State Must Issue "IM GOD" Vanity License Plate

In Hart v. Thomas, (ED KY, Nov. 13, 2019), a Kentucky federal district court held that a car owner's First Amendment rights were infringed when the state refused to issue him a vanity licence plate reading "IM GOD".  The court said in part:

...[A]voidance of controversy is a valid ground for restricting speech in a nonpublic forum.... However, the Transportation Cabinet has been so inconsistent in its application of § 186.174 that it has ceased to be “consistent with [Kentucky’s] legitimate government interest” in any way. If the Transportation Cabinet genuinely wants to avoid controversy on Kentucky’s highways by preventing “promotion of any specific faith, religion, or anti-religion” from appearing on vanity plates, then it should have denied “IM4GOD”, “ASKGOD”, GR8GOD”, “LUVGOD”. But it did not.... Instead, the Transportation Cabinet has approved multiple vanity plates featuring the word “god”.... This suggests that the law as applied to Mr. Hart is neither reasonable nor viewpoint neutral. To allow such plates as “IM4GOD” and “LUVGOD” but reject “IM GOD” belies viewpoint neutrality.

FFRF issued a press release announcing the decision.

11th Circuit: Christian School Can Proceed In Challenge To Pre-Game Loudspeaker Prayer Ban

In Cambridge Christian School, Inc. v. Florida High School Athletic Association, Inc., (11th Cir., Nov. 13, 2019), the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals held that a Christian school could move ahead with its complaint that its free speech and free exercise rights were infringed when it was denied permission to broadcast a joint prayer over the loudspeaker at the state championship high school football game. Both schools in the playoff were Christian schools. In its 70-page opinion, the court said in part:

As we see it, the district court was too quick to dismiss all of Cambridge Christian’s claims out of hand. Taking the complaint in a light most favorable to the plaintiff, as we must at this stage in the proceedings, the schools’ claims for relief under the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses have been adequately and plausibly pled. There are too many open factual questions for us to say with confidence that the allegations cannot be proven as a matter of law. The question of whether all speech over the microphone was government speech is a heavily fact-intensive one that looks at the history of the government’s use of the medium for communicative purposes, the implication of government endorsement of messages carried over that medium, and the degree of government control over those messages.... [B]ased on this limited record, we find it plausible that the multitude of messages delivered over the loudspeaker should be viewed as private, not government, speech. And while we agree with the district court that the loudspeaker was a nonpublic forum, we conclude that Cambridge Christian has plausibly alleged that it was arbitrarily and haphazardly denied access to the forum in violation of the First Amendment. Likewise, we cannot say, again drawing all inferences in favor of the appellant, that in denying scommunal prayer over the loudspeaker, the FHSAA did not infringe on Cambridge Christian’s free exercise of religion.

WCTV News reports on the decision.

5th Circuit Upholds Stay of Execution For Buddhist Inmate

In Murphy v. Collier, (5th Cir., Nov. 12, 2019), the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision, upheld a stay of execution granted last week by a Texas federal district court in the case of a Buddhist inmate who challenges the access he will have to his religious adviser prior to his execution. The district court granted a stay to allow it time to explore factual concerns about the balance between the inmate's religious rights and the prison’s valid concerns for security. (See prior posting.) Christian and Muslim inmates have access to chaplains until the moment they enter the execution chamber.  Members of other religions have access to their outside clergy only until 5:00 p.m.on the day of execution. In his majority opinion for the 5th Circuit, Judge Dennis wrote in part:

We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting Murphy’s stay. We agree with the district court’s implicit finding that Murphy has a strong likelihood of success on the merits of his claim that the TDCJ policy violates his rights by allowing inmates who share the same faith as TDCJ-employed clergy greater access to a spiritual advisor in the death house.

Judge Elrod dissented, saying in part:

Because I believe Murphy did not demonstrate that he is likely to succeed on his brand-new, untimely, and unexhausted claim regarding the TDCJ’s pre-execution holding-area protocol, I would hold that the district court abused its discretion in granting Murphy’s motion for stay of execution.

CNN reports on the decision.

Village Sues Church Over Its Homeless Shelter

RNS reports that the affluent Chicago suburb of Village of Orland Park has filed suit against Hope Covenant Church seeking to close down its homeless shelter== the first in the village in over 30 years.  According to RNS:

With temperatures dipping down near the single digits, the seasonal shelter has housed between 15 and 50 people one night every week, including a toddler and local public high school students.

The overnight shelter, the result of a partnership with Illinois’ Beds Plus community organization, is open every Tuesday until April — unless a lawsuit by The Village of Orland Park succeeds in closing it down.

Last week, Village attorneys filed a lawsuit against the church, arguing that the shelter “constitutes an ongoing threat to public health and safety.” The lawsuit cited 28 health and safety code violations caused by the church using the building, which was intended solely for religious services, as an overnight shelter.

FBI Releases 2018 Hate Crime Statistics

Today the FBI released its 2018 Hate Crime Statistics. In 2018, 7,120 hate crime incidents were reported to the FBI by law enforcement authorities. These involved 8,496 offenses,  That was down from 7,175 incidents in 2017. Of 7,036 single-bias incidents, 20.2% (1,550 offenses) were motivated by religious bias.  57.8% of the religiously motivated incidents were anti-Jewish.  The next largest group of religiously motivated hate crimes were 14.5% which were anti-Muslim. 4.1% were anti-Sikh. 3.8% were anti-Catholic. Following release of the data, the ADL issued a press release saying in part:

It is unacceptable that Jews and Jewish institutions continue to be at the center of religion-based hate crime attacks.... We strongly urge Congress to immediately pass the Khalid Jabara and Heather Heyer National Opposition to Hate, Assault, and Threats to Equality (NO HATE) Act.

Switzerland's Rejection of Asylum Claim By Christian Convert Violates Human Rights Convention

In A.A. v. Switzerland, (ECHR, Nov. 5, 2019) (full text of decision in French), the European Court of Human Rights held that Switzerland had violated Art. 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) in its rejection of a claim for asylum by an Afghan national of Hazara ethnicity who was a Muslim convert to Christianity. As summarized by the Court's press release:

The Court noted that according to many international documents on the situation in Afghanistan, Afghans who had become Christians or who were suspected of conversion would be exposed to a risk of persecution by various groups. It could take the form of State persecution and result in the death penalty.

The Court noted that, while the authenticity of the applicant’s conversion in Switzerland had been accepted by the Federal Administrative Court, it had not carried out a sufficient assessment of the risks that could be personally faced by the applicant if he were returned to Afghanistan. The Court found in particular that the file did not contain any evidence that the applicant had been questioned about the everyday practice of his Christian faith since his baptism in  Switzerland and how he could, if returned, continue to practise it in Afghanistan, in particular in Kabul, where he had never lived and where he said that he would be unable to rebuild his future life.

Japan's New Emperor To Celebrate Enthronement Rite of Night With Goddess

According to WION, this Thursday brings the last major enthronement rite for Japan's new Emperor Naruhito-- spending the night with the sun goddess from whom some believe the Emperor is descended. This ceremony, known as the Daijosai has led to a suit by a group of 300 people who claim that the millions of dollars spent by the government on the ceremony violates the separation of church and state.

British Parliament Approves Regulations Extending Civil Partnerships to Opposite-Sex Couples

Law & Religion UK reports that in Britain, the Civil Partnership (Opposite-sex Couples) Regulations 2019 were approved by the House of Commons on Oct. 31 and by the House of Lords on November 5.

Recent Articles and Books of Interest

From SSRN:

• Doug Magendanz, The Fiasco of the Righteous: A Note on Justice, (October 21, 2019).
• Thomas Charles Berg, Life Patents, Religion, and Justice: A Summary of Themes, (From Patents on Life: Religious, Moral, and Social Justice Aspects of Biotechnology and Intellectual Property, (Thomas C. Berg, Roman Cholij, and Simon Ravenscroft eds., Cambridge University Press, 2019, Forthcoming)).
• Sohail Wahedi, The Constitutional Dynamics of Religious Manifestations, (2019, PhD thesis).
• George Letsas, Accommodating What Needn't Be Special, (The Law & Ethics of Human Rights, Volume 10, Issue 2, Pages 319–340, 2018).
• Tanner Bean & Robin Fretwell Wilson, When Academic Freedom Collides with Religious Liberty of Religious Universities, (University of St. Thomas Law Journal, Vol. 15, No. 2, 2019).
• Barry Winston Bussey, The Independence of Judicial Conscience, (Journal of Christian Legal Thought, Vol. 9, No. 2, 2019).
• David Crawford, Gender Identity and Nihilism: Some Anthropological Implications of Recent Caselaw, (October 7, 2019).
• Craig A. Stern, A Mistake of Natural Law: Sir William Blackstone and the Anglican Way, University of Bologna Law Review, Vol. 4, No. 2 (2019)).

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

• Jeffrey A. Redding, A Secular Failure: Sectarianism and Communalism in Shayara Bano v. Union of India, (October 23, 2019).
• Zubair Abbasi, Waqf in Pakistan: Rebirth of a Traditional Institution, (February 1, 2019).
• Samuel Singer, Charity Law Reform in Canada: Moving from Patchwork to Substantive Reform, (Alberta Law Review 57:3, Forthcoming).
• Jeffrey A. Redding, A Secular Failure: Sectarianism and Communalism in Shayara Bano v. Union of India (October 23, 2019).
• Ellen Johnson, Apostasy, Human Rights and Hate Crime in England and Wales: A Mixed Methods Study, (October 24, 2019).
• Md. Ashabur Rahman, Protection of Right to Divorce for Hindu Woman,(October 30, 2019).

Recent and Forthcoming Books:

• Haider Ala Hamoudi, Islamic Law in a Nutshell, (West Academic Publishing, Nov. 22, 2019).
• Thomas S. Kidd, Who Is An Evangelical?: The History of a Movement in Crisis, (Yale University Press, Sept. 24, 2019).
• Heiner Bielefeldt and Michael Wiener, Religious Freedom Under Scrutiny, (University of Pennsylvania Press, Dec. 2019).

India's Supreme Court Awards Disputed Ayodhya Site To Hindus

In M Siddiq (D) Thr Lrs v. Mahant Suresh Das & Ors, (India Supreme Court, Nov. 9, 2019), in an opinion that spans 1,045 pages, the Supreme Court of India ruled on a decades-old dispute over a piece of land claimed by both Hindus and Muslims.  BBC summarized the decision:

India's Supreme Court has ruled that the disputed holy site in Ayodhya in northern India should be given to Hindus who want to build a temple there.

The case, which has been bitterly contested for decades by Hindus and Muslims, centres on the ownership of the land in Uttar Pradesh state.

At the centre of the row is the 16th Century Babri mosque which was demolished by Hindu mobs in 1992, sparking riots that killed nearly 2,000 people.

Muslims would get another plot of land to construct a mosque, the court said.

In its opinion, the court explained:

The disputed land forms part of the village of Kot Rama Chandra or, as it is otherwise called, Ramkot at Ayodhya, in Pargana Haveli Avadh, of Tehsil Sadar in the District of Faizabad. An old structure of a mosque existed at the site until 6 December 1992. The site has religious significance for the devotees of Lord Ram, who believe that Lord Ram was born at the disputed site. For this reason, the Hindus refer to the disputed site as Ram Janmabhumi or Ram Janmasthan (i.e. birth-place of Lord Ram). The Hindus assert that there existed at the disputed site an ancient temple dedicated to Lord Ram, which was demolished upon the conquest of the Indian sub-continent by Mughal Emperor Babur. On the other hand, the Muslims contended that the mosque was built by or at the behest of Babur on vacant land. Though the significance of the site for the Hindus is not denied, it is the case of the Muslims that there exists no proprietary claim of the Hindus over the disputed property.

Reuters has more extensive reporting on the decision. [Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]

New Stay of Execution For Buddhist Inmate Over Access To Chaplain

In Murphy v. Collier, (SD TX, Nov. 7, 2019), a Texas federal district court stayed the execution of Patrick Murphy because of differential treatment of the religious needs of prisoners being executed. The U.S. Supreme Court stayed a previous execution date because of Texas' policy to allow a Christian chaplain to be in the execution chamber, but Murphy's Buddhist spiritual adviser could only be in an adjacent room. (See prior posting.) Texas then modified its procedures and allowed no chaplains in the execution chamber. (See prior posting.) However Murphy claims that there is still differential treatment:

Murphy’s amended complaint, however, has moved its primary focus to the interaction an inmate has with his spiritual advisor before entering the execution chamber..... [A]ll inmates have access to their spiritual advisor during business hours in the two-and-a-half days leading up to the execution. An inmate, however, may only meet with non-TDCJ spiritual advisors in the holding area (generally referred to as the “death house”) between 3:00 and 4:00 p.m. on the day of execution. For the next two hours, preparations are made for the execution. The inmate may make phone calls, including to his spiritual advisor, until 5:00 p.m. Only TDCJ personnel may interact with the inmate thereafter.

The policy, however, does not place any limitation on visits by TDCJ-employed clergy, “who appear to have access to an inmate until the minute he enters the execution chamber.”... Murphy argues that the amended policy still favors some religions over others because TDCJ-employed chaplains, who are all Christian or Muslim, have greater access to the condemned than non-TDCJ employee spiritual advisors.

The court concluded:

The concerns raised by the amended complaint’s focus on the pre-execution procedure are as compelling as those in the original complaint..... A stay will allow the Court time to explore and resolve serious factual concerns about the balance between Murphy’s religious rights and the prison’s valid concerns for security.

Texas Tribune reports on the decision.

State False Advertising Ban Does Not Apply To Catholic Schools

In State of West Virginia ex. rel. Morrisey v. Diocese of Wheeling-Charleston, (WV Cir. Ct., Nov. 6, 2019), a West Virginia Trial Court held that West Virginia's Consumer Credit and Protection Act does not apply to religious institutions' advertising or sale of educational or recreational services.  In the case, plaintiffs contended that the Diocese engaged in deceptive acts or practices by failing to disclose that in the past it had knowingly employed some priests and laity that had sexually abused children while it advertises a safe learning environment in its schools and camps. The court also held that application of the Act to religious schools would involve an unconstitutional excessive entanglement of church and state. After reaching its conclusions, the trial court stayed the action and certified the questions raised in the case to the West Virginia Supreme Court. The Intelligencer reports on the decision. [Thanks to Mark Chopko for the lead.]

Court Invalidates HHS Conscience Rules

In State of New York v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, (SD NY, Nov. 6, 2019), a New York federal district court vacated a 2019 rule promulgated by HHS which, as summarized by the court:

purports to interpret and provide for the implementation of more than 30 statutory provisions that recognize the right of an individual or entity to abstain from participation in medical procedures, programs, services, or research activities on account of a religious or moral objection. [See prior posting].

The court summarized the conclusions it reached in its 147-page opinion:

With respect to the Church, Coats-Snowe, and Weldon Amendments, HHS was never delegated and did not have substantive rule-making authority.....

 With respect to all Conscience Provisions, HSS was never delegated and did not have authority to promulgate a Rule authorizing, as a penalty available to the agency for a recipient’s non-compliance, the termination of all of the recipient’s HHS funds....

With respect to all Conscience Provisions, the Rule is contrary to law... insofar as (1) in its application to the employment context, it conflicts with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ... to prescribe a framework governing the circumstances under which an employer must accommodate an employee’s religion-based objections; and (2) in its application to emergencies, it conflicts with the 1986 Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act....

With respect to all Conscience Provisions, HHS acted arbitrarily and capriciously in promulgating the Rule,... because (1) HHS’s stated reasons for undertaking rulemaking are not substantiated by the record before the agency, (2) HHS did not adequately explain its change in policy, and (3) HHS failed to consider important aspects of the problem before it.

With respect to all Conscience Provisions, HHS did not observe proper rulemaking procedure in promulgating the Rule... insofar as portions of the Rule that define “discriminate or discrimination” were not a “logical outgrowth” of HHS’s notice of proposed rulemaking....

With respect to all Conscience Provisions, the Rule’s authorization ... as a penalty ... in the event of a recipient’s non-compliance of the termination of all of the recipient’s HHS funds, violated the Separation of Powers and the Spending Clause of the Constitution, U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 1.

Reuters reports on the decision.

UPDATE: A press release from the Washington state Attorney General's office reports that on Nov. 7 a federal district court in Washington also found the new conscience rules invalid.

New York Trial Court Upholds Vaccination Requirement

The Rochester Democrat & Chronicle reports that a New York state trial judge in Seneca County has rejected a challenge by an Amish family to New York's requirements that students be vaccinated in order to attend public or private school. The suit claimed that the immunization requirement violates the protection of religious freedom set out in the state constitution. The court wrote in part:

the free exercise clause of the New York Constitution would yield to a valid exercise of the state’s police powers.

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Shaakirrah Sanders, Religious Healing Exemptions and the Jurisprudential Gap Between Substantive Due Process and Free Exercise Rights, (8 U.C. Irvine L. Rev. 633 (2018)).
• Farnush Ghadery, 'Sticking to Their Guns': The United Nations' Failure to See the Potential of Islamic Feminism for the Promotion of Women's Rights in Afghanistan, (October 8, 2019).
• Robin S. Maril, From Piggie Park v. Newman to Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission: Application of the Outward Facing Actions Test to LGBTQ Nondiscrimination Provisions, (Rutgers Journal of Law and Religion, Forthcoming).
• Rafael Domingo & John Witte, Christianity and Global Law: Introduction,(October 10, 2019).
• Brenda Bauges, Balancing Religious Liberties and Anti-Discrimination Interests in the Public Employment Context: The Impact of Masterpiece Cakeshop and American Legion, (54 U. Rich. L. Rev., Forthcoming).
• Sabah Mofidi, Christianity, Women’s Rights and Feminist Ethics; in an Interview With Prof. Cristina Traina, (October 12, 2019).
• Shahbaz Ahmad Cheema, Non-Repugnancy Decisions of the Federal Shariat Court of Pakistan: An Analysis of Politico-legal Ramifications, (October 13, 2019).
• Shahbaz Ahmad Cheema, An Unlikely Champion of Women’s Rights under Muslim Personal Law: Mawdudi on Anglo-Muhammadan Law, (October 13, 2019).
• Pauline Ridge, When Is the Advancement of Religion Not a Charitable Purpose?,(Canadian Journal of Contemporary and Comparative Law (Summer 2020, Forthcoming)).
• Charles A. Sullivan, Retaliation and Requesting Religion Accommodation, (Case Western Reserve Law Review, Vol. 70, 2020).
• Dustin N. Sharp, Prickles and Goo: Human Rights and Spirituality, (October 18, 2019).
• Christos Makridis, Human Flourishing and Religious Liberty: Evidence from Over 150 Countries, 2006-2018, (October 21, 2019).

2nd Circuit Allows Christian Adoption Agency To Continue Ongoing Cases Pending Appeal On Anti-Discrimination Law

In New Hope Family Services, Inc. v. Poole, (2d Cir., Nov. 4, 2019), the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals issued a preliminary injunction allowing a Christian adoption agency, pending a decision on appeal of a lower court order, to continue to provide adoption services that are under way and ongoing without complying with New York's law barring discrimination on the basis of sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or marital status against applicants for adoption services. At the same time, the agency agreed to stop accepting all new clients while the appeal is pending. In May, the district court had rejected the agency's 1st and 14th amendment challenges to New York's anti-discrimination provisions. The Court of Appeals said in part:

On the motion record here, the court can conclude only that New Hope may succeed on the merits of its appeal; the likelihood of such success cannot confidently be predicted in advance of reviewing the circumstances and law as more fully presented by the parties in their merits briefs.

What can be determined even on the motion record, however, is that New Hope will suffer irreparable injury without the requested preliminary injunction pending appeal.

ADF issued a press release announcing the decision.

European Court Criticizes Greece's Procedure For Exemptions From Compulsory Religion Courses

In Papageorgiou and Others v. Greece, (ECHR, Oct. 31, 2019), the European Court of Human Rights in a chamber judgment held that Greece's system of exemptions of children from compulsory religious education classes in public schools violates freedom of education provisions and freedom of thought conscience and religion protected by the European Convention on Human Rights and Protocol Number 1 to the Convention.  Children who are not Orthodox Christians may be excused from the course. The court said in part:

the current system of exemption of children from the religious education course is capable of placing an undue burden on parents with a risk of exposure of sensitive aspects of their private life and that the potential for conflict is likely to deter them from making such a request, especially if they live in a small and religiously compact society, as is the case with the islands of Sifnos and Milos, where the risk of stigmatisation is much higher than in big cities. The applicant parents asserted that they were actually deterred from making such a request not only for fear of revealing that they were not Orthodox Christians in an environment in which the great majority of the population owe allegiance to one particular religion..., but also because, as they pointed out, there was no other course offered to exempted students and they were made to lose school hours just for their declared beliefs.

The Court also issued a Press Release summarizing the decision.

Hate Crime Charges Filed In Plot To Bomb Synagogue

Yesterday, the U.S. Attorney's Office in Colorado announced that a criminal complaint was filed charging a Colorado man with federal hate crimes for plotting to blow up a synagogue:

Richard Holzer, 27, of Pueblo, Colorado, was charged by criminal complaint with intentionally attempting to obstruct persons in the enjoyment of their free exercise of religious beliefs, through force and the attempted use of explosives and fire, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 247.  

According to the affidavit in support of the criminal complaint, Holzer planned to destroy Temple Emanuel, a synagogue in Pueblo, Colorado, that is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. After visiting Temple Emanuel and observing Jewish congregants, Holzer, who self-identifies as a skinhead and a white supremacist, told undercover FBI agents that he wanted to do something that would tell Jewish people in the community that they are not welcome in Pueblo, and they should leave or they will die. The affidavit states that during a meeting with the undercover agents, Holzer repeatedly expressed his hatred of Jewish people and his support for RAHOWA, shorthand for a racial holy war. Holzer went on to suggest using explosive devices to destroy the Synagogue and “get that place off the map.” The affidavit notes that Holzer’s actions meet the federal definition of domestic terrorism in that his actions involve criminal acts dangerous to human life that are intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population.

Ministerial Exception Requires Dismissal of Elementary Teacher's Pregnancy Discrimination Suit

In Hutson v. Concord Christian School, LLC, (ED TN, Nov. 4, 2019), a Tennessee federal district court dismissed an employment discrimination suit brought by an elementary teacher at a Baptist school.  The teacher's contract was not renewed after she became pregnant out of wedlock. The court held that the ministerial exception doctrine requires dismissal of plaintiff's claims.

HHS To Allow Grantees To Refuse To Serve LGBT Clients

On Nov. 1, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services announced actions that effectively allow agencies receiving HHS grants, including foster care and adoption agencies, to refuse to serve gay, lesbian and transgender individuals and families on religious grounds. First, HHS issued a Notice of Non-Enforcement of  rules adopted in 2016 that prohibit such discrimination. The non-enforcement decision was based on "significant concerns about compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act" in the promulgation of the 2016 rules.  HHS then issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that would repromulgate the rules with narrower anti-discrimination protections. The proposed new rules would replace this section:

(c) It is a public policy requirement of HHS that no person otherwise eligible will be excluded from participation in, denied the benefits of, or subjected to discrimination in the administration of HHS programs and services based on non-merit factors such as age, disability, sex, race, color, national origin, religion, gender identity, or sexual orientation. Recipients must comply with this public policy requirement in the administration of programs supported by HHS awards.

(d) In accordance with the Supreme Court decisions in United States v. Windsor and in Obergefell v. Hodges, all recipients must treat as valid the marriages of same-sex couples. This does not apply to registered domestic partnerships, civil unions or similar formal relationships recognized under state law as something other than a marriage.

The new rules will instead provide:

(c) It is a public policy requirement of HHS that no person otherwise eligible will be excluded from participation in, denied the benefits of, or subjected to discrimination in the administration of HHS programs and services, to the extent doing so is prohibited by federal statute.

(d) HHS will follow all applicable Supreme Court decisions in administering its award programs.

In its announcement, HHS said in part:

The proposed rule would better align its grants regulations with federal statutes, eliminating regulatory burden, including burden on the free exercise of religion.

New York Times reports on the HHS action.