Police Officer Sues Over Denial of COVID Vaccine Religious Exemption

This week, a former Boston police officer who is a Jehovah's Witness filed suit in a Massachusetts state trial court seeking $2 million in damages for the actions of the Boston Police Department in denying his request for a religious exemption from the Department's COVID vaccine mandate. He was placed on administrative leave and subsequently terminated. The complaint (full text) in Colon v. City of Boston, (MA Super. Ct., filed 11/28/2022), also alleges that he was ridiculed because of his religious beliefs. Boston.com reports on the lawsuit.

6th Circuit Affirms Preliminary Injunction Protecting Air Force Personnel Who Have Religious Objections to COVID Vaccine

 In Doster v. Kendall, (6th Cir., Nov. 29, 2022), the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a district court's grant of a class-wide preliminary injunction barring the Air Force from disciplining Air Force personnel who have sought religious exemptions from the military's COVID vaccine mandate. The injunction however did not interfere with the Air Force’s operational decisions over the Plaintiffs’ duties. The 6th Circuit concluded that plaintiffs' RFRA claim was likely to succeed on the merits, saying in part:

Some 10,000 members with a wide array of duties have requested religious exemptions from this mandate. The Air Force has granted only about 135 of these requests.... Yet it has granted thousands of other exemptions for medical reasons (such as a pregnancy or allergy) or administrative reasons (such as a looming retirement)....

Under RFRA, the Air Force wrongly relied on its “broadly formulated” reasons for the vaccine mandate to deny specific exemptions to the Plaintiffs, especially since it has granted secular exemptions to their colleagues.... The Air Force’s treatment of their exemption requests also reveals common questions for the class: Does the Air Force have a uniform policy of relying on its generalized interests in the vaccine mandate to deny religious exemptions regardless of a service member’s individual circumstances? And does it have a discriminatory policy of broadly denying religious exemptions but broadly granting secular ones? A district court can answer these questions in a “yes” or “no” fashion for the entire class.....

In the abstract, the Air Force may well have a compelling interest in requiring its 501,000 members to get vaccinated. It has also largely achieved this general interest, as evidenced by its ability to vaccinate over 97% of its force.... Under RFRA, however, the Air Force must show that it has a compelling interest in refusing a “specific” exemption to, say, Lieutenant Doster or Airman Colantonio.... To succeed ..., the Air Force must identify the duties of each Plaintiff and offer evidence as to why it has a compelling interest in forcing someone with those duties to take the vaccine or face a sanction....

If the Air Force can permanently retain those who cannot deploy because of their religious objections to a war, it must explain why it cannot permanently retain those who cannot deploy because of their religious objections to a vaccine.

(See prior related posting.) Courthouse News Service reports on the decision.

7th Circuit: Law on Disposal of Fetal Remains Does Not Violate 1st Amendment

In Doe v. Rokita, (7th Cir., Nov. 28, 2022), the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected 1st Amendment challenges to an Indiana statute that requires abortion providers to dispose of fetal remains either by burial or by cremation. The suit was brought both by two women who raise free exercise claims and by two physicians who oppose the requirement that they inform patients of the law's provisions. The court said in part:

[N]either of the two plaintiffs who has had an abortion contends that a third party’s cremation or burial of fetal remains would cause her to violate any religious principle indirectly. What these two plaintiffs contend is that cremation or burial implies a view—the personhood of an unborn fetus—that they do not hold. They maintain that only human beings are cremated or buried. This is questionable. Dogs, cats, and other pets may be cremated or buried, sometimes as a result of legal requirements not to put animals’ bodies in the garbage,,,,. Indiana’s statute about fetal remains therefore need not imply anything about the appropriate characterization of a fetus. At all events, a moral objection to one potential implication of the way medical providers handle fetal remains is some distance from a contention that the state compels any woman to violate her own religious tenets....

As for the requirement that physicians and other providers tell patients about the statutory options: no one contends that the required notice is false or misleading....

The norm that units of government may require physicians (and other professionals) to provide accurate information to their clients long predates Casey and has not been disturbed since...

State Religious Discrimination Claims Against Airline Union Are Pre-empted By Federal Law

In Brown v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., (WD WA, Nov. 23, 2022), a Washington federal district court dismissed state-law religious discrimination claims brought against the flight attendants' union by two of its members.  Alaska Airlines fired plaintiffs because they posted comments on the company's internal intranet opposing the Airline's support for a federal statute that would add sexual orientation and gender identity to federal anti-discrimination laws. Plaintiffs claimed their comments were grounded in their religious beliefs. The Union unsuccessfully represented the flight attendants at a hearing appealing their termination.  Plaintiffs then sued claiming not only that Alaska Airlines discriminated against them because of their Christian faith, but that the Union did not defend them as vigorously as it defends other flight attendants because of the flight attendants' religious beliefs. The court dismissed the flight attendants' claims against the Union that were brought under Washington and Oregon anti-discrimination laws.  It concluded that that the "duty of fair representation" stemming from provisions of the federal Railway Labor Act pre-empts claims brought under state anti-discrimination laws where the charge is that a union did not adequately represent an employee in the grievance process.

3rd Circuit: Challenge to COVID Limits on Worship Services Is Moot

In Clark v. Governor of the State of New Jersey, (3d Cir., Nov. 28, 2022), the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of appeals in a 2-1 decision held that a challenge by two Christian congregations and their pastors to former COVID limits on in-person worship services is moot. The court affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the suit.  In the case, plaintiffs challenged orders by the Governor of New Jersey that limited religious gatherings while permitting certain essential secular activities to continue. The majority said in part:

Appellants offer nothing more than speculation to suggest that we have a live controversy here. They invite us to hypothesize about future scenarios in which (a) not only does the COVID-19 pandemic reach crisis levels comparable to early-2020, but (b) New Jersey’s executive officials will choose to ignore everything—both legal and factual—we have learned since those early months and bluntly reintroduce legally-suspect gathering restrictions on religious worship. This will not do, and we will therefore affirm.

Judge Matey dissented, saying in part:

[N]o lively imagination is needed to conjure up future competitions between public health and religious liberty given the volatility of respiratory viruses, the increased probability of future pandemics, and the routine declaration of “emergencies” by Governor Murphy. I would take the opportunity to provide an answer now, giving the people of New Jersey, and its representatives, the guidance they are entitled to under the Constitution.

Senate Will Begin Voting on Respect for Marriage Act with Religious Liberty Amendments

The U.S. Senate is expected to begin voting today on an amended version of H.R. 8404, the Respect for Marriage Act (full text). The House has previously passed the original version of the bill, and the Senate has passed a cloture motion ending a filibuster of the original bill.  The Act will assure federal recognition of same-sex marriages that were valid where performed and will require states to give full faith and credit to same-sex (as well as interracial) marriages performed in other states. Amendments designed to protect religious liberty were added in the Senate.  If the bill passes, it will then go back to the House to act on the amended version. Here are the major changes added in the Senate version to protect religious liberty:

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds the following:

       (1) No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family.

       (2) Diverse beliefs about the role of gender in marriage are held by reasonable and sincere people based on decent and honorable religious or philosophical premises. Therefore, Congress affirms that such people and their diverse beliefs are due proper respect....

SEC. 6. NO IMPACT ON RELIGIOUS LIBERTY AND CONSCIENCE.

       (a) In General.-- Nothing in this Act, or any amendment made by this Act, shall be construed to diminish or abrogate a religious liberty or conscience protection otherwise available to an individual or organization under the Constitution of the United States or Federal law.

       (b) Goods or Services.--Consistent with the First Amendment to the Constitution, nonprofit religious organizations, including churches, mosques, synagogues, temples, nondenominational ministries, interdenominational and ecumenical organizations, mission organizations, faith-based social agencies, religious educational institutions, and nonprofit entities whose principal purpose is the study, practice, or advancement of religion, and any employee of such an organization, shall not be required to provide services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges for the solemnization or celebration of a marriage. Any refusal under this subsection to provide such services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges shall not create any civil claim or cause of action.

SEC. 7. STATUTORY PROHIBITION.

       (a) No Impact on Status and Benefits Not Arising From a Marriage.-- Nothing in this Act, or any amendment made by this Act, shall be construed to deny or alter any benefit, status, or right of an otherwise eligible entity or person which does not arise from a marriage, including tax-exempt status, tax treatment, educational funding, or a grant, contract, agreement, guarantee, loan, scholarship, license, certification, accreditation, claim, or defense.

       (b) No Federal Recognition of Polygamous Marriages.-- Nothing in this Act, or any amendment made by this Act, shall be construed to require or authorize Federal recognition of marriages between more than 2 individuals....

As reported by The Center Square and The Hill, various conservative religious organizations (some expressing extreme concerns about the effect of the bill), as well as some Republican senators, continue to strongly oppose the bill.

UPDATE: On Nov. 29, the Senate by a vote of 61-36 passed the Respect for Marriage Act.  The bill now goes back to the House for a vote on the bill in the amended form passed by the Senate.

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Jessica Lowe, "Our Experiences Make Us Who We Are": Lessons from Thomas Ruffin and Dirk Hartog, (Virginia Public Law and Legal Theory Research Paper No. 2022-76 (Nov. 2022)).
• Greer Donley & Rachel Rebouche, The Promise of Telehealth for Abortion, (in Digital Health Care Outside of Traditional Clinical Settings: Ethical, Legal and Regulatory Challenges and Opportunities (Cambridge University Press, Forthccoming).
• Saleh Alamer, The Role of the Sharīʿah Supervisory Board: A Gatekeeper?, (December 19, 2021).
• Kim Kit Ow & Vincent Ooi, Making Singapore a Regional Centre for Philanthropy, (The Straits Times, 7 October 2022).

From SmartCILP:

• Leslie C. Griffin, What Did Those Sixteen Justices Say?, 58 Willamette Law Review 163-250 (2022).
• Jomana Qaddour, Iraq's Constitutional Moments and the Institutionalization of Ethno-Sectarianism, 36 Emory International Law Review 237-286 (2022).
• John G. Browning, Is the Devil in the Details? Religious Objections to Biometric Technology in the Workplace, [Abstract], 99 University of Detroit Mercy Law Review 299-322 (2022).
• Abigail Matthews & Rebecca J. Kreitzer, How Personal Beliefs and Identity Affect Bodily Autonomy Attitudes, [Abstract], 99 University of Detroit Mercy Law Review 373-424 (2022).

New York Governor Announces Steps to Combat Hate Crimes

Earlier this week, New York Governor Kathy Hochul announced a number of steps to combat hate crimes. On Nov. 22, the Governor signed A1202 (full text) which makes mandatory rather than just permissive the requirement that sentences for hate crimes include an appropriate program, training session, or counseling session directed at hate crime prevention and education. She also signed A5913A (full text) which requires the state Division of Human Rights to develop and implement a campaign to promote acceptance, inclusion and tolerance of the state's diverse population with the purpose of combatting bias, hatred and discrimination based on religion, race, color, creed, sex, ethnicity, national origin, age, disability, sexual orientation, and gender identity or expression. She also announced plans for a Unity Summit and emphasized grant funding available to strengthen safety measures to protect against hate crimes.

Suit Claims School's Restroom Policy Burdens Muslim and Christian Religious Beliefs

Suit was filed this week in an Ohio federal district court challenging a school district's rule change that allows transgender students to use restrooms and locker rooms that conform to their gender identity.  Plaintiffs, who identify as Muslims and Christians, claim, among other contentions, that the new rules violate their free exercise and equal protection rights, their parental rights and Title IX.  The complaint (full text) in Doe No. 1 v. Bethel Local School District Board of Educaton, (SD OH, filed 11/22/2022), alleges in part:

67. The [Muslim] Plaintiffs ... sincerely believe that Allah makes men and women in the womb as distinct and separate genders. Allah desires modesty and separateness between the sexes. Satan attempts to entice humans to change and disobey what Allah has created and desires, and believers are to stay true to Allah’s creation and commands....

68. Muslim parents are responsible for raising their children in the faith including its morals and values....  This is a fundamental part of the parents’ exercise of their own faith. The Board is imposing a substantial burden on the free exercise of that faith by placing the children in intimate facilities with members of the opposite biological sex....

79. [Seven of the] Plaintiffs ... are all active members of the Christian community.

80. For thousands of years, Judeo-Christianity has taught that their identity as people comes from God, who made human beings in his image—male and female. See, e.g., Genesis 1:26-28; Matthew 19:4-6. Therefore, a human being’s dignity comes from the image of God himself. And God’s fashioning of a human being as a man or woman at birth is a fundamental part of that dignity. One cannot impose on that dignity without transgressing the fundamental core of a Christian.

Fox News reports on the lawsuit.

President Biden Issues Thanksgiving Proclamation

President Biden yesterday issued a Proclamation (full text) declaring today as a National Day of Thanksgiving.  The Proclamation reads in part:

We are grateful for our family and friends and for all of our fellow Americans, even those whom we may never meet but rely upon nonetheless.  We are thankful for the scientists, researchers, doctors, and nurses who have kept us safe through a pandemic, and for the frontline workers who have kept essential services going by growing and providing food for our tables.  We are grateful to faith leaders for their counsel, comfort, and support.  We thank our brave service members and veterans who sacrifice so much for our freedom, and the first responders who put so much on the line to keep us all safe. 

As Scripture says:  “let us rejoice always, pray continually, and give thanks in all circumstances.”  This is a special time in the greatest country on Earth, so let us be grateful.  America is a great Nation because we are a good people.  This holiday, we celebrate all that brings us together, grounded in history and our shared hopes for the future.

Georgia Supreme Court Reinstates Heartbeat Abortion Ban

As previously reported, last week a Georgia state trial court held Georgia's heartbeat abortion ban unconstitutional and enjoined enforcement of two key provisions of the law.  In reaching its conclusion, the trial court invoked Georgia's "void ab initio" doctrine. Today in State of Georgia v. SisterSong Women of Color Reproductive Justice Collective, (GA Sup. Ct., Nove 23, 2022), the Georgia Supreme Court in a brief order granted a stay of the trial court's order. This allows the ban to go back into effect. Seven of the nine justices concurred in the Order. One Justice was disqualified and one did not participate. ACLU issued a press release announcing the decision.

Delaware Chancery Court Says Religious Leaders' Challenge to COVID Orders Was Filed in Wrong Court

In In re Covid Related Restrictions on Religious Services, (Del. Ch., Nov. 22, 2022), the Delaware Court of Chancery held that a challenge by religious leaders to now-lifted Covid-related restrictions on religious services should be brought in Superior Court, not in Delaware's Chancery Court which is limited to providing equitable relief. The state's other courts are capable of awarding damages and issuing a declaratory judgment. In reaching that conclusion, however, the court modified the test it has traditionally used to determine whether to grant a permanent injunction. The court said that in order to obtain a permanent injunction, as opposed to a TRO or preliminary injunction, petitioner must only show that remedies at law would be inadequate. Threat of irreparable harm is one way, but not the only way, to show this. The court went on, however, to conclude:

[W]hen a plaintiff seeks to ground equitable jurisdiction on the potential need for a permanent injunction, the pled facts must support a reasonable apprehension that the defendant will act in a manner that will necessitate the injunction’s issuance. Under the reasonable-apprehension test, a plaintiff’s subjective fears are not sufficient. There must be objectively good reasons to think that a permanent injunction will be warranted. The plaintiffs have not pled facts that make it reasonably conceivable that the Governor will re-impose the Challenged Restrictions.

NY Child Victim Act Revives Claim Even Though Prior Order of Dismissal Did Not Specify Statute of Limitations Grounds

In D.P. v. Riverside Church in the City of New York, (NY Cnty. Sup. Ct., Nov. 14, 2022), a New York state trial court refused to dismiss on res judicata grounds a suit against Riverside Church alleging abuse of a teenage player by the founder of a Harlem basketball program sponsored by the church. A federal court lawsuit making similar allegations was dismissed in 2008 after plaintiff filed a stipulation of dismissal.  While the federal court's order of dismissal did not state the grounds for dismissal, plaintiff in this case filed an affidavit saying that the rationale was the statute of limitations.  The New York state court held that since the Child Victim Act revived causes of action that had previously been dismissed on limitations grounds, it would allow plaintiff to move ahead with the suit, saying in part:

As the Federal case was discontinued in 2008 and makes no mention as to why same occurred this court must give every deference to the party seeking an opportunity to proceed with this case under the CVA on the merits.

Football Coach Sues After Being Fired for Religious Refusal of Covid Vaccine

Suit was filed last week by the former head football coach for Washington State University who was fired after refusing on religious grounds to comply with the state's Covid vaccine mandate for state employees. The Athletic Department refused to grant him a religious accommodation, questioning the sincerity of his religious objections as well as the University's ability to accommodate his objections. The complaint (full text) in Rolovich v. Washington State University, (WA Super. Ct., filed 11/14/2022), alleges that the coach's firing amounts to religious discrimination in violation of state and federal law and infringement of plaintiff's free exercise and due process rights. Campus Reform reports on the lawsuit.

Maryland County's Election Process for Student School Board Member Survives Free Exercise Challenge

 In Kim v. Board of Education of Howard County, (D MD, Nov. 18, 2022), a Maryland federal district court rejected both equal protection and free exercise challenges to the manner in which the student member of the 8-member Howard County School Board is selected. In an elaborate process, the final step in the selection of the student member is a vote by public school students in grades 6 to 11. In rejecting the free exercise claim, the court said in part:

Plaintiffs argue that the Student Member selection process violates the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause because it bars certain students from voting for the Student Member “solely because they attend a religious school or are homeschooled for religious reasons.”... This claim will be dismissed because Plaintiffs have not plausibly alleged that the Student Member statute burdens religion—and even if it did, the law is neutral and generally applicable.

The court also rejected equal protection claims that the process violated the one-person one-vote mandate and uniformity rules.

Medical Organizations Challenge FDA's Past Approval of Chemical Abortion Drugs

In a new test of abortion rights, four medical organizations and four doctors filed suit last week in a Texas federal district court challenging the FDA's long-standing approval for use in the United States of the chemical abortion drugs mifepristone and misoprostol. The 113-page complaint (full text) in Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, (ND TX, filed 11/18/2022), alleges in part:

3. To date, the FDA’s review, approval, and deregulation of chemical abortion drugs has spanned three decades, correlated with four U.S. presidential elections, and encompassed six discrete agency actions...

7. The only way the FDA could have approved chemical abortion drugs was to use its accelerated drug approval authority, necessitating the FDA to call pregnancy an “illness” and argue that these dangerous drugs provide a “meaningful therapeutic benefit” over existing treatments.

8. But pregnancy is not an illness, nor do chemical abortion drugs provide a therapeutic benefit over surgical abortion....

9. What’s more, the FDA needed to disavow science and the law because the FDA never studied the safety of the drugs under the labeled conditions of use....

10, Since then, the FDA has not followed the science, reversed course, or fixed its mistakes,,,

22...  [A]ll of the FDA’s actions on chemical abortion drugs—the 2000 approval, the 2016 major changes, the 2019 generic drug approval, and the two 2021 actions to eliminate the in-person dispensing requirement—failed to acknowledge and address the federal laws that prohibit the distribution of chemical abortion drugs by postal mail, express company, or common carrier.,,,

ADF issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.                                                         

Challenge To HHS Health Care Non-Discrimination Rules Is Moot

 In American College of Pediatricians v. Becerra, (ED TN, Nov. 18, 2022), a Tennessee federal district court dismissed for lack of standing a challenge to a rule promulgated by the Department of Health and Human Services that barred discrimination on the basis of gender identity in the furnishing of health care.  The court said in part:

Given Plaintiffs’ failure to allege any of the McKay factors, the availability of a religious exemption by which they are arguably protected from enforcement, which has not yet been interpreted otherwise, the fact that Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit before seeking an exemption, and the Supreme Court’s mandate that the standing inquiry is “especially rigorous when reaching the merits of the dispute would force [a court] to decide the constitutionality of an action taken by one of the other two branches of the Federal Government,” the Court finds Plaintiffs have not established standing as to their claims. 

The court also concluded that plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge an HHS rule requiring grant recipients to recognize same-sex marriages.

Plaintiffs do not allege that HHS has any history of enforcing the 2016 Grants Rule against them or others, or that Plaintiffs have received any sort of enforcement warning regarding the 2016 Grants Rule.

The court's 41-paage opinion traces the complex history of rulemaking and litigation as to both rules.

President Biden Issues Statement on Transgender Day of Remembrance

The White House today released a statement (full text) from President Biden on Transgender Day of Remembrance. The Statement says in part:

On Transgender Day of Remembrance, we honor the 32 transgender Americans known to have been taken from us this year by horrific acts of brutality. The true toll is likely much higher, with Black and brown transgender women disproportionately targeted.

In the face of this ongoing assault, my Administration remains deeply committed to strengthening the rights of LGBTQI+ Americans, including transgender Americans. Since taking office, we have made it possible for transgender service members to once again serve proudly and openly in our military, improved the travel experience for transgender Americans, and provided resources to support the mental health of transgender kids and their families.... I continue to urge state leaders to combat the disturbing wave of discriminatory state laws targeting young transgender Americans—legislation that hurts young people who aren’t hurting anyone. With Congress poised to pass the bipartisan Respect For Marriage Act, I also reiterate my call for them to likewise pass the Equality Act and provide long overdue protections to transgender and all LGBTQI+ Americans.

NYT: In 2014 There Was a Leak of the Hobby Lobby Result

The New York Times today posted a lengthy investigative article revealing that the leak of the draft Dobbs opinion earlier this year was not the first time that there had been a leak of information about a decision not yet released by the Supreme Court.  The Times article is based largely on information from Rev. Rob Schenck, formerly the head of an evangelical non-profit, Faith and Action.  In a letter he sent to Chief Justice Roberts after the leak of the Dobbs draft opinion, Schenck said in part:

Back in June 2014, when so many awaited the Court's opinion in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, I was informed by a donor to the Capitol Hill-based non-profit organization I led that she and her husband would be dining at the home of Justice and Mrs. Alito. She suggested that in their table conversation, she might be able to learn the status of the case, something she knew I had an interest in knowing. I received a follow -up message from her notifying me she had indeed obtained the information during that visit. We spoke on the phone, and she detailed the revelation. As I recall, we talked about the Green family, owners of Hobby Lobby, and how they, too, would be interested in this information.

According to the Times:

Mr. Schenck recruited wealthy donors like Mrs. Wright and her husband, Donald, encouraging them to invite some of the justices to meals, to their vacation homes or to private clubs. He advised allies to contribute money to the Supreme Court Historical Society and then mingle with justices at its functions. He ingratiated himself with court officials who could help give him access, records show.

All the while, he leveraged his connections to raise money for his nonprofit, Faith and Action. Mr. Schenck said he pursued the Hobby Lobby information to cultivate the business’s president, Steve Green, as a donor....

Mr. Schenck, 64, has shifted his views on abortion in recent years, alienating him from many of his former associates, and is trying to re-establish himself, now as a progressive evangelical leader. His decision to speak out now about the Hobby Lobby episode, he said, stems from his regret about the actions that he claims led to his advance knowledge about the case....

[Schenck]  had long been an ends-justify-the-means anti-abortion provocateur....

... Mr. Schenck wanted the conservatives on the court to hear from people who would hail them as heroes if they seized the opportunity to strike down Roe one day. The goal, he said in an interview, was to “embolden the justices” to lay the legal groundwork for an eventual reversal by delivering “unapologetically conservative dissents.”

UPDATE: Here is the Supreme Court Legal Counsel's response to the NYT article.

Religious Children's Home Lacks Standing To Challenge Now-Defunct HHS Non-Discrimination Rule

 In Holston United Methodist Home for Children, Inc. v. Becerra, (ED TN, Nov. 18, 2022), a Tennessee federal district court held that a religiously affiliated children's home that places children for foster care or adoption lacks standing to challenge a 2016 anti-discrimination rule promulgated by the Department of Health and Human Services. According to the court:

Holston Home requires prospective foster and adoptive parents to affirm a Christian statement of faith and beliefs before they can engage in child-placement activities.... Further, Holston Home does not place children with foster or adoptive parents who are in same-sex relationships or unmarried couples of any biological sex who are romantically cohabitating....

While the challenged rule, promulgated at the end of the Obama Administration, barred such restrictions, HHS policy had undergone successive changes in the Trump and Biden Administrations. These are traced at length in the court's 22-page opinion. In particular the court noted:

Although HHS had not enforced the 2016 Grants Rule since it became effective, on November 19, 2019, HHS published a formal notification in the Federal Register to inform the public that it would not enforce the 2016 Grants Rule after determining that the rulemaking raised “significant concerns about compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act [‘RFA’].”...

Because the 2016 Grants Rule is, for all intents and purposes, defunct pursuant to the Notification of Nonenforcement, Holston Home faces no credible threat of prosecution.... Having also failed to show any history of past enforcement of the 2016 Grants Rule, enforcement warning letters, or a feature of the regulation making it easier or more likely to be enforced, Holston Home lacks standing to bring this lawsuit.