Top 10 Religious Liberty and Church-State Developments of 2022

Each year in December, I attempt to pick the most important church-state and religious liberty developments of the past year.  My choices are based on the importance of the pick to law or policy, regardless of whether the development has garnered significant media attention. The selection of top stories obviously involves a good deal of subjective judgment. Here is a somewhat different list of top stories and newsmakers from the Religion News Association, the professional association of religion journalists. I welcome e-mail comment at religionclause@gmail.com on my choices. Here are my Top Ten picks:

1. In the Dobbs decision, the Supreme Court overrules Roe v. Wade after premature leak of Court's opinion. Newly imposed abortion restrictions are challenged on Free Exercise grounds by clergy and religious organizations with pro-choice beliefs. Some states act to ensure abortion rights.

2. In Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, Supreme Court repudiates the Lemon test for Establishment Clause violations.

3. In Carson v. Makin, Supreme Court says exclusion of sectarian schools from tuition reimbursement program violates Free Exercise clause.

4. Antisemitic incidents in the U.S. increase. White House creates inter-agency group to counter antisemitism.

5. Numerous lawsuits seek religious exemptions from COVID vaccine mandates. Congress in National Defense Authorization Act orders military to rescind its mandate.

6. Congress enacts Respect for Marriage Act, codifying recognition of same-sex and interracial marriages.

7. Accommodation of transgender students and treatment of minors with gender dysphoria remain highly charged political and legal issues.

8. Battles continue over whether anti-discrimination provisions of Title IX, the Affordable Care Act, and some state laws cover discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, and scope of exemptions from those provisions for religious institutions.

9. In Ramirez v. Collier, Supreme Court recognizes rights of pastor to lay hands on the prisoner and audibly pray with him during his execution.

10. In Shurtleff v. City of Boston, Supreme Court holds that group's free speech rights were violated by refusing to allow it to briefly fly its Christian flag from City Hall flagpole which is open to other groups for their ceremonies.

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Christopher C. Lund, Second-Best Free Exercise, (Fordham Law Review, Vol. 91, p. 843 (2022)).
• Mohammad Omar Farooq, Future of Islamic Finance as an Islam-Compliant and not just a Sharia-Compliant Phenomenon, (Global Islamic Finance Report: GIFR 2022 - Futurism in Islamic Finance, Cambridge Institute of Islamic Finance, London, UK, 68-79).
• Assaf Likhovski, Top-Hatted Halakhah: Discussion of The Invention of Jewish Theocracy,  (Jerusalem Review of Legal Studies 25 (2022): 159–72).
• John Banister, On Performativity and Compelled Commercial Speech: Toward a Workable Standard,,  (Communication Law Review 2022).
• Derek W. Black, Religion, Discrimination, and the Future of Public Education, (UC Irvine Law Review, Forthcoming).
• Husnu Al Suood, An Overview of the Development of Maldivian Contract Law and its Sources, (December 13, 2022).
• Tarun Jain, Tax Exemptions for Charities: Indian Supreme Court Expounds the Law, (November 3, 2022).
• A. K. M. Raquibul Hasan, Prospects and Challenges of Issuance of Sukuk in Bangladesh: Lessons from Malaysia for Developing a Comprehensive Legal Framework for Bangladesh, (Dhaka University Law Journal, Vol: 33, Issue:1, June 2022, pp.163-184).

From SmartCILP:

• Ronit Levine-Schnur, Political Divide, Weak Property Rights, and Infrastructure Provision: An Empirical Examination of Takings Decisions in Jerusalem, 47 Law & Social Inquiry 821-856 (2022).
• Mark Fathi Massoud, Book Review. The Search for Universal Laws. The Universal Enemy: Jihad, Empire, and the Challenge of Solidarity, by Darryl Li, 47 Law & Social Inquiry 1069-1074 (2022).
• Nafay Choudhury, Book Review. Shari'a, Inshallah: Finding God in Somali Legal Politics, by Mark F. Massoud, 56 Law & Society Review 500-501 (2022).
• Anthony Paul Farley, Critical Race Theory & the Gospels, 66 St. Louis University Law Journal 721-738 (2022).

FDA Approves Label Change for Plan B Emergency Contraceptive: Not an Abortifacient

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration announced on Friday that it has approved a labeling change for the emergency contraceptive Plan B One-Step, sometimes known as the morning-after pill.  The labeling change states clearly that the medication is not an abortifacient.  The FDA says in part:

Plan B One-Step will not work if a person is already pregnant, meaning it will not affect an existing pregnancy. Plan B One-Step prevents pregnancy by acting on ovulation, which occurs well before implantation. Evidence does not support that the drug affects implantation or maintenance of a pregnancy after implantation, therefore it does not terminate a pregnancy.

The original label had been required to say in part: "this product works mainly by preventing ovulation (egg release). It may also prevent fertilization of a released egg (joining of sperm and egg) or attachment of a fertilized egg to the uterus (implantation)."

The FDA supports its conclusion that it does not affect implantation with a detailed Decisional Memorandum discussing more recent studies of the drug.

In the extensive litigation challenging rules under the Affordable Care Act that mandated health insurance policies cover contraceptive methods for women, religious objectors had pointed to Plan B as one of the medications that they considered an abortifacient because it could prevent implantation of a fertilized egg.  Also, since the Supreme Court's Dobbs case, abortion bans in some states might possibly be broad enough to cover medication that prevents implantation.

In a 2015 Memorandum, relying on research available at that time, the Catholic Medical Association rejected the use of Plan B even after a rape. AP reports on the FDA's approval of the labeling change.

DC Circuit: Marines Must Accommodate Sikh Recruits in Boot Camp

In Singh v. Berger, (DC Cir., Dec. 23, 2022), the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals granted a preliminary injunction to two Sikh Marine Corps recruits who seek an accommodation to wear unshorn hair, beards and certain articles of faith during boot camp training. The court, relying on RFRA, said in part:

So the Plaintiffs’ likelihood of success comes down to whether the Marine Corps has demonstrated a compelling interest accomplished by the least restrictive means in refusing to accommodate their faith for the thirteen weeks of boot camp. The Marine Corps has failed to meet its burden on both fronts....

[T]he Marine Corps argues that excepting the Plaintiffs from the repeated ritual of shaving their faces and heads alongside fellow recruits, and permitting them to wear a head covering, will impede its compelling interest in forging unit cohesion and a uniform mindset during boot camp....

... Colonel Jeppe’s claimed compelling need for inflexible grooming uniformity does not stand up against the “system of exceptions” to boot camp grooming rules that the Corps has already created and that seriously “undermine[]” the Corps’ contention that it “can brook no departures” for Plaintiffs....

To sum up, Plaintiffs have demonstrated not just a likely, but an overwhelming, prospect of success on the merits of their RFRA claim. At a general level, the Government has certainly articulated a compelling national security interest in training Marine Corps recruits to strip away their individuality and adopt a team-oriented mindset committed to the military mission and defense of the Nation. But RFRA requires more than pointing to interests at such a broad level.... The Marine Corps has to show that its substantial burdening of these Plaintiffs’ religion furthers that compelling interest by the least restrictive means. That is where the Marine Corps has come up very short.... 

Becket issued a press release announcing the decision.

Court Dismisses Hindu Organization's Defamation Suit

In Hindu American Foundation v. Viswanath, (D DC, Dec. 20, 2022), the D.C. federal district court dismissed a defamation suit brought by a Hindu advocacy organization against five individuals who are critics of the current Indian government's alleged treatment of Muslims and other religious minorities. In the case, Hindu American Foundation alleged that its reputation was damaged, and it lost donations, after the publication of articles in Al Jazeera in which defendants described HAF as being sympathetic to Hindu supremacist ideology.  Defendants also criticized HAF's receipt of federal COVID relief funds. The court held that it lacks jurisdiction over four of the defendants because they failed to have sufficient connections to meet the jurisdictional requirements of the D.C. long-arm statute. As to the fifth defendant, the court held that as a limited purpose public figure, HAF needed to plead actual malice. It failed to do so.  It also concluded that defendant's statements were expressions of opinion or rhetorical hyperbole, not verifiably false statements of fact. American Bazaar reports on the decision.

President Biden Delivers Christmas Address

Yesterday President Biden delivered his Christmas Address to the Nation (full text). He said in part:

And we look to the sky, to a lone star, shining brighter than all the rest, guiding us to the birth of a child — a child Christians believe to be the son of God; miraculously now, here among us on Earth, bringing hope, love and peace and joy to the world....

The Christmas story is at the heart of the Christmas — Christian faith.  But the message of hope, love, peace, and joy, they’re also universal.

It speaks to all of us, whether we’re Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist, or any other faith, or no faith at all.  It speaks to all of us as human beings who are here on this Earth to care for one another, to look out for one another, to love one another....

I sincerely hope ... this holiday season will drain the poison that has infected our politics and set us against one another.

I hope this Christmas season marks a fresh start for our nation, because there is so much that unites us as Americans, so much more that unites us than divides us.

Court Remands Question of Accommodating Religious Objection to COVID Testing

In In re Whitehead, (NJ App,, Dec. 22, 2022), a New Jersey state appellate court remanded to the state Civil Service Commission for further findings an appeal by a city zoning officer whose employment was terminated after she refused to be tested for COVID in order to return to work.  Plaintiff's refusal of testing was based on her religious beliefs which the court described:

She explained her refusal to undergo the test is founded on her belief the testing is required because of a fear she may be infected with COVID-19, and that fear is inconsistent with her religious belief that "God has not given us the spirit of fear." Thus, according to Whitehead, she could not, based on her religious beliefs, succumb to the fear she had COVID-19 upon which the City based its testing requirement.

The court explained its remand decision:

The ALJ determined the termination of Whitehead's employment did not violate the City's obligation under Title VII to reasonably accommodate Whitehead's religious belief because returning Whitehead to work without COVID-19 testing created an undue hardship — the risk of infecting the City's other on-site employees with COVID-19. That determination, which Whitehead does not challenge on appeal, applies solely to an accommodation — returning Whitehead to on-site work without testing — she no longer claims is reasonable, required, or appropriate...  

Whitehead, however, correctly argues the ALJ did not decide her claim the City should have allowed her to work from home as a reasonable accommodation based on her asserted religious belief.

Army Enjoined from Disciplining Plaintiffs Who Refuse COVID Vaccine on Religious Grounds

A Texas federal district court this week issued a preliminary injunction preventing the military from taking disciplinary action against ten members of the Army who object on religious grounds to complying with the Army's COVID vaccine mandate.  However, the injunction does not prevent the military from taking their vaccination status into account in making deployment, assignment and other operational decisions.  In the case, Schelske v. Austin, (ND TX, Dec. 21, 2022), the court said in part:

The Army has a valid interest in vaccinating its soldiers, and it has made the COVID-19 vaccine mandatory. But its soldiers have a right to religious freedom, which in this case includes a sincere religious objection to the COVID-19 vaccine. Which side must yield? The answer lies in the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which applies to the military: The Army must accommodate religious freedom unless it can prove that the vaccine mandate furthers a compelling interest in the least restrictive means. The Army attempts to meet that burden by pointing to the need for military readiness and the health of its force. But ... these generalized interests are insufficient. Rather, the Army must justify denying these particular plaintiffs’ religious exemptions under current conditions. Here, with 97% of active forces vaccinated and operating successfully in a post-pandemic world, the Army falls short of its burden....

The parties’ dispute centers on whether the Army can prove that application of the vaccine mandate to these plaintiffs furthers a compelling government interest through the least restrictive means possible. At every turn, however, the evidence before the Court weighs against the Army and in favor of the plaintiffs....

Finally, the Court recognizes that much of this litigation may soon be moot. Congress recently passed the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2023.... If signed by the President into law, the NDAA would require the Secretary of Defense to “rescind the mandate that members of the Armed Forces be vaccinated against COVID-19” within 30 days of enactment.... Despite these developments, the Army has refused to commit to halting separation proceedings against the plaintiffs by way of any agreement that this Court can enforce.

Another Catholic Parish Sues Michigan Over Expanded Interpretation of State's Anti-Discrimination Laws

 As previously reported, in August the Michigan Supreme Court interpreted the state's civil rights law which bans sex discrimination to cover discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. Yesterday, a Catholic parish, including its school, as well as several parents of students in the school filed suit in a Michigan federal district court alleging that, interpreted in this manner, the employment, education and public accommodation provisions of the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act violate plaintiffs' First and 14th Amendment rights.  The complaint (full text) in Sacred Heart of Jesus Parish v. Nessel, (WD MI, filed 12/22/22), alleges in part:

To comply with Michigan’s re-understood laws, Sacred Heart Parish and its school, Sacred Heart Academy, would be forced to hire faculty and staff who lead lives in direct opposition to the Catholic faith, speak messages that violate Church doctrine, and refrain from articulating Catholic beliefs in teaching its students and when advertising the school to prospective students or job applicants. All of this violates Sacred Heart’s free speech and free exercise rights. Rather than defy Catholic doctrine in these ways, Sacred Heart would shut down. 

But if Sacred Heart cannot operate consistent with its Catholic faith, the parental and free exercise rights of its families are also implicated. Parents have explicitly opted out of public schools in favor of sending their children to Sacred Heart for an authentic Catholic education where their children would never be exposed to harmful ideas and ideologies that contradict the Catholic faith. When Michigan prevents Sacred Heart from operating its school consistent with its Catholic beliefs, it also necessarily violates the fundamental parental and free exercise rights of Sacred Heart families.

ADF issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.  Earlier this month, a different Catholic parish filed a similar lawsuit.

President Speaks at White House Hanukkah Reception

On Monday, President Biden and First Lady Jill Biden hosted a Hanukkah Holiday Reception at the White House. The White House released a transcript of remarks at the reception by the Bidens and by Rabbi Charlie Cytron-Walker who last January was held as a hostage by a gunman in his Temple in Colleyville, Texas. President Biden said in part:

Tonight, we’re honored to mark another new tradition we’re establishing tonight. And that is the lighting of what will be the first-ever permanent White House menorah. (Applause.) It will also be the first Jewish artifact in the entire White House collection. (Applause.)...

This year’s Hanukkah ... arrives in the midst of rising emboldenment of antisemitism at home and, quite frankly, around the world.

I recognize your fear, your hurt, your worry that this vile and venom is becoming too normal.

As your President, I want to make this clear — as my dad would say, and many of you have said: Silence is complicity. We must not remain silent. (Applause.)

And I made no bones about it from the very beginning: I will not be silent. America will not be silent. (Applause.) I mean it....

Like this White House menorah, our commitment to the safety of the Jewish people and to the vibrancy of Jewish life that’s tightly woven into every fabric of America, it’s permanent. Permanent.

The menorah was made from historic wood beams rescued during a White House renovation by President Truman.

Creche Displays in State Capitols Are Widespread This Year

According to the Thomas More Society, nativity scenes are being displayed in most state Capitol buildings this year.  The organization's press release says in part:

Celebrations of the Savior’s birth are scheduled with 43 State Capitol Nativity Scenes across America this Christmas. The Thomas More Society and the American Nativity Scene are helping a growing number of private citizen groups across the nation to display Biblical manger scenes on government property this Christmas. State Capitols in Alaska, New York, Utah, and Virginia are scheduled to feature the traditional display of the Holy Family with Baby Jesus in the manger for the first time this year....

 “Many erroneously assume that government entities are prohibited from allowing a religious display,” explained Thomas More Society Vice President and Senior Counsel Thomas Olp. “The law is clear. Government entities may erect and maintain celebrations of the Christmas holiday – or allow citizens to do so on government property, including nativity scenes, as long as a crèche’s sole purpose is not to promote its religious content, and it is placed in context with other symbols of the season as part of an effort to celebrate the public Christmas holiday through traditional symbols. We pray that the nativity scenes of the Christmas season will help to foster a sense of unity and peace on earth.”

Tom Brejcha, Thomas More Society President and Chief Counsel, echoes the importance of displaying the nativity scenes, especially in times of social or political controversy. He stated, “The Christmas message highlights the inherent dignity of each and every human being.”

American Nativity Scene's website lists which state capitols feature creche displays, and which do not. It also contends that in addition to their religious significance, Nativity Scenes convey many secular messages:

These manger scenes are celebrations of birth, new life, and renewal and hope bound up with succeeding generations.  As well, they celebrate the beauty of the family, of mother, father and child.  That the shepherds attended the event with their animals bespeaks the natural bonds that unite all men and women, within the larger human community, and together with all other living beings, our fellow creatures. 

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Says No State Constitutional Right to Physician Assisted Suicide

In Kligler v. Attorney General, (MA Sup. Jud. Ct., Dec. 19, 2022), the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held that the Massachusetts state constitution does not protect a right to physician-assisted suicide.  The court said in part:

[G]iven our long-standing opposition to suicide in all its forms, and the absence of modern precedent supporting an affirmative right to medical intervention that causes death, we cannot conclude that physician-assisted suicide ranks among those fundamental rights protected by the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights. Thus, application of the law of manslaughter to physician-assisted suicide would not impinge on an individual's right to substantive due process....

Application of the law of manslaughter to physician-assisted suicide passes constitutional muster because the law is reasonably related to the State's legitimate interests in preserving life; preventing suicide; protecting the integrity of the medical profession; ensuring that all end-of-life decisions are informed, voluntary, and rational; and "protecting vulnerable people from indifference, prejudice, and psychological and financial pressure to end their lives."

Justice Cypher filed a concurring opinion, saying in part:

I concur with the court that the plaintiffs' proposed physician-assisted suicide schema is, as a matter of right, too procedurally complex for us to adopt whole cloth..... In addition, I fully support the court's thoughtful and timely primer on substantive due process, which preserves the comprehensive approach as the proper test for identifying fundamental rights under our State Constitution.... I therefore concur in the judgment. 

However, based on the strength of our existing case law concerning end-of-life patient autonomy, in conjunction with current palliative treatments that are commensurate with physician-assisted suicide, I do "not foreclose the possibility that some applications" of our criminal statutes "may impose an intolerable intrusion on" patient freedom.... When that appropriate challenge (or challenger) does come forward, we must be ready to extend our State constitutional protections to terminally ill patients seeking to exercise what remains of their bodily autonomy.

Justice Wendlandt, joined in part by Chief Justice Budd, filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part.  He said in part:

Because I agree with the court that there is no fundamental right to prescribe, or to receive a prescription for, medication to assist a terminally ill, mentally competent patient's suicide (physician-assisted suicide), I concur in the judgment as it concerns Steinbach. I also agree with the court that application of the criminal laws to physician-assisted suicide generally survives rational basis review. I write separately because, when a terminally ill, mentally competent patient approaches the final stage of the dying process, the Commonwealth's interest in criminalizing physician-assisted suicide reduces to a nullity, such that even under rational basis review, the State Constitution protects the nonfundamental right to physician-assisted suicide from application of the State's criminal laws.

WBUR News reports on the decision.

European Court Upholds France's Conviction of Journalist for Inciting Anti-Muslim Hatred

In Zemmour v. France, (EDHR, Dec. 20, 2022) (full text of decision in French), the European Court of Human Rights upheld France's conviction of a journalist for inciting discrimination and religious hatred against the French Muslim community through anti-Muslim remarks he made on a 2016 television talk show.  According to the Court's English language press release summarizing the decision, the Court found no violation of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights protecting freedom of expression.  The press release says in part:

The Court was of the opinion that his remarks had not been confined to criticism of Islam but had, in view of the context of terrorist violence in which they had occurred, been made with discriminatory intent such as to call on viewers to reject and exclude the Muslim community. The Court concluded that the grounds on which the domestic courts had convicted the applicant and sentenced him to a fine, the amount of which was not excessive, had been sufficient and relevant. In conclusion the Court held that the interference with the applicant’s right to freedom of expression had been necessary in a democratic society to protect the rights of others which had been at stake in the case, and therefore there had been no violation of Article 10 of the Convention.

Court Upholds Conversion Therapy Ban

In Chiles v. Salazar, (D CO, Dec. 19, 2022), a Colorado federal district court rejected constitutional challenges to Colorado's ban on mental health professionals engaging in conversion therapy for minors who identify as gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, or gender non-conforming. In a suit brought by a licensed counselor, the court found no violation of plaintiff's free speech rights because the Minor Therapy Conversion Law regulates professional conduct rather than speech. Any speech that is affected is incidental to the professional conduct. The court also found no violation of plaintiff's free exercise rights, saying in part:

According to Ms. Chiles, the Minor Therapy Conversion Law is not neutral because it was “well-known” at the time the Colorado General Assembly enacted the Minor Therapy Conversion Law that conversion therapy was primarily sought for religious reasons.... Therefore, Ms. Chiles’ argument goes, the Minor Therapy Conversion Law impermissibly burdens practitioners who hold particular religious beliefs.... The Court disagrees. The Minor Therapy Conversion Law does not “restrict [therapeutic] practices because of their religious nature.”... [T]he Minor Therapy Conversion Law targets specific “modes of therapy” due to their harmful nature— regardless of the practitioner’s personal religious beliefs or affiliations.... [T]he Minor Therapy Conversion law targets these therapeutic modalities because conversion therapy is ineffective and has the potential to “increase [minors’] isolation, self-hatred, internalized stigma, depression, anxiety, and suicidality”....

Some Charges Against Tree of Life Synagogue Shooter Are Dismissed

United States v. Bowers, (WD PA, Dec. 15, 2022), involves the prosecution of the defendant who is charged with killing 11 people in 2018 at the Tree of Life Synagogue in Pittsburgh. He is charged under a 63 count Superseding Indictment. 25 of those charges allege discharge of a firearm during a crime of violence.  In this decision, the court dismissed charges of violating 18 USC §924(c)-- use of a firearm in a crime of violence-- to the extent that the charges rely on 18 USC §249(a)(1) as being a crime of violence. As described in by the court:

Section 249(a)(1) applies to anyone who “willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, a dangerous weapon, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin of any person . . . .”...

Relying on Third Circuit precedent, the court concluded that it is possible to "willfully cause bodily injury" without the use of force, for example, deliberate failure to provide food or medical care. The court concluded:

Because Section 249(a)(1) does not require the government to prove, in every case, “the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another,” it does not qualify as a “crime of violence.”

However, to the extent that the 25 charges of violating 18 USC §924(c) rely on a violation of 18 USC Section 247(a)(2)-- willful obstruction, by force or threat of force, of individuals in the enjoyment of their free exercise of religious beliefs-- the charges were not dismissed.  Section 247(a)(2), the court held, is a crime of violence.

European Court: Bulgaria Violated Rights of Evangelical Churches by Warnings Circulated to Schools

In Tonchev v. Bulgaria, (ECHR, Dec. 13, 2022) (full text of decision in French), the European Court of Human Rights in a Chamber Judgment held that municipal officials in Bulgaria violated Article 9 (right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion) of the European Convention on Human Rights when they circulated materials to schools containing hostile information about Christian evangelical churches.  According to the English language press release from the Court on the case:

The Court pointed out that Article 9 of the Convention did not prohibit the public authorities from making critical statements about representatives or members of religious communities. However, in order to be compatible with the Convention, such statements had to be supported by evidence of specific acts liable to pose a threat to public order or to the interests of others. They also had to avoid casting doubt on the legitimacy of the beliefs in question and must remain proportionate to the circumstances of the case.

In the present case, it did not appear from the circular letter and the information notice distributed to schools that the authors had been mindful of the authorities’ duty of neutrality and impartiality. On the contrary, these documents contained unqualified negative judgments, in particular those portraying the Evangelical Churches as “dangerous sects” which “contravene[d] Bulgarian legislation, citizens’ rights and public order” and “create[d] divisions and opposition within the Bulgarian nation on religious grounds”. They also made unfounded references to certain proven cases of improper proselytising as reflecting the usual practice of those Churches. Lastly, they drew comparisons with the dominant Orthodox religion and made remarks linking, in particular, the lack of veneration of “national saints” with the division of the Bulgarian nation. Those remarks could be interpreted as casting doubt on the legitimacy of the beliefs and practices of the Churches concerned.

While the Court regarded as justifiable the intention to warn pupils against possible abusive practices by certain religious groups by informing them about such practices, it was not persuaded that the use of language such as that referred to in the preceding paragraph was necessary for that purpose.

Congress Passes National Defense Authorization Bill with Various Provisions Impacting Religion

A press release from the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee reports that on Thursday the U.S. Senate passed the James M. Inhofe National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2023 by a vote of 83-11. The 4408-page bill (full text) now goes to President Biden for his signature. Among the provisions that impact religious concerns are the following:

 SEC. 509D. STUDY OF CHAPLAINS. 

(a) STUDY REQUIRED.—Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretaries of the military departments, shall submit to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and House of Representatives a study of the roles and responsibilities of chaplains. 

(b) ELEMENTS.—The study under subsection (a) shall include the following: (1) The resources (including funding, administrative support, and personnel) available to support religious programs. (2) Inclusion of chaplains in resiliency, suicide prevention, wellness, and other related programs. (3) The role of chaplains in embedded units, headquarters activities. and military treatment facilities. (4) Recruitment and retention of chaplains. (5) An analysis of the number of hours chaplains spend in roles including pastoral care, religious services, counseling, and administration. (6) The results of any surveys that have assessed the roles, responsibilities and satisfaction of chaplains. (7) A review of the personnel requirements for chaplains during fiscal years 2013 through 2022. (8) Challenges to the abilities of chaplains to offer ministry services.

SEC. 525. RESCISSION OF COVID-19 VACCINATION MANDATE

Not later than 30 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall rescind the mandate that members of the Armed Forces be vaccinated against COVID-19 pursuant to the memorandum dated August 24, 2021, regarding ‘‘Mandatory Coronavirus Disease 2019 Vaccination of Department of Defense Service Members’’.

SEC. 529. RECURRING REPORT REGARDING COVID-19 MANDATE. 

(a) REPORT REQUIRED.—The Secretary of Defense shall submit to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and House of Representatives a recurring report regarding the requirement that a member of the Armed Forces shall receive a vaccination against COVID-19. 

Each such report may not contain any personally identifiable information, and shall contain the following:  (1) With regard to religious exemptions to such requirement— (A) the number of such exemptions for which members applied; (B) the number of such religious exemptions denied; (C) the reasons for such denials; (D) the number of members denied such a religious exemption who complied with the requirement; and (E) the number of members denied such a religious exemption who did not comply with the requirement who were separated, and with what characterization....

Section 533 requires the Armed Forces to submit to Congress a report on recruiting efforts. Among other things, the Report is to include:  "A comparison of the race, religion, sex, education levels, military occupational specialties, and waivers for enlistment granted to enlistees by geographic region and recruiting battalion, recruiting district, or recruiting region of responsibility."

Title XXIX contains various provisions relating to access, preservation and protection of Native American cultural and religious sites within land used for bombing ranges and training areas.

Section 5576 limits foreign aid funds allocated for Burma, providing that funds may not be made available to "to any individual or organization that has committed a gross violation of human rights or advocates violence against ethnic or religious groups or individuals in Burma."

Section 6416 provides for creation of an Office of Wellness and Workforce Support for CIA personnel. Among other things, the Office is to make available: "A list of chaplains and religious counselors who have experience with the needs of the Agency workforce...."

Congregants of Buddhist Temple Have Standing to Sue in Factional Dispute

 In Bui v. Loc Hoang Bach, (CA App., Dec. 16, 2022), a California state appellate court, reversing the trial court, held that congregants of a Vietnamese Buddhist Temple have standing to sue two directors who took over control of the Temple after the death of its long-time Abbot. The two directors are attempting to force out the deceased Abbot's nephew who appellants claim was chosen by the deceased Abbot to be the new leader of the Temple. The court held that because the Temple's bylaws did not provide for members, plaintiffs cannot rely on the Nonprofit Religious Corporation Law provision that allows members to sue. The court went on to conclude, however:

There are two other causes of action in the complaint, neither of which is dependent on standing under the code. The second cause of action for accounting requires only that the plaintiff has a relationship with the defendant which requires an accounting.... This relationship need not be fiduciary in nature....  As congregants who have paid dues and invested time and energy in the temple, the Buis – like any other congregant – are arguably entitled to an accounting of the Bachs’ use of temple monies.

As for declaratory and injunctive relief, the Buis seek a judicial determination of the parties’ respective rights and obligations. At minimum, this would require a determination of who is legitimately on the board of directors at present. More specifically, the Buis seek to block the eviction of Cao. Given that Cao has been confirmed as the head abbot at the temple, and was the desired successor to Abbot Thanh, his eviction would almost certainly impact worship at the temple, which consequently impacts the religious freedom of congregants. They have a beneficial interest in these affairs.

Head of Priests for Life Defrocked by The Vatican

A letter and statement (full text) from the Apostolic Nuncio to the United States to U.S. Catholic bishops reports:

Rev. Frank Pavone, the founder of the organization, Priests for Life, Inc., was dismissed from the clerical state by the Holy See on 9 November 2022. This action was taken after Father Pavone was found guilty in canonical proceedings of blasphemous communications on social media, and of persistent disobedience of the lawful instructions of his diocesan bishop. 

Father Pavone was given ample opportunity to defend himself in the canonical proceedings, and he was also given multiple opportunities to submit himself to the authority of his diocesan bishop. It was determined that Father Pavone had no reasonable justification for his actions. 

Since Priests for Life, Inc. is not a Catholic organization, Mr. Pavone’s continuing role in it as a lay person would be entirely up to the leadership of that organization.

According to Catholic News Agency:

Pavone has been at odds with Bishop Patrick J. Zurek in Amarillo since the latter became bishop there in 2008. In 2011, Zurek publicly suspended Pavone, though Pavone later had the suspension overruled by the Vatican....

Pavone’s political activism played a role in his problems in Amarillo.

An outspoken supporter of former president Donald Trump, Pavone served on official Trump campaign outreach positions in 2016 and was originally a co-chair of Trump’s 2020 pro-life coalition, as well as an advisory board member of Catholics for Trump. Canon law forbids clerics from having an active role in political parties unless they receive the permission of their bishop. 

In November 2016, Pavone filmed a video at the Priests for Life headquarters, urging support for Trump. The video was staged with the body of an aborted baby laid before Pavone on what appeared to be an altar....

On his website, Pavone details his version of what happened in the video.... "[T]his was a table in our office, not a consecrated altar in a chapel"....

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Timothy D. Lytton, Private Third-Party Verification of Product Claims: Lessons from Kosher Certification, (Forthcoming in Research Handbook on International Food Law, Michael Roberts (ed.), Edward Elgar 2023).
• Marc O. DeGirolami, Mysterizing Religion, (Notre Dame Law Review, Forthcoming).
• Caroline Mala Corbin, When Teachers Misgender: The Free Speech Claims of Public School Teachers, (Journal of Free Speech Law, Vol 1, p. 615, 2022).
• Christopher McCrudden, Alasdair Macintyre’s Critique of Human Dignity: A Response, ((2022) 189 Law and Justice: The Christian Law Review, Forthcoming).
• Marc Spindelman, The 'Dobbs' Promise Gets Tested at the Supreme Court [in 303 Creative v. Elenis], (The American Prospect (December 1, 2022)).
• Benjamin C. Zipursky, Benjamin Cardozo and American Natural Law Theory, (Forthcoming, Yale Journal of Law and the Humanities, 2023).

From SSRN (Non-U.S. Law):

• Anna Lund & Howard Kislowicz, The Oppression Remedy in Religious Organizations, ((2023) UBC Law Review (Forthcoming)).
• Mischa Gureghian-Hall, Can Statutes Save Statues? A Critical Assessment of the Interplay between International Humanitarian and Human Rights Law Protections for Cultural Heritage During Armed Conflict, (The Global Heritage Discourse and Practice in Times of Crises and Conflict, University of Bamberg, December 2022).
• Shubhangi Roy, When Law Defeats its Purpose: How Anti-Dowry Legislations (Fail to) Address the Norms that Motivate Dowry Payments in India, (13 Journal of Indian Law and Society 1 51-66 (2022)).

From SmartCILP and elsewhere:

• Vrinda Narain, Constitutionalizing Women's Equality in India: Assessing the Sabarimala Decision, 42 Columbia Journal of Gender & Law 77-129 (2022).
• Michael Pantazakos, Nietzsche's Sovereign Individual and the Sin of Sodom, 83 University of Pittsburgh Law Review 463-472 (2021)).
• Shaina Trapedo, The Sin of Singularity and the Divine Origins of Human Rights Advocacy, 83 University of Pittsburgh Law Review 473-483 (2021).
• Steven H. Sholk, A Guide to Election Year Activities of Section 501(c)(3) Organizations, (May 2022).