Iowa Supreme Court, 3-3, Affirms Invalidation Of Heartbeat Abortion Law

As previously reported, in 2019 an Iowa state trial court judge held that Iowa's "fetal heartbeat" abortion law violates the Iowa state constitution. The case was not appealed. However, in 2022 the state filed a motion to dissolve the injunction and revive the law. The trial court refused to do so, and that decision was appealed to the Iowa Supreme Court.  Now in Planned Parenthood of the Heartland, Inc. v. Reynolds, (IA Sup. Ct., June 16, 2023), the Iowa Supreme Court announced that it was evenly divided, 3-3, on the case (with one Justice recused), so that by operation of law the trial court's decision stands. However individual Justices filed opinions in the case. 

The newly decided case was made more complicated by a decision of the Iowa Supreme Court last year in which it rejected subjecting a different abortion regulation to strict scrutiny under the state Constitution, but did not decide what level of scrutiny should apply.  This left the standard to be the undue burden test imposed by federal law. (See prior posting.)

Now in last week's decision on the fetal heartbeat law, Justice Waterman (joined by Chief Justice Christensen and Justice Mansfield ) wrote that they would not grant the discretionary writ of certiorari, thus refusing to review the trial court decision. He went on to indicate that even if review were granted, they would affirm the trial court, saying in part:

The law as of today has not changed in a way that removes the “constitutional defect” in the fetal heartbeat bill. The undue burden test remains the governing standard under the Iowa Constitution, and the State concedes, as it must, that the fetal heartbeat bill is unconstitutional under that test. The State therefore has failed to establish that the district court acted illegally. There is no basis for certiorari relief.

Justice McDonald filed a separate opinion, joined by Justices McDermott and May, saying in part:

Because there was no controlling decision from this court..., the district court should have applied this court’s other controlling precedents to constitutional claims of this type. Under this court’s controlling precedents, where there is no fundamental right at issue, statutes are subject only to rational basis review.

Justice McDermott filed a separate opinion, joined by Justices McDonald and May, saying in part:

Last year, we were presented with an appeal challenging the constitutionality of a different statute regulating abortion, yet we failed to declare the constitutional standard that applied. This case again presented that same basic task. And for the second time in as many years, we’ve ducked it. It isn’t for us to dictate abortion policy in the state, but simply to interpret and apply the law as best we can in cases that come before us. We fail the parties, the public, and the rule of law in our refusal today to apply the law and decide this case. 

Des Moines Register reports on reactions to the decision.

Maine Sued Over New Limits On Religious Schools In Tuition Payment Program

 On Tuesday, a Catholic school in Maine and parents who would like to send their children to that school under Maine's tuition payment program for students from districts without public high schools filed suit in a Maine federal district court challenging new restrictions which the Maine legislature imposed on schools participating in the tuition payment program. The complaint (full text) in St. Dominic Academy v. Makin, (D ME, filed 6/13/2023), contends that the legislature enacted the new provisions to exclude religious schools after the U.S. Supreme Court in Carson v. Makin invalidated a requirement that participating schools be nonsectarian. The complaint explains: 

Among other things, Maine:

• Imposed a new religious neutrality requirement on schools, stating that “to the extent that an educational institution permits religious expression, it cannot discriminate between religions in so doing”;

• Imposed a new religious nondiscrimination requirement on schools; and

• Removed the religious exemption that had previously allowed religious (but “nonsectarian”) schools to handle sensitive issues relating to sexual orientation and gender identity in a way that reflected their faith commitments....

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

Religion Is Relevant In Trial For Marketing Unlicensed Drug

In United States v. Grenon, (SD FL, June 12, 2023), a Florida federal district court, ruled on a motion in liwas through which the government was seeking to exclude various pieces of evidence in the criminal trial of defendants for manufacturing, marketing and distributing an unlicensed drug. The court summarized the charges against defendants:

Defendants are members of Genesis II Church of Health and Healing ... which the Government alleges is “an explicitly nonreligious entity that [Defendant, Mark Scott Grenon] co-founded[.]”...

Under the guise of Genesis, Defendants promoted MMS as a miracle cure to various illnesses and ailments, even though “[w]hen ingested orally as directed by [] Defendants, MMS became chlorine dioxide, a powerful bleaching agent typically used for industrial water treatment or bleaching textiles, pulp, and paper.”...

The court ruled in part:

The Government first seeks to prevent Defendants from suggesting that their conduct was “a religious exercise, constitutionally protected under the First Amendment.”...

... [C]onsidering the Government’s accusations regarding Defendants and Genesis..., it would likely be impossible to conduct this trial without discussion of Defendants’ alleged religion, as well as their personal beliefs regarding the First Amendment...

The court also refused to preclude defendants from raising a defense under RFRA, but did rule that the applicability of RFRA is a pure question of law so that no jury instruction on the applicability of RFRA should be permitted.

Church Autonomy Doctrine Requires Dismissal of Title VII Claim By Non-Ministerial Employee

In McMahon v. World Vision Inc., (WD WA, June 12, 2023), a Washington federal district court dismissed a Title VII sex discrimination suit, finding it is barred by the Church Autonomy Doctrine.  A Christian ministry's job offer to plaintiff for the full-time position of Donor/Customer Service Representative Trainee was rescinded when defendant learned that plaintiff was in a same-sex marriage. The court discussed the relationship between the Church Autonomy Doctrine and the Ministerial Exception, concluding that the Church Autonomy Doctrine may be invoked when a non-ministerial employee brings a Title VII action.  The court said in part:

... [T]he Church Autonomy Doctrine requires the court to abstain from resolving employment discrimination claims where a religious institution takes an adverse action pursuant to a religious belief or policy—regardless of whether the employer allegedly discriminated on religious or other protected grounds—unless it is possible for the court resolve the claims without resolving underlying controversies over religious doctrine or calling into question the reasonableness, validity, or truth of a religious doctrine or practice....

The court joins other courts ... in cautioning religious employers against over-reading the impact of the court’s holding. It is by no means the case that all claims of discrimination against religious employers are barred....  [I]f a religious employer does not offer a religious justification for an adverse employment action against a non-ministerial employee or if the plaintiff presents sufficient secular evidence that would allow a factfinder to conclude that the religious justification was pretext without wading into the plausibility of the asserted religious doctrine, it is unlikely that serious constitutional questions will be raised by applying Title VII.

New York Sues Anti-Abortion Group That Physically Obstructs Clinics

New York Attorney General Letitia James announced last week that she has filed suit against the anti-abortion group Red Rose Rescue and various of its members seeking to enjoin them from physically interfering with persons seeking abortions or providing abortion services. The complaint (full text) in People of the State of New York v. Red Rose Rescue, (SD NY, filed 6/8/2023), alleges in part:

8. Red Rose Rescue is an anti-abortion group whose members conspire to illegally trespass into private medical facilities that perform abortions and shut down or physically obstruct the provision of all reproductive health services, refusing all requests to leave by staff and law enforcement. 

9. Criminal trespass at reproductive health facilities is not incidental to Red Rose Rescue members’ activism, but rather is the core mission of their group.

The complaint alleges violations of the federal Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act and New York's Clinic Access Act. In addition to injunctive relief, the suit also seeks damages and civil penalties. Catholic News Agency reports on the lawsuit.

9th Circuit: U.S. Has Not Waived Sovereign Immunity For Damages Under RFRA

In Donovan v. Vance, (9th Cir., June 13, 2023), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held that claims for injunctive and declaratory relief by Department of Energy employees who objected to the government's Covid vaccine mandate are moot because the Executive Orders being challenged have been revoked. Insofar as employees with religious objections to the vaccine were seeking damages, the court held that the United States has not waived sovereign immunity for damages under RFRA. Plaintiffs had sued federal officials in their official capacity.

Labor Department Says Restaurant Used Alleged Priest to Obtain Confessions From Employees

 A June 12 press release from the Department of Labor which announced a wage-and-hour consent judgment (full text) in Su v. Garibaldi, (ED CA, 5/8/2023), described testimony during the litigation that revealed an unusual use of religious pretext. The press release relates, in part:

... [A]n employee of Che Garibaldi Inc., operator of Taqueria Garibaldi, testified that the restaurant offered employees a person identified as a priest to hear confessions during work hours. The employee told the court the priest urged workers to “get the sins out,” and asked employees if they had stolen from the employer, been late for work, had done anything to harm their employer, or if they had bad intentions toward their employer.

[Thanks to Jeff Pasek for the lead.] 

Court Says Center's Food Distribution Is Likely a Religious Exercise Under RLUIPA

In Micah's Way v. City of Santa Ana, (CD CA, June 8, 2023), a California federal district court refused to dismiss a suit by a center that provides aid to impoverished and disabled individuals claiming that the city has violated its rights under RLUIPA and the First Amendment by refusing to issue it a Certificate of Occupancy unless it agrees to stop providing food and beverages to its clients. While the center had operated for 5 years without a certificate of occupancy, the city began a concerted effort to get Micah's Way as well as a needle exchange program nearby to move out of the neighborhood after the city's mayor who lived nearby experienced a break-in at his home. The court held that Micah's Way plausibly alleged that its food distribution activities are a "religious exercise" under RLUIPA and that the city has substantially burdened that religious exercise. The court also concluded that plaintiff has plausibly alleged a violation of the 1st Amendment's Free Exercise clause. Voice of OC reports on the decision.

Minnesota Appeals Court Decides 4 Cases on Religious Exemptions from Vaccine Mandates

Yesterday, the Minnesota Court of Appeals decided four separate appeals from decisions of Unemployment Law Judges who denied unemployment benefits because an applicant refused on religious grounds to comply with an employer's Covid vaccine mandate. Goede v. Astra Zeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP, (MN App., June 12, 2023), was the only one of the four cases published as a precedential decision. The court affirmed the ULJ's denial of benefits even though the state Department of Employment and Economic Development urged its reversal.  The court said in part:

The ULJ found that “Goede does not have a sincerely held religious belief that prevents her from receiving a COVID-19 vaccine.” The ULJ explained: “Goede’s testimony, when viewed as a whole, shows by a preponderance of the evidence that Goede’s concern is about some vaccines, and that she is declining to take them because she does not trust them, not because of a religious belief.” The ULJ further stated that “[w]hen looking at the totality of the circumstances, Goede’s belief that COVID-19 vaccines are not okay to put in her body is a personal belief not rooted in religion.”

In Daniel v. Honeywell International, Inc., (MN App., June 12, 2023), the appellate court again upheld a denial of benefits, this time to a former employee who refused both the Covid vaccine and refused to comply with the employer's religious accommodation.  The court said in part:

Relator asserts that Honeywell’s COVID-19 policy requiring that he get weekly COVID-19 tests and submit the results “required [him] to defy [his] religious faith.” He asserts that he was upholding his religious faith “by practicing [his] God given right of ‘control over [his] medical’ by not subjecting Jesus Christ’s temple to forcefully coerced medical treatments such as weekly PCR and/or rapid antigen test requirements.”...

The ULJ found that relator lacked credibility because he provided inconsistent testimony and he struggled to explain his religious beliefs.

The court reversed the ULJ's denial of benefits in two other cases. In Benish v. Berkley Risk Administrators Company, LLC, (MN App., June 12, 2023) the court said in part:

The ULJ found that Benish made a “personal choice” to refuse the vaccine, but Benish did not testify to any personal reasons for refusing the vaccine. Instead, he consistently testified that his reason for refusing it was religious. The ULJ also placed improper weight on inconsistencies in Benish’s religious beliefs and on the fact that the Pope had encouraged vaccination in determining that Benish’s beliefs were not sincerely held.... 

... [W]e conclude that the ULJ’s finding—that Benish did not have a sincerely held religious belief that precluded him from getting a COVID-19 vaccine—is unsupported by substantial evidence and must be reversed.

In Millington v. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, (MN App., June 12, 2023), the court reversed the ULJ's denial of benefits, saying in part:

Millington clearly and consistently testified regarding her religious reasons for refusing the COVID-19 vaccine. Millington’s testimony concerning personal reasons for refusing the vaccine— that she already had COVID-19 and believed she did not need the vaccine and that she had concerns about the safety of the vaccine—are not sufficient to constitute substantial evidence.

In addition, although we generally defer to a ULJ’s credibility findings, the ULJ’s credibility finding in this case was based on at least two erroneous considerations. First, the ULJ erred by relying on the absence of direction from a religious leader to support a finding that Millington did not have a sincerely held religious belief.... Second, the ULJ failed to explain how Millington’s use of over-the-counter medications or alcohol is pertinent to her objection to the COVID-19 vaccine based on its relationship to fetal cell lines. Consequently, the ULJ’s credibility determination is not entitled to the same deference typically owed by an appellate court.

Supreme Court Denies Cert. In Two Ministerial Exception Cases

The U.S. Supreme Court yesterday denied review in two cases which held that interlocutory appeals from denial of a ministerial exception defense are not allowed. (Order List).

Faith Bible Chapel International v. Tucker, (Docket No. 22-741, certiorari denied 6/12/2023), involves a former high school teacher and administrator/ chaplain who contends that he was fired for opposing alleged racial discrimination by a Christian school. In the case, the 10th Circuit denied en banc review. (See prior posting).

Synod of Bishops v. Belya, (Docket No. 22-824, certiorari denied 6/12/2023) involves a suit in which plaintiff contends that he was defamed when defendants publicly accused him of forging a series of letters regarding his appointment as Bishop of Miami in the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia. In the case, the 2nd Circuit denied en banc review. (See prior posting).

Court Tells Catholic Bookstore to Litigate Over Religious Organization Exception to Nondiscrimination Law

In The Catholic Bookstore, Inc. v. City of Jacksonville, (MD FL, June 9, 2023), a Florida federal district court found that a Catholic bookstore has standing to challenge Jacksonville's Human Rights Ordinance on free speech grounds.  It also concluded that the claim is ripe. The bookstore wants to publicize its policy requiring its staff to address co-workers and customers only by "pronouns and titles that align with the biologically originating sex of the person being referenced...." The city's Ordinance provides in part that it is unlawful to publish, circulate or display any communication indicating that service will be denied, or that patronage is unwelcome from a person because of sexual orientation or gender identity. The court, however, concluded that it is unclear whether the Human Rights Ordinance's religious organization exception applies to the bookstore.  The court went on to deny plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction, dismiss plaintiff's complaint without prejudice, and ordered plaintiff to file an amended complaint followed by a motion for summary judgment limited to the religious exception issue so it can resolve that issue before dealing with the rest of the case.

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Xiao Wang, Religion as Disobedience, (76 Vand. L. Rev. 999 (2023)).
• Diana Thomson & Kayla Toney, Sacred Spheres: Religious Autonomy As An International Human Right, (Catholic University Law Review, Vol. 72, No. 2, 2023).
• Timothy D. Lytton, Tort Claims for the Coverup of Child Sexual Abuse: Private Litigation, Corporate Accountability, and Institutional Reform, (DePaul Law Review, Vol. 72, No. 2, 2023).
• Sahar F. Aziz, Race, Entrapment and Manufacturing 'Homegrown Terrorism', (3 Georgetown L.J. 381 (2023)).
• Alicia Ely Yamin & Agustina Ramón Michel, Using Rights to Deepen Democracy: Making Sense of the Road to Legalization of Abortion in Argentina, ( Fordham International Law Journal, Vol. 46, No. 1, 2023).
• Caroline Mala Corbin, Free Speech Originalism: Unconstraining in Theory and Opportunistic in Practice, (George Washington Law Review, Forthcoming).

From SmartCILP and elsewhere:

• Conference Proceedings: Religion, Property Law, and the Crisis of Houses of Worship, Canopy Forum (May 3, 2023).
• Amin R Yacoub & Becky Briggs, Can Islamic Law Principles Regarding Settlement of Criminal Disputes Solve the Problem of the US Mass Incarceration?, 23 Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal 211-262 (2022).
• Allison R. Church, Constitutional and Biblical Interpretation: Utilizing Speech-Act Theory in Support of Objective Meaning and Hermeneutical Realism, 35 Regent University Law Review 1-72 (2022).
• Sharona Aharoni-Goldenberg & Gerry Leisman, Balancing Clashing Scholars' Academic Freedoms, 38 Touro Law Review 121-166 (2022).
• Michael J. Mazza, Defending a Cleric's Right to Reputation and the Sexual Abuse Scandal in the Catholic Church, 58 Tulsa Law Review 77-98 (2022).

Tennessee Human Rights Act Does Not Require Religious Accommodation

 In Johnson v. Tyson Foods, Inc., (WD TN, June 8, 2023), a Tennessee federal district court dismissed the remaining state law claims in a suit by a human resources manager who refused for religious reasons to comply with the company's Covid vaccine mandate.  Plaintiff was fired after rejecting an unpaid leave alternative.  In rejecting plaintiff's religious discrimination argument under the Tennessee Human Rights Act, the court said in part:

This Court is not aware of any case law holding that the THRA requires employers to accommodate an employee’s religious beliefs and practices, and the Court will not read such a requirement into the statute

3rd Circuit Hears Oral Arguments In Abortion Clinic Buffer Zone Challenge

The U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday heard oral arguments in Reilly v. City of Harrisburg (audio of full oral arguments). In the case below (MD PA, March 28, 2022) (full text), the court dismissed a suit by anti-abortion sidewalk counselors to Harrisburg's ordinance creating a 20-foot buffer zone designed to exclude protesters around health-care facilities, including abortion clinics. Liberty Counsel issued a press release previewing its arguments for appellants in the case.

White House Announces New Initiatives to Protect LGBTQI+ Communities

The White House yesterday released Fact Sheet: Biden-⁠Harris Administration Announces New Actions to Protect LGBTQI+ Communities (full text). It reads in part:

Today, in celebration of Pride Month, the Biden-Harris Administration is announcing new actions to protect LGBTQI+ communities from attacks on their rights and safety.  Over a dozen states have enacted anti-LGBTQI+ laws that violate our most basic values and freedoms as Americans, and are cruel and callous to our kids, our neighbors, and those in our community. The Biden-Harris administration stands with the LGBTQI+ community and has their backs in the face of these attacks....

The Fact Sheet announced new federal action, including a new LGBTQI+ Community Safety Partnership and new initiatives to deal with LGBTQI+ youth homelessness, foster care and mental health. It also announced the release of federal funds "to support programs that help parents affirm their LGBTQI+ kids."  Additionally, it announced initiatives to counter book bans, which "disproportionately strip books about LGBTQI+ communities, communities of color, and other communities off of library and classroom shelves." The Department of Education will appoint a coordinator to "work to provide new trainings for schools nationwide on how book bans that target specific communities and create a hostile school environment may violate federal civil rights laws."

Religious Challenge to Indiana Abortion Restrictions Certified as Class Action

In Anonymous Plaintiff 1 v. Individual Members of the Medical Licensing Board of Indiana, (IN Super. Ct., June 6, 2023), an Indiana state trial court judge agreed to certify as a class action a suit challenging Indiana's statute restricting abortions.  In the case, the court has already granted a preliminary injunction to plaintiffs whose religious beliefs permit or require abortions in situations not allowed under Indiana law. (See prior posting.) The court certified the class as:

All persons in Indiana whose religious beliefs direct them to obtain abortions in situations prohibited by Senate Enrolled Act No. 1(ss) who need, or will need, to obtain an abortion and who are not, or will not be, able to obtain an abortion because of the Act.

Indiana Capital Chronicle reports on the decision.

Court Enjoins Enforcement of Florida's Ban on Treatment of Gender Dysphoria in Minors

In Doe v. Ladapo, (ND FL, June 6, 2023), a Florida federal district court issued a preliminary injunction barring Florida from enforcing against plaintiffs its ban on puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones for treating minors who have gender dysphoria. The court said in part:

The elephant in the room should be noted at the outset. Gender identity is real. The record makes this clear. The medical defendants, speaking through their attorneys, have admitted it. At least one defense expert also has admitted it....

Despite the defense admissions, there are those who believe that cisgender individuals properly adhere to their natal sex and that transgender individuals have inappropriately chosen a contrary gender identity, male or female, just as one might choose whether to read Shakespeare or Grisham....

Addressing plaintiffs' equal protection challenge, the court said in part that "Drawing a line based on gender nonconformity—this includes transgender status—... triggers intermediate scrutiny." The court went on to say in part:

The record establishes that for some patients, including the three now at issue, a treatment regimen of mental-health therapy followed by GnRH agonists and eventually by cross-sex hormones is the best available treatment. These patients and their parents, in consultation with their doctors and multidisciplinary teams, have rationally chosen this treatment. The State of Florida’s decision to ban the treatment is not rationally related to a legitimate state interest. 

Dissuading a person from conforming to the person’s gender identity rather than to the person’s natal sex is not a legitimate state interest....

The defendants say the many professional organizations that have endorsed treatment of gender dysphoria with GnRH agonists and hormones all have it wrong. The defendants say, in effect, that the organizations were dominated by individuals who pursued good politics, not good medicine. 

If ever a pot called a kettle black, it is here. The statute and the rules were an exercise in politics, not good medicine.

Human Rights Campaign issued a press release announcing the decision.

European Court: Ukraine Violates Human Rights Convention by Denying Legal Recognition to Same-Sex Couples

In Maymulakhin & Markiv v. Ukraine, (ECHR, June 1, 2023), the European Court of Human Rights in a Chamber Judgment held that Ukraine violated Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the European Convention on Human Rights taken in conjunction with Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) by denying any form of legal recognition to same-sex couples. The Court said in part:

While the Court has to date not interpreted Article 8 of the Convention as imposing a positive obligation on the States Parties to make marriage available to same-sex couples, it has confirmed that in accordance with their positive obligations under that provision, the member States are required to provide a legal framework allowing same‑sex couples to be granted adequate recognition and protection of their relationship.... The Court has also held that Contracting States enjoy a more extensive margin of appreciation in determining the exact nature of the legal regime to be made available to same sex couples....

The Court ordered Ukraine to pay the two petitioners 5032 Euros each as damages and to pay 4000 Euros for costs and attorney's fees.

The Court also issued a press release (PDF download link) summarizing its decision.

Nevada Governor Vetoes Medical-Aid-In-Dying Bill

On Monday, Nevada Governor Joe Lombardo vetoed (full text of veto message) S.B. 239 (full text) which would have authorized physicians and advanced practice registered nurses to prescribe medications which a patient certified to be terminally ill could self-administer to end his or her own life. The Governor said in part:

Fortunately, expansions in palliative care services and continued improvements in advanced pain management make the end-of-life provisions in SB 239 unnecessary.

KLAS News reports on the governor's action.

State Law May Bar Women's Spa from Refusing to Serve Transgender Women Who Have Not Had Sex-Confirmation Surgery

In Olympus Spa v. Armstrong, (WD WA, June 5, 2023), a Washington federal district court dismissed, with leave to amend, a suit by a Korean style spa designed for women. The suit challenges Washington's public accommodation law which bars discrimination, among other things, on the basis of gender expression or identity.  Because spa patrons are required to be naked during certain spa services (massages and body scrubs), the spa refuses to serve transgender women who have not gone through post-operative sex-confirmation surgery. The spa advertises itself as welcoming "biological women." Three of the spas employees and one of its patrons are also plaintiffs in the case.  Plaintiffs claim that their requiring them to service nude males and females in the same rooms substantially burdens the exercise of their religious beliefs.  The court held however that because the public accommodation law is neutral and generally applicable, it needs to meet only rational basis review and does so because of the state's interest in ensuring equal access to public accommodation. 

The court also rejected plaintiffs' claim that their free expression rights were violated by requiring them to remove language from their website that only "biological women" are females. The court said in part:

The WLAD [Washington Law Against Discrimination] bars Olympus Spa from denying services to customers based on sexual orientation and, in this regard, it incidentally burdens Olympus Spa’s speech by prohibiting advertisement of discriminatory entrance policies (e.g., one that permits only “biological women”). But that does not convert the WLAD into a content-based regulation....

Finally, the court dismissed plaintiffs' freedom of association claims, saying in part:

The Court does not minimize the privacy concerns at play when employees are performing exfoliating massages on nude patrons. Aside from this nudity, though, there is simply nothing private about the relationship between Olympus Spa, its employees, and the random strangers who walk in the door seeking a massage. Nor is there anything selective about the association at issue beyond Olympus Spa’s “biological women” policy. The Court therefore has little difficulty concluding that the personal attachments implicated here are too attenuated to qualify for constitutional protection.