Zoning Board Members Have Qualified Immunity In Mosque's Suit

In Adam Community Center v. City of Troy, (ED MI, Aug. 26,2020), a Michigan federal district court held that members of a city's Zoning Board of Appeal who voted to deny a zoning variance sought by a mosque are entitled to qualified immunity in a suit against them personally for damages.  The court said in part:

The record does not present sufficient evidence to establish that the Individual Defendants knew or should have known their straightforward application of the seemingly legal zoning regulations, which impose different setback requirements on places of worship and places of business, would violate Plaintiff’s constitutional rights. And Plaintiff provides no legal authority clearly establishing that a government official violates a citizen’s right to freedom of religion when it enforces an apparently valid zoning ordinance for facially neutral reasons that may or may not interfere with the citizen’s right to express her religion. 

Moreover, Plaintiff fails to present sufficient evidence to establish that each of the of the Individual Defendants, in voting to deny Plaintiff’s variance application, acted with discriminatory intent or religious annimus...

However, in finding that the Individual Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity, the Court cautions that its decision here should in no way be construed as a finding that Plaintiff’s constitutional rights were not violated by the ZBA’s decision, or as absolving the ZBA , the City, or any of the Entity Defendants from potential liability.

Court Enjoins DOE Rule Favoring Funding of Private Schools Under CARES Act

In State of Washington v. DeVos, (WD WA, Aug. 21, 2020), a Washington federal district court granted a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of a Guidance and an Interim Final Rule issued under the CARES Act by the Department of Education. The rule essentially encourages use of a formula that has the effect of increasing the proportion of CARES Act funding going to private schools (including religious schools), at the expense of public schools. Education Week reports on the decision. [Thanks to Mel Kaufman for the lead.]

5th Circuit Denies Stay of Decision Invalidating Texas Abortion Restrictions

In Whole Woman's Health v. Paxton, (5th Cir., Aug. 21, 2020), the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 decision refused to stay a district court decision handed down nearly 3 years ago which struck down a Texas abortion law banning  the standard dilation and evacuation procedure. The majority explained:

[W]e address our dissenting colleague’s [Judge Willett's] view that the motion should be granted, and this case remanded, because the governing legal standards have supposedly changed in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in June Medical Servs. LLC v. Russo, 140 S. Ct. 2103 (2020).  Respectfully, this is not so. June Medical Servs. LLC v. Russo, 140 S. Ct. 2103 (2020), has not disturbed the undue-burden test, and Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, 136 S. Ct. 2292 (2016), remains binding law in this Circuit.

The State’s stay motion is also patently procedurally defective.... [T]he problem here is that the State does not even attempt to explain why it would be “pointless” to move first in the district court.

[Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.] 

Oregon's COVID-19 Limits On Religious Schools Upheld

 The Oregonian reports that on Aug. 20, an Oregon federal district court in Horizon Christian School et al v. State of Oregon denied a request for a temporary restraining order to allow three Christian schools to reopen in violation of Gov. Kate Brown's COVID-19 executive order.  In what was apparently an opinion delivered orally from the bench, the court said in part:

In my view the religious institutions here in K-through-12 aren’t being treated in any way differently than public K-through-12 institutions...

The harm the state is trying to prevent is death and not just death as in a few, but the possibility of a widespread pandemic killing our most vulnerable citizens...

6th Circuit Upholds Denial of Inmate's Religious Diet Request

 In Miles v. Michigan Department of Corrections, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 26666 (6th Cir., Aug. 20, 2020), the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected a "Moorish American Moslem" inmate's claim that his rights under the Free Exercise clause and RLUIPA were violated when his request for a pork-free diet was denied. The court said in part:

As part of his request, Miles signed a statement agreeing to "not possess food items forbidden by my religion's teachings." The defendants explained that Miles's "request was denied because [he] made prison store purchases that were inconsistent with his professed religious dietary restrictions," namely the repeated purchase of pork products such as summer sausage and chili. Additionally, Leach averred in a supporting affidavit that "[a]llowing a prisoner to have a religious meal when he openly flaunts restrictions imposed on other same-faith prisoners could provoke [*7]  resentment amongst other prisoners who are adhering to the tenets, which could lead to violence within the facility." "Prison officials have a legitimate penological interest not only in controlling the cost of the [religious] meal program and ensuring that only those with sincere beliefs participate in the program, but also in maintaining discipline within the prison."

Recent Articles of Interest

 From SSRN:

• Audra Savage, COVID-1619: A Brief History of Racism, (August 10, 2020).
• Jianlin Chen & Phapit Triratpan, Black Magic, Sex Rituals and the Law: A Case Study of Sexual Assault by Religious Fraud in Thailand, (37(1) UCLA Pacific Basin Law Journal 25-57 (2020)).
• M.C. Mirow, Félix Varela y Morales (Cuba, 1788-1853), (M.C. Mirow and Rafael Domingo, eds., Law and Christianity in Latin America: The Work of Great Jurists (Routledge, 2020 Forthcoming)).
• Nicholas Aroney & Benjamin Saunders, Freedom of Religion in Australia, (in Matthew Groves, Daniel Meagher and Janina Boughey (eds), The Legal Protection of Rights in Australia (Hart Publishing, Forthcoming)).
• Ahmed Usman, Adultery, the Ground for Dissolution of Christian Marriage in Pakistan: Intersectional Constraint to Christian Women in Pakistan, (Pakistan Perspectives, Vol. 24, No.2, July-December 2019).
• Thomas Charles Berg, Religious Freedom Amid the Tumult, (Forthcoming, University of St. Thomas Law Journal, volume 17 (2021)).
• Fidelis Chuka Aghamelu, Abortion and the Dignity of Human Life: A Reflection on the Fifth Commandment and a Christian Political Response to Contemporary Culture of Death, (Journal of African Studies and Sustainable Development Vol. 2 No 5, 2019).
• Susanna Mancini & Michel Rosenfeld, Nationalism, Populism, Religion, and the Quest to Reframe Fundamental Rights, (Cardozo Law Review, Forthcoming).
• John Vlahoplus, Bostock, Zarda, and R.G & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes: Affirming Equality and Challenging Textualism, (Geo. Wash. L. Rev. On the Docket, 2020).
• Philip Hackney, The 1969 Tax Reform Act and Charities: Fifty Years Later, (Pittsburgh Tax Review, Vol. 17, p. 235, 2020).

From SmartCILP:

• A Symposium on Linda C. McClain’s Who’s the Bigot? Learning from Conflicts over Marriage and Civil Rights Law, 99 Boston University Law Review 2587-2736 (December 2019).
• Linda Ross Meyer, Unreasonable Revelations: God Told Me to Kill, (39 Pace Law Review 745-832 (2019)).

11th Circuit Invalidates School's Rule On Transgender Bathroom Assignments

 In Adams v. School Board of St. Johns County, Florida, (11th Cir., Aug. 7, 2020), the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals by a 2-1 vote held that a Florida high school's policy that prevented a transgender male from using the boy's bathroom violates the Equal Protection Clause as well as Title IX. The court said in part:

[W]e assume the government may promote its interest in protecting privacy by maintaining separate bathrooms for boys and girls or men and women. Mr. Adams, for his part, does not question the ubiquitous societal practice of separate bathrooms for men and women. Instead, Mr. Adams argues the School Board’s bathroom policy singles him out for differential treatment on the basis of his gender nonconformity and without furthering student privacy whatsoever. The record before us has persuaded us to his view.

The majority noted that the school relies on the student's sex designation on school enrollment forms, and not on their birth certificates. The majority went on:

 A public school may not punish its students for gender nonconformity. Neither may a public school harm transgender students by establishing arbitrary, separate rules for their restroom use. The evidence at trial confirms that Mr. Adams suffered both these indignities.

Chief Judge Pryor dissented, saying in part:

By failing to address head-on the lawfulness of sex-separated bathrooms in schools, the majority recasts the school policy as classifying students on the basis of transgender status. And based on this recasting, it reaches the remarkable conclusion that schoolchildren have no sex-specific privacy interests when using the bathroom. The majority opinion purports to allow only plaintiff Drew Adams, a female who identifies as a male, to use the boys’ bathroom, but the logic of this decision would require all schoolchildren to use sex-neutral bathrooms.

Lambda Legal issued a press release announcing the decision.

August 22: International Day Commemorating the Victims of Acts of Violence Based on Religion or Belief

Yesterday was designated by the United Nations as International Day Commemorating the Victims of Acts of Violence Based on Religion or Belief.  The designation was created by a Resolution (full text) passed by the General Assembly last May. The U.N. website devoted to the day links to a variety of relevant source material.

Establishment Clause Challenge To BLM Mural Dismissed For Lack of Standing

 In Penkoski v. Bowser, (D DC, Aug. 21, 2020), the D.C. federal district court dismissed for lack of standing a suit filed by a pastor and two lobbyists challenging the two-block long painting of "Black Lives Matter" on the pavement of 16th Street near the White House. Identifying themselves as non-Black Christians, plaintiffs claim that the painting violates both the Equal Protection Clause and the Establishment Clause. According to the court:

They claim that the Mural violates the Equal Protection Clause and the Establishment Clause because it labels them—non-black Christians—“second class citizens.” ... The “Black Lives Matter cult,” they allege, “is a denominational sect of the religion of Secular Humanism.” ... This is evidenced both by the BLM protestors’ behavior ... and the “scriptures lifted from the Black Lives Matter’s marxist liturgical creed".... The Mural, Plaintiffs claim, signals the District’s preference both for black citizens and for those that adhere to the BLM denomination.

The court found a lack of standing as to plaintiffs'equal protection claim, saying in part:

The Court does not doubt the sincerity of Plaintiffs’ feelings of ostracization nor quibble with their claims about the divisiveness of the Mayor’s actions.... But these feelings alone cannot justify standing.

It similarly found a lack of standing on plaintiffs' Establishment Clause claim, saying in part:

[A]s with their equal protection claim, Plaintiffs assert a psychological, stigmatic injury for their Establishment Clause claim....

[T]he development of the Establishment Clause and standing doctrines over the past fifty years counsels against adopting offended observer standing here and now, when no contrary precedent binds this Court. The Court, thus, declines to find that Penkoski, Sevier, and Christopher have standing just because they have been “expose[d]” to a display that offends them.

Summary Judgment Denied In Rastafarian's Title VII "Failure To Accommodate" Claim

 In EEOC v. Publix Supermarkets, Inc., (MD TN, Aug. 20, 2020), a Tennessee federal district court refused to grant summary judgment to the EEOC which claims that Publix Supermarkets refused to accommodate Guy Usher's Rastafarian religious beliefs that require him to wear his hair in dreadlocks. The court held that disputed issues of fact remain as to whether the Usher informed Publix that its grooming policy conflicts with his religious beliefs, and that factual questions remain as to whether Usher holds sincere religious beliefs on the matter. The court also allowed the EEOC to move ahead with its failure-to-hire claim, but not with its constructive discharge claim.

Teacher's Suit Over Pronouns Used In Addressing Transgender Student Is Remanded To State Court

 In Vlaming v. West Point School Board, (ED VA, Aug. 19, 2020), a high school teacher sued when he was fired for refusing to abide by school policy that required him to refer to a transgender male student using male pronouns. The suit was originally brought in a Virginia state court (see prior posting), but was removed to federal court by defendants. The suit contended that the school board's decision to fire the teacher violated his rights under the Virginia constitution and various state statutes. In this decision, the Virginia federal district court held that the case was incorrectly removed, and remanded the case to state court because it raises only state law issues.

New Jersey COVID-19 Limits On Indoor Church Services Upheld

In Solid Rock Baptist Church v. Murphy, (D NJ, Aug.  20, 2020), a New Jersey federal district court rejected a church's challenge to the limits on indoor worship services imposed in New Jersey governor's COVID-19 orders,  The court said in part:

Although Plaintiffs have made a compelling case that the Executive Orders were crafted with religious indifference, the Court may not invalidate the executive orders on those grounds alone. In the end, Plaintiffs have been unable to demonstrate that the restrictions on indoor gatherings were crafted with religious animus, have been applied unequally, or lack a rational relationship to a legitimate government objective....

Plaintiffs are rightfully disillusioned that the State has not prioritized indoor religious activity to the same degree as outdoor social justice protests. The State’s apathy to sincerely held religious beliefs, alone, however, does not establish unequal treatment as it pertains to indoor gatherings. Because the Court concludes that Plaintiffs have failed to establish that the Executive Orders, as they pertain to large indoor gatherings, are not facially neutral and generally applicable, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have not established a likelihood of success on the merits.

Challenge To California COVID-19 Limits On Church Services Rejected

 In Whitsitt v. Newsom, (ED CA, Aug. 19, 2020),a California federal magistrate judge recommended dismissing a challenge to the California governor's COVID-19 orders that limited attendance at church service. Rejecting plaintiff's free exercise challenge, the court said in part:

Here, the Stay at Home Order and the subsequent guidelines are facially neutral regarding religion. The Order directs all residents to stay home “except as needed to maintain continuity of operations” of certain business sectors.... The Order exempts “[f]aith based services that are provided through streaming or other technology.” ... Although the Order expressly mentions religious services, it does so to exempt them from its restrictions. The mention of religious services in this context—to exempt them from the Stay at Home Order—does not transform the Order into a facially discriminatory one.

Negligence Claims Against Anti-Gay Church and Pastor Should Not Be Dismissed Under Anti-SLAPP Law

Fritz v. Jimenez, (CA App., Aug. 18, 2020), is a suit brought by individuals who staged protests against Verity Baptist Church and its pastor Roger Jimenez after Jimenez delivered and posted sermons praising the killing of nearly 50 people in a Florida gay night club. The protesters claim that they were subjected to physical violence, death threats and intimidation by church employees. Defendants asked the trial court to dismiss various claims under California's anti-SLAPP statute which is designed to quickly get rid of suits that are brought strategically to chill free speech. The trial court, on this theory, dismissed plaintiffs' claim of negligent supervision. The Court of Appeals reversed saying that the claim did not arise from defendants' exercise of free speech. The court said in part: 

The sermons of Jimenez provide for a clearer understanding of the situation in which the conduct by VBC and Jimenez’s agents and employees happened. However, the statements of Jimenez are not the focus of the negligence claim. Plaintiffs’ negligence claims are colorable even if none of Jimenez’s statements were contained on the complaint because the complaint would still set forth such regular occurrences of violence and intimidation that a claim for negligent supervision would be stated. Even so, plaintiffs are entitled to rely on Jimenez’s sermons and statements to help establish the foreseeability of physical violence and intimidation against them as a risk inherent in the way VBC and Jimenez conducted the enterprise....

The court also affirmed the trial court's refusal to dismiss plaintiffs' premises liability claim. [Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]

McDonald's Franchisee Settles EEOC Religious Discrimination Suit

The EEOC announced yesterday that an Orlando, Florida McDonald's franchisee has settled a religious discrimination lawsuit filed against it by the EEOC.  The restaurant refused to hire a Jewish applicant as a part-time maintenance worker because the applicant would not shave his beard. It refused to create an accommodation to its policy that all employees must be completely clean shaven, even though the applicant offered to wear his beard in a net.  A 2½ year consent decree gives damages of $69,555 to the applicant and requires the franchisee to change its grooming policies, conduct anti-discrimination training and take other compliance steps.

Oregon State Law Overrides County Limit On Zoning For Mosque

 In Tarr v. Multnomah County, (OR App., Aug. 19, 2020), an Oregon state appellate court held that a state statute governing zoning for houses of worship prevents a county from applying a "compatibility standard" that appears in the county zoning code.  In a suit by individuals living next door to property on which it is proposed to build a mosque, the court concluded that the county code's requirement that a community service use be "consistent  with  the  character  of  the  area" cannot be invoked to prevent construction of the mosque.  The court said in part:

the  plain  terms  of  ORS  215.441(1)  and  (2),  in context, leave no room for the application of the county’s compatibility  standard—or  standards  like  it—to  proposed  religious  land  uses  where,  as  here,  a  place  of  worship  is  allowed  on  a  particular  piece  of  real  property  under  state  law  and  county  zoning  laws.

Worshipers Lack Standing to Sue Synagogue Picketers

 In Gerber v. Herskovitz, (ED MI, Aug. 19, 2020), a Michigan federal district court dismissed for lack of standing a lawsuit against protesters who for almost 18 years have picketed an Ann Arbor, Michigan synagogue every Saturday morning with anti-Jewish and anti-Israel signs. Plaintiffs, who attend Sabbath services in the synagogue or in an adjacent building, also sued the city of Ann Arbor for failing to enforce the City Code against the protesters.  Plaintiffs contend that the picketing interferes with their Free Exercise right to practice their religion without being harassed. The court held, however:

There is no allegation that the protestors prevent Plaintiffs from attending Sabbath services, that they block Plaintiffs’ path onto the property or to the Synagogue, or that the protests and signs outside affect the services inside. Plaintiffs merely allege that the Defendants’ conduct causes them distress and “interferes” with their enjoyment of attending religious services. This is the “subjective chill” that is “not an adequate substitute for a claim of specific present objective harm or a threat of specific future harm.” Laird v. Tatum, 408 U.S. 1, 13-14 (1972). This type of “chill” does not confer standing and is not actionable. 

Islamic Terrorism Unit In Course Does Not Violate 1st Amendment

In Sabra v. Maricopa County Community College District, (D AZ, Aug. 18, 2020), an Arizona federal district court dismissed a suit challenging the manner in which a community college faculty member taught a portion of a World Politics course. Plaintiffs contend that the instructor's primary message in teaching the Islamic Terrorism module of the course was disapproval of Islam.The court rejected both Establishment Clause and Free exercise challenges, saying in part:

Examining the course as a whole, a reasonable, objective observer would conclude that the teaching’s primary purpose was not the inhibition of religion. The offending component was only a part of one-sixth of the course and taught in the context of explaining terrorism. One aspect of terrorism is Islamic terrorism. Only in picking select quotes from the course can one describe the module as anti-Islam.... [T]he primary effect of Dr. Damask’s course is not the inhibition of the practice of Islam. Therefore, the Plaintiffs’ Establishment Clause claims must be dismissed....

Mr. Sabra was not required to adopt the views expressed by Dr. Damask or the authors Dr. Damask cited to in his course, but only to demonstrate an understanding of the material taught. Dr. Damask’s course did not inhibit Mr. Sabra’s personal worship in any way. Instead, Mr. Sabra was simply exposed to “attitudes and outlooks at odds” with his own religious perspective.... Therefore, as a matter of law, the Court finds that the Plaintiff’s allegations do not amount to a violation of the Free Exercise Clause by the Defendants....

[Thanks to Volokh Conspiracy for the lead.]

Court Enjoins Trump Administration Roll Back of Transgender Protections In Health Care

 In Walker v. Azar, (ED NY, Aug. 17, 2020), a New York federal district court enjoined the Trump Administration's roll back of anti-discrimination rules under the Affordable Care Act and Title IX. The roll back eliminated protections for LGBTQ individuals, and in particular for transgender persons. Citing the Supreme Court's recent Bostock decision, the court stayed the new rules' definition of discrimination on the basis of sex.  The court said:

As a result, the definitions of “on the basis of sex,” “gender identity,” and “sex stereotyping” currently set forth in 45 C.F.R. § 92.4 will remain in effect.

Politico reports on the decision.

Churches Respond To IRS Proposed Changes In Group Exemption Letter Program

 In May, the Internal Revenue Service issued a 63-page proposal (full text) to update procedures for a parent organization to obtain 501(c)(3) non-profit status rulings for a group of subordinate organizations. The Notice explains its purpose, saying in part:

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is issuing this guidance in proposed form to provide an opportunity for public comment because the IRS recognizes that, if finalized, the proposed revenue procedure would make substantial changes to the procedures set forth in Rev. Proc. 80-27 and that the application of these new procedures may impose an additional administrative burden on central organizations with group exemption letters in existence on the date the final revenue procedure is published in the Internal Revenue Bulletin (preexisting group exemption letters).

The IRS oversees more than 4,000 group exemption letters that include more than 440,000 subordinate organizations. The IRS has considered how to reduce the administrative burden and increase the efficiency of the group exemption letter program, to improve the integrity of data collected for purposes of program oversight, to increase the transparency of the program, and to increase compliance by central organizations and subordinate organizations with program requirements....

Last week, a 14-page joint comment letter (full text) was filed with the IRS by the Evangelical Lutheran Church, the United Church of Christ, The United Methodist Church, The Episcopal Church, and the Reformed Church in America. It contends that the proposal in its present form violates both RFRA and the 1st Amendment, saying in part:

This letter asks that if the IRS adopts a revamped procedure for the administration of the group ruling exemption process, it make an accommodation to allow the faith communities to continue their status quo.... We do not believe the IRS desires a set of modifications that would burden the expression of religious beliefs in ways that would range from making group rulings overwhelmingly unmanageable to obviously unconstitutional....

The Proposed Revenue Procedure requires that subordinate organizations participating in a group exemption ruling must adopt a uniform governing instrument... 

Considering the decades during which these religious organizations added first thousands, and then tens of thousands, of subordinate organizations to their group rulings, the impact of this requirement going forward is enormous....

Further, the very act of requiring uniform governing instruments is theologically untenable in these denominations that have chosen respective ecclesiastical structures and relationships that best express their beliefs about where authority resides and how it is exercised, and how and by whom ultimate decisions about key theological issues are made....

Even if RFRA were not dispositive, the First Amendment would bar the IRS from effectively dictating polity and structure matters inside a denomination. The IRS cannot close the Group Exemption process to all churches except those able to eccelsiologically impose specific civil forms on subordinates.

Other denominations have also filed comment letters. [Thanks to Jennifer Gniady for the lead.]