In Yeshiva University v. YU Pride Alliance, (Sup. Ct., Sept. 9, 2022), U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor today issued an order staying a New York trial court's injunction that required Yeshiva University to officially recognize as a student organization an LGBTQ group, YU Pride Alliance. The New York trial court held that applying the public accommodation provisions of the New York City Human Rights Law to Yeshiva does not violate its First Amendment free exercise or free speech rights. (See prior posting.) Justice Sotomayor granted the University's Emergency Application for a Stay Pending Appellate Review without referring the petition to the full Court. However she wrote that her stay was granted "pending further order of the undersigned or of the Court." CNN reports on developments.
Friday, September 09, 2022
11th Circuit: No Liability For Withdrawing Permission For Religious Group To Use After School Classrooms
In Chabad Chayil, Inc. v. School Board of Miami-Dade County, Florida, (11th Cir., Sept. 8, 2022), the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district Court' dismissal of free exercise, equal protection and due process claims brought by a Jewish organization that ran a popular after-school Hebrew program for more than ten years using public school classrooms. In 2019, after a complaint and investigation of whether Chabad complied with the rules for use of school facilities without paying a fee, the Miami-Dade County superintendent withdrew permission for Chabad use of school classrooms. Chabad sued. The court held that plaintiff had not shown the elements necessary to assert liability against either the school board or the Inspector General's office that investigated complaints against Chabad.
Indiana Abortion Restrictions Challenged Under State RFRA
A class action lawsuit was filed yesterday in an Indiana state trial court court on behalf of all persons in the state whose religious beliefs direct them to obtain abortions in situations prohibited by the state's recently enacted restrictive abortion ban. The suit was filed by five anonymous plaintiffs and an organization, Hoosier Jews For Choice. The complaint (full text) in Anonymous Plaintiffs 1-5 v. Individual Members of the Medical Licensing Board of Indiana, (IN Super. Ct., filed 9/8/2022), contends that the law violates Indiana's Religious Freedom Restoration Act. ACLU issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.
Michigan Court Permanently Enjoins Enforcement Of Pre-Roe Abortion Law
In Planned Parenthood of Michigan v. Attorney General of the State of Michigan, (MI Ct. Cl., Sept. 7, 2022), the Michigan Court of Claims issued a permanent injunction barring enforcement of Michigan's pre-Roe abortion ban. The order follows on the Court's previous preliminary injunction against enforcement. It held that enforcement of the ban would violate both the due process and equal protection clauses of the Michigan constitution. The Court rejected the argument that it should interpret the due process clause in the state Constitution to track that of the due process clause in the U.S. Constitution. The court said in part:
... Dobbs relied on a version of history that began in the 13th Century and ended in 1868, when the federal Due Process Clause was ratified. Almost a century, two world wars, a constitutional amendment granting women the right to vote, the emergence of the civil rights movement, and a sea change in the laws regarding women's status in society separate the adoption of the fourteenth amendment from the ratification of our 1963 Constitution.... A court charged with an examination of the ideas giving rise to a 1963 Constitution is not assisted by an historical analysis of a clause drafted in a far different social and legal environment. What was "deeply rooted" in history and tradition in 1868, a focal point in Dobbs, bears little resemblance to the understanding of personal freedom, particularly for woman and people of color, motivating those who drafted and ratified our 1963 Constitution. The Court therefore rejects the intervenors' claim that this Court must reflexively adhere to Dobb's conclusions about the reach of the federal Due Process Clause....
By depriving women who choose abortion the ability to exercise a fundamental right while protecting the same right for pregnant women who choose to continue their pregnancies, MCL 750.14 violates Michigan's Equal Protection clause....
By criminalizing abortion, MCL 750.14 prevents a woman who seeks to exercise a constitutional right from controlling her ability to work or to go to school, and thereby determining for herself the shape of her present and future life.
Responding to a state Court of Appeals opinion that the court of Claims previous preliminary injunction only binds the Attorney General and not independent county prosecutors, the Court ordered the Attorney General to serve a copy of the opinion and accompanying order on every county prosecuting attorney.
Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer issued a statement (full text) in support of the Court's decision. Bridge Michigan reports on the decision.
Thursday, September 08, 2022
Michigan Supreme Court Says Abortion Rights Proposal Must Go On November Ballot
In Reproductive Freedom For All v. Board of State Canvassers, (MI Sup. Ct., Sept. 8, 2022), the Michigan Supreme Court in a per curiam Order of Mandamus directed the Board of State Canvassers to certify the proposed Reproductive Freedom For All state constitutional amendment for placement on the November 8 election ballot. The Board of State Canvassers had deadlocked 2-2 along party lines with those voting against approval citing a typographical problem that led to several words being run together at places in the text of the proposed amendment as set out in the petitions that were circulated. (See prior posting.) In its Order, adopted by a 5-2 vote, the Court said in part:
It is undisputed that there are sufficient signatures to warrant certification. The only challenge to the petition is in regard to whether there is sufficient space between certain words of the text of the proposed amendment. MCL 168.482(3) requires only that “[t]he full text of the amendment so proposed must follow the summary and be printed in 8-point type.” The “full text” of the amendment is present: regardless of the existence or extent of the spacing, all of the words remain and they remain in the same order, and it is not disputed that they are printed in 8-point type. In this case, the meaning of the words has not changed by the alleged insufficient spacing between them.
Chief Justice McCormack filed a concurring opinion, saying in part:
[Two members of the Board of State Canvassers] would disenfranchise millions of Michiganders not because they believe the many thousands of Michiganders who signed the proposal were confused by it, but because they think they have identified a technicality that allows them to do so, a game of gotcha gone very bad.
Justice Bernstein also filed a concurring opinion. Justice Zahra filed a dissenting opinion, saying in part:
[T]he Court, under the pressure to decide the question forthwith in order to ensure timely production of the ballots, has decided to grant mandamus without oral argument. While I would prefer to engage in oral argument before deciding this issue, pressed for a ruling, I must conclude that plaintiffs have not met their burden of establishing a clear legal right to a writ of mandamus.
Justice Viviano filed a 14-page dissenting opinion, saying in part:
For well over a thousand years, we have conveyed thought and meaning by using spaces between words.... It was not always so. Ancient text employed scriptura continua, in which words were uninterrupted by word spaces.... But the objectives of reading in ancient times were different, with the focus being on memorization useful to an oral rather than a text-based culture....
If the full-text requirement is subject to an analysis that asks whether the meaning has sufficiently changed or become ambiguous enough to potentially mislead,... then presumably the determination of whether the full text is present involves at least some discretion. That is, a factual determination concerning the extent of the error and its probable effects must be made by the board. But if so, then it is hard to see how this decision can be characterized as ministerial and thus subject to mandamus.
NPR reports on the decision.
ACA Mandate To Cover PrEP Drugs Violates RFRA
In Braidwood Management Inc. v. Becerra, (ND TX, Sept. 7, 2022), a Texas federal district court held that the ACA mandate for health insurance coverage of PrEP drugs violates the rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of a for-profit corporation whose owner believes that providing such coverage for his employees would make him complicit in their homosexual conduct and sexual activity outside of marriage. The court said in part:
Defendants dispute Hotze’s beliefs. They argue that Hotze’s claim that PrEP drugs facilitate various kinds of behavior is an empirical one that requires factual support.... But Defendants inappropriately contest the correctness of Hotze’s beliefs, when courts may test only the sincerity of those beliefs...
Defendants claim a compelling interest in reducing the spread of HIV, a potentially fatal infectious disease....
But Defendants frame the interest too broadly. “RFRA requires the Government to demonstrate that the compelling interest test is satisfied through application of the challenged law ‘to the person’—the particular claimant whose sincere exercise of religion is being substantially burdened.” ...
... Defendants provide no evidence of the scope of religious exemptions, the effect such exemptions would have on the insurance market or PrEP coverage, the prevalence of HIV in those communities, or any other evidence relevant “to the marginal interest” in enforcing the PrEP mandate in these cases...
Even if Defendants had satisfied the compelling-interest prong, they have not shown that the PrEP mandate is the least restrictive means of furthering that interest...
Much of the court's 42-page opinion relates to other issues. Bloomberg reports on the decision. [Thanks to James Phillips for the lead.]
New York Violates Speech Rights of Adoption Agency By Requiring Placement With Unmarried and Same-Sex Families.
In New Hope Family Services, Inc. v. Poole, (ND NY, Sept. 6, 2022), a New York federal district court issued a permanent injunction prohibiting the state of New York from requiring New Hope, a religiously affiliated social service agency, to provide adoption services to unmarried or same-sex couples. The state Office of Children and Family Services contended that New Hope's policy of referring such clients to other agencies violated its anti-discrimination rules. Citing a previous holding by the Second Circuit, the court concluded that "by compelling it to place children with unmarried and same-sex couples, OCFS is necessarily compelling New Hope to engage in the speech required for that conduct...." While agreeing that the state has a compelling interest in avoiding discrimination and increasing the pool of potential adopting families, the court held that OCFS's rule is not narrowly tailored to advance those interests:
New Hope's "recusal-and-referral" practice was a more narrowly tailored means of avoiding discrimination than the closure of New Hope's adoption operation.
Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine Does Not Bar Suit Over Compliance With Non-Profit Corporation Law
In Auguste v. Hyacinthe, (FL App., Sept. 7, 2022), a Florida state appellate court held that the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine does not bar the court's deciding whether defendants violated provisions of the Florida Not For Profit Corporation Act. After the founding pastor of a Baptist church died, the congregation split into two factions. Plaintiffs allege that after defendant was removed as a director, he continued to purport to act on behalf of the church by filing annual reports with the state, falsely listing members of his faction as officers and falsely removing others. Plaintiffs allege that he also, without proper notice, held a secret meeting with some church members and executed a false resolution claiming that other of the directors were expelled. The court said in part:
Count I alleged that Hyacinthe violated section 617.0808, Florida Statutes (2018), regarding removal of directors. Count II alleged that Tibois violated the same statute. Count III alleged that Appellees violated chapter 617 in holding secret meetings....
Appellants’ counts I-III did not raise claims that would necessarily require the trial court to decide which faction of the Church has control or seek resolution of questions regarding the Church’s governance. Instead, we conclude counts I-III raise issues of the propriety of actions of the board of trustees, board of directors, or corporate officials of a corporation under chapter 617, Florida Statutes....
Conversely, we determine that the trial court did not err in dismissing Appellants’ count IV – raising a cause of action for conversion against Appellees.... Appellants’ count IV would necessarily require the trial court to determine which faction controlled the Church....
Wednesday, September 07, 2022
Michigan Supreme Court To Decide Whether Abortion Rights Proposal Will Be On November Ballot
As previously reported, backers of a proposed abortion rights amendment to the Michigan Constitution are appealing to the Michigan Supreme Court the refusal of the Board of State Canvassers to certify the proposal for the ballot. Republicans on the Board created a deadlocked vote, contending that kerning of the text that ran some words together invalidated the petitions that were submitted. The complaint (full text) in Reproductive Freedom for All v. Board of State Canvassers, (MI Sup. Ct., filed 9/1/2022) is now available online, as are some of the amicus briefs filed in the case. Here are links to briefs from Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel, from seven county Prosecuting Attorneys, and from a coalition of advocacy and religious groups. Bridge Michigan reports on these developments.
9th Circuit Upholds Washington's Ban On Conversion Therapy
In Tingley v. Ferguson, (9th Cir., Sept. 6, 2022), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected free speech, free exercise and vagueness challenges to Washington state's ban on practicing conversion therapy on minors. The court said in part:
Washington’s licensing scheme for health care providers, which disciplines them for practicing conversion therapy on minors, does not violate the First or Fourteenth Amendments. States do not lose the power to regulate the safety of medical treatments performed under the authority of a state license merely because those treatments are implemented through speech rather than through scalpel....
SB 5722 is a neutral law targeted at preventing the harms associated with conversion therapy, and not at the religious exercise of those who wish to practice this type of therapy on minors.
Judge Bennett concurred in part. Courthouse News Service reported on the decision.
Eminent Domain Violated Rights of Chabad
In Chabad Lubavitch of the Beaches, Inc. v. Incorporated Village of Atlantic Beach, (ED NY, Sept. 6, 2022), a New York federal district court granted a preliminary injunction, concluding that an attempt to acquire the property of a Jewish religious group by eminent domain likely violated the group's 1st Amendment free exercise rights. Chabad acquired the property in order to build a center on it. Eminent domain proceedings were initiated shortly after Chabad held a Menorah lighting ceremony on the property. The court explained:
[T]he Village’s acquisition decision was made in a manner intolerant of Chabad’s members’ religious beliefs and which would restrict Chabad’s practices because of its religious nature. Thus, the Village’s acquisition decision was targeted and not done neutrally, thereby requiring the Court to apply strict scrutiny in deciding whether that decision is constitutionally permissible.
... The Village never inquired from the Property’s prior owner whether he was interested in selling the Property ... notwithstanding it being adjacent to and/or in very close proximity to Village-owned and controlled properties and it having sat vacant for three years, with a prominent “For Sale” sign having been erected in front of the Property for the last two of those three years.... Instead, for vague reasons, not strongly supported by direct evidence ... the Village’s apparent urgency to acquire the Properties intensified during the same time when Chabad purchased the Property....
Further, the several anti-Semitic comments posted to the FB Group page after the January 10 open meeting, i.e., community member comments, add to the suspicion caused by the timing of events and call into question the Village’s stated motivation for acquiring the Property by eminent domain.... [O]ne of the Village Trustees, was an administrator/monitor of the FB Group; thus, it is difficult not to conclude that at least one member of the Village Board was aware of several strong opponents to Chabad’s presence in the Village, based upon impermissible religious animus.
Tuesday, September 06, 2022
California Assisted Suicide Law Violates Free Speech rights Of Objecting Doctors
In Christian Medical & Dental Association v. Bonta, (CD CA, Sept. 2, 2022), a California federal district court held likely unconstitutional a provision in the California End of Life Option Act which requires doctors who refuse on conscience, moral or ethical grounds to participate in procedures set out by the act to nevertheless document in a patient's record the date of the patient's request for an aid-in-dying drug. This notation serves as one of two required requests by a patient before the patient may obtain the drug. The court rejected the argument that this violates the free exercise rights of medical providers who object on religious grounds, saying in part:
The court recognizes that Plaintiffs have sincerely held religious beliefs, and that compliance with the documentation requirements contained in Section 443.14(e)(2) infringes on the free exercise of their religion. However, under clearly established doctrine in Smith, Lukumi, and Fulton, strict scrutiny does not apply to a neutral and generally applicable law, like the Act here.
The court also rejected equal protection and due process challenges. However, the court did conclude that plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their free speech challenges to the requirement, saying in part:
[T]he documentation requirement imposed by the Act “plainly alters the content” of non-participating health care providers’ speech.... The ultimate outcome of this requirement is that non-participating providers are compelled to participate in the Act through this documentation requirement, despite their objections to assisted suicide.
The court issued a preliminary injunction barring state enforcement of the requirement against objecting health care providers. ADF issued a press release announcing the decision.
Monday, September 05, 2022
Qualified Immunity Denied In Muslim Woman's Challenge To Jail's Booking Photo Policy
In Chaaban v. City of Detroit, Michigan Department of Corrections, (ED MI, Sept. 2, 2022), a Michigan federal district court denied a motion in a RLUIPA case for reconsideration of the denial of qualified immunity to corrections officials who forced a Muslim woman to remove her hijab for a booking photograph. The court concluded that it was premature to grant immunity on a motion to dismiss, saying in part:
[D]iscovery is needed to determine “whether the state of the law . . . gave [the defendants] fair warning that [the plaintiff’s] alleged treatment was unconstitutional.”... Plaintiff plausibly alleged in her complaint that prison officers threatened to make Plaintiff “sleep on the concrete floor of the booking cell without a bed, blanket, mattress or pillow” if she did not remove her hijab.... Taking this and other allegations in Plaintiff’s complaint as true ... the Court properly determined that qualified immunity is not appropriate at this time.
Recent Articles of Interest
From SSRN:
- Aviam Soifer, Remembrance, Group Gripes, and Legal Frictions: Rule of Law or Awful Lore?, (Touro Law Review, Vol. 37, No. 4, 2022).
- Louis E. Wolcher, Ronald Dworkin's Wittgenstein, (Wittgenstein and Other Philosophers, edited by A. Khani & G. Kemp (Routledge), Forthcoming).
- Jeffrey R. Baker, A Sermon on the Law: The Jurisprudence of Love, (August 26, 2022).
- Antony Kolenc, 'No Help You God' - Religion, the Courtroom, and a Proposal to Amend the Federal Rules of Evidence, (Mississippi Law Journal, Vol. 91, No. 1, 2022).
- Hedayat Aly Heikal, Editor's Introduction to the Special Issue, (Journal of Islamic Law, Vol. 3, No. 1 (2022).
- Masoud Noori & Zahra Azhar, Shīʿī Ideas of Slavery: A Study of Iran in the Qājar Era Before and After the Constitutional Revolution, Journal of Islamic Law, Vol. 3, No. 1 (2022)).
- Adnan Zulfiqar, The Immorality of Incarceration: Between Jāvēd Aḥmad Ghāmidī and Angela Y. Davis, (Journal of Islamic Law, Vol. 3, No. 1 (2022).
- Dawood Ashraf, Digital Finance and Artificial Intelligence: Islamic Finance Challenges and Prospects, (August 24, 2021).
- Wadie E. Said, Material Support Prosecutions and Their Inherent Selectivity, 27 Michigan Journal of Race & Law 163-170 (2021).
- Ramzi Kassem, American Informant, 27 Michigan Journal of Race & Law 171-192 (2021).
- Khaled Ali Beydoun, The Ban and Its Enduring Bandwidth, 27 Michigan Journal of Race & Law 193-202 (2021).
- Asma T. Uddin, A Religious Double Standard: Post-9/11 Challenges to Muslims' Religious Land Use, 27 Michigan Journal of Race & Law 223-232 (2021).
Saturday, September 03, 2022
Church's Attempt To Separate From Parent To Avoid Receivership Was Fraudulent
In Pentecostal Church of God v. City of Refuge Ministries Toledo Ohio, (OH Com. Pl., Aug. 15, 2022), an Ohio state trial court held that the transfer of a Toledo, Ohio church building by a quitclaim deed to City of Refuge, a separate non-profit entity, was fraudulent. The court concluded that Toledo congregation was a satellite church of Detroit Pentecostal Church of God, and the members signing the deed had no authority to transfer the property. The transfer was made in order to attempt to separate the Toledo congregation from the receivership imposed on the Detroit congregation. The court said in part:
Here, the dispute is over a quit-claim deed that transferred property held by PCG to City of Refuge in 2018. Deciding if that deed was fraudulently transferred from PCG to City of Refuge will not invade upon protected ecclesiastical matters.....
[T]his Court finds that the deed executed in 2018, conveying the contested property from PCG to City of Refuge Ministries Toledo, Ohio as void, ab initio. Further, the title to said property is vested to PCG alone and the defendant, City of Refuge does not have any estate, right, title, or interest in the property.
Friday, September 02, 2022
UN Issues Report On Human Rights Concerns In China's Uyghur Region
On Wednesday, the United Nations Human Rights Office issued a report on human rights concerns in China's Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region. (Full text of report.) A portion of the report focuses on restrictions on religious expression, and says in part:
The “Strike Hard” campaign has led to the adoption or amendment of various legal instruments to further tighten the regulation of religion.... “[E]xtremism” is defined broadly, while the legal instruments include a list of “primary expressions of extremism” that have in practice been accompanied by lists of “signs” of “religious extremism” to assist officials and the general public in identifying “extremist” behaviour.... These ... include conduct that may in the circumstances be of legitimate concern, such as “inciting ‘Jihad’, advocating and carrying out violent terrorist activities”, but range far more widely, encompassing an exceptionally broad range of acts that in themselves constitute exercise of protected fundamental freedoms connected to the enjoyment of cultural and religious life by these communities. These include wearing hijabs and “abnormal” beards; expanding the scope of “Halal”; closing restaurants during Ramadan; participating in cross-county religious activities “without valid reason”; using Virtual Private Networks (VPNs), social media and Internet to teach scriptures and preach; and giving one’s child a Muslim name....
Such exceptionally broad interpretations of “extremism”, often explicitly targeting standard tenets of Islamic religion and practice, in effect renders virtually all such conduct in potential breach of the regulation of religion.... An environment is thus created in which religious or cultural practice or expression is conflated with “extremism” ....
Alongside the increasing restrictions on expressions of Muslim religious practice are recurring reports of the destruction of Islamic religious sites, such as mosques, shrines and cemeteries....
China filed a 122-page response (full text) to the report contending that China is fighting terrorism and extremism. It says in part:
Religious extremists advocate extremist ideologies, incite hatred against other religions and "heretics", and undermine Xinjiang's religious harmony and ethnic unity.
AP reports on these developments.
Thursday, September 01, 2022
District Court: Public Accommodation Law Violates Wedding Photographer's Free Speech Rights
In Chelsey Nelson Photography, LLC v. Louisville/ Jefferson County, (WD KY, Aug. 30, 2022), a Kentucky federal district court held that Louisville's public accommodation ordinance violates the free speech rights of a Christian wedding photographer who has moral and religious objections to same-sex marriages. The court said in part:
Courts across the country have addressed whether bakers, florists, website designers, and other creative professionals must either provide their services for weddings that violate their beliefs or else abstain entirely from the wedding business. And those courts’ disagreement on whether this amounts to prohibited discrimination or protected dissent is what the U.S. Supreme Court has set out to resolve during its upcoming term....
This is a real conflict between nondiscrimination and speech that cannot be wished away: compelling access for all necessarily clashes with the liberty of some. The City contends that Nelson’s speech demeans same-sex couples, while Nelson says the City’s Ordinance demeans her speech....
The First Amendment’s protections for religious exercise ... are unlikely to help those in Nelson’s position: at least as currently construed, that aspect of the Constitution does not shield people whose sincerely held religious beliefs conflict with generally applicable laws....
But the government’s authority over public accommodations does not extend to “abridging the freedom of speech.”...
So although Louisville may require restaurants and hotels and stores to provide services regardless of the proprietors’ views or their customers’ legal status, the government may not force singers or writers or photographers to articulate messages they don’t support.
The court also concluded that the ordinance violates the Kentucky Religious Freedom Restoration Act. [Thanks to Thomas Rutledge for the lead.]
Church Autonomy Doctrine Bars Catholic High School Teacher's Suit Against Archdiocese
In Payne-Elliott v. Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Indianapolis, Inc., (IN Sup. Ct., Aug. 31, 2022), the Indiana Supreme Court held that the church autonomy doctrine bars a suit by a former Catholic school teacher against the Catholic Archdiocese for interfering with his employment contract with a Catholic high school. The suit alleges that the Archdiocese pressured the school to fire plaintiff because he had entered a same-sex marriage. Citing a 2003 decision, the court said in part:
[U]nder the church-autonomy doctrine a civil court may not (1) penalize via tort law (2) a communication or coordination among church officials or members (3) on a matter of internal church policy or administration that (4) does not culminate in a criminal act.
Becket issued a press release announcing the decision.
Suit Contends Indiana Abortion Restrictions Violate State Constitution
Suit was filed Tuesday in an Indiana state trial court challenging the state's recently-enacted law that bans abortions, with exceptions during early pregnancy to protect the life or to prevent serious health risk to the mother, in cases if lethal fetal anomaly, and in cases of rape or incest. Also all abortions are required to be performed in hospitals or hospital-owned outpatient surgical centers. The complaint (full text) in Planned Parenthood Great Northwest v. Members of the Medical Licensing Board of Indiana, (IN Cir. Ct., filed 8/3-/2022), contends in part:
S.B. 1’s total abortion ban strips away the fundamental rights of people seeking abortion care in Indiana in violation of the State Constitution. It will infringe on Hoosiers’ right to privacy, violate Indiana’s guarantee of equal privileges and immunities, and violate the Constitution’s due course of law clause through its unconstitutionally vague language.
Courthouse News Service reports on the lawsuit.
Nurse Sues Clinic For Violating State Conscience Protections
Suit was filed yesterday in a Virginia state court by a Catholic nurse practitioner who was fired by a CVS Minute Clinic after she insisted that, for religious reasons, she would not provide or facilitate the use of hormonal contraceptives, Plan B and Ella which she considers abortifacients. For three years, the clinic had accommodated her religious beliefs, but it then changed its policy and refused to do so. The complaint (full text) in Casey v. MinuteClinic Diagnostic of Virginia, LLC, (VA Cir. Ct., filed 8/31/2021) challenges her firing as a violation of Va. Code § 18.2-75 which provides that:
any person who shall state in writing an objection to any abortion or all abortions on personal, ethical, moral or religious grounds shall not be required to participate in procedures which will result in such abortion.
ADF issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.