Religion Clause

Wednesday, April 13, 2016

Norway's State Church Approves Same-Sex Marriage

According to Fox News, Norway's state church-- the Evangelical Lutheran Church-- voted on Monday to approve same-sex marriages. It will adopt procedures to implement the decision at next year's church synod. While 88 of the synod's 115 members voted in favor of the proposal, the resolution also allows objecting clergy to refrain from performing same-sex ceremonies.

Tennessee Legislature Protects Therapists Whose "Principles" Conflict With Client's Behaviors

The Tennessee General Assembly yesterday passed HB 1840/SB 1556 (full text) which provides in part:

No counselor or therapist providing counseling or therapy services shall be required to counsel or serve a client as to goals, outcomes, or behaviors that conflict with the sincerely held principles of the counselor or therapist; provided, that the counselor or therapist coordinates a referral of the client to another counselor or therapist who will provide the counseling or therapy.

The bill insulates counselors and therapists from civil liability and criminal prosecution. It also protects them from license suspension or revocation except when their refusal to treat involves an individual who is in imminent danger of harming himself or others. The bill now goes to Gov. Bill Haslam for his signature. As reported by the Christian Science Monitor, it is unclear whether Haslam will sign the bill or veto it. He has 10 days to decide.

An earlier narrower version of the bill protected therapists' sincerely held religious beliefs, but the bill as passed protects any "sincerely held principles." The American Counseling Association, which strongly opposes the bill, says:

HB 1840 is an unprecedented attack on the American Counseling Association’s Code of Ethics.... If HB 1840 is signed into law, its enactment could also jeopardize federal healthcare funding for Tennessee because the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has clearly stated that no state has the authority to deny healthcare to anyone based on religion, race, sexual orientation, or other federally protected populations.

North Carolina Governor Issues Executive Order Emphasizing LGBT Rights Retained After H.B. 2

As previously reported, last month the North Carolina General Assembly passed, and Gov. Pat McCrory signed, House Bill 2 regulating the use by transgender individuals of bathrooms and changing facilities in public schools and government offices. The new law also pre-empts local employment and public accommodation anti-discrimination laws and prohibits civil actions in state courts based on discrimination complaints filed with the federal EEOC. After, in the language of the New York Times, "withering criticism" since the law was enacted, yesterday Gov. McCrory issued (signing statement) Executive Order No. 93 (full text) going as far as possible within the new law to protect LGBT rights.

The Executive Order emphasizes that House Bill 2 did not pre-empt local laws on housing discrimination, and that it allows state and local governments, as well as private businesses and non-profits, to set non-discrimination policies for their own employees. The Order provides that:

North Carolina is committed to administering and implementing all State human resources policies, practices and programs fairly and equitably, without unlawful discrimination, harassment or retaliation on the basis of race, religion, color, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, age, political affiliation, genetic information, or disability.

It also calls on state and local governments and colleges to provide single occupancy restroom accommodations for transgender individuals wherever practicable. It provides that when state property is leased by private entities, those private entities may control restroom and locker room policies. It calls for the state Human Relations Commission to submit an annual report to the governor, and calls on the legislature to restore a state cause of action for wrongful discharge based on unlawful employment discrimination.

Parties Respond To Supreme Court's Proposed Contraceptive Compromise In Zubik Case

As previously reported, last month the U.S. Supreme Court in Zubik v. Burwell issued an unusual order seeking the parties' reactions to a Court drafted compromise on provision of health insurance contraceptive coverage for employees of religious non-profits. Yesterday both the government (full text of Government's brief) and the petitioners (full text of Petitioners' brief) filed briefs with their answers. Neither side totally bought into the Court's alternative. At the center of their disagreement is the question of whether employees of objecting religious non-profits will end up automatically receiving contraceptive coverage from an alternative source, or whether they will have to take separate independent action in order to obtain that coverage. The compromise floated in the Supreme Court's Order is ambiguous in this regard, suggesting:

Petitioners ... would not be required to submit any separate notice to their insurer, to the Federal Government, or to their employees. At the same time, petitioners’ insurance company—aware that petitioners are not providing certain contraceptive coverage on religious grounds—would separately notify petitioners’ employees that the insurance company will provide cost-free contraceptive coverage....

In responding to the Court's proposal, the Government said in part:

Requiring an employer seeking an exemption from the contraceptive-coverage requirement to provide written notice plays an important role in implementing the accommodation, and eliminating that requirement would impose real costs on the parties whose rights and duties are affected—including objecting employers. But the accommodation for employers with insured plans could be modified to operate in the manner posited in the Court’s order while still ensuring that the affected women receive contraceptive coverage seamlessly, together with the rest of their health coverage.

On the other hand, Petitioners argued:

Under the current regulatory scheme, there is just a single plan that automatically comes with payments for contraceptive services. Petitioners’ employees, therefore, automatically receive free contraceptive coverage solely by virtue of their enrollment in petitioners’ plans. There is no reason why this must be so. Instead, to truly separate petitioners from the contraceptive coverage, there should, at a minimum, be “two separate health insurance policies (that is, the group health insurance policy and the individual contraceptive coverage policy),”... with separate enrollment processes, insurance cards, payment sources, and communication streams....

[I]f the contraceptive coverage is to be truly separate, not just an automatic and unavoidable component of the petitioner’s plan, then it must have an enrollment process that is distinct from (and not an automatic consequence of) enrolling in the employer’s plan. Otherwise, it is not independent of the employer’s plan. That process certainly need not be complex. Like activating a credit card, it could be as simple as having the insurance company send each eligible employee a contraceptive coverage card with a sticker attached providing a telephone number to call or website portal to use should she wish to activate the coverage.

Both the government and petitioners recognized that the Court's proposed alternative failed to deal with non-profits that self-insure and use third-party administrators to implement coverage. They both also recognized that petitioners' objections are more difficult to deal with in this context. The government's answer was that some designation or self-certification by the non-profit is unavoidable here, but " any employer that objects to a feature of the accommodation unique to self-insured plans can switch to an insured plan."

The non-profits, on the other hand, devoted a significant portion of their brief to the problem of self-insured employers, saying in part:

If commercial insurance companies begin making truly separate contraceptive coverage available to the employees of petitioners with insured plans as contemplated by this Court’s order, then there should be no legal obstacle to allowing additional individuals to enroll in those plans, whether directly through the insurer or through the Exchanges.....

The only question, then, would be how employees of employers with self-insured plans would learn of the availability of those contraceptive-only policies. Asking the objecting employer or the objecting church plan to provide employees with that information would go well beyond what this Court’s order contemplates and what RFRA can tolerate. But there are other means through which individuals could learn about the availability of such contraceptive-only policies and how to enroll. For instance, the government itself could provide that information and assist individuals in enrollment.....

The government also could require doctors and other healthcare providers who have no religious objections to contraception to provide individuals with information about how to enroll in a contraceptive only plan if their employer’s plan does not include such coverage, and to help them complete that process should they choose to do so.

Wall Street Journal reports on the briefs.

Tuesday, April 12, 2016

Challenge To Catholic Hospitals' Ethical Directives Dismissed On Standing and Ripeness Grounds

A Michigan federal district court has dismissed on standing and ripeness grounds a challenge to the Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services followed by Catholic hospitals. In ACLU v. Trinity Health Corp., (ED MI, April 11, 2016), the ACLU sued claiming that provisions in the Directives that prevent terminating a pregnancy to stabilize a woman's condition when emergency complications occur violate the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act and the Rehabilitation Act. The court held that allegations of past injury because of the hospital's compliance with the Directives does not give standing for future-looking declaratory and injunctive relief, and allegations regarding one woman who is currently pregnant do not show a substantial risk of pregnancy complications or likelihood of future treatment at defendant's hospitals. A report from Michigan Radio has reactions of the parties to the decision.

10th Circuit:Dismisses As Moot Challenge To Utah Polygamy Law

In Brown v. Buhman, (10th Cir., April 11, 2016), the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed on mootness grounds the constitutional challenge to Utah's anti-polygamy laws that had been filed by the polygamous family from the television show "Sister Wives." A federal district court had held most of Utah's ban unconstitutional. (See prior posting.) The 10th Circuit, however, concluded that a new prosecution policy announced by the County Attorney for Utah County after the suit was originally filed has mooted the case. County Attorney Jeffrey Buhman issued a policy that states:

The Utah County Attorney’s Office will prosecute the crime of bigamy under [the Statute] in two circumstances: (1) When a victim is induced to marry through their partner’s fraud, misrepresentation or omissions; or (2) When a person purports to marry or cohabits with another person in violation of [the Statute] and is also engaged in some type of abuse, violence or fraud. This office will prosecute the crime of child bigamy under Section 76-7-101.5 regardless of whether one of the parties is also engaged in some type of abuse, violence or fraud.

Further supporting the finding of mootness is the fact that the Brown family has moved to Nevada. AP reports on the court's decision. Jonathan Turley, counsel for the Brown family, said in a posting that the decision will be appealed. [Thanks to Tom Rutledge for the lead.]

Provocative Anti-Muslim Rally Planned For Atlanta

According to yesterday's Atlanta Journal Constitution, after the Georgia Building Authority rejected a request for a permit to hold a "United against Islam and Islamic immigration refugee rally" at Liberty Plaza across from the state capitol, authorities now expect a non-permitted, anti-Islamic protest on the sidewalks of the Georgia State Capitol on April 18. The protest's organizer James Stachowiak, founder and editor of Freedom Fighter Radio, said that speakers at the rally will focus on the threat from Islamic immigration and refugees. He added:

We also plan to shred images of Obama, Loretta Lynch, Hillary Clinton and Muhammad along with the shredding of the Koran. This will be an open carry event with the use of long arms as Georgia law allows.

CAIR-Georgia reacted with a press release stating in part:

We encourage these protesters to put down their guns, cancel their unsanctioned rally, and meet with representatives of our state’s Muslim community for an open and frank discussion of their concerns.

Rastafarian Minister Loses Fight To Solicit Ballot Signatures At Revenue Office

In Brown v. Arkansas Department of Finance & Administration, (WD AR, April 8, 2016), an Arkansas federal district court dismissed an action by Rev. Tom Brown, a Rastafarian minister, challenging a recent no-solicitation policy imposed by the state at certain Revenue Offices. For over a year Brown had stationed himself at a table on the lawn of the Fayetteville Revenue Office seeking signatures for a ballot initiative on the Arkansas Medical Cannabis Act. A number of patrons had filed police reports complaining of Brown's behavior. The court held that the solicitation ban is a reasonable restriction on speech in a non-public forum, saying in part:

As the ban is reasonably designed to promote the normal business activities of the State’s revenue offices and is viewpoint-neutral, the Court finds that the ban does not violate Rev. Brown’s constitutional rights. The ban does not prevent Rev. Brown from canvassing in other public forums, such as on city sidewalks, in plazas, or in parks. Similarly, Rev. Brown is still free to express to others his ideas about marijuana use, his religious faith, and the benefits of signing the ballot initiative he supports.

Monday, April 11, 2016

White House Hosts Nowruz Celebration

The White House last Wednesday hosted its annual Nowruz celebration. Nowruz is the Persian New Year celebrated as a secular holiday by many in the Middle East and central Asia, and celebrated as a religious holiday by Zoroastrians. (Wikipedia). First Lady Michelle Obama spoke at the East Room reception (full text of remarks), saying in part:

We think America is strongest when we recognize our many traditions, when we celebrate our diversity, and when we lift each other up.... We are a nation of immigrants. And we should cherish the talent and energy and the beautiful traditions and cultures that come with that heritage, not just today but every day.

British Employment Appeal Tribunal Upholds Warning To Proselytizing Supervisor

In Wasteney v. East London NHS Foundation Trust, (UK EAT, April 7, 2016), the British Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) rejected a religious discrimination claim brought by the Head of Forensic Occupational Therapy at a public sector mental health clinic who described herself as a born again Christian. She was issued a written warning for proselytizing a young Pakistani Muslim occupational therapist whom she supervised. She gave the Muslim woman a book about another Muslim Pakistani woman who had converted to Christianity; during a one-on-one meeting prayed for the Muslim woman by laying hands on her; and invited the Muslim woman to various Christian church events. In upholding the finding of the Employment Tribunal (ET), the EAT said in part:

The ET did not find that the Respondent had pursued disciplinary action against the Claimant and imposed a warning on her because of or for reasons related to her sharing of her faith with a consenting colleague. It expressly found that the Respondent took the actions it did because the colleague in question had made serious complaints about acts which blurred professional boundaries and placed improper pressure on that colleague.

Christian Post reporting on the decision quotes this reaction from the supervisor who lost her appeal:

I believe the NHS singled me out for discipline because Christianity is so disrespected. Previously a Christian worship service that I set up for patients was closed down, but accommodation for Muslims to practice their faith wholly facilitated and encouraged.

CAIR Sues Challenging Procedures For Terrorist Watch List

Last week, CAIR-Michigan filed two federal lawsuits challenging the federal government's operation of the Terrorist Screening Database. Inclusion on the list leads to placement on the no-fly list and on lists restricting access to licenses and firearms. The suits allege that almost all Americans known to be on the watch list are Muslims or persons who could be mistaken for Muslims. One of the suits, Baby Doe v. Piehota, (ED VA, filed 4/5/2016) (full text of complaint) is a class action seeking damages. The other, Elhady v. Piehota, (ED VA, filed 4/5/2016) (full text of complaint) seeks injunctive and declaratory relief. The suits contend that selection of individuals for the watch list is illegally motivated by religious status and denies those on the list substantive and procedural due process rights by stigmatizing them and burdening their right of movement. Among other things, the suits seek a change in the watch list so that individuals placed on the list are furnished notice of the reasons for their inclusion and an opportunity to contest their listing. CAIR issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuits.

Sunday, April 10, 2016

2 Particularly Interesting Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

As regular readers of Religion Clause blog know, at least weekly I present a summary of recent prisoner free exercise cases. This week, two of the recent cases deserve more mention than my typical brief description:

In Brown v. Bureau of Prisons, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44755 (D CT, March 31, 2016), a Connecticut federal district court dismissed a female federal prisoner's 1st Amendment claim, but allowed her to move ahead on her claim under RFRA that her rights were infringed when she was searched by a male correctional officer. This suit is unusual because it was filed by a female inmate. For reasons I have been unable to explain, almost all reported prisoner free exercise cases are filed by male inmates. Perhaps it is related to differences in the way that women's prisons are administered. If readers have other explanations, I would appreciate receiving them.

In McLenithan v. Williams, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45290 (D OR, April 4, 2016), an Oregon federal magistrate judge dismissed RLUIPA, free exercise and equal protection claims by an inmate seeking a kosher diet. Plaintiff described himself as a Seventh Day Adventist who practices Judaism as a second religion. The court's RLUIPA analysis included the following:

Defendants have presented evidence establishing a compelling interest in limiting kosher diets to Jewish inmates, and this policy, in conjunction with ODOC's accommodation of traditional Seventh Day Adventist dietary practices, is the least restrictive means of meeting that interest. The evidence is undisputed that providing kosher meals costs $4,117.20 more per biennium for each additional inmate who requests kosher food. To be sure, the cost of accommodating Plaintiff alone is not significant. However, if Plaintiff were to be accommodated by providing the kosher meal option, other inmates will likely have to be accommodated as well, ultimately at great expense to ODOC. Indeed, Defendants provide evidence that if non-Jewish inmates were allowed the option of choosing the kosher meal plan, a substantial percentage would likely do so. Finally, the Court considers the substantial additional cost of providing kosher meals to non-Jewish inmates in the context of ODOC's overall budget. Defendants provide evidence that ODOC's security budget is strained.

This analysis raises the question of whether compelling interest is measured differently when the government's interest is cost rather than security. In Holt v. Hobbs, the Supreme Court required compelling interest in security be measured by looking only at the "particular claimant" whose religious exercise is being burdened.

Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

In Woodward v. Afify, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42738 (WD NY, March 29, 2016) a New York federal magistrate judge recommended dismissing a complaint by a Muslim inmate that he was denied access to Friday prayer services and Ramadan meals. He was allowed to move ahead on other retaliation claims.

In Henrius v. County of Nassau, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43795 (ED NY, March 31, 2016), a New York federal district court dismissed an inmate's complaint that he was not allowed to attend religious services on one occasion.

In Howard v. Skolnik, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44624 (D NV, March 31, 2016), a Nevada federal district court dismissed on qualified immunity grounds the decision by prison authorities to refuse to recognize Nation of Islam as a religion for approved prison activities.

In DeJesus v. Bradt, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44716 (WD NY, March 31, 2016), a New York federal district court dismissed a Muslim inmate's complaint that during Ramadan Muslims were not permitted to take unfinished food from the double evening meal back to their cells to eat during the night. The court allowed plaintiff to move ahead with his complaint that on 10 occasions during Ramadan he was not permitted to take a shower or engage in ritual cleansing before group prayer.

In Hogue v. Ada County, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45011 (D ID, March 31, 2016), an Idaho federal magistrate judge dismissed an inmate's complaint that as part of his behavioral management plan he was prohibited from possessing a Bible or any other religious book.

In Flynn v. Ward, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45075 (ND NY, April 4, 2016), a New York federal district court dismissed an inmate's complaint that he was forced to give up his prayer rug and mail it home.

In Sterling v. Sellers, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45607 (MD GA, April 5, 2016), a Georgia federal district court permitted a Muslim inmate to move ahead with his claim that he was not allowed to engage in daily congregational prayer. The magistrate's opinion in the case is at 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45896, Feb. 22, 2016.

In Sanders v. Cain, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42069 (MD LA, March 28, 2016), a Louisiana federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendation (2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46031, Feb. 19, 2016) and dismissed as frivolous a Mormon inmate minister's complaint that he was unable to congregate with other Mormons in the main prison complex, or to hold fund-raisers. His claims regarding his status as an inmate minister and false disciplinary charges were dismissed insofar as they were brought in forma pauperis.

In Allen v. Ahlin, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46697 (ED CA, April 5, 2016), a California federal magistrate judge dismissed with leave to amend an inmate's complaint that his religious rights were being infringed by the denial of a vegetarian diet.

In Huddleston v. Wilson County Criminal Justice Complex, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46598 (MD TN, April 5, 2016), a Tennessee federal magistrate judge recommended dismissing an inmate' complaint that his personal Baptist pastor had been unable to visit him because he was not on the jail's ministry list.

Saturday, April 09, 2016

Bernie Sanders Accepts Invitation To Conference In Vatican On Social Justice and the Environment

Democratic Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders announced yesterday that he has accepted an invitation from the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences to attend an April 15 conference in the Vatican on restoring social justice and environmental sustainability. As reported by Time magazine, in a New York campaign stop today, Sanders said: "I must tell you that I am a very great fan of the role that Pope Francis has been playing in talking about inequality in this world." [Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]

Break-Away Presbyterian Church Settles Suit By Paying $1.1M For Its Building

According to yesterday's St. Louis Post Dispatch, a break-away Presbyterian congregation in Chesterfield, Missouri has settled a lawsuit against it by the Giddings-Lovejoy Presbytery. When Bonhomme Presbyterian Church broke away from the Presbyterian Church (USA) to join the more conservative Covenant Order of Evangelical Presbyterians, the Presbytery sued claiming that the congregation's property belongs to the Presbytery. In the settlement, Bonhomme paid the Presbytery $1.1 million for the church building and property.

State Trooper Fired For Proselytizing During Traffic Stop

According to WCPO News, last Thursday the Indiana State Police fired state trooper Brian Hamilton after a formal complaint was filed against him by motorist Wendy Pyle who charges that when Hamilton stopped her to give her a warning ticket for speeding, he also asked her what church she attends and whether she was saved. The ACLU has filed suit over the incident. Hamilton was sued in 2014 by another woman for similar proselytizing during a traffic stop. (See prior posting.)

Abstention Required In Suit For Defamation In Excommunication Proceedings

In Pfeil v. St. Matthews Evangelical Lutheran Church of the Unaltered Augsburg Confession, (MN Sup. Ct., April 6, 2016), the Minnesota Supreme Court in a 3-2 decision (2 justices not participating), held that under the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine, the 1st Amendment prohibits holding a church and its pastors liable in a defamation action for statements made during church disciplinary proceedings seeking to excommunicate plaintiffs. The majority concluded:

Ultimately, adjudicating [plaintiffs'] claims would excessively entangle the courts with religion and unduly interfere with respondents’ constitutional right to make autonomous decisions regarding the governance of their religious organization.

Justice Lillehaug's dissenting opinion complained:

Today the court creates what is, essentially, an absolute privilege to defame in “formal church discipline proceedings.” No matter how false and malicious the statement, and no matter how much the victim is damaged, there is no remedy whatsoever in Minnesota’s courts.

Friday, April 08, 2016

Pope Francis Releases Historic Document on Family Life

As reported by Crux, the Vatican today released Pope Francis' much anticipated Apostolic Exhortation titled Amoris Laetitia (The Joy of Love). Here is the full text of 256-page document which grew out of meetings of Catholic bishops from around the world in 2014 and 2015 on issues of the family. The Vatican has also released a Summary of each of the document's nine chapters. Of particular interest is Chapter 8 which deals with the Church's treatment of divorced Catholics. The Summary of that Chapter reads in part:

As far as discernment with regard to “irregular” situations is concerned, the Pope states: “There is a need ‘to avoid judgements which do not take into account the complexity of various situations’ and ‘to be attentive, by necessity, to how people experience distress because of their condition’” (AL 296). And he continues: “It is a matter of reaching out to everyone, of needing to help each person find his or her proper way of participating in the ecclesial community, and thus to experience being touched by an ‘unmerited, unconditional and gratuitous’ mercy” (AL 297). And further: “The divorced who have entered a new union, for example, can find themselves in a variety of situations, which should not be pigeonholed or fit into overly rigid classifications leaving no room for a suitable personal and pastoral discernment” (AL 298).

... [T]he Pope states that “the baptized who are divorced and civilly remarried need to be more fully integrated into Christian communities in the variety of ways possible, while avoiding any occasion of scandal”. “Their participation can be expressed in different ecclesial services… Such persons need to feel not as excommunicated members of the Church, but instead as living members, able to live and grow in the Church… This integration is also needed in the care and Christian upbringing of their children” (AL 299).

In a more general vein, the Pope makes an extremely important statement ... :“If we consider the immense variety of concrete situations, … it is understandable that neither the Synod nor this Exhortation could be expected to provide a new set of general rules, canonical in nature and applicable to all cases. What is needed is simply a renewed encouragement to undertake a responsible personal and pastoral discernment of particular cases, one which would recognize that, since ‘the degree of responsibility is not equal in all cases’, the consequences or effects of a rule need not necessarily always be the same” (AL 300)....

Crux has also posted an analysis of the document

Hospital Offered Reasonable Accommodation To Employee Rejecting Flu Shot

In Robinson v. Children's Hospital Boston, (D MA, April 5, 2016), a Massachusetts federal district court dismissed a Title VII and state discrimination claim by a hospital emergency room worker who refused on religious grounds to be immunized for influenza. Plaintiff, who was apparently a follower of Nation of Islam, initially refused the vaccine because it contained pork products, but the hospital offered her a non-gelatin vaccine. She continued to refuse on religious grounds, was granted a temporary medical leave and was allowed to look for a non-patient area position in the hospital. When she was unable to find another position, she was terminated. The court held that the hospital had offered plaintiff reasonable accommodation and that allowing her to remain in the patient area unvaccinated would have posed an undue hardship. Boston Herald reports on the decision.