, an interpretation according to which this section also includes same-sex couples does not go beyond the range of possible linguistic interpretations.

This is because examining the phrase in its full linguistic context shows that the language of the section creates a distinction between two general categories: those who belong to a family framework that includes two parents, versus those who seek to adopt into a single-parent family framework. That is, the focus of the section is that it is an adoption by a stable marital framework to which the child will be given, unlike an single [parent framework].

According to Times of Israel, reporting on Acting Supreme Court President Uzi Vogelman's opinion:

He added that historical record showed that when the law was legislated the question of whether same-sex couples were fit to adopt was not considered. Vogelman wrote that the language of the law was devised by the Knesset to determine that it was for the benefit of the child up for adoption to be adopted into a two-parent family, and it was not aimed at making a determination regarding same-sex couples.

Court Finds Idaho's Ban on Gender Affirming Care for Minors Unconstitutional

In Poe v. Labrador, (D ID, Dec. 26, 2023), an Idaho federal district court issued a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of Idaho's recently enacted Vulnerable Child Protection Act which prohibits medical providers from surgically or chemically treating gender dysphoria in minors. The court held that because the statute discriminates on the basis of sex and transgender status, it is subject to heightened scrutiny under the equal protection clause, and found that the statute likely fails that test, saying in part:

Generally, the State Defendants say the legislature’s purpose in passing HB 71 was to protect vulnerable children from the dangers of unproven medical and surgical treatments. At a general level, safeguarding the physical wellbeing of children is of course important.... But in this case, the Court finds that the asserted objective is pretextual, given that HB 71 allows the same treatments for cisgender minors that are deemed unsafe and thus banned for transgender minors. That is, the medications and procedures that are used in gender-affirming medical care (such as puberty blockers, hormones, and surgeries) are used to treat cisgender adolescents for other purposes. But rather than targeting the treatments themselves, HB 71 allows children to have these treatments—but only so long as they are used for any reason other than as gender-affirming medical care....

The court also found the likelihood of success on plaintiffs' due process claims, saying in part:

[T]his Court easily concludes that the parent plaintiffs enjoy a fundamental right to seek a specific form of medical treatment for their children, which would include the gender-affirming medical care banned by HB 71.

The court however did dismiss plaintiffs' unusual claim against the publisher of Idaho's annotated statutes. Plaintiffs had argued that by failing to include annotations to federal cases that would indicate that Idaho's statute is unconstitutional, the publishers violated plaintiffs' due process rights.

Los Angeles Blade reports on the decision.

EEOC Announces Settlements In 2 Religious Discrimination Lawsuits

In the last several days, the EEOC has announced settlements in two unrelated Title VII religious discrimination suits filed by the agency.  Last week the EEOC announced that Children's Healthcare of Atlanta will pay $45,000 in damages to a former maintenance employee who was denied a religious exemption from the healthcare system's flu vaccine requirement. The employee, who worked primarily outside and had limited contact with the public or other staff, had been granted an exemption in 2017 and 2018, but was denied one and fired in 2019. Under the consent decree settling the suit, Children's Healthcare will also modify its religious exemption policy to presume eligibility for employees who work away from patients and other staff.

Yesterday the EEOC announced that Triple Canopy, Inc., a company that provides protective services to federal agencies, will pay $110,759 in damages to an employee who was denied a religious accommodation of his Christian belief that men must wear beards. The company denied the accommodation because the employee was unable to provide additional substantiation of his beliefs or a supporting statement from a documented religious leader. The company will also institute a new religious accommodation policy.

Indian Court Bars Exclusion of Scheduled Caste from Temple Festival

Last week in the Indian state of Tamil Nadu, the Madras High Court issued an order to prevent members of a Scheduled Caste from being excluded from a Temple Festival. In Pandiarajan v. District Collector, (Madras High Ct., Dec. 19, 2023), the court said in part:

... [P]etitioner submits that the people from Maravar community in their Village are not permitting the Scheduled caste people to participate in the temple festival and they are preventing them from taking mulaippari and not collecting tax from them for the temple festival.... [A] peace committee meeting ... between both the groups ... [decided] that the village festival has to be performed only as per the advice of the HR & CE [Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments] Department that no community people is entitled to conduct the festival by collecting tax separately that the parties are restrained from spreading any rumors in the social media.... [P]etitioner submits that even after this resolution... the caste hindus are not permitting the scheduled caste people to participate inthe Margazhi festival of the above temple.... 

Even after 75 years of independence, if this state of affairs prevails on account of community in the village, it needs to be addressed and prevented. No person nor any group can restrain a person from performing his religious duties and it is the right guaranteed under the Constitution.

... The temple worshipped by the public is a public temple and the HR & CE Department is having every right to interfere with the affairs of the temple.  It was, in fact agreed between the parties in the peace committee meeting that the festival has to be conducted by the HR & CE Department.

LiveLaw 10 reports on the decision.

Top 10 Church-State and Religious Liberty Developments of 2023

Each year in December, I attempt to pick the most important church-state and religious liberty developments of the past year.  My choices are based on the importance of the pick to law or policy, regardless of whether the development has garnered significant media attention. With each pick, I link to one of numerous postings on the topic. The selection of top stories obviously involves a good deal of subjective judgment. Here is a somewhat different list of top stories and newsmakers from the Religion News Association, the professional association of religion journalists. I welcome e-mail comment at religionclause@gmail.com on my choices. Here are my Top Ten picks:

1. Antisemitism spikes in U.S. as President releases National Strategy to Combat Antisemitism.

2. Supreme Court in 303 Creative v. Elenis says free speech protection allows website designer to refuse to create sites for same-sex weddings in violation of her religious beliefs.

3. State legislatures restrict gender dysphoria treatment for minors and transgender women's participation in competitive sports, while teachers sue over school policies requiring them to use students' preferred pronouns or conceal students' social transitions from parents.

4. Court challenges to state abortion bans continue. Plaintiffs claim bans violate state constitutions or violate their religious beliefs regarding abortion.

5. Supreme Court grants review of FDA rules that permit mail distribution of abortion pill.

6. Suits over past denials of religious exemptions from COVID vaccine mandates continue to play out in the courts.

7. Federal agencies say Title VI prohibits certain forms of antisemitic, Islamophobic, and related forms of discrimination in federally funded programs and activities, even though Title VI does not specifically ban religious discrimination.

8. California's targeting of caste discrimination challenged by Hindu Americans.

9. Oklahoma approves state-funded online Catholic charter school. State AG sues.

10. 9th Circuit allows fraud claim against LDS Church over representations about use of tithed funds to proceed.  Plaintiff is prominent former member who had tithed over $2.6 million.

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• David Simson, Methodological Gerrymandering, (Cleveland State Law Review, Vol. 72, No. 1, 2023).
• Tolga Bozkurt, The Mihrabs of the Early Ottoman Imperial Mosques, (December 12, 2023).
• Sahar F. Aziz, Presumptively Antisemitic: Islamophobic Tropes in the Palestine Israel Discourse, ((November 12, 2023). Rutgers Center for Security, Race and Rights).
• C.G. Bateman, Bishops on the Bench: Why Constantine Legislated Christian Bishops into the Role of Judges, (Approved PhD Thesis. Electronic Theses and Dissertations (ETDs) 2008+. University of British Columbia, 2022).
• David H. Schraub, Renewing Study into the Oldest Hatred: Introduction to the Law vs. Antisemitism Symposium, (Lewis & Clark Law Review, Vol. 27, 2024).
• Barak Medina, State and Religion: The Israeli Model, (December 20, 2023).
• Thomas Charles Berg, The Irony of American Religious-Freedom Disputes, (Wayne Law Review, Forthcoming).
• Andrew T. Hayashi, Christianity and the Liberal(ish) Income Tax, (Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics and Public Policy, Forthcoming).
• Swethaa Ballakrishnen, Rethinking Inclusion: Ideal Minorities, Inclusion Cultures, and Identity Capitals in the Legal Profession, (Law & Social Inquiry, Vol. 48, No. 4, 2023).

From SmartCILP:

• Erwin Chemerinsky, Keynote Address: Justice Breyer and the First Amendment, 21 First Amendment Law Review 291-302 (2023).
• William T. Sharon, Religious and Secular Comparators, 30 George Mason Law Review 763-830 (2023).
• Zeina Jallad, Identity Annexation: Israel's Non-Territorial and Psychic Annexation of West Bank Samaritans in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, 26 University of Pennsylvania Journal of Law & Social Change 73-120 (2023).

Minnesota Court Hears Oral Arguments on Pharmacist's Refusal To Dispense Morning-After Pill

The Minnesota Court of Appeals yesterday heard oral arguments (audio of full oral arguments) in Anderson v. Aitkin Pharmacy Services, LLC, (Dec. 21, 2023). At issue is whether a pharmacist violated the sex discrimination provisions of the Minnesota Human Rights Act when, because of his religious belief, he refused to dispense the morning-after emergency contraception drug ella and instead referred her to another pharmacist who could fill her prescription the next day. ADF issued a press release regarding the case.

Negligence Claims Against Religious Boarding School Barred by Establishment Clause

In Drew v. Householder, (WD MO, Dec. 19, 2023), plaintiff sued Circle of Hope Boarding School, a fundamentalist Baptist school for girls, and its schoolmasters alleging that during the five years she was there she was subjected to sexual, physical and emotional abuse, and received inadequate and unaccredited formal instruction. She also alleged that the schoolmasters took $25,000 plus social security money from her. While allowing plaintiff to move ahead with several claims, the court dismissed, among others, her negligence claims, saying in part:

The Missouri Supreme Court has considered the extent to which judicial decision making may involve analysis of ecclesiastical matters without running afoul of the First Amendment’s establishment and free exercise clauses....

[A]llegations based in Missouri common law of negligence against religious institutions run afoul of the First Amendment, except in limited instances where the negligence allegation does not require interpretation of religious doctrine, policy, or interpretation.... It is plain neither of Plaintiff’s remaining negligence claims—Count Seven’s general negligence and Count Eight’s negligent supervision of students—falls into this narrow exception.... [N]egligent supervision claims against a religious institution violate the First Amendment because they require a court to evaluate “what the church ‘should know.’”... Likewise, general negligence claims against religious institutions violate the First Amendment, as it forces the court to consider how a reasonably prudent religious institution would act, thereby “excessively entangle[ing] itself in religious doctrine, policy, and administration.”...

... [T]his Court likewise finds that dismissal of Plaintiff’s negligence claims in Counts Six, Seven, Eight, and Eleven is appropriate also under the provisions of the Missouri Constitution declaring separation of church and state....

11th Circuit: Appeal of DEA's Denial of Religious Exemption to Controlled Substances Act Must Be in Circuit Court

In Soul Quest Chruch of Mother Earth, Inc. v. Attorney General, (11th Cir., Dec. 18, 2023), the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision, held that an appeal of the DEA's denial of a religious exemption to a church so it could legally use ayahuasca (a sacramental tea) needs to be made to a Circuit Court of Appeals, not to a federal district court. The issue turned on whether the DEA's denial was made "under" the statutory provisions of the Controlled Substances Act, or whether it was made "under" the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.  21 USC §877 requires appeals of final decisions made under the Control and Enforcement subchapter of the CSA to go to federal circuit courts.  Judge Newsom dissenting argued that the decision was made "under" the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and so was appealable to a federal district court.

Pope OK's Non-Marital Blessings for Same-Sex Couples

In a Declaration titled "Fiducia Supplicans: On the Pastoral Meaning of Blessings" (full text) issued by the Vatican's Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith and approved by Pope Francis, the Pope has given priests permission to give a blessing to same-sex or other unmarried couples. The Declaration says in part:

31. Within the horizon outlined here appears the possibility of blessings for couples in irregular situations and for couples of the same sex, the form of which should not be fixed ritually by ecclesial authorities to avoid producing confusion with the blessing proper to the Sacrament of Marriage. In such cases, a blessing may be imparted that ... descends from God upon those who—recognizing themselves to be destitute and in need of his help—do not claim a legitimation of their own status, but who beg that all that is true, good, and humanly valid in their lives and their relationships be enriched, healed, and elevated by the presence of the Holy Spirit. These forms of blessing express a supplication that God may grant those aids that come from the impulses of his Spirit ... so that human relationships may mature and grow in fidelity to the Gospel, that they may be freed from their imperfections and frailties, and that they may express themselves in the ever-increasing dimension of the divine love.

32. Indeed, the grace of God works in the lives of those who do not claim to be righteous but who acknowledge themselves humbly as sinners, like everyone else. This grace can orient everything according to the mysterious and unpredictable designs of God. Therefore ... the Church welcomes all who approach God with humble hearts, accompanying them with those spiritual aids that enable everyone to understand and realize God’s will fully in their existence.

Catholic News Service reported on the document, and summarized it as follows:

The Vatican offered a narrow set of conditions under which a priest or deacon could give a blessing to a same-sex or other unmarried couple, making it clear the church does not consider their unions a marriage but also recognizing how anyone can ask for a blessing when they are seeking God's assistance, mercy and grace.

Parents Sue School for Using Teen's Preferred Masculine Name and Pronouns

Suit was filed yesterday in a Michigan federal district court by parents of a 13-year-old biologically female child whose school concealed from the parents that the school was referring to the child by masculine name and male pronouns. The complaint (full text) in Mead v. Rockford Public School District, (WD MI, filed 12/18/2023), alleges in part:

7. These actions ... violated the Meads’ long-settled constitutional rights. The First Amendment protects their right to exercise their religion by directing G.M.’s education and upbringing, including on fundamental questions of existence like how G.M. identifies herself. And the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees their fundamental right to make decisions about her upbringing, education, and healthcare. 

8. By intentionally concealing from the Meads important information about their daughter’s education and health—on a subject as morally fraught as gender confusion—the District denied them these constitutional rights. Absent extraordinary circumstances, a school district’s concealment from parents of such information violates the Constitution.

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

Church Buses Used in Released-Time Programs Not Subject to School Bus Regulations

In CBM Ministries of South Central Pennsylvania, Inc. v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, (PA Commonwlth.. Ct., Dec. 18, 2023), the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court in a 5-2 decision held that privately owned vehicles used by a Bible ministry to transport children from public schools to off-site locations for religious instruction during the school day in released-time programs are not subject to state standards for school buses. CBM operates 87 released-time programs in 8 Pennsylvania counties. It contended that requiring it to comply with the heightened standards for school buses would burden its religious exercise in violation of the Pennsylvania Religious Freedom Protection Act (RFPA). The majority concluded:

While CBM does transport children to and from public schools for the released time program, DOT’s regulations, by their plain language, do not apply to vehicles that are neither owned by nor contracted with a school. In other words, the text of the enabling statute expressly limits the reach of DOT’s regulatory power in this area.

President Judge Jubelirer, joined by Judge Wojcik dissented, saying in part:

I fear the Majority’s overly narrow reading of the enabling statute thwarts the legislature’s intent, pursuant to its police power, to empower PennDOT to keep children safe when they are being transported to and from public school during the school day.

The dissenters rejected plaintiff's religious freedom argument saying that Vehicle Code provisions that protect the public from unsafe operation of motor vehicles are explicitly excluded from coverage under the RFPA, and that "for a given regulation to violate RFPA, it must 'substantially den[y an organization] a reasonable opportunity to engage in activities . . . fundamental to its religion.'"

2nd Circuit En Banc: Athletes Have Standing To Sue Under Title IX Over Transgender Girls on Girls' Teams

In Soule v. Connecticut Association of Schools, Inc., (2d Cir., Dec. 15, 2023), the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals sitting en banc held that four cisgender female track and field athletes (plus two intervenors) have standing to sue a Connecticut high school athletic conference under Title IX for allowing transgender girls to compete in girls' track and field meets. Plaintiffs claimed that this deprived them of equal athletic opportunity. the court summarized its holding as follows:

We do not consider whether Plaintiffs’ Title IX claims have any merit or whether they would be entitled to the relief that they seek as a matter of equity, but rather whether the district court has jurisdiction to hear their claims in the first instance. We conclude that it does.... Plaintiffs have established Article III standing at this stage in the litigation. They have pled a concrete, particularized, and actual injury in fact that is plausibly redressable by monetary damages and an injunction ordering Defendants to alter certain athletic records. Second, the district court was not required to determine whether Defendants had adequate notice of a Title IX violation to be liable for monetary damages before reaching the merits of Plaintiffs’ Title IX claims.

This majority arose from splintered views expressed in 8 separate opinions concurring in part and dissenting in part from each other and spanning 142 pages. NBC News reports on the decision.

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Timothy Lubin, Religious Endowments in Ancient India and the Institutionalization of Brahmin Caste Status, (Special Symposium Issue: Status in Ancient and Medieval Law (edited by Timothy Lubin), American Journal of Legal History 63: 97–114 (2023)).
• Mark Movsesian, Christians and U.S. Policy on Armenia: Historically and Today, (Armenia and the Community of States (Georgi Asatryan ed.) (Forthcoming 2024)).
• Guy Baldwin, Freedom of Religion under the Australian Constitution: Is Proportionality the Answer?, ((2023) 3 Australian Journal of Law and Religion 20).
• Sébastien Laymond, Chechnya: a Wild Tale of Syncretism, (December 1, 2023).
• Cassidy Terrazas, Conceiving a New Legal Framework: The Implications of Texas Abortion Regulations for In Vitro Fertilization, (November 29, 2023).
• Abu Hayyan Saeed, Jurisprudence of Islam, (December 3, 2023).
• James M. Oleske, Jr., Free Exercise Uncertainty: Original Meaning? History and Tradition? Pragmatic Nuance?, (Wayne Law Review, Forthcoming).

From SmartCILP:

• Robert A. Destro, "Engines of the Ruling Party": The Establishment Clause and the Power Politics of "Managing Diversity", 74 Hastings Law Journal 1683-1750 (2023).
• John Witte Jr. & Eric Wang, The New Fourth Era of Religious Freedom, 74 Hastings Law Journal 1813-1848 (2023).
• Yuksel Sezgin, A Global and Historical Exploration: Legislative Reform in Muslim Family Laws in Muslim-Majority versus Muslim-Minority Countries, [Abstract], 45 Law & Policy 110-136 (2023).

European Court Advisory Opinion: Security Clearance May Be Withdrawn for Supporter of Religion That Is Threat to the State

In a Grand Chamber advisory opinion, the European Court of Human Rights has concluded that Belgium many deny a person the right to work as a security guard because he belongs to a religious movement that poses a threat to the state.  In Requested by the Conseil d’État of Belgium, (ECHR, Dec. 14, 2023), the Belgian Ministry of Interior had withdrawn the identification card of a security guard who was a supporter of the scientific branch of Salafism. The Ministry gave the following justifications:

... [S]cientific Salafism represents a threat to our model of society and to our country. Any security guard or officer must display conduct that is respectful of the fundamental rights of his or her fellow citizens and must respect democratic values....

Even though you have stated that you reject any violence in the name of Islam, the State Security Service has nevertheless indicated that you are a supporter of an ideology which, in particular, questions the legitimacy of Belgian law, advocates community sectarianism, fosters a backward view of the role of women and takes positions which threaten the fundamental rights and freedoms of citizens by a reactionary vision seeking to rid Islam of all its non-Islamic evolutions and influences.

The Court in its Advisory Opinion concluded:

The established fact that an individual belongs to a religious movement that, in view of its characteristics, is considered by the competent administrative authority to represent a threat to the State may justify a refusal to authorise that individual to work as a security guard or officer, provided that the measure in question: (1) has an accessible and foreseeable legal basis; (2) is adopted in the light of the conduct or acts of the individual concerned; (3) is taken, having regard to the individual’s occupational activity, for the purpose of averting a real and serious risk for democratic society, and pursues one or more of the legitimate aims under Article 9 § 2 of the Convention; (4) is proportionate to the risk that it seeks to avert and to the legitimate aim or aims that it pursues; and (5) may be referred to a judicial authority for a review that is independent, effective and surrounded by appropriate procedural safeguards, such as to ensure compliance with the requirements listed above.

Virginia Supreme Court Rules For Teacher Who Refused To Use Student's Preferred Pronouns

In Vlaming v. West Point School Board, (VA Sup. Ct., Dec. 14, 2023), the Virginia Supreme Court, in a 4-3 decision, held that a teacher who was fired after refusing for religious reasons to use masculine pronouns in referring to a biologically female student has a claim for violation of the free exercise provisions of the Virginia state Constitution. The majority, in a 73-page opinion, held that the Virginia Constitution requires greater accommodation than does the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution when a neutral law of generally applicability conflicts with a religious belief.  The majority said in part:

[W]e hold that in the Commonwealth of Virginia, the constitutional right to free exercise of religion is among the “natural and unalienable rights of mankind,” ... and that “overt acts against peace and good order,”  correctly defines the limiting principle for this right and establishes the duty of government to accommodate religious liberties that do not transgress these limits.

The majority also held that plaintiff had adequately stated a claim under the Virginia Religious Freedom Restoration Act as well as a claim for violation of the free speech and due process provisions of the Virginia Constitution. The majority said in part:

Because the gravamen of Vlaming’s free-speech claims involves an allegation of compelled speech on an ideological subject, we hold that the circuit court erred when it dismissed Vlaming’s free-speech claims....

At the time that the School Board fired Vlaming, no clearly established law — whether constitutional, statutory, or regulatory — put a teacher on notice that not using third-person pronouns in addition to preferred names constituted an unlawful act of discrimination against transgender students. If the government truly means to compel speech, the compulsion must be clear and direct.

Finally the majority concluded that plaintiff adequately alleged that the School Board had breached his contract.

Justice Powell, joined by Chief Justice Goodwyn concurred in part, saying in part:

I write separately to clarify that, in my opinion, the proper test to evaluate a free exercise claim under Article I, Section 16 of the Virginia Constitution is traditional strict scrutiny as expressed in Sherbert v. Verner.... I disagree with the majority’s conclusion “that ‘overt acts against peace and good order,’ ... correctly defines the limiting principle for this right [in Article I, Section 16] and establishes the duty of the government to accommodate religious liberties that do not transgress these limits.”

Justice Mann filed a 64-page opinion dissenting in part. He said in part:

I dissent from the majority’s analysis and interpretation of Article I, Section 16.... The majority’s proposed limiting principle for the free exercise provision ... is not supported by the plain words of our Constitution, its history, our legal precedent, or legislative action of the General Assembly. I also dissent with respect to the majority’s rulings on Vlaming’s free speech and due process claims. Regarding Vlaming’s free-exercise claim, the majority establishes a sweeping super scrutiny standard with the potential to shield any person’s objection to practically any policy or law by claiming a religious justification for their failure to follow either.,,, 

Where a claimant alleges that the government was hostile towards his religious free exercise or that the government did not neutrally apply the law, the reviewing court should apply strict scrutiny to determine whether the government’s enforcement was narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling state interest....

As for Vlaming’s free speech and due process claims, the facts speak for themselves. Under well-established federal precedent, Vlaming’s allegations as pleaded establish that Vlaming was (1) a public employee engaged in curricular speech pursuant to his official job duties, (2) not speaking as a private citizen on a matter of public concern; and (3) had ample notice that his refusal to use Doe’s preferred pronouns was a violation of the School Board’s policies, and the School Board provided him an opportunity to be heard on his discipline.... 

Justice Powell and Chief Justice Goodwyn joined the portions of Justice Mann's opinion that relate to the Virginia Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and the free speech and due process provisions of the Virginia Constitution.

Florida Transgender Teachers Challenge Law That Bars Them from Using Their Preferred Pronouns

Suit was filed this week in a Florida federal district court by three current and former Florida public-school teachers who identify as transgender or non-binary. They challenge a provision of Florida law that bars K-12 teachers from providing students with the teacher's preferred title or pronouns if they do not reflect the teacher's biological sex. The 61-page complaint (full text) in Wood v. Florida Department of Education, (ND FL, filed 12/13/2023) alleges in part:

[The statute] unlawfully discriminates against Plaintiffs on the basis of sex in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 because whether Plaintiffs may provide to students a particular title or pronoun depends entirely on Plaintiffs’ sex, and Florida has only an invidious basis—not an exceedingly persuasive or even a rational one—for discriminating in this harmful way. It also unconstitutionally restrains Plaintiffs’ speech in violation of the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution because it prohibits Plaintiffs from using the titles and pronouns that express who they are, the same way that their colleagues do.

The Hill reports on the lawsuit.

Ohio Legislature Passes Bill on Transgender Treatment of Minors and Transgender Participation on Sports Teams

Yesterday, the Ohio legislature gave final approval to House Bill 68 (full text) which enacts the Saving Ohio Adolescents from Experimentation (SAFE) Act and the Save Women's Sports Act. The bill prohibits physicians from performing gender reassignment surgery or prescribing cross-sex hormones or puberty blockers to minors. It requires mental health professionals to obtain parental consent before diagnosing or treating a minor for a gender-related condition. The bill also prohibits transgender women from participating on women's athletic teams in schools that participate in interscholastic athletics and in public and private colleges. The bill additionally prohibits courts from denying or limiting parental rights because of a parent's decision to raise a child according to his or her biological sex or because the parent declines to consent to the child receiving gender transition services or counseling. The bill now goes to Governor Mike DeWine for his signature. The Cincinnati Enquirer, reporting on the bill, says it is unclear whether the governor will sign the legislation.

UPDATE: On Dec. 29, Governor DeWine vetoed the bill, but offered administrative alternatives. (See subsequent posting for details.)

4th Circuit: Nation of Gods and Earths May Qualify as a Religion

In Greene v. Lassiter, (4th Cir., Dec.13, 2023), the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in a pro se suit by a prisoner held that the district court should not have dismissed plaintiff's RLUIPA and the 1st Amendment claims.  At issue is whether Nation of Gods and Earths ("NGE") qualifies as a "religion" for purposes of those provision. The court held that even though plaintiff's complaint said that NGE is a God-centered culture that should not be misconstrued as a religion, this should not be treated as a binding admission.  The court said in part:

Greene’s statement wasn’t an “intentional and unambiguous waiver[] that release[d] the opposing party from its burden to prove the facts necessary to establish the waived conclusion of law.”... To the contrary, Greene has consistently maintained that he asserts rights under RLUIPA and the First Amendment for being denied the ability to practice his faith or belief system, even if NGE eschews the label of “religion.” And in RLUIPA, Congress “defined ‘religious exercise’ capaciously” and “mandated that this concept ‘shall be construed in favor of a broad protection of religious exercise....

Our review of the record shows that there may be at least an open factual question about whether NGE qualifies as a religion for RLUIPA and First Amendment purposes, making summary judgment inappropriate.