Settlement Assures Universal Life Ministers Can Perform Weddings In Nevada

Clark County, Nevada's district attorney announced last week that the county has settled ongoing litigation with the Universal Life Church, assuring that ULC ministers will be able to officiate at weddings in the county.  A statement from Universal Life Church Ministries also welcomes the settlement and indicates that it includes payment for a portion of ULCM's legal expenses. [Thanks to Dusty Hoesly for the lead.]

Two Servicemembers Get Preliminary Injunction Preserving Their Religious Objections To COVID Vaccine

In Navy Seal 1 v. Austin, (MD FL, Feb. 18, 2022), a Florida federal district court granted a preliminary injunction to two service members who objected on religious grounds to complying with the military's COVID vaccine mandate.  The court said in part:

Under the command of RFRA, the military bears the burden of showing both the existence of a compelling governmental interest and the absence of a less restrictive means of reasonably protecting that interest. In the instance of Navy Commander and Lieutenant Colonel 2, the Navy and the Marine Corps have failed manifestly to offer the statutorily required demonstration that no less restrictive means is available, and each of the two service members is entitled to preliminary injunctive relief that (1) permits them, pending a final determination on a complete record, to continue to serve without the vaccination....

[T]he Navy, the Marine Corps, and the Air Force submit ... the twenty-five most recent letters denying an appeal and submit every letter granting a religious exemption. The submission reveals a process of “rubber stamp” adjudication by form letter, a process incompatible with RFRA’s command to assess each request “to the person.”

On February 2, the same court had issued a temporary restraining order in the case. (See prior posting.) Liberty Counsel issued a press release announcing the most recent decision.

UPDATE: In an April 1, 2022, decision (full text), the district court modified the preliminary injunction to allow the Marine Corps to consider vaccination status in making deployment, assignment, and other operational decisions.

UPDATE: On April 21, the court issued an opinion (full text) supporting its April 1 Order.

Suit Challenges School Assembly Featuring Evangelical Minister

Suit was filed yesterday in a West Virginia federal district court by students at Huntington High School and their parents alleging that a school assembly featuring Nik Walker, a Christian evangelical minister, violated the Establishment Clause.  The complaint (full text) in Mays v. Cabell County Board of Education, (SD WV, filed 2/17/2022), alleges in part:

Most recently, schools within Cabell County sponsored religious revivals during the school day. At the behest of adult evangelists, Huntington High School held an assembly for students that sought to convert students to evangelical Christianity. Some students were forced to attend. Regardless of whether attendance is mandatory or voluntary, the Defendants violate the First Amendment by permitting, coordinating, and encouraging students to attend an adult-led worship service and revival at their school during the school day.

Freedom From Religion Foundation, in a press release announcing the lawsuit, reports that on Feb. 9, more than 100 students staged a walkout in protest of the assembly.

 

5th Circuit: United Airlines Employees Irreparably Injured By Religious Coercion Over COVID Vaccine

In Sambrano v. United Airlines, (5th Cir., Feb. 17, 2022), the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 per curiam decision, reversed a Texas federal district court's decision that no "irreparable injury" had been suffered by United Airlines employees who were placed on unpaid leave after they refused for religious reasons to comply with the company's COVID vaccine mandate.  The district court held that the employees were not entitled to a preliminary injunction because their loss of income could be remedied by an award of damages in an action under Title VII.  The 5th Circuit majority disagreed, saying in part:

Critically, we do not decide whether United or any other entity may impose a vaccine mandate. Nor do we decide whether plaintiffs are ultimately entitled to a preliminary injunction. The district court denied such an injunction on one narrow ground; we reverse on that one narrow ground and remand for further consideration....

Properly understood, the plaintiffs are alleging two distinct harms— one of which is reparable ..., and the other of which is irreparable.... The first is United’s decision to place them on indefinite unpaid leave; that harm, and any harm that flows from it, can be remedied through backpay, reinstatement, or otherwise. The second form of harm flows from United’s decision to coerce the plaintiffs into violating their religious convictions; that harm and that harm alone is irreparable and supports a preliminary injunction.

Judge Smith wrote a stinging 56-page dissent, saying in part:

In its alacrity to play CEO of a multinational corporation, the majority shatters every dish in the china shop. It rewrites Title VII to create a new cause of action. It twists the record to fit that invention. It defies our precedent and the commands of the Supreme Court. But this majority is no senseless bull. Knowing exactly what it has wrought, the majority declares that its unsigned writing will apply to these parties only. By stripping its judgment of precedential effect, the majority all but admits that its screed could not survive the scrutiny of the en banc court....

For every conceivable reason that the plaintiffs could lose this appeal, they should. The statute does not allow the relief they seek. Nor do our precedents; if they did, the Supreme Court has overruled them. If they have not been overruled, fifty years of precedent and centuries of Anglo-American remedies law show that preliminary relief may not issue. If it could issue, it shouldn’t, because the only plaintiffs with standing claim no harm from the “impossible choice” between full postjudgment relief and eternal damnation.

Chicago Tribune reports on the decision.

Sex Offender Registration Law Does Not Violate Free Exercise Rights

 In Doe v. Rausch, (MD TN, Feb. 16, 2022), a Tennessee federal district court dismissed a plaintiff's claim that subjecting him to the Tennessee Sex Offender Registration Act violates his free exercise rights. The Act, among other things, prohibits registered offenders from being on the grounds of a private or parochial school. Plaintiff contended that the Act "has the effect of prohibiting his presence in a building of worship because most Jewish Synagogues and Community Centers in Tennessee have schools on their grounds."  The court rejected this contention, accepting defendant's argument that the free exercise clause does not relieve plaintiff from the obligation to comply with a neutral law of general applicability.

NYC Teachers, Seeking Religious Exemptions, Resubmit Injunction Request To Justice Gorsuch

As previously reported, last week in Keil v. City of New York, Justice Sotomayor Acting on an Emergency Application to the U.S. Supreme Court filed by a group of New York City teachers, refused to enjoin the dismissal of teachers with religious objections who refused to comply with the City's COVID vaccine mandate. Invoking Supreme Court Rule 22.4, the teachers on Feb. 14 requested that their petition be resubmitted, this time to Justice Gorsuch. (Full text  of request letter). Justice Gorsuch has referred the request to the full Court for their March 4 conference. The Second Circuit which refused to grant an injunction pending appeal has already scheduled a hearing on the merits of the teachers' claims for Feb. 24.  CNN reports on these developments. [Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]

Air Force Officer Gets Injunction Against Required COVID Vaccine

In Air Force Officer v. Austin, (MD GA, Feb. 15, 2022), a Georgia federal district court, invoking RFRA and the 1st Amendment, granted a preliminary injunction to an Air Force officer who sought a religious exemption from the Air Force's COVID vaccine mandate.  The court said in part:

[T]he Court agrees with Plaintiff’s argument that Defendants haven’t “shown that vaccination is actually necessary by comparison to alternative measures[]” since “the curtailment of free [exercise] must be actually necessary to the solution.”...

Moreover, one must keep in mind that the Air Force has rejected 99.76% of all religious accommodation requests.... With such a marked record disfavoring religious accommodation requests, the Court easily finds that the Air Force’s process to protect religious rights is both illusory and insincere. In short, it’s just “theater.”...

Defendants’ COVID-19 vaccination requirement allows service members to refuse vaccination for secular reasons while disallowing refusal based on religious reasons.... No matter whether one service member is unvaccinated for a medical reason and another unvaccinated for a religious reason, one thing remains the same for both of these service members—they’re both unvaccinated. In other words, both of these service members pose a “similar hazard” to Defendants’ compelling interest in “[s]temming the spread of COVID-19” within the military....

[W]hat real interest can our military leaders have in furthering a requirement that violates the very document they swore to support and defend? The Court is unquestionably confident that the Air Force will remain healthy enough to carry out its critical national defense mission even if Plaintiff remains unvaccinated and is not forced to retire.

Thomas More Society issued a press release announcing the decision. 

White House Celebrates One Year Of Faith-Based Partnerships

The White House yesterday issued Fact Sheet: Biden-⁠Harris Administration Celebrates First Anniversary of the Reestablishment of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, which reads in part:

Our country has made great progress thanks to neighborhood partnerships and compassionate leaders of all faiths and beliefs, whether it was hosting vaccination clinics, preventing evictions, helping to ensure that children get back to school and workers get jobs, or countless other acts of service. The Biden-Harris Administration is also working tirelessly to advance policies promoting religious equity, diversity, inclusion, and accessibility and protecting the fundamental right to practice faith without fear, especially in light of the troubling rise of antisemitic, xenophobic, and bigoted attacks against people of faith—targeting synagogues, predominantly Black churches, and Muslim and Sikh communities, among other communities. In addition, the Administration has prioritized the cultivation of a spirit of welcome for people of all religious, political, and ideological stripes; a commitment to treating everyone with equal respect and dignity; and the hard but essential work of building bridges across differences in background and beliefs.

The Fact Sheet goes on to list 40 achievements during the past year that advance these partnerships and policies.

Diocesan Religious Education Director Sentenced To 20 Years For Sex Abuse of Minor Girl

The Tennessean reports that under a plea deal, the former director of religious education at a Murfreesboro (TN) Catholic parish was sentenced to twenty years in prison for sexual abuse of a girl, beginning when she was 13 years old.  Defendant, Michael D. Lewis, pleaded guilty to four counts of statutory rape for abuse that took place between 2014 and 2016.

Priest's Suit For Reinstatement Dismissed

In Iwuchukwu v. Archdiocese for the Military Services,(D DC, Feb. 11, 2022), the D.C. federal district court dismissed a suit by a former Catholic priest who worked at Georgetown University Hospital and the Department of Veterans Affairs.  After a woman accused the priest of sexually abusing her, the Archdiocese revoked his faculties and endorsement so he could not work as a Catholic pastor.  Legal authorities did not pursue charges against the priest because the statute of limitations had run; the priest submitted polygraph results supporting his denial of wrongdoing.  However the Archdiocese refused to reinstate him.  He sued claiming violation of the 14th Amendment's due process clause and illegal retaliation against him for filing an employment discrimination claim. The court held that the suit should be dismissed under the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine because this:

plainly concerns the composition of the clergy and a matter of church discipline.... Moreover, the conferral of faculties and an endorsement on a priest is a purely religious decision that cannot be reviewed by courts.

The court concluded that his claim for retaliation in violation of the D.C. employment discrimination law should be dismissed because of the statutory exemption for religious organizations.

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Flora Renz & Davina Cooper, Reimagining Gender through Equality Law: What Legal Thoughtways do Religion and Disability Offer? (January 20, 2022, Feminist Legal Studies).
• Patrick Quirk, When My Opt out Is Your Trigger: Oderberg’s Argument with the Religious Freedom Sincerity Test, (11 Faulkner. L. Rev. 161 (2020)).
• Bradley J. Lingo, Relieving The Crisis in Religious Liberty: Book Review of Religious Liberty in Crisis, Exercising Your Faith in an Age of Uncertainty, (Regent University Law Review, Forthcoming).
• Nathan B. Oman, Regulating Religious Performance on the Commercial Stage, (in Democracy, Religion, and Commerce: Private Markets and the Public Regulation of Religion (Kathleen Flake & Nathan B. Oman eds. Forthcoming)).
• Marc Greendorfer, The True History and Legal Meaning of Colonialism in the Holy Land: The 2042 B.C. Project, (February 7, 2022).
• Robert Kahn, Face Veil Bans and “Living Together” – What’s Privacy Got to Do with It, (6 Public Governance, Administration and Finances Law Review 7 (2021).
• Sherif Girgis, Misreading and Transforming Casey for Dobbs, (Georgetown Journal of Law & Public Policy, Vol. 20, 2022).
• David Gans, Reproductive Originalism: Why the Fourteenth Amendment’s Original Meaning Protects the Right to Abortion, (SMU Law Review Forum (2022 Forthcoming)).
• Howard Wasserman & Charles W. (Rocky) Rhodes, Solving the Procedural Puzzles of the Texas Heartbeat Act and its Imitators: New York Times v. Sullivan as Historical Analogue, (Florida International University Legal Studies Research Paper No. 22-03 (2022).

From SmartCILP and elsewhere:

• Thomas E. Simmons, Christian Purpose Trusts, 53 Creighton Law Review 643-658 (2020).
• Lynn Kaye, Lay People's Advocacy and Resistance in Talmudic Adjudication Narratives, 32 Yale Journal of Law & Humanities 77-118 (2021).
• Aaron J. Walayat, Adams and Jefferson: American Religion and the Ancient Constitution, 11 Faulkner Law Review 215 (2021).

Relocation Of Native American Graves Can Proceed

In Asher v. Clay County Board of Education, (ED KY, Feb. 11, 2022), a Kentucky federal district court refused to enjoin a school district from relocating graves from cemetery land which it had purchased. The school board followed procedures in Kentucky law to obtain permission for the relocation.  Plaintiffs claim the the cemetery contains graves of members of the White Top Band of Native Indians.  The court held that the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act does not apply because the cemetery is not on federal or tribal lands. The court rejected plaintiffs' 1st Amendment free exercise claim, saying in part:

Plaintiffs argue that the Defendants’ actions would prevent religious fulfilment.... But like the respondents in Lyng [v. Nw. Indian Cemetery Protective Ass’n], Plaintiffs are not being coerced into violating their religious beliefs, nor are they being penalized because of their religious or traditional beliefs or practices. Instead, they seek to overturn the lawful process undertaken by the BOE to move the graves in the Hoskins Cemetery so that Plaintiffs can continue to practice their traditional and religious beliefs.... This is not “free exercise” of religion protected by the First Amendment. Rather, it amounts to Plaintiffs seeking to exact a benefit from the local government and to “divest the [BOE] of its right to use what is, after all, its land.”

Court Says South Carolina's Ban On Aid To Private And Religious Schools Was Not Discriminatory

In Bishop of Charleston v. Adams, (D SC, Feb. 10, 2022), a South Carolina federal district court rejected federal Constitutional free exercise and equal protection challenges to Art. XI, Sec. 4 of the South Carolina Constitution which bars the use of public funds to directly benefit religious or other private educational institutions. The court held that plaintiffs failed to prove that the provision was motivated by either religious or racial discriminatory intent, saying in part:

[A]ccording to Plaintiffs, the 1895 provision was a so-called “Blaine Amendment” motivated by anti-Catholic animus....

Plaintiffs’ own expert, conceded that the national Blaine Amendment movement was not a significant factor in South Carolina.... The similarity in language between South Carolina’s 1895 provision and Blaine Amendments in other States is not enough to make up for Plaintiffs’ failure to demonstrate the existence of pervasive anti-Catholic animus in South Carolina, much less Plaintiffs’ failure to establish any corresponding discriminatory intent.....

Even assuming the 1895 provision was connected in some way to racial or religious prejudice, Plaintiffs’ claim still cannot succeed. The original 1895 provision no longer governs. Instead, the relevant provision was incorporated into the South Carolina Constitution by a vote of the people in 1972....

Plaintiffs mainly argue that racial and religious prejudice from the 1895 provision tainted Section 4, while also arguing that “[t]he ‘historical backdrop’ of the 1972 Amendment really started in 1619, when the first slaves came to America’s shores.”...

But Plaintiffs’ reliance on these other racist or anti-religious views or policies is unavailing because Plaintiffs do not connect them with Section 4’s adoption.

Supreme Court Refuses To Enjoin NYC Vaccine Mandate For Teachers

Acting on an Emergency Application to the U.S. Supreme Court filed by a group of New York City teachers, Justice Sotomayor, in Keil v. City of New York, (Sup.Ct., Feb. 11, 2022) refused to enjoin the dismissal of teachers with religious objections who refused to comply with the City's COVID vaccine mandate. The Second Circuit had held that the process for determining whether  a teacher or administrator is entitled to a religious exemption is unconstitutional.  However, it allowed the school system two weeks to reconsider the applications by the named plaintiffs for religious exemptions. (See prior posting).  After reconsideration, the City granted only one of the 14 plaintiffs an exemption. New York Times reports on the decision.

Department of Education Reaffirms BYU's Exemption From LGBTQ Anti-Discrimination Requirements

The U.S. Department of Education, Office of Civil Rights, issued a determination letter (full text) on Feb. 8, 2022, dismissing a complaint filed by LGBTQ students at Brigham Young University.  The University bans same-sex romantic relationships among its students.  The OCR letter affirms that the University is exempt from the non-discrimination provisions of Title IX:

to the extent that the application of those provisions would conflict with the religious tenets of the University's controlling religious organization that pertain to sexual orientation and gender identity.

The University issued a press release announcing the OCR determination. Salt Lake Tribune reports on the determination and reactions to it.

Suit By Jewish And Catholic Plaintiffs Challenge "Key To NYC" Vaccination Requirement

A suit raising 1st and 14th Amendment claims was filed this week in a New York federal district court by five Orthodox Jews (including a rabbi and a yeshiva teacher), and by a Catholic  man, challenging New York City's "Key To NYC" program.  Key To NYC requires individuals to be vaccinated for COVID in order to enter restaurants, entertainment venues and fitness facilities. Plaintiffs contend that they have religious objections to the COVID vaccine.  Their religious objections are set out at length in the complaint (full text) in Jane Doe 1 v. Adams, (ED NY, filed 2/7/2022).  Some of the religious objections are similar to those raised in many other cases, i.e. objections to vaccines developed with the the use of fetal cell lines originating from abortions.  However, the religious objections cited by the Jewish plaintiffs include contentions that have not commonly been raised in past litigation. Here are two examples of the cited beliefs:

Submitting to a government dictate that conditions freedom on vaccination is a form of slavery and subjugation. This violates numerous commandments in the Torah that require one to remember and internalize the great Exodus from slavery in ancient Egypt....

Rabbi Moshe Schreiber, better known as the Chasam Sofer (1762 to 1839), an ancestor of John Doe 1’s wife and the leading Orthodox Rabbi in opposition to the Reform Judaism movement, stated the famous aphorism Chadash Assur Min Hatorah: That which is new is prohibited by the Torah. This was specifically aimed at the attempts to overhaul and change ancient traditions and customs, by the followers of Reform Judaism. The notion that healthy people should be viewed as sick until they can prove their innocence by vaccination in order to be part of society is a new concept that is being forced on humanity as part of the “New Normal” and “Great Reset.” This newfangled posture in human relations that is being imposed by force, has no basis in the Torah....

Thomas More Society issued a press release announcing the lawsuit.

 

Illinois Wildlife Code Requirement Survives Free Exercise Challenge

In Tranchita v. Callahan, (ND IL, Feb. 9, 2022), an Illinois federal district court rejected a free exercise challenge to requirements of the Illinois Wildlife Code that led to the seizure of four coyotes from Tomi Tranchita who cared for orphaned coyotes in her suburban Chicago backyard.  Under Illinois law, a person can possess coyotes only if they have both a Breeder Permit and a Hound Running Permit. The requirements for obtaining a Hound Running Permit effectively prevent keeping of coyotes in urban or suburban areas.  Tranchita held a Breeder Permit, but had been unable to renew her Hound Running Permit.  She contends that hound running, i.e. chasing of coyotes by dogs, violates her religious, ethical and moral beliefs.  She argued that requiring her to possess a permit to engage in such a cruel practice violates her free exercise rights. The court held that the Permit requirement is neutral and generally applicable, and the state had a rational basis for the requirement.  The court also rejected Tranchita's equal protection, due process and pre-emption challenges.

Report On Role Of Christian Nationalism In January 6 Insurrection Released

Yesterday, the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty (BJC) and the Freedom From Religion Foundation released a report titled Christian Nationalism and the January 6, 2021 Insurrection (full text).  The Introduction to the Report says in part:

This report describes Christian nationalism and recounts its impact on the day itself as well as in the weeks leading up to the insurrection. Drawing on reporting, videos, statements, and images from the attack and its precursor events, this report contains the most comprehensive account to date of Christian nationalism and its role in the January 6 insurrection.

Christian nationalism is a political ideology and cultural framework that seeks to merge American and Christian identities, distorting both the Christian faith and America’s constitutional democracy. Christian nationalism relies on the mythological founding of the United States as a “Christian nation,” singled out for God’s providence in order to fulfill God’s purposes on earth.

First Coptic Christian Picked As Head Of Egypt's Supreme Constitutional Court

 AP reports that Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi has appointed Boulos Fahmy, a Coptic Christian, as Chief Judge of Egypt's highest court, the Supreme Constitutional Court. This is the first time a Christian has headed the Court.  According to AP:

President Abdel Fattah el-Sissi picked the 65-year-old Fahmy from among the court’s five oldest of 15 sitting judges, as is prescribed by law.

10th Circuit: Muslim Terrorism Inmate Can Sue Under RFRA For Damages

In Ajaj v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, (10th Cir., Feb. 9, 2022), the U.S. 10th circuit Court of Appeals reversed a Colorado federal district court's dismissal of a religious freedom suit brought by an inmate who is serving a sentence of 114 years for terrorist acts related to the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. The court summarized its holding:

Ahmad Ajaj, a practicing Muslim, ... sued to obtain injunctive relief against BOP and damages from BOP officials [alleging] violations of his rights to free exercise of religion under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).... He contends that the district court erred by holding (1) that his claim against the BOP for denial of his right to group prayer was moot and (2) that RFRA did not provide a claim for damages against government officials in their individual capacities.... [W]e ... reverse the challenged rulings. The mootness ruling was based on a misconception of the evidence....  And the Supreme Court has now ruled in Tanzin v. Tanvir ... that damages claims are permissible under RFRA.... We reject Mr. Ajaj’s contention that the doctrine of qualified immunity is inapplicable to RFRA claims, but we decline to resolve whether the individual defendants in this case have shown entitlement to qualified immunity, leaving that matter to the district court in the first instance.