4th Annual Religious Freedom Index Released

Becket Fund for Religious Liberty this week released its fourth annual Religious Freedom Index. The 99-page Report (full text) (summary) is described in its Executive Summary:

The Index is designed to give a holistic view of American attitudes toward religious freedom by surveying a nationally representative sample of approximately 1,000 American adults each year. The survey consists of 21 annually repeating questions that cover a broad range of topics, from the rights of religious people to practice their respective faiths to the role of government in protecting and promoting religious beliefs. The responses to these questions break down into six dimensions: 1) Religious Pluralism, 2) Religion and Policy, 3) Religious Sharing, 4) Religion in Society, 5) Church and State, and 6) Religion in Action.

According to Becket's press release:

When asked about religious pluralism, more respondents than ever said that they think people should be free to choose a religion, to worship without fear of persecution, and to practice religion in daily life. Since 2020, this dimension of religious freedom increased by over 10 points, with over 90 percent of respondents completely or mostly agreeing to protect these freedoms.  

Americans’ support for religious minorities was also high. New questions on the Index asked respondents about protections for Native American sacred sites on federal land. Overall, 89 percent of respondents supported these protections, with strong support for these protections (57 percent) dwarfing strong opposition (three percent) by nearly 20 to 1.

European Commission Appoints Special Envoy for Promoting Religious Freedom

The European Commission announced this week that it has appointed Belgian diplomat Frans van Daele as Special Envoy for the Promotion of Freedom of Religion or Belief Outside the EU. (EC News Release [scroll down to "Appointments"]). The announcement describes the Special Envoy's duties:

The Special Envoy will establish a dialogue with national authorities and other stakeholders in countries suffering from discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief. He will support for intercultural and interreligious dialogue processes, including encouraging dialogue between representatives of different faiths and the setting up of joint initiatives. He will put in place measures to target de-radicalisation and prevention of extremism on grounds of religion or belief in third countries. In cooperation with authorities from third countries, he will promote religious diversity and tolerance within educational programmes and curricula. The Special Envoy will coordinate his activities closely with the EU Special Representative on Human Rights.

Among his prior diplomatic position, van Daele served as Belgian Ambassador to the United States from 2002 to 2006. ADF International issued a press release commenting on the appointment.

Congress Gives Final Passage To Respect For Marriage Act

 Yesterday the U.S. House of Representatives gave final passage to HR 8404 the Respect for Marriage Act (full text). By a vote of 258- 169, the House accepted the amendments added to the original bill by the Senate. The bill now goes to President Biden for his signature. Biden issued a statement yesterday praising Congress' passage of the bill. The bill assures federal recognition of same-sex and interracial marriages between two individuals and requires states to recognize same-sex and interracial marriages from other states. The bill goes on to provide:

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....

 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.

Fox4 reports on contents of the bill.

UPDATE: On Sept. 13, President Biden signed the bill into law. (White House press release.)

House Hearing Explores Lobbying of Supreme Court by Religious Conservatives

Yesterday, the House Judiciary Committee held a hearing titled Undue Influence: Operation Higher Court and Politicking at SCOTUS. One of the witnesses was Rev. Robert Schenck who, in his written testimony, expanded on his previously published interview with the New York Times.  Schenck recounts his organization's attempts to gain access to Supreme Court Justices through donors to the Supreme Court Historical Society. He said in part:

My purpose was to develop relationships with the Justices who held positions sympathetic to religious conservatives' general concerns. In this way, I could gain insights into their thinking regarding the questions and cases that come before them and, perhaps, read their disposition toward the topics of most significant interest to me and my cohorts. Over time, I also thought my associates and supporters might be able to shore up the resolve of the conservative members. Our concern was for cases we adjudged beneficial to the country's culture, such as those restricting or banning abortion, euthanasia and assisted suicide, as well as same-sex relationships, especially marriage, and those expanding religious liberty, predominantly Christian practice, and public displays of Christian belief. The Historical Society was also a place where my cohorts and I could learn more about the customs, traditions, mores, and protocols of the Court, easing our entry into their social circles.

His testimony went on to describe his learning in advance about the outcome of the Hobby Lobby case. 

Another witness before the Committee, Mark R. Paoletta, in his written testimony sharply criticized Schenck's account, saying that Schenck has "built his career on deception and deceit."  NPR reports on the hearing.

UK Supreme Court Upholds Northern Ireland Abortion Clinic Buffer Zone Law

In Reference by the Attorney General for Northern Ireland - Abortion Services (Safe Access Zones) (Northern Ireland) Bill, (UK SC, Dec. 7, 2022), the United Kingdom Supreme Court held that Northern Ireland legislation creating a safe access zone of 100 meters from abortion clinic entrances that is off limits to abortion protesters does not violate the European Convention on Human Rights. The Court said in part:

156. The right of women in Northern Ireland to access abortion services has now been established in law through the processes of democracy. That legal right should not be obstructed or impaired by the accommodation of claims by opponents of the legislation based, some might think ironically, on the liberal values protected by the Convention. A legal system which enabled those who had lost the political debate to undermine the legislation permitting abortion, by relying on freedom of conscience, freedom of expression and freedom of assembly, would in practice align the law with the values of the opponents of reform and deprive women of the protection of rights which have been legislatively enacted.

A press release by the Court summarizes the 56-page opinion.  Catholic World Report discusses the decision.

Jewish Congregation Sues for Return of Deeds To 5000 Burial Plots

 An unusual suit was filed this week in a New York state trial court by a Bukharian Jewish religious organization which is seeking to recover nearly 5,000 burial plot deeds that the organization says belong to it. The complaint (full text) in Bukharian Jewish Community Center v. Nektalova, (NY County Sup. Ct., filed 12/6/2022) alleges that United Bukharian Congregation holds cemetery documents in trust for members of the Bukharian Jewish community in New York. One of its members, 92-year old Roman Nektalov, was in charge of providing the relevant deeds to cemeteries and families when funerals of members were being arranged.  During COVID, Nektalov took the deeds to his home so he could distribute them from there. A domestic dispute arose between Nektalov and his wife. His wife obtained a protective order which prevents Nektalov from accessing the deeds in his home. She later filed for divorce and refuses to turn the deeds over to the religious organizations, claiming that they are marital property. The Jewish organizations ask the court to hold that they are the rightful owners of the deeds, and to order them turned over to them or to a receiver. AMNY reports on the lawsuit. [Names in post corrected]

Oklahoma Attorney General's Opinion Says Ban on Sectarian Charter Schools Is Unconstitutional

 In Attorney General Opinion 2022-7, (Dec. 1, 2022), Oklahoma Attorney General John M. O'Connor concluded that the ban in Oklahoma law on publicly funded charter schools being sectarian or religiously affiliated is unconstitutional. He said in part:

You ask what effect, if any, the Trinity Lutheran, Espinoza, and Carson decisions have on the validity of the non-sectarian restrictions found in Section 3-136(A)(2) of the Oklahoma Charter School Act. That passage states as follows:

A charter school shall be nonsectarian in its programs, admission policies, employment practices, and all other operations. A sponsor may not authorize a charter school or program that is affiliated with a nonpublic sectarian school or religious institution....

We believe, based on the First Amendment and the Trinity Lutheran, Espinoza, and Carson line of decisions, that the U.S. Supreme Court would likely hold these restrictions unconstitutional....

It is important to emphasize, however, that to the extent that neutral and generally applicable limitations may be found elsewhere in the Act, those limitations can likely be applied to religious charter schools, so long as they are truly neutral and applied equally to all charter schools alike.... The constitutional problem is singling out religion, not necessarily the provisions found elsewhere regulating various aspects of charter schools.

The Oklahoman reports on the Attorney General's Opinion.

North Carolina Methodist Churches Sue to Disaffiliate from Parent Body

Suit was filed last month in a North Carolina state trial court by 38 United Methodist Churches in North Carolina which are seeking to disaffiliate from the United Methodist Church and retain their buildings and property.  The complaint (full text) in Mount Carmel United Methodist Church v. Western North Carolina Conference of the United Methodist Church, (NC Super. Ct., filed 11/10/2022), alleges in part:

Plaintiff Churches wish to disaffiliate from the United Methodist Church ("UMC") to pursue their deeply held religious beliefs. Defendants want to force Plaintiff Churches to stay affiliated with the UMC, and violate those beliefs by holding their church buildings and property hostage. Defendants claim Plaintiffs' Churches property is encumbered by an irrevocable trust for the benefit of the UMC and the only way for Plaintiff Churches to disaffiliate without surrendering the buildings and property that are central to their congregations is by the permission of the UMC and payment of a financial ransom.

Plaintiffs ask the court to declare that the UMC trust is terminated or is revocable and to quiet title to the Churches properties. Religion News Service reports on the lawsuit, saying in part:

Legal action — or the threat of legal action — represents a new strategy on behalf of churches that want to leave the 6.4 million-member United Methodist Church. The denomination is undergoing a wholesale splinter after decades of rancorous debate over the ordination and marriage of LGBTQ members.

The denomination allows churches to leave through the end of 2023. The exit plan allows them to take their properties with them after paying two years of apportionments and pension liabilities.

State Department Updates List of Countries Violating Religious Freedom; USCIRF Reacts

Last week (Dec. 2) the U.S. State Department, as required by the International Religious Freedom Act, announced its annual list of countries and entities that violate or tolerate severe violations of religious freedom.  In a press statement, Secretary Blinken said in part:

Today, I am announcing designations against Burma, the People’s Republic of China, Cuba, Eritrea, Iran, Nicaragua, the DPRK, Pakistan, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Tajikistan, and Turkmenistan as Countries of Particular Concern under the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 for having engaged in or tolerated particularly severe violations of religious freedom.  I am also placing Algeria, the Central African Republic, Comoros, and Vietnam on the Special Watch List for engaging in or tolerating severe violations of religious freedom.  Finally, I am designating al-Shabab, Boko Haram, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, the Houthis, ISIS-Greater Sahara, ISIS-West Africa, Jama’at Nusrat al-Islam wal-Muslimin, the Taliban, and the Wagner Group based on its actions in the Central African Republic as Entities of Particular Concern.

Responding to the State Department's action, the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom issued a press release stating in part:

The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) finds it inexplicable that the U.S. Department of State did not include Nigeria or India in its latest designations of “Countries of Particular Concern”....

Religion News Service has posted an opinion piece on the State Department's actions by a former State Department adviser.

Catholic Parish Sues Michigan Over Expansion of Its Civil Rights Act

Suit was filed this week in a Michigan federal district court by a Catholic parish which operates an elementary school claiming that the Michigan Supreme Court's interpretation of the state's anti-discrimination law violates the parish's First Amendment rights.  The complaint (full text) in St. Joseph Parish St. Johns v. Nessel, (WD MI, filed 12/5/2022), alleges in part:

5. In a series of actions culminating in a Michigan Supreme Court decision from July 2022, the Michigan Attorney General, the Michigan Department of Civil Rights, and the Michigan Civil Rights Commission ... reinterpreted the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act (“ELCRA”) such that provisions which previously prohibited conduct based only on biological sex now also apply to distinctions made based on sexual orientation and gender identity....

10. As a result, Michigan’s new understanding of “sex” discrimination deems it unlawful for St. Joseph’s to follow the 2,000-year-old teachings of the Catholic Church, including its teaching that marriage is a lifelong commitment between one man and one woman, that sexual relations are limited to marriage, and that human beings are created as either male or female....

11. Michigan’s reinterpretation poses an imminent threat to St. Joseph. St. Joseph needs to hire new employees and to publicize its job openings. St. Joseph’s advertisements would note, as they have in the past, that applicants must be “practicing Catholic[s] with the ability to infuse Catholic faith and teaching throughout the curriculum.”... 

12. St. Joseph is also reviewing applications for new families seeking to send their children to its school. And families at St. Joseph Catholic School enter a “Family – School Agreement.” This agreement requires, among other things, that parents and students agree “to live their lives in a way that supports, rather than opposes, the mission of our school and our faith beliefs.”

13. Also at stake is St. Joseph’s ability to rent its facilities—like its gymnasium and soccer fields—and whether it can carry out its parish activities open to all, like attending Mass, without being held liable as a public accommodation....

15. St. Joseph’s religious decisions regarding how to advance its mission and ministry are protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Michigan cannot force the Catholic Church to compromise its religious character simply as a function of its doors being open to all.

Becket has a case page with more details on the case.

Street Preacher Loses His Free Speech Lawsuit

In Sessler v. City of Davenport, (SD IA, Nov. 22, 2022), an Iowa federal district court dismissed a suit for damages and injunctive relief brought by a street preacher who claimed that his free speech rights were violated when he and others with him were required to move from the location at which they were preaching during the city's Street Fest and continue their preaching from another location. According to the court:

Sessler and his group carried signs on extendable poles with messages including: "Hell is enlarged for adulterers . . . homosexuals . . . abortionists" and "Warning! If you are involved in sex out of marriage[,] homosexuality[,] drunkenness[,] night clubbing . . . you are destined for a burning hell[.]" 

The court concluded that Street Fest was a limited public forum, and plaintiff's removal was reasonable and viewpoint neutral.  It went on to say in part:

Sessler has failed to carry his burden of showing Behning, Smith, and Alcala violated a clearly established right, even if Street Fest is considered a traditional public forum. The case law discussed by Sessler does not show a member of the public has a right to continue preaching at a permitted event open to the public after event organizers requested his removal due to complaints that his preaching was driving customers away from fee-paying vendors. Rather, the case law on point suggests a reasonable officer could have concluded Sessler had no constitutional right to continue preaching within the boundaries of Street Fest following such complaints, as long as he was permitted to continue preaching across the street from an entrance to Street Fest. The Officers violated no clearly established right, so they are entitled to qualified immunity from Sessler's claims against them.

New Zealand Court OK's Hate Speech Law That Does Not Cover LGBTQ Victims

In Hoban v. Attorney General, (NZ HC, Dec. 5, 2022), a New Zealand High Court, reviewing a decision of the Human Rights Review Tribunal, held that New Zealand's hate speech law (Human Rights Act Sec. 61) that covers incitement of racial disharmony but not hate speech aimed at sexual orientation does not violate the Bill of Rights Act. The court held that while the hate speech provisions of the Human Rights Act have a discriminatory effect on victims of hate speech based on sexual orientation, the discriminatory effect is permitted by Sec. 5 of the Bill of Rights Act that allows "demonstrably justified" limits. The court said in part:

We consider it significant that there is no human rights obligation, in either domestic or international law, to make hate speech on the basis of sexual orientation unlawful. By contrast there is such an obligation in relation to racial hate speech, both in ICERD [International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination] and the ICCPR [International Convention on Civil and Political Rights]....

Section 61 only has apparently discriminatory effect because it is a targeted remedial measure. We consider that the existence of the international obligations in ICERD and the ICCPR in of themselves provide the s 5 justification for s 61 of the HRA being in the targeted terms that it is. The New Zealand legislation is limited, but the limit corresponds to the international obligations.

Stuff discussed the case when it was argued before the court. [Thanks to Jane Norton for the lead.]

En Banc rehearing Denied in Challenge to Courtroom Invocations

In Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc. v. Mack, (5th Cir., Dec. 2, 2022), the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals by a vote of 12-3 denied an en banc rehearing in a case decided by a 3-judge panel in September. (See prior posting.) The panel held that a program devised by a Texas Justice of the Peace under which his court sessions are opened with a prayer from a volunteer chaplain does not violate the Establishment Clause.  Judge Higginson, joined by Judge Graves, filed an opinion dissenting from the denial of an en banc rehearing. They said in part:

None of the history cited by our court contemplates a judicial command “to stand and bow” for prayer, much less under threat of retaliation. At best, our court digs up “scattered evidence” that some nineteenth- and twentieth-century courts started with a prayer. Along with other evidence that prayers have been said and God invoked in courtrooms, our court thinks this is enough to prove that “courtroom prayer is consistent with a broader tradition of public, government-sponsored prayer.” I agree with the dissenting panel opinion that this history is too thin to justify that conclusion, but I would add that our court’s answer is pitched at the wrong level of generality....  [T]he question is whether “history shows that the specific practice is permitted,” not whether a general practice is permitted.

New Resource on Abortion Litigation

The Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law and the Center for Reproductive Rights today announced its State Court Abortion Litigation Tracker, a website that tracks pending and completed state court litigation against abortion bans that were, or would have been, unconstitutional under Roe. v. Wade. The site has been added to the Religion Clause sidebar.  Information on the site will be updated monthly.  This site supplements the Center's Abortion Laws By State website that tracks the current status of abortion laws in each state.

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Aaron Tang, Who's Afraid of Carson v. Makin?,  (132 Yale L. J. Forum 504 (2022)).
• Nicolas Graber-Mitchell, All Rise for God: Toleration, Secularism, and the Role of Religion in Legal Adjudication, (April 14, 2022).
• Reva B. Siegel & Linda Greenhouse, Abortion: Rights in Motion - Global Constitutionalism 2022, (Yale Law School, Public Law Research Paper Forthcoming).
• Melvin Otey, Jesus’s Objections During His Preliminary Examination and Modern Notions of Due Process, (Regent University Law Review, Vol. 35, No. 91, 2022).
• Adam MacLeod, The First Amendment, Discrimination, and Public Accommodations at Common Law, (November 9, 2022).
• Richard M. Re, Should Gradualism Have Prevailed in Dobbs?, (November 16, 2022).
• Phil Lord, Trumping Dobbs, (October 26, 2022).

From elsewhere:

• Steven H. Sholk, A Guide to the Substantiation Rules for Deductible Charitable Contributions, (Journal of Taxation, Dec. 2022).

Supreme Court Hears Arguments Today on Wedding Website Designer Who Opposes Same-Sex Marriage

Today the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in 303 Creative v. Elenis. In the case, the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the application of Colorado's Anti-Discrimination Act to a wedding website design company whose owner for religious reasons refuses to create websites that celebrate same-sex marriages. The Court granted certiorari only on the question of "Whether applying a public-accommodation law to compel an artist to speak or stay silent violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment." Over 75 amicus briefs have been filed in the case.  The SCOTUSblog case page has links to them and to other filings in the case. The arguments will be broadcast live beginning at 10:00 AM at this link. SCOTUSblog has a preview of the arguments. I will update this post with links to the recording and transcript of the arguments when they become available later today.

UPDATE: Here are links to the transcript and audio of this morning's oral arguments.

Indiana Court Enjoins Abortion Restrictions as Violating State's RFRA

In Anonymous Plaintiff 1 v. Individual Members of the Medical Licensing Board of Indiana, (IN Super. Ct., Dec. 2, 2022), an Indiana state trial court preliminarily enjoined the state from enforcing Indiana's law restricting abortions against plaintiffs whose religious beliefs permit or require abortions in situations not allowed under Indiana law.  Plaintiffs were Jewish and Muslim, and one plaintiff of no specific denomination. The court, invoking Indiana's Religious Freedom Restoration Act, said in part:

26. This Court finds that the Plaintiffs practices regarding abortion are religious in nature: they have established that, under circumstances that would be prohibited by S.E.A. 1, their religious beliefs would compel them to have abortions....

43. The undisputed evidence establishes that the Plaintiffs do not share the State’s belief that life begins at fertilization or that abortion constitutes the intentional taking of a human life. To the contrary, they have different religious beliefs about when life begins, and they believe that under certain circumstances not permitted by S.E.A. 1, they would be required to receive abortions. Under the law, the Court finds these are sincere religious beliefs.

44. The State has not asserted a compelling interest in refusing to provide an exception to the Plaintiffs if the law were otherwise enforceable. Indiana has no interest in violating the sincere religious beliefs and exercise of the Plaintiffs....

49. The Plaintiffs argue that S.E.A. 1 is not narrowly tailored and is underinclusive, in that it provides exceptions for some abortions—though not religious exceptions—in circumstances that directly contravene the State’s purported interest. 

50. The State argues that abortion, regardless of gestational age of the zygote, embryo, or fetus, is the killing of an innocent human being, and its interest is in preventing that killing....

51. However, the statute explicitly allows abortions in circumstances that the State acknowledges constitute the “killing” of an “innocent human being”: for example, where the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest and where the fetus is viable but will not live beyond three months after birth.

A different state trial court has previously enjoined enforcement of the Act on state constitutional grounds. (See prior posting.)

Indianapolis Star reports on the decision. [Thanks to Daniel Conkle via Religionlaw for the lead.]

Suit By Law Prof and Internet Site Challenges NY Statute on Online Hate Speech

 In May, the New York legislature enacted A7685-A requiring social media networks to provide a means for its users to report postings which vilify, humiliate or incite violence group on the basis of race, color, religion, ethnicity, national origin, disability, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression.  They must also have a policy on responding to and addressing such postings.  Yesterday-- two days before the law is to go into effect-- suit was filed in a New York federal district court by law professor and blogger Eugene Volokh and the social media platform Rumble challenging the law on free speech as well as overbreadth and vagueness grounds. The complaint (full text) in Volokh v. James, (SD NY, filed 12/1/2022), alleges in part:

New York cannot justify such a sweeping regulation of protected speech. The Online Hate Speech Law violates the First Amendment because it burdens the publication of speech based on its viewpoint, unconstitutionally compels speech, and is overbroad. It is also vague in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment....and preempted by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Given well-settled Supreme Court precedent, the New York’s law must be enjoined and struck down.

Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Establishment Clause Challenge to Pending Abortion and LGBTQ Laws Is Dismissed

 In Pickup v. Biden, (D DC, Nov. 30, 2022), plaintiffs-- including four pastors-- asked the D.C. federal district court to declare two bills pending in Congress unconstitutional and enjoin their passage. At issue are the Women's Health Protection Act which assures the right to abortion and the Equality Act which would add sexual orientation and gender identity to the federal Civil Rights Act. Plaintiffs focused primarily on an Establishment Clause challenge. The court described plaintiffs' claims, saying in part:

In their view, the Supreme Court’s decisions in Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey undermine the Establishment Clause by promoting the religion of “secular humanism.”...  According to Plaintiffs, secular humanism includes a “pro-abortion” denomination and an “LGBTQ” denomination.... Plaintiffs thus argue that the Government violates the Establishment Clause if it promotes abortion or LGBTQ ideology.

The court held that the Constitution's Speech or Debate Clause bars Plaintiffs’ claims against the congressional Defendants, that it lacks jurisdiction to enjoin a President from performing his official duties, and that plaintiffs lack standing.

Court Rejects Religious Challenges to COVID Mask Requirements

 In Joseph v. Becerra, (WD WI, Nov. 29, 2022), a Wisconsin federal district court rejected a pro se plaintiff's claims that VA and Postal Service COVID masking requirements violated his free exercise and Establishment Clause rights as well as various other rights. The court said in part:

Joseph refuses to wear a mask, which he views as a medical device and religious symbol. A Christian, Joseph claims to practice his faith in part by “taking a stance against what he sees and understands to be evil or unlawful,” such as the masking requirements.... Specifically, Joseph alleges that the masking requirements violate several of the tenets of his faith and promotes “Collectivism” over his individual rights. By promulgating a masking policy, Joseph further alleges that the federal government is seeking to establish “a nameless and covert religion/religious order” that “is a type of scientism ... discriminatory and divisive in nature and in practice.”...

[P]laintiff’s Establishment Clause claim is not only based on a Bivens claim not yet recognized by the Supreme Court, but also on the “faulty premise” that “scienticsm” is a religion. .... Admittedly, the governing case law does not precisely define the contours of what constitutes “religion,” but “courts are well-equipped to weed out spurious Establishment Clause ‘religions’ on grounds of common sense.”...

[E]ven if wearing a mask has substantially impaired plaintiff’s ability to exercise his faith while receiving in-person medical treatment, working, traveling in public spaces, or attending public events, rules that have only an “incidental effect of burdening a religious practice” will pass muster under the Free Exercise Clause provided they are applied neutrally and generally applicable.