Religion Clause

Wednesday, June 24, 2020

Suit Challenges City's Ban On Religious Christmas Displays On Public Property

The Knights of Columbus filed suit in a Delaware federal district court yesterday challenging Rehoboth Beach's policy adopted in 2018 of allowing only secular Christmas displays at the city's Bandstand Circle. The complaint (full text) in Knights of Columbus Star of the Sea Council 7297 v. City of Rehoboth Beach, Delaware, (D DE, filed 6/23/2020), alleges that since the 1930's a nativity scene had been displayed there during the Christmas season. It contends that the city, in allowing private groups to still erect secular displays, but insisting that the K of C display be placed on private property, violates plaintiff's free speech, free exercise and equal protection rights. First Liberty Institute issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Tuesday, June 23, 2020

South Carolina Episcopal Parishes All Win Title To Their Property

In Protestant Episcopal Church in the Diocese of South Carolina v. The Episcopal Church, (SC Common Pleas, June 19, 2020), a South Carolina trial court was called upon to interpret a confusing decision by the South Carolina Supreme Court in a long-running property dispute that arose after a split in the Episcopal Church in South Carolina. In a 2017 decision, the 5-member South Carolina Supreme Court in 5 separate opinions spanning 77 pages purported to resolve the factional property dispute. The trial court concluded that, under the state Supreme Court's decision, 36 parishes are the owners of their parish real estate and accompanying personal property. The court said in part:

This Court must distill the five separate opinions, identify the Court’s intent, and produce a logical directive. It must harmonize these opinions and find common ground among them. The issue is whether the 1979 Dennis Canon or any parish’s alleged accession to that Canon created a legally cognizable trust under South Carolina law....

At issue is ownership of real property, purchased and managed exclusively by the Plaintiff Parishes including land and buildings, considerable funds, and other personal property such as books, silver, and historical archives. The crux of the disagreement rests upon the Dennis Canon and its legal effect on whether this property was ever held in trust for TEC or TECSC....

This Court finds that the Plaintiffs merely promised allegiance to TEC and without more, this promise cannot deprive them of their ownership rights in their property. This Court finds no Parish expressly acceded to the 1979 Dennis Canon. The Dennis Canon was not mentioned by name in any of the evidence, and Defendants admitted that the Dennis Canon is not referenced in any of the deeds of parish property.... As a result, there is no trust created in favor of the Defendants, TEC and TECSC.

Christian Post reports on the decision.

Suit Challenges Roll-Back of Health Care Protections For Transgender Individuals

Suit was filed yesterday in the D.C. federal district court challenging the Trump Administration's recent rule change that rolled back health care anti-discrimination protection for transgender individuals. The complaint (full text) in Whitman-Walker Clinic, Inc. v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, (D DC, filed 6/22/2020) alleges in part:

[T]he Revised Rule imports broad and sweeping exemptions for discrimination based on personal religious or moral beliefs from the identified statutes in Section 1557 [of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act] and other statutes, including the Religious Freedom Restoration Act ... which Section 1557 does not reference. These exemptions invite individual health care providers, health care entities, and insurers across the country to opt out of treating patients, including many transgender patients, if they believe doing so would compromise their faith....

HHS’s attempt to create new religious exemptions in Section 1557 is contrary to law and endangers patients’ health in the name of advancing the religious beliefs of those who are entrusted with caring for them—a result sharply at odds with HHS’s stated mission to “enhance and protect the health and well-being of all Americans” and to “provid[e] for effective health and human services.”

The Hill reports on the filing of the lawsuit.

DOJ Sues Virginia County Over Restrictions On Creating Muslim Cemetery

Last week, the U.S. Department of Justice filed a federal RLUIPA lawsuit against Stafford County, Virginia. The complaint (full text) in United States v. Stafford County, Virginia, (ED VA, filed 5/19/2020) alleges in part that the county has imposed:

restrictive zoning requirements that preclude the All Muslim Association of America ... from establishing an Islamic cemetery on land it owns, thereby impeding its religious practice of providing low-cost burial services to persons of the Islamic faith. The County’s actions constitute a substantial burden on the free exercise of the religion of the All Muslim Association, in violation of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000....

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

Monday, June 22, 2020

Saturday, June 20, 2020

5th Circuit Dismisses Church's Challenge To COVID-19 Order As Moot

In Spell v. Edwards, (5th Cir., June 18, 2020), the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed as moot a constitutional challenge to Louisiana Governor John Bel Edwards' COVID-19 order that restricted in-person church services to ten congregants. On June 5, the Governor issued a new order allowing churches to operate at 50% of capacity. Judge Ho concurred, but said that a future case might turn out differently. He said in part:

If protests are exempt from social distancing requirements, then worship must be too....

Such support for the protests reflects a commendable commitment to equality. But public officials cannot devalue people of faith while elevating certain protestors. That would offend the First Amendment—not to mention the principle of equality for which the protests stand.

Friday, June 19, 2020

Injunction and $1M Damages For False Use Of Kosher Certification Symbol

In Chicago Rabbinical Council v. Abdul Rehman Group, Inc., (ND IL, June 9, 2020), an Illinois federal district court awarded statutory damages of $1 million under the Lanham Trademark Act to the Chicago Rabbinical Council ("cRc") in its suit against a company that was without authority applying a cRc logo to its food products, falsely indicating that they had been approved as kosher. The court also issued a broad injunction barring defendant from using the cRc logo in any way to mislead others into believing that its products were certified by cRc. Kosher Today reports on the decision.

Suit Challenges COVID-19 Closure of Jewish Overnight Camps

Suit was filed yesterday in a New York federal district court challenging New York COVID-19 orders that require Jewish overnight camps to remain closed this summer. The complaint (full text) in Association of Jewish Camp Operators v. Cuomo, (ND NY, filed 6/18/2020), alleges in part:

5. On June 12, 2020, Defendant announced that overnight camps would be closed for the summer of 2020 under his COVID-19 orders, without making any exceptions for Jewish overnight camps, notwithstanding that these overnight camps involve core religious exercise.

6. In contrast, Defendant has made a broad First Amendment exception from his COVID-19 orders for First Amendment activities that he favors. In particular, Defendant has created a de facto exemption from his COVID-19 orders for mass demonstrations ... even though these mass protests pose greater risks of the transmission of COVID-19 than do Jewish overnight camps.

7. Defendant also has allowed a wide array of similar, secular activities to remain open....

11. Defendant’s statewide closure of all Jewish overnight camps this summer violates Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights of the free exercise of religion and the fundamental rights of parents to control the religious education and upbringing of their children, guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution and Article III, § 3 of the New York Constitution.

[Thanks to Steven H. Sholk for the lead.]

Ohio Passes Student Religious Liberties Act

The Ohio legislature yesterday gave final passage to the Student Religious Liberties Act (HB 164) (full text). The bill now goes to the governor for his signature. The bill provides in part:

Sec. 3320.02. (A) A student enrolled in a public school may engage in religious expression before, during, and after school hours in the same manner and to the same extent that a student is permitted to engage in secular activities or expression before, during, and after school hours.

(B) A school district ... shall give the same access to school facilities to students who wish to conduct a meeting for the purpose of engaging in religious expression as is given to secular student groups, without regard to the content of a student's or group's expression.

Sec. 3320.03. No school district ... shall prohibit a student from engaging in religious expression in the completion of homework, artwork, or other written or oral assignments. Assignment grades and scores shall be calculated using ordinary academic standards of substance and relevance, including any legitimate pedagogical concerns, and shall not penalize or reward a student based on the religious content of a student's work.

Cleveland.com and BJC (Don Byrd) report on the legislature's action.

UPDATE: Governor DeWine signed the bill on June 19. (AP)

European Court Awards Damages To Widow Whose Inheritance Was Reduced Under Sharia Law

As previously reported, in 2018 the European Court of Human Rights held that Greece had violated Art. 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights which bans discrimination on the basis of religion when it insisted that Sharia law be applied to a wife's inheritance rights. Sharia law resulted in her receiving only 25% of what she was bequeathed to under under a will left by her husband. The court, however, left open the question of damages. Now in Sali v. Greece, (ECHR, June 18, 2020), the Court held that Greece should taking steps to ensure that the wife retains her ownership of the property in Greece left to her by her husband. However if the government does not do this within a year, the Court held that Greece should compensate her for the value of the property lost, which amounts to a little over 41,000 Euros. She was also awarded 10,000 Euros for the suffering caused by the discrimination against her. Courthouse News Service reports on the decision. Three dissenting judges thought that the court should also have dealt with property in Turkey left to the wife.

Thursday, June 18, 2020

Notre Dame Launches Religious Liberty Clinic

Notre Dame Law School announced yesterday that it is creating the Notre Dame Religious Liberty Clinic. Prof. Stephanie Barclay will head the new initiative. She comes to Notre Dame from the faculty of Brigham Young University’s J. Reuben Clark Law School.

Cert. Petition Filed In Title VII Reasonable Accommodation Case

A petition for certiorari (full text) was filed this week in Small v. Memphis Light, Gas and Water, (Sup. Ct., file 6/16/2020). In the case, the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of an employment discrimination claim by a Jehovah's Witness, concluding that Memphis Light adequately accommodated their employee's religious beliefs when it allowed him to swap shifts with other employees. (See prior posting.) The petition for review presents the question as:

Whether Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison, 432 U.S. 63, 84 (1977), which stated that employers suffer an “undue hardship” in accommodating an employee’s religious exercise whenever doing so would require them “to bear more than a de minimis cost,” misinterprets § 2000e(j) and should be overruled.

[Thanks to Jim Sonne for the lead.]

Wednesday, June 17, 2020

Russian Court Sentences Jehovah's Witness To 6½ Years In Prison

Forum 18 reports that in the Russian city of Pskov, a trial court has sentenced a 61-year old Jehovah's Witness to 6½ years imprisonment on charges of financing extremist activity. This is the longest sentence imposed on a Jehovah's Witness since the 2017 Russian Supreme Court decision banning Jehovah's Witness activity. A 6-year sentence was imposed on another Jehovah's Witness by a court in the city of Oryol last year.

Minister Challenges Louisiana Cockfighting Ban

Suit was filed last week in a Louisiana federal district court by Holy Fight Ministries and its minister claiming that Louisiana's ban on cockfighting violates their federal and state free exercise rights as well as the Establishment Clause. The complaint (full text) in Plumbar v. Landry, (MD LA, filed 6/12/2020), alleges in part:

Reverend Plumbar, Holy Fight Ministries and its congregation hold the sincere religious belief that cockfighting represents that while they strive for CHRIST, they have a necessary symbolic physical manifestation, an epiphany through the fighting cock, a religious mandate of the struggle between good and evil, a struggle for life or death for the Salvation of the soul, and thus cockfighting is an integral and essential part of their religious faith.

[Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]

7th Circuit Upholds Illinois COVID-19 Restrictions On Worship Services

In Elim Romanian Pentecostal Church v. Pritzker, (7th Cir., June 16, 2020), the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected a church's challenge to Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker's COVID-19 orders which restrict-- or in their latest form urge restriction-- on the size of worship services. The court said in part:

Plaintiffs maintain ... that the ten-person cap disfavors religious services compared with, say, grocery shopping (more than ten people at a time may be in a store) or warehouses (where a substantial staff may congregate to prepare and deliver the goods that retail shops sell)....

So what is the right comparison group: grocery shopping, warehouses, and soup kitchens, as plaintiffs contend, or concerts and lectures, as Illinois maintains? Judges of other appellate courts have supported both comparisons....

It would be foolish to pretend that worship services are exactly like any of the possible comparisons, but they seem most like other congregate functions that occur in auditoriums, such as concerts and movies.... Functions that include speaking and singing by the audience increase the chance that persons with COVID-19 may transmit the virus through the droplets that speech or song inevitably produce....

Courthouse News Service reports on the decision.

Tuesday, June 16, 2020

Supreme Court Stays Execution Of Prisoner Denied A Chaplain In the Execution Chamber

The U.S. Supreme Court today granted a stay of execution pending its decision on whether to grant review in Gutierrez v. Saenz. Ruben Gutierrez's execution was scheduled for today. In the case the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals vacated a stay of execution that had been granted to a convicted murderer who complained about Texas' exclusion of chaplains from the execution chamber. (See prior posting.) The Supreme Court, while now granting a stay until it either denies certiorari or it grants review and decides the case (full text of Order), added as part of its order:

The District Court should promptly determine, based on whatever evidence the parties provide, whether serious security problems would result if a prisoner facing execution is permitted to choose the spiritual adviser the prisoner wishes to have in his immediate presence during the execution.

USA Today reports on the Court's decision.

5th Circuit Upholds Texas Prison Chaplain Execution Protocol

In Gutierrez v. Saenz, (5th Cir., June 12, 2020), the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals vacated a stay of execution that had been granted to a convicted murderer who complained about Texas' exclusion of chaplains from the execution chamber. The court said in part:

Gutierrez fails to make a strong showing of a likelihood of success in establishing that TDCJ’s execution policy is not “reasonably related to legitimate penological interests.” ...

Perhaps Gutierrez is being denied the final measure of spiritual comfort that might be available. As important as that is, government action does not rise to the level of a substantial burden on religious exercise if it merely prevents the adherent from enjoying some benefit that is not otherwise generally available.

Monday, June 15, 2020

Supreme Court: Title VII Bans LGBT Discrimination

The U.S. Supreme Court today in a 6-3 decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, (Sup. Ct., June 15, 2020), held that the provisions of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act which prohibit discrimination in employment "because of sex" protect gay, lesbian and transgender individuals. In an opinion written by Justice Gorsuch, and joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan, the court said in part:

Today, we must decide whether an employer can fire someone simply for being homosexual or transgender. The answer is clear. An employer who fires an individual for being homosexual or transgender fires that person for traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of a different sex. Sex plays a necessary and undisguisable role in the decision, exactly what Title VII forbids.

Those who adopted the Civil Rights Act might not have anticipated their work would lead to this particular result. Likely, they weren’t thinking about many of the Act’s consequences that have become apparent over the years, including its prohibition against discrimination on the basis of motherhood or its ban on the sexual harassment of male employees. But the limits of the drafters’ imagination supply no reason to ignore the law’s demands. When the express terms of a statute give us one answer and extratextual considerations suggest another, it’s no contest. Only the written word is the law, and all persons are entitled to its benefit.

Justice Alito filed a dissent, joined by Justice Thomas, saying in part:

The Court tries to convince readers that it is merely enforcing the terms of the statute, but that is preposterous. Even as understood today, the concept of discrimination because of “sex” is different from discrimination because of “sexual orientation” or “gender identity.” And in any event, our duty is to interpret statutory terms to “mean what they conveyed to reasonable people at the time they were written.” A. Scalia & B. Garner, Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts 16 (2012) (emphasis added)….

The Court attempts to pass off its decision as the inevitable product of the textualist school of statutory interpretation championed by our late colleague Justice Scalia, but no one should be fooled. The Court’s opinion is like a pirate ship. It sails under a textualist flag, but what it actually represents is a theory of statutory interpretation that Justice Scalia excoriated––the theory that courts should “update” old statutes so that they better reflect the current values of society.

Justice Kavanaugh also filed a dissent, saying in part:

Under the Constitution’s separation of powers, the responsibility to amend Title VII belongs to Congress and the President in the legislative process, not to this Court.

The Court's opinion covered three cases, Bostock, Altitude Express, and R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes. Religion News Service reports on the decision.

Suit Challenges NY Worship Restrictions vs. Permitted Floyd Protests

Suit was filed last week in a New York federal district court by two Catholic priests and three Orthodox Jews challenging limits on worship services imposed by New York state and city COVID-19 orders. The complaint (full text) in Soos v. Cuomo, (ND NY, filed 6/10/2020), alleges in part:

[W]hile defendants jointly impose this arbitrary, pseudo-scientific regime of strict gathering limits for some groups and activities but not others, they are permitting closely packed gatherings of thousands to protest the wrongful death of George Floyd at the hands of a police officer, which have been taking place in New York City and every other major city in New York State day-after-day since Floyd’s death on May 25.

Plaintiffs' Memorandum In Support of an Application for a Preliminary Injunction (full text) contends in part:

Here, the Orders only purport to mandate a general limit on non-essential gatherings across the state. But aside from the voluminous formal exemptions that undermine the Orders’ general applicability ..., Defendants recently granted an individualized exemption to mass gatherings protesting the death of George Floyd at the hands of a police officer.... These protests have involved hundreds or thousands of protestors all across the state, often packed together shoulder-to-shoulder in express derogation of the Orders’ limits on gathering sizes and social distancing.... And yet, while Defendants expressly approve of these gatherings, they have insisted that limits on religious gatherings remain in place.... This is exactly the type of disparate individualized assessment that must pass strict scrutiny under the Free Exercise Clause.

Thomas More Society issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit. [Thanks to Steven H. Sholk for the lead.]

UPDATE: Here is defendants' Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Application for Injunctive Relief.