3rd Circuit Refuses To Enjoin School's Accommodation of Transgender Students

In Doe v. Boyertown, (3d Cir., July 26, 2018), the U.S. 3d Circuit Court of Appeals in a revised panel decision refused to enjoin a Pennsylvania school district from allowing transgender students to use bathrooms and locker rooms consistent with their gender identities instead of  the sex they were assigned at birth. The court rejected privacy, Title IX and state tort claims, saying in part:

As we have already noted, we do not intend to minimize or ignore testimony suggesting that some of the appellants now avoid using the restrooms and reduce their water intake in order to reduce the number of times they need to use restrooms under the new policy. Nor do we discount the surprise the appellants reported feeling when in an intimate space with a student they understood was of the opposite biological sex. We cannot, however, equate the situation the appellants now face with the very drastic consequences that the transgender students must endure if the school were to ignore the latter’s needs and concerns. Moreover, as we have mentioned, those cisgender students who feel that they must try to limit trips to the restroom to avoid contact with transgender students can use the single-user bathrooms in the school.

Yesterday following the issuance of the revised panel decision, the full court denied an en banc rehearing in the case, with 3 judges dissenting from the denial. (Full text of order and dissent.) The dissenters argued:

The revised panel opinion rightly acknowledges that a school policy addressing transgender students’ use of bathrooms and locker rooms is a matter of high importance to Boyertown and its students. Given that public importance and the obvious sensitivity of the issues involved, one would have thought that the opinion would address only the facts at issue and then only to the extent necessary. But the panel went beyond what was necessary when it chose to address Boyertown’s tangential argument that the school district would have run afoul of Title IX had it implemented a policy that confined transgender students to use of bathrooms and locker rooms designated for their biological sex....

The Morning Call reports on the decisions.

Deal To Free American Pastor Held By Turkey Falls Through

Washington Post reported yesterday that President  Trump thought he had struck a deal with Turkey's President Recep Tayyip Erdogan at the recent NATO meeting for the release of American pastor Andrew Brunson who has been held by Turkey for two years on supposed terrorism charges:

The deal was a carom shot, personally sealed by Trump, to trade a Turkish citizen imprisoned on terrorism charges in Israel for Brunson’s release. But it apparently fell apart on Wednesday, when a Turkish court, rather than sending the pastor home, ordered that he be transferred to house arrest while his trial continues.

Thursday morning, after a rancorous phone call with Erdogan, Trump struck back. The United States “will impose large sanctions” on Turkey, he tweeted. “This innocent man of faith should be released immediately.”

6th Circuit Refuses To Reopen Asylum Claim By Egyptian Coptic Christian

In Welson v. Sessions, (6th Cir, July 26, 2018), the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals refused to reopen a petition for refugee status filed by an Egyptian Coptic Christian.  The immigration judge had held that petitioner was not
credible and had not demonstrated a well-founded fear of persecution in Egypt. The 6th Circuit said in part:

In support of his motions to reopen, Welson chiefly relies on articles describing various recent acts of terrorism perpetrated by ISIL, including: the December 2016 bombing of a Coptic cathedral in Cairo; the April 2017 bombing of two Coptic churches, both in Northern Egypt, on Palm Sunday; and a May 2017 incident in Southern Egypt where gunmen fired on vehicles carrying Coptic Christians. However, as the BIA reasoned, these articles describe events which, while indisputably terrible and tragic, are nevertheless similar to those conditions considered by the IJ at Welson’s individual hearing. Moreover, none of the additional reports and articles disturbs a key portion of the IJ’s reasoning—namely, that Welson’s family continues to live in Sohag, Egypt, unharmed, and that the Egyptian government under the leadership of President elSisi has undertaken to improve conditions for Coptic Christians. These new articles accordingly do not show that if the case were reopened Welson would likely prevail on his asylum claim.

[Thanks to Tom Rutledge for the lead.] 

3rd Circuit: Nuns Lose Pipeline Challenge On Procedural Grounds

In Adorers of the Blood of Christ v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, (3d Cir., July 25, 2018), the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of a RFRA challenge by an Order of Catholic nuns (the "Adorers") to FERC's approval of a pipeline project. The natural gas pipeline runs through land owned by the Adorers. Developers were authorized to acquire land for the pipeline by eminent domain.  According to the court:

The Adorers object to the use of their land as part of the Project, explaining that their deeply-held religious beliefs require that they care for the land in a manner that protects and preserves the Earth as God’s creation. But despite receiving notice of the proposed project, the Adorers never raised this objection before FERC.

The Natural Gas Act calls for appeals from FERC orders to be filed with the Court of Appeals. The Adorers failed to follow this procedural route. The court held:

The Adorers contend that the plain language of this judicial relief provision grants them a statutory right to assert their RFRA claim in district court. We disagree. The NGA is a detailed statute, setting forth specific provisions on the procedure by which approval and subsequent review of a pipeline project may be attained.

Lancaster Online reports on the decision.

Indonesia Sentences Student To 4 Years In Jail For Anti-Muslim Facebook Post

AFP reports that on Tuesday a court on the Indonesian island of Sumatra sentenced a 21-year old Christian university student to 4 years in jail and a fine of $70,000 (US) for a Facebook post that compared the Prophet Muhammad to a pig and said that Muhammad approved bestiality.  The student, Martinus Gulo, had been charged under Art. 28 of Indonesia's Electronic Information and Transactions law (with unrelated 2016 amendments) that outlaws spreading hatred or dissension against individuals or groups based on their race, religion or ethnicity.

Church of England Court Permits Exhumation of Atheist From Hallowed Ground

The Hertfordshire Mercury reports on an unusual decision in Britain last week by a Church of England Consistory Court.  In In re Chestnut Cemetery (No. 1) re Exhumation of Hugill, (Consist. Ct., July 18, 2018), the Court permitted the exhumation of the cremated remains of an infant buried in 1982 in a Church of England cemetery.  The infant's parents are both Atheists, and they did not know at the time of the burial that the cemetery site was hallowed ground. They discovered this in 2017 and now seek to have the remains reburied in an un-consecrated plot. The court said in part:

The starting point is the presumption that the burial of human remains in consecrated ground is permanent.... However the Court has a discretion to permit exhumation in exceptional circumstances....

On the case that has been presented to me it appears that the most important and relevant of the factors referred to above is mistake. In particular, Mrs Wilson’s evidence that she was at all material times, until on or around September 2017, unaware that Lizzie’s remains had been interred in consecrated ground by reason of her total (and understandable) lack of contact with the funeral arrangements when they were made, and her evidence that, as an Atheist, the burial in these circumstances is something she would never have agreed to if she had been informed. These facts, in my judgment, amount to a fundamental mistake as to the arrangements made for the interment of Lizzie’s remains.

Nevada Supreme Court Says Counsel Not Ineffective In Failing To Raise A Free Exercise Objection

In 2010, a Las Vegas, Nevada doctor, Harriston Lee Bass, was convicted of second degree murder for selling a controlled substance to a woman whose overdose led to her death. (Background).  Subsequently Bass filed a post-conviction petition for habeas corpus alleging ineffective assistance of counsel in his trial and appeal.  In Bass v. State of Nevada, (NV Sup. Ct., July 20, 2018), the Nevada Supreme Court found Bass' objections do not warrant granting of any relief.  The Court said in part:

Bass ... argues that trial and appellate counsel should have challenged evidence introduced in violation of his First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion. A State investigator testified about a closet in Bass's house set up like a shrine, with a photograph of Bass and a candle, that was searched when investigating the residence for evidence of Bass's mobile medical practice. Bass testified that the area was his wife's prayer room. Bass has failed to show that testimony implying that he and his wife had unspecified religious beliefs in any way infringed on his religious exercise, particularly where the record is silent as to the content of those beliefs.... Accordingly, Bass has failed to show that a First Amendment objection at trial or on appeal was not futile, and counsel were not ineffective in omitting them. The district court therefore did not err in denying this claim.

9th Circuit: School Board Invocations Violate Establishment Clause

In Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc. v. Chino Valley Unified School District Board of Education, (9th Cir., July 25, 2018), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the district court that a California school board's prayer policy at board meetings violates the Establishment Clause. The court said in part:

The invocations to start the open portions of Board meetings are not within the legislative prayer tradition that allows certain types of prayer to open legislative sessions. This is not the sort of solemnizing and unifying prayer, directed at lawmakers themselves and conducted before an audience of mature adults free from coercive pressures to participate, that the legislative-prayer tradition contemplates.... Instead, these prayers typically take place before groups of schoolchildren whose attendance is not truly voluntary and whose relationship to school district officials, including the Board, is not one of full parity.....

Instead of the legislative-prayer analysis, we apply the three-pronged Establishment Clause test articulated in Lemon v. Kurtzman.... The Chino Valley Board’s prayer policy and practice fails the Lemon test and is therefore unconstitutional.

Los Angeles Times reports on the decision.

New Organization: Humanist Legal Society

In a press release last week, the American Humanist Association announced the launching of a new organization: the Humanist Legal Society:

The Humanist Legal Society’s aim is to provide a way for like-minded legal professionals—whether identifying as humanist, secular, atheist, agnostic, or something similar—to unite in advocating for principles consistent with the organization’s mission statement: the protection of civil liberties, strict separation of religion and government, legislation and public policies informed by sound scientific evidence, ethics in government and law enforcement, and respect for the diversity of individuals.

Here is a video of the organization's inaugural event. A link to the new organization's website has been added to the Religion Clause sidebar under "Advocacy Organizations." [Thanks to Bob Ritter for the lead.]

Report Released On 2016 Global Restrictions On Religion

Last week, the Pew Research Center on Religion & Public Life released its ninth annual study of global restrictions on religion. The 125-page report (full text) is titled Global Uptick In Government Restrictions on Religion in 2016.  It highlights: "Nationalist parties and organizations played an increasing role in harassment of religious minorities, especially in Europe."  According to the report:

The share of countries with “high” or “very high” levels of government restrictions – that is, laws, policies and actions by officials that restrict religious beliefs and practices – rose from 25% in 2015 to 28% in 2016. This is the largest percentage of countries to have high or very high levels of government restrictions since 2013, and falls just below the 10-year peak of 29% in 2012.

Meanwhile, the share of countries with “high” or “very high” levels of social hostilities involving religion – that is, acts of religious hostility by private individuals, organizations or groups in society – remained stable in 2016 at 27%.

State Department Hosts First-Ever Ministerial To Advance Religious Freedom

Yesterday was the first day of the U.S. State Department's 3-day Ministerial to Advance Religious Freedom.  RNS reports that U.S. Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious Freedom Sam Brownback opened the Ministerial at the State Department, urging the 350 conference participants from 80 countries to work together to advance religious freedom. The faiths represented at the State Department conference include Muslims, Jews, Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs, Baha’is, and Yazidis.  The State Department describes the agenda of this first-ever Ministerial:

On July 24, we will equip and empower civil society organizations, including organizations working on religious freedom, to understand better how to access U.S. financial support for their efforts...

On July 25, members of civil society groups, including religious leaders and survivors of religious persecution, will convene to tell their stories, share their expertise, and ultimately unite on a path to greater religious freedom in our societies....

On July 26, government and international organization representatives will participate in plenary sessions focused on: (1) identifying global challenges to religious freedom, (2) developing innovative responses to persecution on the basis of religion, and (3) sharing new commitments to protect religious freedom for all.....

Here is the full schedule of panels. Various side events are also scheduled.

UPDATE: As reported by Blog from the Capital, the Summit ended with the Potomac Declaration and a Plan of Action. Critics contend that the Summit accomplished little.

Challenge To School's Transgender Policy Is Rejected

In Parents for Privacy v. Dallas School District No. 2, (D OR, July 24, 2018), an Oregon federal district court in a 56-page opinion rejected an array of challenges to a school district's policy that allows transgender students to use restrooms, locker rooms, and showers that match their gender identity rather than
their biological sex assigned at birth.  Plaintiffs alleged that the policy violates the Administrative Procedure Act, the right to privacy, Title IX, Oregon state law, parents’ rights to direct the education and upbringing of their children, and the First Amendment and RFRA. Responding to these claims, the court said in part:

... [H]igh school students do not have a fundamental privacy right to not share school restrooms, lockers, and showers with transgender students whose biological sex is different than theirs. The potential threat that a high school student might see or be seen by someone of the opposite biological sex while either are undressing or performing bodily functions in a restroom, shower, or locker room does not give rise to a constitutional violation....

It is within Parent Plaintiffs’ right to remove their children from Dallas High School if they disapprove of transgender student access to facilities. Once the parents have chosen to send their children to school, however, their liberty interest in their children’s education is severely diminished....

In this case, the law is neutral and generally applicable with respect to religion. There are no allegations that District forced any Plaintiff to embrace a religious belief, nor does the Plan punish anyone for expressing their religious beliefs. In any event, Plaintiffs do not have standing to bring this claim.

Teacher May Sue Catholic School For Pregnancy Discrimination

In Crisitello v. St. Theresa School, (NJ App., July 24, 2018), a New Jersey state appellate court reversed a trial court's dismissal of a discrimination suit brought against a Catholic parochial school by a former preschool lay teacher who had been fired for engaging in premarital sex. The teacher was terminated for violating the Church's ethical standards when it was found that she was pregnant and unmarried. Plaintiff sued under New Jersey's Law Against Discrimination, claiming pregnancy discrimination. The court said in part:

To be clear, in this case, plaintiff does not raise any challenge to defendant's religious doctrines or its right to specify a code of conduct for its employees based on that doctrine. Rather, she seeks an adjudication of her claim that she has been singled out for application of that doctrine as a pretext for impermissible discriminatory reasons. If proven, such conduct by defendant would be a violation of secular law protecting against discrimination....

In a case involving the firing of a pregnant employee, evidence of how male employees were treated is particularly useful in determining whether unmarried pregnant women are treated differently. Absent evidence that men are treated the same way as women who are terminated for engaging in premarital sex, a religious institution violates LAD because if "'women can become pregnant [and] men cannot,' it punishes only women for sexual relations because those relations are revealed through pregnancy." 

Street Preacher Denied Preliminary Injunction Against Trespass Policy of Sports Arena

In Lacroix v. Lee County, Florida, (MD FL, July 23, 2018), a Florida federal district court denied a preliminary injunction sought by a street preacher who was not permitted to preach on the premises of a county-owned sports arena which was hosting a concert. Plaintiff claimed that the Lee County Special Events Permitting Ordinance, and the trespass policy enforced in connection with special events on county property, violate his free speech and free exercise rights. The court concluded that plaintiff's pleadings failed to show that he meets various prerequisites for standing, and that he does not face imminent irreparable harm.

Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

In Rutledge v. Lassen County Jail, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 120152 (ED CA, July 17, 2018), a California federal magistrate judge dismissed with leave to amend an inmate's claim that he is a "follower of Lucifer" and that jail staff have urged him to "pray or change [his] religious beliefs".

In Cucchiara v. Auburn Correctional Facility, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 120612 (ND NY, July 19, 2018), a New York federal district court dismissed an inmate's complaint regarding "fraudulent ticketing" of religious practices, destruction and confiscation of religious property including voodoo dolls, and tampering with religious food, oils and balms.

In McLeod v. Smith, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 121134 (SD NY, July 18, 2018), a New York federal district court dismissed a Muslim inmate's complaint that he was prevented from attending Jumah services on one occasion.

In Jackmon v. New Jersey Department of Corrections, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 121262 (D NJ, July 20, 2018), a New Jersey federal district court allowed an inmate to move ahead with his complaint that designation of Nations of Gods and Earths as a security threat group has deprived him of any Nations religious observances, possession of Nations literature, and association with other Nations members.

In Kanatzar v. Cole, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 121488 (D KA, July 20, 2018), a Kansas federal district court dismissed an inmate's claim that his kosher meals were not prepared in accordance kosher requirements.

Cert. Filed In Funeral Home's Firing of Transgender Employee

A petition for certiorari (full text) was filed with the U.S. Supreme Court last week in R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes, Inc. v. EEOC, (cert. filed 7/20/2018).  In the case, the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals held that a Michigan funeral home violated Title VII when it fired a transgender employee who was in the process of transitioning from male to female. The court, rejecting the employer's religious freedom defense, held that the employee was illegally fired because of her failure to conform to sex stereotypes. ADF issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Michigan AG and Civil Rights Commission At Odds Over Coverage of LGBTQ Discrimination

In May, the Michigan Civil Rights Commission issued an Interpretive Statement declaring that the protection against discrimination because of sex in the state's Elliott Larsen Civil Rights Act includes protection against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.  On July 20, Michigan's Attorney General Bill Schuette issued Opinion No. 7305 concluding that the Civil Rights Commission's interpretation "is invalid because it conflicts with the original intent of the Legislature as expressed in the plain language of the Act, and as interpreted by Michigan’s courts." The Opinion elaborates:

The word “sex” was understood in 1976, when ELCRA was enacted, to refer to the biological differences between males and females, not to refer to the concepts of sexual orientation or gender identity.

Yesterday the Civil Rights Commission issued a press release taking issue with the Attorney General and reaffirming its earlier Interpretive Statement, saying in part:

The Michigan Civil Rights Commission is an independent, constitutionally created and established body.... The Commission is not bound by the opinion of the Attorney General.

Establishment Clause Challenge To New York's Carve Out of Standards For Yeshivas

A lawsuit was filed in a New York federal district court yesterday challenging the so-called Felder Amendment to New York state's 2018 Budget Bill. The Amendment, tailored to apply only to Orthodox Jewish non-public schools, allows lower secular education standards in such schools.  The complaint (full text) in Young Advocates for Fair Education v. Cuomo, (ED NY, filed 7/23/2018), contends that the Felder Amendment violates the Establishment Clause by aiding ultra-Orthodox Jewish non-public schools and entangling the government with religion. Wall Street Journal reports on the lawsuit. [Thanks to Steven H. Sholk for the lead.]

Church of Scientology Settles Lawsuit

AP reports that the Church of Scientology yesterday settled a lawsuit that had been brought against it in California state court by former church member Laura Ann DeCrescenzo.  Plaintiff, who began to volunteer for the Church at age 6 or 7 and later became a member of its elite Sea Org, alleges that she was forced to work long hours before she was a teen and was forced to have an abortion at age 17.  (See prior posting.) The terms of the settlement are confidential.

New York AG Denied Injunction Against Anti-Abortion Protesters

In People of the State of New York v. Griepp, (ED NY, July 20, 2018), a New York federal district court, in a 103-page opinion, refused to grant the New York Attorney General a preliminary injunction against anti-abortion protesters who have been clashing with volunteer clinic escorts outside a Queens medical center.  The suit alleged that the protesters violated the federal Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (FACES), the New York Clinic Access Act (NYSCAA) and a similar New York City provision. The court describes the coverage of the statutes:

Using essentially identical language, both FACE and NYSCAA provide penalties for those who (1) by force, threat of force, or physical obstruction, (2) intentionally injure, intimidate, or interfere with a person, or attempt to do the same, (3) “because that person is or has been, or in order to intimidate such person or any other person or any class of persons from, obtaining or providing reproductive health services.” 18 U.S.C. § 248(a)(1); see N.Y. Penal Law § 240.70(1)(a)–(b). NYCCAA prohibits a host of similar activities that prevent access to reproductive health care facilities. N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-803(a).

After a lengthy review of the evidence, the court concluded that protesters had not violated any of these provisions. For example, it said:

[T]he OAG has introduced evidence that the protestors sometimes continued attempting to engage with a person who asked to be left alone and that the protestors sometimes attempted to engage people who were not receptive to a different protestor’s overtures. Although such conduct can be circumstantial evidence of an intent to harass, annoy, or alarm, it does not establish that intent here. The interactions on the sidewalk outside Choices were generally quite short, and there is no credible evidence that any protestor disregarded repeated requests to be left alone over an extended period or changed his or her tone or message in response to requests to be left alone in a way that suggested an intent to harass, annoy, or alarm. The OAG has failed to show that any defendant had the intent to harass, annoy, or alarm a patient, companion, or escort; thus, it has failed to show that any defendant has violated NYCCAA, as interpreted by the OAG.

A word of caution—this decision should not embolden the defendants to engage in more aggressive conduct. In a few instances noted, several of the defendants’ actions came close to crossing the line from activity protected by the First Amendment to conduct prohibited by NYCCAA. Engaging in concerted activity that suggests an intent to annoy rather than to persuade not only violates the law, but also would seem to be contrary to defendants’ stated objectives. Voluntarily discontinuing the practice of speaking to patients who have affirmatively asked to be left alone not only would evidence the defendants’ good will, but also would lessen the likelihood of future litigation directed toward their protest activities.

Courthouse News Service reports on the decision.