4th Circuit: Denial of Opt-Out From LGBTQ-Friendly Books Did Not Violate Parents' Free Exercise Rights

In Mahmoud v. McKnight, (4th Cir., May 15, 2024), the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 decision affirmed a Maryland federal district court's denial of a preliminary injunction in a challenge to a school board's refusal to allow parents to opt their children out of exposure to a group of LGBTQ inclusive books. The parents contended that refusal to provide an opt out alternative violates their religious free exercise rights. The majority said in part:

As an initial matter, there’s no evidence at present that the Board’s decision not to permit opt-outs compels the Parents or their children to change their religious beliefs or conduct, either at school or elsewhere....

The Parents do not really take issue with the foregoing conclusion; instead, they argue that the Board’s decision nonetheless coerces religious exercise by compelling them to expose their children to views that are at odds with their religious faith....

Supreme Court precedent requires some sort of direct or indirect pressure to abandon religious beliefs or affirmatively act contrary to those beliefs....

We understand the Parents’ contention that the Storybooks could be used in ways that would confuse or mislead children and, in particular, that discussions relating to their contents could be used to indoctrinate their children into espousing views that are contrary to their religious faith. But none of that is verified by the limited record that is before us....

Put simply, we cannot conclude that a policy requiring the presence of an individual in the classroom when these materials may be read ipso facto creates an impermissibly coercive environment....

Judge Quattlebaum dissented, saying in part:

 ... [W]hen the onion layers of the board’s argument are peeled back, the board seems to question the relative importance of the parents’ religious beliefs that their children should not be taught with the books the board required be used to promote diversity and inclusivity to the LGBTQ+ community. To explain, the board only denied opt-outs for instruction involving those books. So, despite disclaiming that it is doing so, the board’s arguments, which the district court adopted, really view the parents’ religious objections to the texts as less important than the board’s goals to improve inclusivity for the LGBTQ+ community. But this is the precisely the sort of value judgment about parents’ religious claims that courts must not make....

Bloomberg Law reports on the decision.

Mississippi Enacts Law Defining "Sex" In Biological Terms

On May 13, Mississippi Governor Tate Reeves signed Senate Bill 2753, the Securing Areas for Females Effectively and Responsibly (SAFER) Act (full text). The law requires separate (or single sex or family) restrooms, changing facilities and educational housing space for males and females at public schools and colleges. It then goes on to define gender terms found in these as well as for other sections of Mississippi statutes as follows:

(1)  "Female" means an individual who naturally has, had, will have, or would have, but for a developmental or genetic anomaly or historical accident, the reproductive system that at some point produces eggs.

(2)  "Male" means an individual who naturally has, had, will have, or would have, but for a developmental or genetic anomaly or historical accident, the reproductive system that at some point produces sperm.

(3)  "Sex," when used to classify a natural person, means the biological indication of male and female as observed or clinically verified at birth, without regard to a person's psychological, chosen, or subjective experience, feelings, actions, or sense of self.

(4)  The following additional provisions apply to the use of "sex" and related terms: (a) There are only two (2) sexes, and every individual is either male or female. (b)  "Sex" is objective and fixed. (c)  Persons with "DSD conditions" (sometimes referred to as "differences in sex development", "disorders of sex development", or "intersex conditions") are not members of a third sex.

Liberty Counsel issued a press release announcing the governor's action.

2nd Circuit Reverses Dismissal of Muslim Inmate's Complaint About Eid Meal

In Brandon v. Royce, (2d Cir., May 15, 2024), the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals held that the district court erred in granting summary judgment dismissing a Muslim inmate's free exercise of religion claim against three Sing Sing prison officials. At issue was plaintiff's participation in a special meal for Muslim inmates and their guests around Eid al-Adha. Because the event was overbooked, prison officials offered inmates the special meal in their cells if they withdrew from attending the group event. Plaintiff withdrew but did not receive a meal.  On appeal, defendants argued, among other things, that they had a legitimate penological interest in not delivering the meal to plaintiff's cell-- a concern that civilian and inmate cooks who prepared meals for the event might place contraband in the meal trays. The court concluded:

In granting summary judgment to the defendants, the district court did not resolve the parties’ dispute as to whether the September 26 event was a religious event related to Eid al-Adha or an unrelated “family event.”  Rather, the district court relied on the defendants’ asserted penological interests and their view that there was an alternative means of Brandon exercising his First Amendment right: by attending the September 26 event and receiving the special meal there.  Neither ground supports granting judgment as a matter of law to the defendants at the summary judgment stage....

To be sure, we do not dispute that an increased possibility that a visitor would introduce contraband into a prison is a legitimate penological concern ....  We simply conclude that there is no unambiguous record support for the defendants’ claim that they denied Brandon a meal tray on September 26 because “the presence of outside guests increased the risk that contraband could be hidden in the food.”...  And we further conclude, based on the evidence before the district court, that the penological concerns relied on by the district court and raised on appeal cannot at this juncture support summary judgment in favor of the defendants....

11th Circuit: Excluding Sex Change Surgery from Health Plan Violates Title VII

 In Lange v. Houston County, Georgia, (11th Cir., May 13, 2024), the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 decision held that an employer violated Title VII's ban on sex discrimination in employment when its employee health insurance plan excluded coverage for sex change surgery. The majority said in part:

The Exclusion is a blanket denial of coverage for gender-affirming surgery.  Health Plan participants who are transgender are the only participants who would seek gender-affirming surgery.  Because transgender persons are the only plan participants who qualify for gender-affirming surgery, the plan denies health care coverage based on transgender status....

 By drawing a line between gender-affirming surgery and other operations, the plan intentionally carves out an exclusion based on one’s transgender status.  Lange’s sex is inextricably tied to the denial of coverage for gender-affirming surgery.

Judge Brasher dissenting said in part:

... [T] the employer-provided health insurance plan here does not deny coverage to anyone because he or she is transgender. The alleged problem with this plan is that it excludes coverage for sex change surgeries, not that it denies coverage to transgender people. On the face of this policy, it doesn’t treat anyone differently based on sex, gender nonconformity, or transgender status....

... [T]he majority’s reasoning effectively eliminates “disparate impact” as a separate theory of liability. For various reasons, Lange is proceeding here under a disparate treatment theory, which is why the claim requires a showing of discriminatory intent. But we have developed an entire body of law—disparate impact—to address claims about certain facially nondiscriminatory employment policies that harm members of a protected class.... That body of law requires, among other things, an evaluation of an employer’s legitimate business reasons for adopting the policy.....

TLDEF issued a press release announcing the decision.

18 States Sue EEOC Over Guidance on Transgender Sexual Harassment

Eighteen states filed suit this week in a Tennessee federal district court challenging an EEOC Enforcement Guidance on Harassment in the Workplace issued on April 29.  The lengthy Guidance includes the following:

[S]ex-based harassment includes harassment based on sexual orientation or gender identity, including how that identity is expressed. Harassing conduct based on sexual orientation or gender identity includes epithets regarding sexual orientation or gender identity; physical assault due to sexual orientation or gender identity; outing (disclosure of an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity without permission); harassing conduct because an individual does not present in a manner that would stereotypically be associated with that person’s sex; repeated and intentional use of a name or pronoun inconsistent with the individual’s known gender identity (misgendering); or the denial of access to a bathroom or other sex-segregated facility consistent with the individual’s gender identity.

The complaint (full text) in State of Tennessee v. EEOC, (ED TN, filed 5/13/2024) among other things alleges that the Guidance violates the First Amendment, saying in part:

By purporting to require employers and their employees to convey the Administration’s preferred message on controversial gender-identity preferences— for example, requiring the use of pronouns that align with an employee’s self-professed gender identity and prohibiting the use of pronouns consistent with that employee’s biological sex—the Enforcement Document unconstitutionally compels and restrains speech, even if contrary to the regulated parties’ viewpoints....

Requiring that employers and their employees adhere to EEOC’s chosen gender ideology orthodoxy likewise treads on religious freedoms.  Because Title VII provides exemptions for small employers, it is not “generally applicable,” and the Enforcement Document triggers strict scrutiny under free-exercise caselaw.... EEOC’s gender-ideology-accommodation mandate impermissibly violates employers’ and employees’ free-exercise rights.... Thus, adopting the policies required by the Enforcement Document would cause Plaintiff States to violate their employee’s First Amendment rights.

Tennessee's Attorney General issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

New Report Finds 63% of Americans Support Legalized Abortion

Yesterday, the Pew Research Center released a new report on public attitudes toward legal abortion. The Report (full text) is titled Broad Public Support for Legal Abortion Persists 2 Years After Dobbs. The Center's Summary of the Report says in part:

About six-in-ten (63%) say abortion should be legal in all or most cases. This share has grown 4 percentage points since 2021 – the year prior to the 2022 decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization that overturned Roe....

A narrow majority of Americans (54%) say the statement “the decision about whether to have an abortion should belong solely to the pregnant woman” describes their views extremely or very well. Another 19% say it describes their views somewhat well, and 26% say it does not describe their views well.

... About a third of Americans (35%) say the statement “human life begins at conception, so an embryo is a person with rights” describes their views extremely or very well, while 45% say it does not describe their views well....

Americans say medication abortion should be legal rather than illegal by a margin of more than two-to-one (54% vs. 20%). A quarter say they are not sure.

A second report concludes:

Seven-in-ten adults say IVF access is a good thing. Just 8% say it is a bad thing, while 22% are unsure.

European Court: Romania Violated European Convention When It Reversed Conviction of 2 Nazi War Criminals

In Zăicescu and Fălticineanu v. Romania, (ECHR, April 23, 2024), the European Court of Human Rights in a Chamber Judgment held that Romania had violated the European Convention on Human Rights when, in the late 1990's, it reopened the conviction of two Nazi war criminals and acquitted them of war crimes.  As summarized in a press release issued by the Court:

The applicants stated that they felt humiliated and traumatised because of the revision of historically and judicially established facts that, in their opinion, had amounted to a denial of the ethnically motivated violence of which they had been victims during the Holocaust.

The Court held that that the findings of the Supreme Court of Justice – specifically that only German troops had carried out on the territory of Romania actions against Jews and that R.D. had only followed orders issued by a superior – in the acquittal decisions of 1998 and 1999 had been excuses or efforts to blur responsibility and put blame on another nation for the Holocaust contrary to well established historical facts – all elements of Holocaust denial and distortion.

States that had experienced Nazi horrors could be regarded as having a special moral responsibility to distance themselves from the mass atrocities perpetrated by the Nazis. This obligation formed part of the case at issue, where alleged discriminatory acts had been performed by State authorities.  

As matters of public interest, the authorities should have publicised the retrial proceedings and their outcome. The Court found that, owing to that failure, the applicants had found out about them by accident, which could have caused them to feel vulnerable and humiliated. 

The Court was satisfied that the Government had not provided relevant and sufficient reasons for the revision of historical convictions for crimes connected with the Holocaust. The acquittals had therefore been “excessive” and “not necessary in a democratic society”, leading to a violation of Article 8 read in conjunction with Article 14.

In its opinion, the Court quoted findings of the International Commission on the Holocaust in Romania which concluded in part:

Of all the allies of Nazi Germany, Romania bears the responsibility for the greatest contribution to the extermination of the Jews, outside of Germany itself.

The Court's majority refused however to find violations of Article 3's prohibition on torture and inhuman or degrading treatment because these actions occurred before Romania became a party to the European Convention and indeed before the Convention came into existence. A partially dissenting opinion by two judges argued against this part of the majority's decision.

The two survivors who filed suit had not requested damages.  The Court said in part:

[The applicants] contended that the issue in this case was a matter of principle and that no financial compensation could correlate to the mental harm, humiliation and psychological suffering endured as result of the State’s actions. Under these circumstances, the Court considers that there is no call to award any sum in respect of damage.

The Court did award costs and expenses.

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Scott DeVito, Anti-Abortion Statutes as Religious Beliefs. (32 American University Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law 151 (2023)).
• Robert L. Tsai, Becoming Steve Bright, (Kentucky Law Journal, Vol. 113, 2024).
• Anthony Sangiuliano & Mark Friedman, Words that Wound and Laws that Silence: Offense, Harm, and Legal Limits on Discriminatory Expression, (McGill Law Journal, Forthcoming).
• Lois A. Weithorn, The Intrusive State: Restrictions on Gender-Affirming Healthcare for Minors, Exceptions to the Doctrine of Parental Consent, and Reliance on Science and Medical Expertise, 75 UC Law Journal 713 (2024)).
• Regina Hillman, The Battle Over Bostock: Dueling Presidential Administrations & the Need for Consistent and Reliable LGBT Rights, (32 Am. U. J. Gender Soc. Pol’y & L. 1 (2023)).
• Laura Lane-Steele, Sex-Defining Laws and Equal Protection, (California Law Review, Vol. 112, No. 1, 2024).
• Ebenezer Kojo Gyesi Menash, The Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) Prosecutions: Exploring Legal Approaches to Combat Gender-Based Violence and Protect Women's Rights Across African Nations, (May 2, 2024).
• James Morton, We Need to Talk About Islam - And the Western Blight on Sudanese Politics, (Shaw Sheet Publications, London, Issue 364, 7 March 2024).

Washington State AG Investigating Sex Abuse Cover-Up by Catholic Diocese

Washington state Attorney General Bob Ferguson announced yesterday that it has filed a petition to enforce a subpoena against the Catholic Diocese of Seattle in the AG's investigation of allegations of the misuse of charitable funds to cover up clergy child sex abuse claims. The Seattle Diocese has refused to cooperate in the investigation of three dioceses in the state. The Petition to Enforce the Subpoena of the Complex Litigation Division, (Super. Ct., filed 5/9/2024) (full text) says in part:

Although the Church has released only limited records regarding the extent of its complicity in the sexual abuse of children by its clergy, these limited records make clear that the Archdiocese in Washington State not only failed to warn the public about serial child sex abusers within the Church’s ranks, but actively protected such abusers and repeatedly ensured they would have access to new child victims by frequently allowing them to transfer locations. One especially illustrative example is Father Michael J. Cody, whom the Archdiocese allowed to minister in multiple parishes for over 15 years without ever warning the public, reporting his extensive history of sexually abusing children, or taking any meaningful action to protect the many vulnerable children he victimized.

Relying on Washington's Charitable Trust Act in subpoenaing the Diocese, the AG argues that the religious organization exemption in the Act should not be applied to prevent a sexual abuse investigation. It also argues that the 1st Amendment's Free Exercise clause does not shield the Diocese here.

Religious Discrimination Claim for Denial of Personal Leave Moves Ahead

In Balchan v. New Rochelle City School District, (SD NY, May 7, 2024), a New York federal district court refused to dismiss claims of religious discrimination, retaliation for submitting claims of religious discrimination, and a due process claim for stigmatization plus loss of employment. Plaintiff is a Jewish woman who was employed as the school district's Medial Director. At issue are disciplinary charges brought against her for allegedly using personal leave days for a vacation and the stigmatizing report by a hearing officer in connection with those charges. The court details the factual background in part as follows:

Plaintiff observes Jewish holidays including, but not limited to, Yamim Nora’im (a/k/a the “Days of Awe”), Rosh Hashanah, and Yom Kippur..... Plaintiff alleges that her personal scheme of things religious evolved over the course of her life, and that marriage to her Trinidadian husband resulted in her “meld[ing] many of her Jewish religious beliefs into her new Trinidadian identity.” ...

... Specifically, Plaintiff’s “personal scheme of things religious required that she take personal leave during [the Days of Awe] to adjust, meditate, repair her connection to [God], and re-focus . . . .” Accordingly, she planned a trip with her family to Trinidad and Tobago which she alleges was “religious in nature given its relation to the Jewish high holy days” and what had been going on in her personal and professional life....

10th Circuit: Vaccine Exemption for Only Some Religions Violates 1st Amendment

In Jane Does 1-11 v. Board of Regents of the University of Colorado, (10th Cir., May 7, 2024), the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals held that the policies for granting or denying a religious exemption from the Covid vaccine mandate on one of the campuses of the University of Colorado violated the 1st Amendment's Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses. As explained by the court:

The September 1 Policy declared that “[a] religious exemption may be submitted based on a person’s religious belief whose teachings are opposed to all immunizations.” ...  The Administration made clear that it would “only accept requests for religious exemption that cite to the official doctrine of an organized religion . . . as announced by the leaders of that religion.”  ....

...  Therefore, as the Administration explained to Anschutz students and employees, Christian Scientists and Jehovah’s Witnesses would qualify for an exemption under the Administration’s criteria.  However, the Administration would reject an application for an exemption if it deemed the applicant’s beliefs “personal,” not “religious,” or “not part of a comprehensive system of beliefs.”...  For example, the Administration decided that “it is ‘morally acceptable’ for Roman Catholics to take vaccines against COVID-19,” and that any Roman Catholic objections to the COVID-19 vaccine are “personal beliefs,” not “religious beliefs.” ... For similar reasons, the Administration refused to approve exemptions for Buddhist applicants.  Nor would the Administration approve exemptions for applicants who were members of the Eastern Orthodox Church.  The Administration also rejected exemption applications from Evangelical Christians, non-denominational Protestants, and applicants who did not specify whether they were affiliated with a particular religious organization....

The University adopted a modified policy on September 24 in the face of litigation, but, according to the majority, it was a mere pretext to continue its September 1 policy. The majority found that both policies were unconstitutional, summarizing its holding in part as follows:

We hold that a government policy may not grant exemptions for some religions, but not others, because of differences in their religious doctrines, which the Administration’s first policy did.  We further hold that the government may not use its views about the legitimacy of a religious belief as a proxy for whether such belief is sincerely-held, which the Administration did in implementing the first policy.  Nor may the government grant secular exemptions on more favorable terms than religious exemptions, which the Administration’s second policy does.  Finally, we hold that the policies at issue in this appeal were motivated by religious animus, and are therefore subject to strict scrutiny—which neither policy survives.  The district court concluded otherwise and, in so doing, abused its discretion.....

Judge Ebel filed a partial dissent, saying in part:

I agree the September 1 mandate should be enjoined preliminarily, although for reasons different from those relied upon by the majority.  However, I would not enjoin the September 24 mandate....  

... I see no evidence indicating that the University adopted either mandate out of an animus—that is, a hostility—toward religion generally or toward some religions in particular.  Second, Plaintiffs have not shown that the two inquiries the University posed to those applying for a religious exemption under the September 1 mandate infringed any First Amendment protection.  The University was entitled to ask applicants why they opposed being vaccinated in order to determine whether that opposition was based on religious beliefs and, if so, whether those religious beliefs were sincerely held and, if so, how those beliefs could be accommodated.

Thomas More Society issued a press release announcing the decision. 

Indiana Suit Seeks Release of Reports from Abortion Providers

Suit was filed last week in an Indiana state trial court by an anti-abortion organization objecting to the state Health Department's new policy of releasing only aggregate data from Termination of Pregnancy Reports filed by abortion providers. The organization seeks continued release of individual reports (which do not contain information identifying patients) in order to identify violations of health or safety standards by providers.  The complaint (full text) in Voices for Life v. Indiana Department of Health, (IN Super. Ct., filed 5/1/2024), alleges in part:

On April 11, 2024, Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita issued an Official Opinion 2024-2. Exhibit 14. In it he rejected the Public Access Counselor’s informal opinion (23-INF-15) asserting that TPRs are patient medical records exempt from disclosure under I.C. § 5-14-3-4(a)(9), and set forth reasons why TPRs are not exempt from disclosure under the APRA on the theory they are patient records....

IDOH’s refusal to provide access to TPRs deprives private citizens of their role in petitioning the Attorney General to investigate cases that suggest a termination of pregnancy was unlawful. Complaints by members of the public are a condition precedent to the Attorney General’s exercise of his lawful authority....

Because it frustrates needed investigation into potentially unlawful abortions, IDOH’s refusal to disclose TPRs to Plaintiffs places human lives at risk. It also frustrates Voices For Life’s mission to protect the lives of mothers and the unborn. These results of the Public Access Counselor’s Informal Opinion are the opposite of what the statute intends in mandating creation and filing of TPRs. The Court must not allow this situation to continue.

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

4th Circuit: Ministerial Exception Bars Suit by Catholic School Teacher Fired Over Same-Sex Marriage Plans

In Billard v. Charlotte Catholic High School, (4th Cir., May 8, 2024), the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals held that a Catholic high school teacher's suit alleging sex discrimination in violation of Title VII should be dismissed. The court's majority held that the ministerial exception doctrine defeated the suit by the teacher of English and drama who was not invited back to teach after he announced plans to marry his same-sex partner. The majority, finding that the teacher should be classified as a "minister" for purposes of the ministerial exception, said in part:

[F]aith infused CCHS’s classes – and not only the expressly religious ones.  Even as a teacher of English and drama, Billard’s duties included conforming his instruction to Christian thought and providing a classroom environment consistent with Catholicism.  Billard may have been teaching Romeo and Juliet, but he was doing so after consultation with religious teachers to ensure that he was teaching through a faith-based lens....  The record makes clear that CCHS considered it “vital” to its religious mission that its teachers bring a Catholic perspective to bear on Shakespeare as well as on the Bible.   

Moreover, we note that Billard did – on rare occasions – fill in for teachers of religion classes.... CCHS’s apparent expectation that Billard be ready to instruct in religion as needed is another “relevant circumstance” indicating the importance of Billard’s role to the school’s religious mission.   

Our court has recognized before that seemingly secular tasks like the teaching of English and drama may be so imbued with religious significance that they implicate the ministerial exception.

The majority rejected the school's argument for broadening statutory defenses to the Title VII claim.

Judge King filed an opinion concurring in the result but differing as to rationale. He said in part:

... I would neither reach nor resolve the First Amendment ministerial exception issue on which the majority relies.  I would decide this appeal solely on Title VII statutory grounds, that is, § 702 of Title VII.... [M]y good friends of the panel majority have unnecessarily resolved the appeal on the First Amendment constitutional issue.  In so ruling, they have strayed from settled principles of the constitutional avoidance doctrine and our Court’s precedent.

Court Says NY Proposed Amendment on Abortion, Sexual Orientation and Gender May Not Go on Ballot

In Byrnes v. Senate of the State of New York, (Livingston County NY Sup. Ct., May 7, 2024), a New York state trial court held that the proposed state Equal Protection constitutional amendment must be removed from the November 2024 ballot because the state legislature did not follow the proper procedures in approving the amendment for placement on the ballot.  The proposed amendment (full text) would expand the state constitution's Equal Protection clause by adding ethnicity, national origin, age, disability, sex (including sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, pregnancy, pregnancy outcomes and reproductive healthcare and autonomy) to race, color, creed and religion that are already protected against discrimination by the clause. The clause covers discrimination by private individuals and firms as well as by the state and the proposed amendment provides that no characteristic listed in the section shall be interpreted to interfere with the civil rights of any other person based on any of the other characteristics listed. The court held that the state legislature's failure to wait 20 days for an Attorney General's opinion on the proposed amendment before taking the initial vote on it invalidated the Resolution proposing the amendment. The City reports on the decision.

NY Sues Crisis Pregnancy Centers for False Advertising

New York's Attorney General filed suit this week in a New York state trial court against eleven crisis pregnancy centers and their parent organization alleging that they have violated the state's deceptive business practices and false advertising laws in promoting abortion pill reversal. The complaint (full text) in People of the State of New York v. Heartbeat International, Inc., (NY County Sup. Ct., filed 5/6/2024), alleges in part:

There is no competent and reliable scientific evidence to substantiate Defendants’ claims about APR’s efficacy and safety, including the central promise that APR can “reverse” the “abortion pill.”  The process has never been FDA approved, and researchers and major medical professional associations in the United States and abroad, including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (“ACOG”), have warned that it is unproven and unscientific. 

New York Attorney General Letitia James issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Alabama May Not Prosecute Those Who Arrange Out-of-State Abortions for Women

In Yellowhammer Fund v. Marshall, (MD AL, May 6, 2024), an Alabama federal district court held that the state Attorney General would violate women's right to travel and the free expression rights of reproductive health providers and their staffs if he carried out his threat to prosecute anyone who assists women in arranging out-of-state abortions that would be illegal if performed in Alabama. Refusing to dismiss these claims by plaintiffs, the court said in part:

... [T]he Constitution protects the right to cross state lines and engage in lawful conduct in other States, including receiving an abortion.  The Attorney General’s characterization of the right to travel as merely a right to move physically between the States contravenes history, precedent, and common sense.  Travel is valuable precisely because it allows us to pursue opportunities available elsewhere.  “If our bodies can move among states, but our freedom of action is tied to our place of origin, then the ‘right to travel’ becomes a hollow shell.”...

Moving to plaintiffs' free expression claim, the court rejected the state's reliance on the exception found in the Supreme Court's 1949 Giboney decision for speech integral to unlawful conduct. The court went on to say in part:

Having established that the Attorney General’s attempt to invoke Giboney is unavailing, the court turns to whether the plaintiffs have stated a viable First Amendment claim, taking the factual allegations in their complaints as true.  The plaintiffs submit that the State plans to initiate a prosecution under Alabama’s statutes punishing conspiracy, complicity, solicitation, and other crimes based on the content of the speech they and their staff wish to engage in about out-of-state abortions.  “[C]ontent-based speech regulations face ‘strict scrutiny,’ the requirement that the government use the least restrictive means of advancing a compelling government interest.”...   

The Attorney General does not argue that his threatened prosecutions can satisfy strict scrutiny.

The Hill reports on the decision.

President Speaks at Holocaust Museum's Ceremony

President Biden yesterday spoke for nearly 15 minutes at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum's Annual Days of Remembrance Ceremony. (Full text of remarks.) He said in part:

This ancient hatred of Jews didn’t begin with the Holocaust; it didn’t end with the Holocaust, either, or after — or even after our victory in World War Two.  This hatred continues to lie deep in the hearts of too many people in the world, and it requires our continued vigilance and outspokenness.    

That hatred was brought to life on October 7th in 2023.  On a sacred Jewish holiday, the terrorist group Hamas unleashed the deadliest day of the Jewish people since the Holocaust.  

Driven by ancient desire to wipeout the Jewish people off the face of the Earth, over 1,200 innocent people — babies, parents, grandparents — slaughtered in their kibbutz, massacred at a musical festival, brutally raped, mutilated, and sexually assaulted.  Thousands more carrying wounds, bullets, and shrapnel from the memory of that terrible day they endured.  Hundreds taken hostage, including survivors of the Shoah.  

Now, here we are, not 75 years later but just seven and a half months later, and people are already forgetting.  They’re already forgetting that Hamas unleased this terror, that it was Hamas that brutalized Israelis, that it was Hamas who took and continues to hold hostages.  I have not forgotten, nor have you, and we will not forget....

Nebraska Governor Says State Will Not Comply with New Title IX Rules On Gender Identity Discrimination

As previously reported, last month the U.S. Department of Education promulgated new rules under Title IX on sex discrimination by educational programs receiving federal financial assistance. Among other things, the new rules provide that sex discrimination includes discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. Last Friday, Nebraska Governor Jim Pillen announced that Nebraska will not comply with the new title IX requirements which go into effect on August 1.  His announcement says in part:

 “The Biden administration’s rewrite of Title IX is an affront to the commonsense idea that men do not belong in women’s only spaces,” said Gov. Pillen. “It’s also a direct attack on the Women’s Bill of Rights, established by my executive order last August.” 

Gov. Pillen’s executive order declares the biological definition of male and female and protects women’s sports and the privacy of women-only spaces. 

"Protecting our kids and women’s athletics is my duty," said Gov. Pillen. "The President's new rules threaten the safety of women and their right to participate in women’s sports. Nebraska will not comply. We must fight against radical gender ideology and vigorously protect the rights of Nebraska women and girls.”

Vice President Issues Statement on Yom HaShoah

Today is Yom HaShoah. The White House has posted a Statement from Vice President Harris on Holocaust Remembrance Day (full text).  The Statement says in part:

[I]n recent days in the United States, we have seen hateful rhetoric and harassment against Jews. This is Antisemitism and must be condemned unequivocally. Hate of any kind has no place in our country.

For the Jewish people, the past seven months have evoked the memories—along with fear and anguish—of the Holocaust. So to all the Jewish people around the world, know this: President Joe Biden and I stand with you. We will fight Antisemitism with the full force of the U.S. government, including through the first-ever National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism. We will continue to stand with the people of Israel and its right to defend itself from those that threaten its existence. And we remain committed to Holocaust remembrance and education.

Like many Jewish Americans, my husband Doug has learned the harrowing stories of his family members that perished in the Holocaust. Last year, he traveled to the town where some of them lived in what is now Poland, and heard stories of family members shot and others who were deported to an unknown fate. He walked through the old Jewish Quarter of Krakow. And he visited Auschwitz-Birkenau, and the gas chambers, to bear witness.

President Biden will deliver the keynote address at tomorrow's commemoration at the Capitol Visitors Center, along with Congressional leaders.

UPDATE: On May 3, President Biden issued A Proclamation on Days of Remembrance of the Victims of the Holocaust, 2024 declaring May 5 through May 12 as a week of observance of the Days of Remembrance.  The Proclamation says in part:

I often reflect on memories of sitting around our kitchen table where my father would educate my siblings and me about the horrors of the Holocaust.  Entire families wiped out.  Communities savagely destroyed.  Survivors left with memories and traumas that will never go away — even as the tattoos etched into their skin by the Nazis fade and the number of survivors dwindles.  My dad taught us that silence is complicity — a lesson I have passed down to my children and grandchildren by taking them to the Dachau concentration camp in Germany.

Recent Articles of Interest

 From SSRN:

• Caitlin Millat, Race, Religion, and the Antiparallel, (American Journal of Law and Equality, Arizona State University Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law Legal Studies Research Paper No. 4776907 (2024).
• Danny Li, The Comstock Act's Equal Protection Problem, (April 26, 2024).
• Lawrence B. Solum, Original Public Meaning, (Michigan State Law Review, Vol. 2023, No. 807).
• Liz Tobin-Tyler, Putting Your Money Where Your Mouth Is: Maternal Health Policy After Dobbs, (Seton Hall Law Review, Vol. 53, 2023).
• Carlo A. Pedrioli, In re Marriage Cases, Same-Sex Marriage, and the California Supreme Court as Critical Social Movement Ally, (33 S. Cal. Interdisc. L.J. 137 (2023)).
• Alberto Alemanno, Philanthropy’s Commitment With the Future, (in Futures Philanthropy: Aspirations in the 21st century. Anticipation for the common good, Copenhagen Institute for Future Studies and Philea, Brussels, March 2024).

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

• Nicholas Stamates, The Legal Status of American Indians, South American Indians, and Alaska Natives under the Canon Law of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches as seen through Papal Bull, Missions, Indian Boarding Schools, the Amazonian Synod, and Orthodox Autocephaly, (Indigenous Peoples' Journal of Law, Culture & Resistance, UCLA School of Law, Vol 10. (Forthcoming)).
• Abubakar Yusuf Mamud, Ummah: a Holistic Framework for Preventing and Countering Violent Extremism in Nigeria, (March 16, 2024).
• Neil James Foster, Liability of a Bishop for Sexual Abuse Committed by Clergy: Bird v DP (A Pseudonym). (April 28, 2024).
• Tabrez Ebrahim, Islamic Intellectual Property, (Seton Hall Law Review, Vol. 54, No. 4, 2024).
• Craig B. Mousin, A Migrant 4 Life Journeys to the New Tower of Babel: Christianity and Immigration,  (Abrahamic Hospitality and Its Contemporary Implications, Ori Z. Soltes and Rachel Stern, eds., (NY: Fordham University Press, 2024)).
• Ebenezer Kojo Gyesi Mensah, Investigating International Criminal Law and Sovereignty Issues Surrounding the Prosecution of Heads of State for War Crimes and Genocide, (April 30, 2024).

From elsewhere:

• Special Issue: Theology and Jurisprudence, Australian Journal of Law & Religion, Volume 4 (2024).

White House Sends Greetings on Orthodox Christian Easter

The White House today issued a Statement from President Biden (full text) sending warm wishes from him and the First Lady to those celebrating Orthodox Christian Easter. The Statement says in part:

The Resurrection of Jesus Christ reminds us of God’s abundant love for us and the power of light over darkness. We join Orthodox Christians in giving thanks for these and other blessings and rededicate ourselves to caring for those most in need.

In this sacred season, we hold people who are suffering from war and persecution especially close to our hearts. We will continue to pray and work for peace and justice for all people.

Feds Sue Texas Correctional Authorities for Failing to Accommodate Employee's Religious Head Covering

The Justice Department today filed suit against the Texas Department of Criminal Justice alleging that it violated Title VII by failing to accommodate a clerical employee's religious practice of wearing a head covering pursuant to her Ifa faith. The complaint (full text) in United States v. Texas Department of Criminal Justice, (SD TX, filed 5/3/2024), alleges in part:

34. Though Spears identified her belief in the Ifa faith and her religious practice of wearing a head covering, TDCJ was not satisfied that her religious beliefs were sincere or should be accommodated. 

35. Instead, when Spears turned in her accommodation form, Fisk informed her that TDCJ would further research her religion and its practices. Spears questioned whether it was a normal practice to research religions. Specifically, she asked whether research would be done for more mainstream religions. Fisk indicated that it was not TDCJ’s normal practice.

 36. On October 15, 2019, Fisk conducted an internet search of the Ifa religion and practices and faxed the search results along with Spears’s accommodation request to Terry Bailey for her consideration. 

37. Then, on October 16, 2019, TDCJ further questioned the sincerity of Spears’s faith when Bailey mailed a letter demanding documentation or a statement from a religious institution pointing to the specific Ifa belief or doctrine that supported the necessity of Spears’s head covering. The letter also stated that TDCJ would not take any further action to review Spears’s accommodation request until the additional information was submitted.

The Department of Justice issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

USCIRF Issues Annual Report on Countries Violating Religious Freedom

On Tuesday, the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom released its 96-page 2024 Annual Report (full text). It detail developments in 28 countries and makes additional policy recommendations as well. As summarized by the agency's press release announcing the Report:

In its 2024 Annual Report, USCIRF recommends 17 countries to the U.S. Department of State for designation as Countries of Particular Concern (CPCs) based on their governments engaging in or tolerating particularly severe violations of the right to freedom of religion or belief. These include 12 that the State Department designated as CPCs in December 2023: Burma, China, Cuba, Eritrea, Iran, Nicaragua, North Korea, Pakistan, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Tajikistan, and Turkmenistan—as well as five additional recommendations: Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, India, Nigeria, and Vietnam.

The 2024 Annual Report also recommends 11 countries for placement on the State Department’s Special Watch List (SWL) based on their governments’ perpetration or toleration of severe violations of religious freedom. These include one that the State Department placed on that list in December 2023: Algeria—as well as 10 additional recommendations: Egypt, Indonesia, Iraq, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Malaysia, Sri Lanka, Syria, Turkey, and Uzbekistan. While the State Department included Vietnam on its SWL in December 2023, USCIRF believes the government of Vietnam’s violations rise to the level of CPC status. Additionally, USCIRF recommends the State Department add Kyrgyzstan to the SWL for the first time due to the Kyrgyz government’s heightened religious repression in 2023.

USCIRF further recommends to the State Department seven non-state actors for redesignation as Entities of Particular Concern (EPCs) for particularly severe religious freedom violations. The State Department designated all seven of these groups as EPCs in December 2023: al-Shabaab, Boko Haram, Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), the Houthis, Islamic State Sahel Province (IS Sahel), Islamic State in West Africa Province (ISWAP) (also referred to as ISIS-West Africa), and Jamaat Nasr al-Islam wal Muslimin (JNIM).

Northern Ireland Appeals Court Rejects Challenge To Religious Education In Schools

In re an Application by JR87, (NI CA, April 30, 2024), is an appeal in a challenge to the legality of religious education and collective worship practices in schools in Northern Ireland. In the case, parents who are humanists and are not raising their daughter in any religious tradition object to the Christian religious education and collective worship in their daughter's school. Among other things, they rely on Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights (Freedom of thought, conscience and religion) and Article 2 of Protocol 1 to the Convention which provides in part:

Education that is provided, whether public or private, must respect parents' religious and philosophical convictions. But so long as the curriculum and tuition are objective and pluralistic, the fact that it may conflict with some parents' convictions is not a breach.

The Northern Ireland Court of Appeal said in part:

In contrast to the secular reform of the education system in England and Wales facilitated through the 1870 and 1902 Education Acts, the Irish churches retained their ties to the school system.  In Northern Ireland, the 1923 Education Act introduced by the first Belfast government maintained the influence of the main churches in our education system.

A hundred years later, the provision of mandatory Christian education as standard in controlled schools was challenged by way of judicial review in these proceedings.  In the court below the applicants contended that the mandatory Christian religious education (“RE”) and collective worship (“CW”) currently provided in controlled primary schools in Northern Ireland is contrary to the religious freedom protections guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights (“ECHR”)....

... [W]e uphold the trial judge’s finding that the curriculum at issue in the present case is not conveyed in an objective, critical and pluralistic manner.  However, we hold that no breach of A2P1 has been established because of the existence of the unqualified statutory right of the parents to have their child excused wholly or partly from attendance at religious education or collective worship, or both in accordance with their request.

The Court's Communications Office also issued a summary of the decision. Law & Religion UK reports on the case.

Today Is National Day of Prayer

Pursuant to 36 USC §119, President Biden has issued a Proclamation (full text) declaring today as this year's National Day of Prayer.  The Proclamation reads in part:

On this National Day of Prayer, we recognize the power of prayer to strengthen our spirits, draw us together, and create hope for a better tomorrow.

The right to practice our faiths freely and openly is enshrined in the Constitution and remains at the core of our American spirit.  For centuries, Americans of every religion and background have come together to lift up one another and our Nation in prayer.  Throughout America’s history, faith and prayer have helped fuel some of the greatest moral missions of our time — from the abolition of slavery to the fight for voting rights and the Civil Rights Movement.  Many of our Nation’s greatest leaders have been motivated by faith to push all of us toward a more perfect Union and to bend the arc of the moral universe toward justice....

This year, my prayer for our Nation is that we keep faith that our best days are ahead of us and continue to believe in honesty, decency, dignity, and respect.  May we see each other not as enemies but as fellow human beings, each made in the image of God and each precious in His sight.  May we leave no one behind, give everyone a fair shot, and give hate no safe harbor.  May we remember that nothing is beyond our capacity if we act together.

The non-governmental National Day of Prayer Task Force has scheduled a Prayer Broadcast for 8:00 PM this evening. 

Arizona Legislature Repeals 160-Year-Old Abortion Ban

Yesterday the Arizona legislature gave final passage to HB2677 (full text) which repeals Arizona's 160-year-old near-total abortion ban that, according to the state Supreme Court, came back into effect when Roe v. Wade was overruled. (See prior posting.) However, the repeal does not go into effect until 90 days after the end of the legislative session. Governor Katie Hobbs has said she will sign the bill. When the repeal becomes effective, Arizona's 15-week abortion ban will be effective.  In November, Arizona voters will vote on a referendum to protect the right to pre-viability abortions. The Hill reports on developments.

Kansas Legislature Overrides Veto of Bill Requiring Information on Patient's Reason for Seeking Abortion

On April 29, the Kansas legislature overrode Governor Laura Kelly's veto of House Bill 2749. (Full text of bill and veto message). The bill requires abortion providers to ask each patient which of 11 reasons was the most important factor in the patient's decision to seek an abortion.  Biannual reports that do not disclose the identity of patients or doctors involved are to be filed with the state. They are to tabulate the reasons given and also provide demographic information about patients. A public report on abortions performed in the state is then to be issued. In vetoing the bill, Governor Kelly called the bill "invasive and unnecessary". ADF issued a press release supporting the legislature's override.

Court Dismisses Suit Over Disclosure of Clergy-Penitent Conversation

In Stephens v. Metropolitan New York Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, (Dutchess Cty. NY Sup. Ct., April 29, 2024), a New York state trial court dismissed a suit for breach of fiduciary duty, infliction of emotional distress, hostile work environment and defamation brought by an Episcopal clergyman, who was also on the Roster of Ministers of the Evangelical Lutheran Church. Plaintiff had sought out pastor Christopher Mietlowski for a confidential confessional conversation about an extramarital affair. Despite the assurance of confidentiality, Mietlowski disclosed the information to the bishop of the New York Synod of the ELCA who in turn disclosed the information to plaintiff's wife who was also a pastor. The bishop also disclosed the information to the Episcopal Church which suspended plaintiff's license to officiate. Subsequently, ELCA removed plaintiff from its roster of clergy.

The court held that even though New York has codified the clergy-penitent privilege, that provision does not give rise to a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty when a conversation between a congregant and a member of the clergy is disclosed. The court also rejected plaintiff's claims growing out of his removal from the roster of ministers of the ELCA saying that this was an ecclesiastical decision about a minister's qualifications to serve which is beyond the power of civil courts to review.

President Declares May To Be Jewish American Heritage Month

On April 30, President Biden issued a Proclamation (full text) declaring May 2024 as Jewish American Heritage Month. The Proclamation reads in part:

This Jewish American Heritage Month, we honor Jewish Americans, who have never given up on the promise of our Nation.  We celebrate the contributions, culture, and values that they have passed down from generation to generation and that have shaped who we are as Americans.  We remember that the power lies within each of us to rise together against hate, to see each other as fellow human beings, and to ensure that the Jewish community is afforded the safety, security, and dignity they deserve as they continue to shine their light in America and around the world.

Accommodating Teacher's Anti-Transgender Beliefs Created Undue Hardship for School Under Title VII

In Kluge v. Brownsburg Community School Corporation, (SD IN, April 30, 2024), an Indiana federal district court in a 46-page opinion that sets out extensive factual background information, dismissed an orchestra teacher's Title VII claim that the school had failed to reasonably accommodate his religious objections to referring to transgender students by their preferred names and pronouns. The school had initially permitted the teacher to refer to students by their last names only, but later withdrew that accommodation and forced the teacher's resignation. A primary issue in the case was whether continuing to allow a last-names-only accommodation would create an "undue hardship" for the school under the Supreme Court's definition of that term in its 2023 decision in Groff v. DeJoy. Finding that it would, the court said in part:

BCSC's business is "educating all students," which it achieves by "fostering a learning environment of respect and affirmation."...  Part of that is BCSC's mission to "afford[] dignity and empathy toward transgender students."...  Parents, medical professionals, administrators, and many students all agree that pursuing that mission would require transgender students to be addressed by their preferred names and pronouns....

Lest there be any doubt about disruption, Mr. Kluge himself believed that the Last Names Only Accommodation would result in disruption and indeed was encouraged by it.  He explained to Dr. Daghe that far from resigning, he was "encouraged all the more to stay." ...  After all, he believed, his "persecution" was "a sign that [his] faith as witnessed by using last-names-only . . . was being effective."...  Faced with Mr. Kluge's own statements—"pleading" with the school to avoid going down the "transgender path," seeking to discuss with students their "eternal destination," and hoping to stay because his "persecution" surrounding the Last Names Only Accommodation was being "effective"—complaints from others were hardly necessary.  While the Last Names Only Accommodation might have been intended as neutral, it ultimately was perceived as intentional....

As the Supreme Court held in Groff, undue hardship is to be viewed within the context of a particular business, not a particular employee.  The Court compares the cost to BCSC's mission, not Mr. Kluge's.  BCSC could either support its transgender students in pursuit of its mission and comply with the law, or accede to Mr. Kluge's accommodation and risk harm to students and the learning environment and/or substantial and disruptive litigation.... The law of Title VII does not require BCSC to continue an accommodation that actually resulted in substantial student harm, and an unreasonable risk of liability, each sharply contradicting the school's legally entitled mission to foster a supportive environment for all.  The Last Names Only Accommodation was an undue burden to BCSC as a matter of law.....

Excluding Gender-Affirming Care from Governmental Insurance Coverage Violates Equal Protection

In Kadel v. Folwell, (4th Cir., April 29, 2024), the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals sitting en banc, in an 8-6 decision, held that an exclusion in North Carolina's state employee healthcare plan for treatment "in connection with sex changes or modifications" violates the equal protection clause. The majority held that "the coverage exclusions facially discriminate on the basis of sex and gender identity, and are not substantially related to an important government interest...." The majority held that the exclusion for "transexual surgery" in West Virginia's Medicaid program similarly violates the equal protection clause as well as the Medicaid Act. The majority in its 58-page opinion said in part:

[D]iscriminating on the basis of diagnosis is discriminating on the basis of gender identity and sex.  The coverage exclusions are therefore subject to intermediate scrutiny.  They cannot meet that heightened standard.

Judge Richardson, joined by Judges Wilkinson, Niemeyer, and Quattlebaum, and joined in part by Judges Agee and Rushing, said in part:

The Equal Protection Clause does not license judges to strike down any policy we disagree with.  It instead grants the states leeway to tailor policies to local circumstances, while providing a carefully calibrated remedy for truly illicit discrimination.  No such discrimination appears in these cases.  North Carolina and West Virginia do not target members of either sex or transgender individuals by excluding coverage for certain services from their policies.  They instead condition coverage on whether a patient has a qualifying diagnosis....

Judge Wilkinson filed a dissenting opinion, saying in part:

In the era of Roe, it was substantive due process. Now it is substantive equal protection. Make no mistake. The fundamental rights prong of equal protection is what is at play here, and while constitutionally mandating state-funded transgender rights will please some, it will politicize the courts in the eyes of all as assuredly as its substantive due process predecessor did....

Some States are reluctant to fund emerging treatments until the science can tell us more. Not only is the medical data conflicting, but there is a moral caution in this case as well. Self-righteous folly has long run through us all. The Tower of Babel toppled of its own hubristic weight. Yet still we moderns strive to bend nature to desire.

Judge Quattlebaum, joined by Judges Agee, Richardson and Rushing, filed a dissenting opinion, saying in part:

In order to conclude that no legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons support denying coverage for certain treatments of gender dysphoria, the majority abandons settled evidentiary principles. Properly accounting for the record, questions about the medical necessity and efficacy of such treatments linger. And those lingering questions support the states’ coverage decisions.

NPR reports on the decision.

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Mohammad Fadel, Sacrifice, Liberalism and the Qurʾan's Revisionist Reading of the Akeda: An Islamic Contribution to the Political Theology of Democracy, (Behind the Story: Ethical Readings of Qurʾānic Narratives, Studies in Islamic Ethics, Vol. 6 (Brill, 2024)).
• Nicholas Hatzis, Wearing Religious Symbols, (Ian Loveland (ed.) British and Canadian Public Law in Comparative Perspective (Hart 2021)).
• Mark Kende, The U.S. Supreme Court's Dobbs Abortion Decision: a Bitter Pill to Swallow, (Drake Law Review, Vol. 71, No. 1, 2024).
• Reva B. Siegel, The 'Levels of Generality' Game, or 'History and Tradition' as the Right’s Living Constitution, (Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, Vol. 47, 2024).
• Teri Dobbins Baxter, Child Sacrifices: The Precarity of Minors’ Autonomy and Bodily Integrity After Dobbs, (University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law, Vol. 26, No. 4, 2024).
• Nicole Steitz, Brian G. Slocum & Kevin Tobia, The Broad Church of Modern Textualism, (Brooklyn Journal of Law and Policy, Forthcoming).

Arizona Governor Vetoes Bill That Would Have Required Transgender Individuals to Use Alternate Single Occupancy Showers in Public Schools

On April 23, Arizona Governor Katie Hobbs vetoed Arizona Senate bill 1182. (Full text of veto letter.) The bill, titled the "Arizona Accommodations for All Children Act" (full text) would have required public schools to provide single occupancy showers to transgender individuals who are unwilling to use multi-occupancy showers that correspond to their biological sex as determined at birth. In order to obtain the accommodation of a single occupancy shower, the individual would have been required to make a written request and to furnish satisfactory evidence of the person's sex. If that accommodation is refused, the person would have a cause of action against the public school. Conversely, any person who encounters a person of the opposite sex in a multi-occupancy shower room also has a cause of action against the school if a school employee or administrator gave the person permission to use the shower. In either case, the plaintiff could recover for psychological, emotional and physical harm.

New HIPPA Rules Protect Against Disclosure to Law Enforcement of Out-of-State Abortions

On April 22, the Department of Health and Human Services issued new rules under HIPPA to protect the privacy of reproductive health care.  The rules were adopted in a 291-page Release (full text) (press release). The rules are designed to protect women (and those who assist them) who travel out of state for an abortion that is not legal in their state of residence. A Fact Sheet issued by the Department of Health and Human Services summarizes the new rules, saying in part:

The Final Rule strengthens privacy protections by prohibiting the use or disclosure of protected health information (PHI) by a covered health care provider, health plan, or health care clearinghouse—or their business associate—for either of the following activities:

To conduct a criminal, civil, or administrative investigation into or impose criminal, civil, or administrative liability on any person for the mere act of seeking, obtaining, providing, or facilitating reproductive health care, where such health care is lawful under the circumstances in which it is provided.

The identification of any person for the purpose of conducting such investigation or imposing such liability.

... [T]he prohibition applies where...:

The reproductive health care is lawful under the law of the state in which such health care is provided under the circumstances in which it is provided....

The reproductive health care is protected, required, or authorized by Federal law, including the U.S. Constitution, regardless of the state in which such health care is provided....

19th News reports on the new rules. [Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]

Sikh Court Opens in Britain

Religion Media Center reports that in England, the world's first Sikh court opened last Saturday. However, unlike Muslim and Jewish religious courts, Sikhism does not have its own legal code.

 According to the report:

The court [in London] was set up by Sikh lawyers who felt that secular judges lacked the religious and cultural expertise to deal with disputes between Sikhs. It will operate as an alternative forum for dispute resolution for UK-based Sikhs involved in family and civil disputes....

[Baldip Singh] aid its purpose would be “to assist Sikh families in their time of need when dealing with conflict and disputes in line with Sikh principles”....

[The court will] work within the remit of the Arbitration Act (1996), under which anyone — legally qualified or not — can sit as arbitrator so long as both parties agree to submit to the same set of rules....

At the first instance, Sikh court “magistrates” will mediate in disputes to try to negotiate a settlement, as well as directing court users to courses that can help them work on issues that have contributed to the dispute. These courses, developed with Sikh charities, cover low-level domestic violence, anger management, gambling and substance misuse and are available in Punjabi as well as English....

Florida Authorizes Volunteer Chaplains in Schools

On April 18, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis signed HB 931. The bill (full text) allows school districts to authorize volunteer school chaplains to provide support, services, and programs to students. Schools must require parental consent for students to avail themselves of chaplain's support, services or programs. Liberty Counsel issued a press release announcing the signing of the bill.

Qualified Immunity Granted in Denial of Religious Exemption from Vaccine Mandate

In Babiy v. Oregon Health and Science University, (D OR, April 22, 2024), an Oregon federal district court dismissed claims for damages brought against a medical school and involved individuals by a patient access specialist who was denied a religious exemption from its Covid vaccine mandate. The University's policy was to deny religious exemptions where their claim was based solely on fetal cell concerns. The court said in part:

... Plaintiff has failed to prove that it was clearly established at the relevant time that the Doe Defendants were barred from (1) attempting to distinguish between religious and secular objections to a vaccine or (2) in that effort, denying exemptions to a state-mandated vaccine mandate to employees who expressed ostensibly religious objections to the use of fetal cells in the development of the vaccine. Accordingly, the Court grants Defendants’ Motion and dismisses Plaintiff's second claim under the doctrine of qualified immunity to the extent that Plaintiff seeks damages. The Court, however, denies Defendants’ Motion to the extent that Plaintiff seeks declaratory or injunctive relief under her first amendment claim.

Supreme Court Hears Arguments on Whether Federal Emergency Treatment Law Preempts State Abortion Ban

The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday heard oral arguments in Moyle v. United States, (Docket No. 23-726) and Idaho v. United States, (Docket No. 23-727). (Audio and Transcript of full oral arguments). The case poses the question of whether the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act that requires hospitals accepting Medicare to provide stabilizing emergency treatment to patients preempts state abortion bans when such treatment would involve pregnancy termination. The Court took the case without waiting for 9th Circuit review. (See prior posting.) SCOTUSblog reports on the oral arguments.

President Biden Issues Passover Statement

Passover begins this evening. Yesterday President Biden issued a Statement on Passover (full text) which says in part:

Tomorrow night, Jews around the world will celebrate Passover, recounting their miraculous Exodus story from hundreds of years of enslavement in Egypt and their journey to freedom. This holiday reminds us of a profound and powerful truth: that even in the face of persecution, if we hold on to faith, we shall endure and overcome....

My commitment to the safety of the Jewish people, the security of Israel, and its right to exist as an independent Jewish state is ironclad. My Administration is working around the clock to free the hostages, and we will not rest until we bring them home. We are also working to establish an immediate and prolonged ceasefire in Gaza as a part of a deal that releases the hostages and delivers desperately needed humanitarian aid to Palestinian civilians. We will continue to work toward a two-state solution that provides equal security, prosperity, and enduring peace for Israelis and Palestinians. And we are leading international efforts to ensure Israel can defend itself against Iran and its proxies, including by directing the U.S. military to help defend Israel against Iran’s unprecedented attacks last weekend.

The ancient story of persecution against Jews in the Haggadah also reminds us that we must speak out against the alarming surge of Antisemitism – in our schools, communities, and online. Silence is complicity. Even in recent days, we’ve seen harassment and calls for violence against Jews. This blatant Antisemitism is reprehensible and dangerous – and it has absolutely no place on college campuses, or anywhere in our country. My Administration will continue to speak out and aggressively implement the first-ever National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism, putting the full force of the federal government behind protecting the Jewish community....

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Marcia L. McCormick, Dobbs and Exit in Antidiscrimination Law, (Employee Rights and Employment Policy Journal, Vol. 27, No. 1, 2024).
• Cassidy Terrazas, How Far is Too Far?: Weighing Freedom of Religion with the Best Interest of the Child Standard, (April 18, 2024).
• Kristine L. Bowman, The New Parents' Rights Movement, Education, and Equality, (University of Chicago Law Review, Vol. 91, No. 2, 2024).
• Russell K. Robinson & David M. Frost, Marriage Equality & Intersectionality, (Anal Soc Issues Public Policy 2023; 23:219–240).
• Ezra Rosser, Progress and the Taking of Indigenous Land, (85 Ohio State Law Journal (forthcoming 2024)).
• Danielle Kie Hart, In This Moment, (Southwestern University Law Review, Forthcoming).
• Deogratias Mbonyumugenzi, Trinity, Patriarchy, and White Supremacy: Theological perspectives from Catherine LaCugna’s Trinitarian Retrieval, (April 16, 2024).

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

• Frederik Zuiderveen Borgesius, Philipp Hacker, Nina Baranowska & Alessandro Fabris, Non-discrimination law in Europe, a primer. Introducing European non-discrimination law to non-lawyers, (April 7, 2024).
• Leticia Bonifaz Alfonzo & Rosalba Mora, Decriminalization of Abortion by the Mexican Supreme Court, (International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics 165.1 (April 2024): 375–381).
• Meital Pinto, 'Who are the Landlords Here?' Group Rights in the Age of Populism: Jewish Ownership of Symbolic and Geographic Space in Israel, (7(1) Cardozo Int'l. & Compar. L. Rev. 215 (2024)).
• Mohammad Fadel, The Believer Does Not Humiliate Himself (Al-MuʾMin Lā Yudhill Nafsahu): The Ethics of Anti-Subordination and the Decolonization of Islamic Family Law, (2023).
• Mohammad Fadel, Islamic Law, Islamic Legal History and the Possibility of Muslim Self-Government (2023).
• Matthew Cavedon, “We Is Not Converted”: Kongolese Catholics, the Stono Rebellion, and Spanish Religious Sanctuary, (April 8, 2024).

ED Issues New Rules Under Title IX Protecting Against LGBTQ+ Discrimination

The Department of Education yesterday, in a 1577-page Release (full text), issued its final rules under Title IX on sex discrimination by educational programs receiving federal financial assistance. Among other things, the new rules provide:

§ 106.10 Scope.   Discrimination on the basis of sex includes discrimination on the basis of sex stereotypes, sex characteristics, pregnancy or related conditions, sexual orientation, and gender identity.  

§ 106.31 Education programs or activities....   (a)(2) In the limited circumstances in which Title IX or this part permits different treatment or separation on the basis of sex, a recipient must not carry out such different treatment or separation in a manner that discriminates on the basis of sex by subjecting a person to more than de minimis harm.... Adopting a policy or engaging in a practice that prevents a person from participating in an education program or activity consistent with the person’s gender identity subjects a person to more than de minimis harm on the basis of sex.  

In its Release, DOE said in part:

With respect to religious educational institutions, the Department agrees with commenters that §§ 106.10 and 106.31(a)(2) do not apply to an educational institution that is controlled by a religious organization to the extent that the provisions’ application would not be consistent with the religious tenets of such organization. 20 U.S.C. 1681(a)(3). If an institution wishes to claim an exemption, its highest-ranking official may submit a written statement to the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, identifying the provisions of Title IX that conflict with a specific tenet of the controlling religious organization. 34 CFR 106.12(b). 

The Department notes that that the religious exemption in Title IX applies to an “educational institution” or other “entity’ that is controlled by a religious organization, 20 U.S.C. 1681(a)(3); 1687(4); it does not address an individual student or employee’s exercise of their religious beliefs. As commenters also noted, however, RFRA provides that the Federal government “shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion” unless the government “demonstrates that application of the burden to the person . . . is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and . . . is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.” 42 U.S.C. 2000bb–1.  

... OCR considers RFRA’s requirements when it evaluates a recipient’s compliance with Title IX. An individual may also inform the Department of a burden or potential burden under RFRA by sending an email to RFRA@ed.gov....  

With regard to commenters’ concerns related to the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment, § 106.6(d) explicitly states that nothing in the regulations requires a recipient to restrict rights protected under the First Amendment or other constitutional provisions. The Department, likewise, must act in accordance with the U.S. Constitution.

The new rules also make other changes, including changes in grievance procedures. NPR reports on the rule changes.

UPDATE: On April 30, suit was filed by a Louisiana school district challenging the extension of Title IX to discrimination on the basis of gender identity. (Full text of complaint in Rapides Parish School Board v. U.S. Department of Education, (WD LA, filed 4/30/2024)).

Alabama Supreme Court: Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine Does Not Apply to Church Property Ownership Dispute

In Ex parte The Alabama-West Florida Conference of the United Methodist Church, Inc., (AL Sup. Ct., April 12, 2024), the Alabama Supreme Court held that the parent bodies of the Methodist Church in Alabama had not shown that an ownership dispute between them and a local church in Dothan, Alabama should be dismissed under the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine. The Methodist Church's Book of Discipline required church deeds to contain a clause providing the property was held in trust for the parent church. The deed to the Dothan church did not contain such a clause. Four of the Court's 9 Justices recused themselves in the case, and two lower appellate court judges were appointed to sit with the remaining 5 regular Justices to hear the case.  In the opinion for the court written by Justice Cook and concurred in by three others, the Court said in part:

First, the AWFC and the GCFA's claim that this is a church dispute over ecclesiastical, rather than property, issues is premised on the erroneous assertion that "Harvest wants the [trial] court to create a new disaffiliation process just for Harvest contrary to church law." ...

Harvest's complaint does not seek judicial review of the disaffiliation procedure set forth in the Book of Discipline or otherwise ask the trial court to judicially declare that Harvest's vote to sever its affiliation with the UMC was consistent with the Book of Discipline's requirements....

Instead, the complaint asks that the trial court (1) to recognize that Harvest "alone is the absolute, full, exclusive, fee simple owner of all real or personal property that is owned by [Harvest], held for [Harvest], or titled in its name," (2) to declare that the UMC and the AWFC do not have "any trust, equitable, or beneficial interest in any of the real or personal property so owned by [Harvest],"....

Accordingly, Harvest's claim, on the face of the complaint, pertains solely to the ownership and control of the local church property -- an issue that civil courts generally can resolve by applying "neutral principles of law." 

Chief Justice Parker filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the result, saying in part:

While I believe that the main opinion accurately applies our precedents on the limited issue of church-property disputes, I believe that it goes too far in announcing a grand unifying theory applicable to all church-dispute cases that will unfortunately result in a loss of religious liberty. 

Justice Sellers filed an opinion concurring in the result, saying in part:

[I]n my opinion, once Harvest used the civil legal system to file its deed and organizational documents, it consented to have secular law applied to its filings and, thus, opened the door to have any property dispute resolved pursuant to neutral principles of law.

Special Justice Edwards concurred in the result. 

5th Circuit Remands Muslim Inmate's RLUIPA and Establishment Clause Claims

 In Lozano v. Collier, (5th Cir., April 11, 2024), the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a portion of the district court's decision and vacated another portion of it in a challenge by a Muslim inmate to practices that allegedly burdened plaintiff's ability to exercise his religion. The court said in part:

In his first RLUIPA claim, Lozano alleges that the [Texas Department of Criminal Justice] Defendants burdened his religious exercise by denying him the opportunity to shower privately with other Muslim inmates for Jumah.  He alleges that the shower conditions—which include inmates who are “naked, cussing, speaking idol talk” and inmates who are “homosexuals and predators”—make it impossible for him to meet his “holy obligation for cleanliness in prayer for Jumah”...   

Lozano’s second RLUIPA claim, alleges that the TDCJ defendants burdened his religious liberty by denying him a private cell to pray..... Lozano alleges... that other inmates in his cell intruded into his prayer space and tried to provoke him to fight them during his attempts to pray....

Lozano’s third RLUIPA claim involves an alleged lack of access to religious programming and instruction, namely, Taleem and Quranic studies. ...

In his § 1983 claim, Lozano contends that the existence of Jewish- and Native-American-designated units, and the absence of a Muslim-designated unit, constitutes a neutrality problem and violates the Establishment Clause.  

Lozano also alleges that the TDCJ’s faith-based dormitories have a curriculum that requires inmates to attend Christian-based classes, despite the faith-based dorms being nominally open to inmates of all religions. ...

... [W]e reverse the district court’s order granting summary judgment on Lozano’s RLUIPA claims... and vacate and remand for further consideration....

The district court held that Lozano failed to demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact on whether the absence of a Muslim-designated unit or dorm violates the Establishment Clause.... We vacate and remand this claim to the district court to reconsider, in a manner consistent with applicable precedent and this opinion....

Supreme Court Clarifies Harm Requirement in Title VII Job Transfer Claims

 In Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, (Sup. Ct., April 17, 2024), the U.S. Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice Kagan, clarified the extent to which harm must be shown in a Title VII employment discrimination case in which plaintiff alleges a discriminatory job transfer. The court said in part:

The courts below rejected the claim on the ground that the transfer did not cause Muldrow a “significant” employment disadvantage.  Other courts have used similar standards in addressing Title VII suits arising from job transfers. 

Today, we disapprove that approach. Although an employee must show some harm from a forced transfer to prevail in a Title VII suit, she need not show that the injury satisfies a significance test.  Title VII’s text nowhere establishes that high bar....

To make out a Title VII discrimination claim, a transferee must show some harm respecting an identifiable term or condition of employment.

What the transferee does not have to show, according to the relevant text, is that the harm incurred was “significant.” ... Or serious, or substantial, or any similar adjective suggesting that the disadvantage to the employee must exceed a heightened bar.

Justices Thomas, Alito and Kavanaugh each filed a separate opinion concurring in the judgment, but differing to some extent with the majority's reasoning. 

Although this case involved sex discrimination, the test would apply equally to religiously discriminatory job transfers. Wisconsin Public Radio reports on the decision.

British Court Upholds School's Ban on Student Prayer

In The King (On the application of TTT) v. Michaela Community Schools Trust, (High Ct., Kings Bench, April 16, 2024), a British trial court in an 83-page opinion rejected a Muslim student's challenge to a secular secondary school's Prayer Ritual Policy (PRP) that prevented the student from using part of her lunch break to perform her Duhr prayer. The policy was adopted by the high-performing school, in which half of the students were Muslim, after prayer by some students led to divisions within the student body and to threatening social media posts.

The court said in part:

It seems to me that this is a case ... where the Claimant at the very least impliedly accepted, when she enrolled at the School, that she would be subject to restrictions on her ability to manifest her religion. She knew that the School is secular and her own evidence is that her mother wished her to go there because it was known to be strict....

... [W]hilst accepting that her belief is that she should perform Duhr during the relevant 25 minutes of the lunch break in the winter months, and that this belief falls within Article 9 [of the European Convention on Human Rights], the evidence indicates that the effect of the PRP is that Qada is available to mitigate the failure to pray within the allotted window....

... [B]alancing the adverse effects of the PRP on the rights of Muslim pupils at the School with the aims of the PRP and the extent to which it is likely to achieve those aims, I have concluded that the latter outweighs the former and that the PRP is proportionate....

The court also rejected the claim that the prayer policy violated Britain's Equality Act. The court also issued a press release summarizing the decision. The Guardian reports on the decision. [Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]

House Brands Palestinian Slogan as Antisemitic

Yesterday the U.S. House of Representatives by a vote of 377-44 adopted House Resolution 883 (full text) stating that the slogan, "from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free'" is antisemitic. After 29 "Whereas" clauses, the Resolution reads:

That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that—

(1) the slogan, “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free”, is outrightly antisemitic and must be strongly condemned; 

(2) this slogan is divisive and does a disservice to Israelis, Palestinians, and all those in the region who seek peace;

(3) this slogan rejects calls for peace, stability, and safety in the region;

(4) this slogan perpetuates hatred against the State of Israel and the Jewish people; and

(5) anyone who calls for the eradication of Israel and the Jewish people are antisemitic and must always be condemned.

Ohio Court Issues TRO Against Bill Barring Gender-Affirming Care for Minors and Transgender Women on Sports Teams

 In Moe v. Yost, (OH Com. Pl., April 16, 2024), an Ohio state trial court issued a 14-day temporary restraining order preventing the state from enforcing House Bill 68 which enacted the Saving Ohio Adolescents from Experimentation (SAFE) Act barring gender transition services for minors and the Save Women's Sports Act that barred transgender women from competing on women's sports teams. (See prior posting.) The bill was set to take effect on April 24. The court concluded that the bill likely violates the provision in the Ohio Constitution that states: "No bill shall contain more than one subject..." The ACLU says that it "will continue the litigation to ultimately obtain a permanent injunction on behalf of Ohio families whose children are at risk of losing critical life-saving medical care." National Review reports on the decision.