Pastor Was Validly Demoted and Terminated

In Kim v. Kwon, (CA App., Oct. 19, 2020), a California state appellate court affirmed a trial court's decision that plaintiffs are validly elected directors of Irvine Baptist Church and that they validly demoted and then terminated senior associate pastor David Kwon. The court said in part:

The [Ordained Deacons Committee] ... acted within the scope of its authority under the Church Constitution when it demoted and terminated Kwon....

True, the trial court did not determine whether the ODC had valid grounds to demote or terminate Kwon based on his performance of his ministerial duties. But this is a different question than whether it had the authority to do so. And the court was right to tread lightly there. “The establishment clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, as well as its California counterpart (Cal. Const., art. I, § 4), precludes civil courts from adjudicating [civil or] property disputes based on religious doctrine.” 

Russia Continues To Prosecute For Failure of Religious Groups To Display Full Official Names

 Forum 18 reported yesterday:

Religious organisations in Russia continue to be prosecuted for not showing their full official names on literature, online, and most frequently of all, on their buildings – despite a lack of clear guidance in law on how and where names should be displayed.

According to available court records, 98 prosecutions reached court between the beginning of January 2019 and the end of June 2020. These involved 76 registered religious organisations and 22 individuals. Most resulted in guilty verdicts and fines, with a conviction rate across the 18-month period of 72.5 per cent....

Forum 18 found 14 cases in 2019-20 in which judges ordered the confiscation of religious literature which had allegedly been "distributed as part of missionary activity" and should therefore have been bearing the religious organisations' full official names. In six of these cases, the books, magazines, CDs, or newspapers were also ordered destroyed.

More Litigation Developments In Religious Institution Challenges To COVID-19 Restrictions

Suit was filed last week in an Oregon federal district court challenging Oregon's COVID-19 Orders and guidance that grant small public schools, but not small private or religious schools, an exemption from the ban on in-person instruction. The complaint (full text) in Hermiston Christian Center v. Brown, (D OR, filed 10/16/2020) asserts various 1st and 14th Amendment claims, including the charge that the Orders unlawfully target religious schools. ADF issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Becket announced that it filed suit last week in Lebovits v. Cuomo, (ND NY, filed 10/15/2020). The suit is brought on behalf of two young women and their Orthodox Jewish school.  It challenges New York City's lock down in zip codes in which there are micro-clusters of COVID-19.

Amistad Project announced that it filed suit over the weekend in Libertas Classical Ass'n v. Whitmer, (WD MI), on behalf of a K-12 Christian school in Hudsonville, MI. According to the press release:

... [T]he Whitmer Administration has made repeated, unreasonable demands on the school since September 4, including that kindergarteners always wear masks while in school, including during chapel and outdoor recess....

This violates the First Amendment rights of assembly and religion for the school's 265 students, as well as parents and staff.

In Maryville Baptist Church, Inc. v. Beshar, (6th Cir., Oct. 19, 2020), the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals refused to allow a church and its congregants to obtain an appellate court ruling on a dispute that had essentially become moot.  In March 2020, Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear had barred all religious services as part of the state's response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Federal courts preliminarily enjoined the ban from going into effect and subsequently the Governor ended the ban. Liberty Counsel issued a press release announcing the decision.

In Gish v. Newsom, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 192714 (CD CA, Oct. 9, 2020), a California federal district court refused to reconsider its decision upholding the state's COVID-19 Orders that limit indoor religious services.

Native American Band Fails In Attempt To Halt Border Barrier Construction

 In Manzanita Band of the Kumeyaay Nation v. Wolf, (D DC, Oct. 16, 2020), in a suit by a Native American tribe the D.C. federal district court refused to enjoin construction on two barrier projects along the U.S.-Mexico border in California. The court said in part:

The Kumeyaay’s principal claim of injury is this: So long as construction at the Projects continues without proper consultation and mitigation measures, it will “unavoidably damage” cultural and religious sites and artifacts, as well as the natural setting and resources “on which the sacred nature of such sites depends.”... The Court does not doubt the significance of the region to the Kumeyaay’s religion. But they have not made a clear showing to support their contention for any of these alleged harms....

For starters, no Kumeyaay burial sites or remains have been identified within the narrow strip of federal land where construction is taking place, even after the Government surveyed and re-surveyed the land.

Recent Articles of Interest

 From SSRN:

• Samuel J. Levine, Hands-Off Religion in the Early Months of COVID-19, (October 1, 2020).
• Sahar F. Aziz, Legally White, Socially Brown: Racialization of Middle Eastern Americans, (Routledge Handbook on Islam and Race (ed. Zain Abdullah), Forthcoming).
• Michael Goodyear, Heaven or Earth: The Hagia Sophia Re-Conversion, Turkish and International Law, and Universal Religious Sites, (August 24, 2020).
• Joel Harrison, Christian Accounts of Religious Liberty: Two Views of Conscience, (Brigham Young University Law Review, Forthcoming).
• Adam Shinar, Barak Medina & Gila Stopler, From Promise to Retrenchment? On the Changing Landscape of Israeli Constitutionalism, (18 International Journal of Constitutional Law (ICON) (2020)).
• Helen Dancer, Women in Law and Justice, (Oxford Research Encyclopedia of African History. Oxford University Press. (2020)).
• Stefanus Hendrianto,The Last Testament of Justice Scalia: On Aquinas and Law, 34 Notre Dame Journal of Law Ethics & Public Policy 197-238 (2020).

From SmartCILP:

• Hieu The Le & Joan Catherine, The Intersection of Stem Cell Research, the Roman Catholic Church, United States Constitutional Law, and Public Policy, [Abstract], 23 Quinnipiac Health Law Journal 31-48 (2020).

New York's Zip-Code Targeted COVID-19 Limits Are Upheld

In Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn, New York v. Cuomo, (ED NY, Oct. 16, 2020), a New York federal district court refused to grant a preliminary injunction to the Diocese in its challenge to New York's COVID-19 cluster action initiative that targets specific zip codes. A TRO had previously been denied. (See prior posting.) Rejecting plaintiff's arguments, the court said in part:

[T]he excerpts from the Governor's public comments do not transform a neutral law into a religiously targeted one. The evidence shows that Governor Cuomo is clearly aware and concerned that EO 202.68 burdens religious practice, and particularly the religious practice of Orthodox Jews, but awareness that the burden of a law falls unequally does not establish that the law was designed to target religious groups. Indeed, as the Governor reportedly told a group of Jewish community leaders, although the policy is a "very blunt" instrument, its purpose is to "get the numbers down in the zip codes." ... The court reads the Governor's statement to say that EO 202.68 is targeted temporarily at all gatherings in the areas where there are spikes in COVID-19 positivity rates, not at religious gatherings in particular.

Church's Challenge To California COVID-19 Limits Rejected Again

 In South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom, (SD CA, Oct. 15, 2020), a California federal district court refused to grant a preliminary injunction to a church that challenged California's current COVID-19 restrictions on worship services. The state limits plaintiffs’ indoor worship services to the lesser of 25% of building capacity or 100 people. The church had earlier unsuccessfully appealed a challenge to an earlier version of state restrictions all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. (See prior posting.) According to the district court:

Plaintiffs now argue ... that California’s “scientific pronouncements” are “largely baseless,” and that by “all reasonable scientific measurements,” the COVID-19 health emergency “has ended.” ... They also argue the State’s restrictions treat certain secular businesses more favorably than religious organizations and have been enforced in a discriminatory manner.

The court again rejected plaintiff's arguments, saying in part:

At bottom, Plaintiffs’ renewed motion asks the Court to second guess decisions made by California officials concerning whether COVID-19 continues to present a health emergency and whether large indoor gatherings with singing pose a risk to public health. Although not binding, the Court finds Chief Justice Roberts’s reasoning in this case to be compelling. The background set forth above shows the State and County “are actively shaping their response to changing facts on the ground.” ...  And the evidence demonstrates the COVID-19 pandemic remains an area “fraught with medical and scientific uncertainties,” where the State and County’s latitude “must be especially broad.”

Tennessee 48-Hour Abortion Waiting Period Struck Down

 In Adams & Boyle, P.C. v. Slatery, (MD TN, Oct. 14, 2020), a Tennessee federal district court struck down Tennessee's requirement that women seeking an abortion must receive specified information in person and then wait 48 hours before undergoing the procedure. The court, in a 136-page opinion, said in part:

The Court finds and concludes that the mandatory waiting period required by § 39-15-202(a)-(h) substantially burdens women seeking an abortion in Tennessee. Plaintiffs have demonstrated conclusively that the statute causes increased wait times, imposes logistical and financial burdens, subjects patients to increased medical risks, and stigmatizes and demeans women. These burdens are especially difficult, if not impossible, for low-income women to overcome, and the evidence clearly shows that the vast majority of women seeking abortions in Tennessee are low income. Further, plaintiffs have shown that the statute undermines the doctor-patient relationship and imposes operational and financial burdens on abortion providers....

Defendants have failed to show that the challenged mandatory waiting period protects fetal life or the health of women in Tennessee. It is apparent that this waiting period unduly burdens women’s right to an abortion and is an affront to their “dignity and autonomy,” “personhood” and “destiny,” and “conception of . . . [their] place in society.”

Courthouse News Service reports on the decision. [Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]

Rockland County (NY) Synagogues Sue Over Targeted COVID-19 Order

Another lawsuit challenging New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo's Oct. 6 Executive Order targeting Covid-19 hot spots was filed on Wednesday by three Hasidic Jewish congregations in Rockland County (NY).  The complaint (full text) in Congregation Yesheos Yakov v. State of New York, (SD NY, filed 10/14/2020), alleges that the Order was directed at "activities of specific minority religious communities during one of the most important religious holidays in their faith." Alleging numerous violations of the 1st and 14th Amendments, the complaint says in part:

2. The Governor freely and repeatedly admitted his decision was not driven by science, or data, but, by “fear.”

3. Based on this fear, and not on any epidemiological or other objective data, Governor Cuomo’s Executive Order No. 202.68 ... established colorcoded COVID-19 “hot-spot” zoning areas subject to gathering limits and restrictions that singled out as “hot-spots” known enclaves of the Hasidic and strictly-observant Jewish Orthodox communities.

PJ Media reports on the lawsuit.

2nd Circuit Hears Oral Arguments In Vermont School Voucher Case

On Tuesday, the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments (audio of full arguments) in A.M. v. French. In the case,  a Vermont federal district court refused to order the state to allow a student enrolled in a Catholic high school to participate in the Dual Enrollment Program that pays for high schoolers to take college courses. (See prior posting.) ADF (which represents plaintiffs) has a case page with links to some of the pleadings and other material on the case.

Amy Coney Barrett's Views On 1st Amendment Religion Issues Examined

Tuesday was Day 2 of the hearings on Amy Coney Barrett's nomination for the U.S. Supreme Court. Don Byrd at BJC has posted video clips of the exchanges between Barrett and members of the Senate Judiciary Committee on church-state and religious liberty issues. Earlier this week BJC submitted a letter to the Committee (full text) reviewing Barrett's limited record on church-state and religious liberty matters.

Cert. Filed In Church's Challenge To Illinois COVID-19 Orders

 A petition for certiorari (full text) was filed today with the U.S. Supreme Court in Romanian Pentecostal Church v. Pritzker, (cert. filed 10/14/2020).  In the case, 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. (See prior posting.)  Liberty Counsel issued a press release announcing the filing of the petition for Supreme Court review.                

6th Circuit Hears Arguments On Kentucky COVID Orders Applicable To Churches

Yesterday, the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments in Maryville Baptist Church v. Beshear and Roberts v. Beshear. (Audio of oral arguments.) At issue are the constitutionality of Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear's orders limiting mass gatherings, including church services. See prior postings (1, 2). Courthouse News Service reports on yesterday's oral arguments.

Pretextual Religious Reasons For Firing Not Protected By Religious Autonomy Doctrine

In Garrick v. Moody Bible Institute, (ND IL, Oct. 13, 2020), an Illinois federal district court allowed a former Instructor of Communications at Moody Bible Institute (MBI) to move ahead with her Title VII disparate treatment and retaliation claims, but not her hostile work environment claim. Plaintiff Janay Garrick says she encountered rampant gender discrimination and harassment, and that MBI used disagreement with her religious views as a pretext for her firing. Rejecting in part MBI's religious autonomy defense, the court said:

Garrick alleges that Moody expected female teachers of secular subjects to perform more demanding duties and submit to more onerous performance reviews than similarly situated male teachers.... Under those circumstances, a reasonable inference can be made from the allegations that Moody fired Garrick because it held female teachers to higher standards than their male counterparts, not because it disapproved of her egalitarian religious views.

The court had dismissed an earlier version of plaintiff's complaint on church autonomy grounds. (See prior posting.)

Facebook Will Ban Holocaust Denial

Yesterday Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg announced that Facebook is updating its hate speech policy to ban Holocaust denial on its platform. He said in part:

[W]ith rising anti-Semitism, we're expanding our policy to prohibit any content that denies or distorts the Holocaust...

I've struggled with the tension between standing for free expression and the harm caused by minimizing or denying the horror of the Holocaust. My own thinking has evolved as I've seen data showing an increase in anti-Semitic violence, as have our wider policies on hate speech.

NPR has more on the decision.

Student Senate President Who Was Removed For His Religious Views Gets Limited Relief

In Denton v. Thrasher, (ND FL, Oct. 8, 2020), a Florida federal district court held that Florida State University's Student Senate acted unconstitutionally when it removed Jack Denton as Student Senate president. (He remained a member of the Senate.)  Student Senate took the action after Denton's private chat room comments were publicly circulated.  The offending remarks were:

BlackLivesMatter.com fosters “a queer-affirming network” and defends transgenderism. The ACLU defends laws protecting abortion facilities and sued states that restrict access to abortion. Reclaim the Block claims less police will make our communities safer and advocates for cutting PDs’ budgets. This is a little less explicit, but I think it’s contrary to the Church’s teaching on the common good....

I don’t mean to anger anyone – I know this is a very emotional topic. However, it is important to know what you’re supporting when you’re Catholic. If I stay silent while my brothers and sisters may be supporting an organization that promotes grave evils, I have sinned through my silence. I love you all, and I want us all to be aware of the truth. As far as it’s a religious issue or not, there isn’t an aspect of our lives that isn’t religious, because God wants our whole lives and everything we do to be oriented around him!

The court said in part:

Denton is not here to complain about insults or hurt feelings. His claim is that he lost his job—his student government position—because he chose to exercise his First Amendment rights.

The court however limited its relief to an order that Denton be paid for the six hours per week for the rest of the term that he would have served as Student Senate president. It refused to order that Denton be reinstated to his position since that could produce "tumult and chaos."  Inside Higher Ed reports on the decision.

Amy Coney Barrett's Scholarly Writings

Hearings began yesterday on the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett to the United States Supreme Court.  Here is a transcript of her opening statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee.  Before becoming a federal judge, Barrett wrote widely on issues of constitutional interpretation and the Supreme Court.  Here is a fairly comprehensive list of her scholarly writings (with links to the full text of most of them):

• Congressional Insiders and Outsiders, U.Chi. L. Rev. (forthcoming 2017).
• Originalism and Stare Decisis, 92 Notre Dame L. Rev. 1921 (2017).
• Congressional Originalism, 19 U. Penn. J. of Const. L. 1 (2017) (with John Copeland Nagle).
• Commencement Address, (2016).
• Statutory Interpretation in The Encyclopedia of American Governance, (2016).
• Federal Court Jurisdiction in The Encyclopedia of American Governance, (2016).
• Countering the Majoritarian Difficulty, 31 Const. Comm. 61 (2017).
• Suspension and Delegation,99 Cornell L. Rev. 251 (2014).
• Precedent and Jurisprudential Disagreement, 91 Texas L. Rev. 1710 (2013).
• Substantive Canons and Faithful Agency, 90 B.U. Law Rev. 109 (2010).
• Federal Jurisdiction in Encyclopedia of the Supreme Court of the United States. (2010).
• Introduction: Stare Decisis and Nonjudicial Actors, 83 Notre Dame Law Review 1147 (2008).
• Procedural Common Law, 94 Virginia L. Rev. 813-88 (2008).
• The Supervisory Power of the Supreme Court, 103 Colum. L. Rev. 324 (2006).
• Commencement Address, (2006).
• Statutory Stare Decisis in the Courts of Appeals, 73 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 317 (2005).
• Stare Decisis and Due Process, 74 U. Colo. L. Rev. 1011 (2003).
• Catholic Judges in Capital Cases, 81 Marquette L.Rev. 303 (1998) (with John H. Garvey).

Recent Articles of Interest

 From SSRN:

• Stephanie H. Barclay, An Economic Approach to Religious Exemptions, (Florida Law Review, Forthcoming).
• Haider Ala Hamoudi, Engagements and Entanglements: The Contemporary Waqf and the Fragility of Shi'i Quietism, (Journal of Law and Religion, Vol. 35, p. 2115, 2020).
• Hershey H. Friedman, A Talmudic Vade Mecum to Acquiring Worldly Wealth, (August 19, 2020).
• Zachary B. Pohlman, 'Churches' in a Time of Coronavirus,  (Canopy Forum, 2020).
• Josh Blackman, What Rights are “Essential”? The 1st, 2nd, and 14th Amendments in the Time of Pandemic, (Liberty & Law Center Research Paper No. 20-04 (2020).
• Henry You, Infinger Nick v The Hong Kong Housing Authority - A Remarkable Development of LGBTQ Rights in Hong Kong, (August 21, 2020).
• Debbie Kaminer & David Rosenberg, How the Conflict Between Anti-Boycott Legislation and the Expressive Rights of Business Endangers Civil Rights and Anti-Discrimination Laws, (July 28, 2020).
• Eleni Polymenopoulou, Human Rights in the Six Arab States of the Gulf Cooperation Council (‘GCC’): From Vision to Reality, (Cardozo Journal of International and Comparative Law, Forthcoming).

From SmartCILP:

• Limor Ezioni, Contemporary Aspects of Female Genital Mutilation Prohibitions in the United States, 28 American University Journal of Gender, Social Policy and the Law 39-62 (2019).
• Khaled A. Beydoun, Faith in Whiteness: Free Exercise of Religion as Racial Expression, 105 Iowa Law Review 1475-1536 (2020).

DC Restrictions On Outdoor Church Services Violate RFRA

 In Capitol Hill Baptist Church v. Bowser, (D DC, Oct. 9, 2020), a D.C. federal district court issued a preliminary injunction allowing plaintiff church to hold outdoor services, with masks and appropriate social distancing, beyond the 100-person maximum set out in the D.C. mayor's COVID-19 restrictions. The court concluded that current restrictions on the church's outdoor services violate RFRA.  The court said in part:

The District proposes that under its current restrictions the Church could “hold multiple services, host a drive-in service, or broadcast the service online or over the radio,” as other faith communities in the District have done.... But the District misses the point. It ignores the Church’s sincerely held (and undisputed) belief about the theological importance of gathering in person as a full congregation. The “substantial burden inquiry asks whether the government has substantially burdened religious exercise . . . not whether [the Church] is able to engage in other forms of religious exercise.”... The District may think that its proposed alternatives are sensible substitutes. And for many churches they may be. But “it is not for [the District] to say that [the Church’s] religious beliefs” about the need to meet together as one corporal body “are mistaken or insubstantial.”... It is for the Church, not the District or this Court, to define for itself the meaning of “not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together.”...

The court made clear that its order applied only to the church that was plaintiff in this case. 

[Thanks to Eugene Volokh via Religionlaw for the lead.]

Abuse Victims Win First Round In Santa Fe Archdiocese Reorganization Proceedings

 In In re Roman Catholic Church of the Archdiocese of Santa Fe, (NM Bankr., Oct. 9, 2020), a New Mexico federal bankruptcy court granted an unsecured creditors committee-- apparently representing primarily clergy sex abuse victims-- derivative standing to pursue claims that some $150 million in assets actually belong to the Archdiocese, not to individual parishes. The Archdiocese serves as creditor in possession during its Chapter 11 reorganization, and it has refused to pursue the assets. Responding to the Archdiocese's First Amendment defenses, the court said in part:

The Bankruptcy Code’s fraudulent transfer sections are neutral and of general applicability, so it may be difficult to challenge them as violating the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment....

It rejected a RFRA defense, holding that RFRA applies only when the government is a party to the litigation. Rejecting a religious autonomy defense, the court said in part:

A claim to recover an alleged fraudulent transfer does not appear to be the kind of intrachurch dispute that the religious autonomy doctrine typically protects from court interference.

The court concluded its opinion with a plea for settlement negotiations:

If one or more of Debtor’s and/or the parishes defenses has merit, the UCC’s claims will fail. If none has merit, the UCC will recover many millions of dollars for the estate. Either way, the proposed litigation will be very expensive and time-consuming. Unless settled, the proceedings may have to be completed by successors to the party representatives, the judge, and counsel, after years of motion practice, discovery, discovery disputes, trials, appeals, remands, and retrials. Millions of dollars would have been spent on attorney fees and costs that could have paid valid abuse claims.

More clarity about the rights of the parties and what is estate property could help the ongoing efforts to reach a global settlement in this case. For that reason, some litigation of the UCC’s proposed claims may be needed. There will be a point, however, that the cost of continued litigation likely will outweigh the benefit. If the proceedings are not settled before then, Debtor, the parishes, and the abuse victims will be the poorer for it.