Recent Articles and Reports of Interest

From SSRN:

• Kathryn Chan, Lakeside Colony of Hutterian v Hofer: Jurisdiction, Justiciability and Religious Law, (in Renae Barker, Paul T Babie and Neil Foster eds., Law and Religion in the Commonwealth: The Evolution of Case Law (Hart Bloomsbury, 2022) 211-226).
• Ahmed Izzidien, Using the Interest Theory of Rights and Hohfeldian Taxonomy to Address a Gap in Machine Learning Methods for Legal Document Analysis, (University of Cambridge Faculty of Law Research Paper Forthcoming, Humanit Soc Sci Commun 10, 251 (2023)).
• Justin Burnworth, The Ministerial Exception Paradox, (Quinnipiac Law Review [Forthcoming]).
• Priyansha Agarwal & Kanha Sawlani, Euthanasia and Article 21: A Review on its Constitutional Validity with Special Reference to Religious Practices, (August 30, 2022).
• Sital Kalantry, Foreign Law in Dobbs: The Need for A Principled Framework, (14 ConLawNOW 37 (2023)).
• Catherine T. Struve, Allowing the Courts to Step in Where Needed: Applying the PLRA’s 90-Day Limit on Preliminary Relief , (University of St. Thomas Law Journal, Vol. 19, p. 407, 2023).
• Reva B. Siegel, How Dobbs Weaponizes Brown: The Roots of Dobbs’s History-and-Tradition Method in the Defense of Segregation, (Yale Law Journal, Forthcoming).
• Afsha Moin, LGBTQIA and Feminism: All Individuals Are Entitled to Equal Rights (April 9, 2023).

From SmartCILP:

• Yael Efron & Mohammed S. Wattad, Speaking Arabic in Israel: "He Whose Hand Is in the Water Is Not like Whose Hand Is in the Fire.", 24 Cardozo Journal of Conflict Resolution 1-28 (2022).
• Ariel Dulitzky, Rereading Cain and Abel: New Approaches to Enforced Disappearances, 44 Human Rights Quarterly 659-703 (2022).

Reports:

• Center for Religion, Culture and Democracy, Religious Liberty in the States. 2023.

Catholic School's Non-Renewal of Counsellor Who Entered Same-Sex Marriage Upheld

In Fitzgerald v. Roncalli High School, Inc., (7th Cir., July 13, 2023), the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals held that the ministerial exception doctrine requires dismissal of a suit which was brought by a Catholic high school guidance counselor whose contract was not renewed because her same-sex marriage was inconsistent with the Catholic school's religious mission. The court found this to be an easy case because last year in a different decision the 7th Circuit held that a suit by plaintiff's Co-Director of Guidance was barred by the ministerial exception doctrine. (See prior posting.) The court said in part:

Our precedent makes clear that Fitzgerald was a minister at Roncalli and that the ministerial exception bars this suit. But cases like today’s—involving two plaintiffs with the same title, at the same school, performing the same duties, and bringing the same claims in our court—are rare. A fact-specific inquiry remains necessary in cases where the ministerial exception is asserted as a defense to balance the enforcement of our laws against the protections of our Constitution.

Judge Brennan filed a concurring opinion pointing out that the case could also have been resolved by relying on the statutory religious employer exemption in Title VII which would have avoided the constitutional question. Becket issued a press release announcing the decision.

Court Says HHS Used "Smurfing" To Avoid Review of Guidance To Pharmacies

In State of Texas v. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, (WD TX, July 12, 2023), a Texas federal district court refused to dismiss a challenge by the state of Texas and a pharmacy company to the Department of Health & Human Service's July 14, 2022, Guidance to Nation's Retail Pharmacies: Obligations under Federal Civil Rights Laws to Ensure Access to Comprehensive Reproductive Health Care Services.  Texas claims that the Guidance is an attempt to pre-empt Texas' abortion bans. Plaintiffs contend that the Guidance exceeds HHS's statutory authority and violates the Administrative Procedure Act. HHS alleges the plaintiffs lack standing. According to the court:

Plaintiffs’ standing in this case turns on the answer to a single question: does the Pharmacy Guidance require pharmacies to dispense drugs for abortion purposes? Defendants argue now that the Pharmacy Guidance only “addresses situations in which a pharmacy would fail to fill a prescription for non-abortion purposes.” What’s more, Defendants argue that “Texas cannot point to any language in the guidance that purports to require pharmacies to dispense drugs for abortion purposes.” Thus, in Defendants’ view, because the Pharmacy Guidance is not about abortion, it “does not conflict with, or purport to preempt, Texas laws that restrict abortion.” But that argument perfectly evidences agency smurfing—an executive branch breaking up a policy goal into silos, hoping to sever the threads that link the compartmentalized pieces to the executive’s goal....

This administration has, before and since Dobbs, openly stated its intention to operate by fiat to find non-legislative workarounds to Supreme Court dictates. This Court will not play along with such a breach of constitutional constraints.

Earlier in its opinion, the court set out at greater length its concern about "smurfing":

A recent trend among federal agencies appears to be borrowing a technique common among money launderers to avoid judicial review. The technique known as “smurfing” in the financial arena occurs when the launderer divides a large transaction—which might otherwise trigger a bank’s reporting requirements—into various smaller transactions to avoid detection....

Agency smurfing, similar to financial smurfing, occurs when the executive branch smurfs one policy goal into multiple, supposedly “unreviewable” and “unchallengeable” pieces. Consider an executive branch, who, immediately following a Supreme Court decision, seeks to achieve a policy goal contrary to the Court’s holding. The executive branch knows, however, that courts will likely view that policy goal as incompatible with the Supreme Court’s reasoning. In its efforts to avoid scrutiny, and eventual discovery of their true purpose, the executive branch breaks up the policy goal into separate, seemingly unrelated and innocent pieces—an executive order here, a press release and guidance there.

Mayo Pharmacy, a co-plaintiff, also alleged violation of its free exercise rights under RFRA. The court held that the case was brought in the wrong venue to assert that claim, and it transferred that claim to the District of North Dakota where venue lies. ADF issued a press release announcing the decision.

Iowa Passes Fetal Heartbeat Abortion Ban

In a one-day special legislative session on Tuesday, the Iowa legislature passed HF732 (full text), a ban on most abortions if a fetal heartbeat can be detected (usually after 6 weeks of pregnancy). The law has exceptions for medical emergencies, and for rape or incest if reported to law enforcement or health authorities. "Medical emergency" is defined in Iowa Code §146B.1 as where necessary to preserve the life of the pregnant woman or where the pregnancy poses a serious risk of substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function. AP in its coverage of the bill reports that Governor Kim Reynolds, who called the special session of the legislature, says she will sign the bill on Friday. Earlier this year, the Iowa Supreme Court was evenly divided, thereby affirming a state trial court's holding that a previous fetal heartbeat law violates the Iowa constitution.

9th Circuit: Prison Official's Referencing Bible Verse Did Not Violate Establishment Clause

In Forter v. Young, (9th Cir., July 12, 2023), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected former prisoner Jeffrey Forter's complaints about the procedure used to deny his religious meal accommodation request.  In seeking access to kosher meals, Forter cited a Bible verse. A response from a prison official disagreed with Forster's interpretation of the verse and cited an additional verse. Forster claimed that response violated the Establishment Clause.  The court disagreed, saying in part:

[T]he Establishment Clause does not prevent religious references by state actors... and the prison official’s actions do not constitute an unconstitutional “official policy that ‘establishes a religion or religious faith, or tends to do so,’”

Contractor Lacks Standing to Sue Texas AG In Challenge To Anti-BDS Law

In A&R Engineering and Testing, Inc. v. Scott, (5th Cir., July 10, 2023), the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals held that a company and its Palestinian owner, both of whom boycott Israel, lack standing to sue the Texas Attorney General in a challenge to Texas' anti-Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) Act. The law requires government contracts to include a clause certifying that the contractor does not and will not boycott Israel during the duration of the contract. Plaintiff wanted to renew its long-standing $1.5 million contract with the city of Houston without the anti-BDS clause in it. The court said in part:

[I]t’s unclear how A&R can trace its economic injury to the Attorney General.... Traceability is particularly difficult to show where the proffered chain of causation turns on the government’s speculative future decisions regarding whether and to what extent it will bring enforcement actions in hypothetical cases....

The court said that the anti-BDS statute does not expressly provide a way for the Attorney General to enforce it, and the Attorney General has not taken any action suggesting that he might enforce it. The court went on:

The City told the district court it would follow state law and include the provision. But the City never attributed its actions to any enforcement or threatened enforcement by the Attorney General. A&R’s injury depended on the “unfettered,” “independent” choices of the City ..., so the injury isn’t traceable to the Attorney General.... And A&R does not have standing to sue him.

(See prior related posting.) Jerusalem Post reports on the court's decision.

British House of Commons Debates Role of Bishops in House of Lords

In Britain last week (July 6), the House of Commons held a 90-minute debate on current law which gives 26 bishops of the Church of England the right to automatically have seats in the House of Lords. (Full text of debate.) The debate was led by Tommy Sheppard, the co-chair of the all-party parliamentary humanist group, who at the beginning framed the debate by saying in part:

There are only two countries in the world where clerics are automatically guaranteed a place in the legislature. One is the United Kingdom, and the other is the Islamic Republic of Iran. The question before us is whether we wish to be able to make that same comparison in future.

As the debate ended, he concluded: 

I want to stress that no one is suggesting that there is not a role for people of faith in our public life and in our Parliament. No one is suggesting that Anglicans should not be represented in the House of Lords or that bishops should not be in the House of Lords. In fact, 60% of the non-spiritual peers in the House of Lords identify as Christian, so it is hard to make an argument that that particular Church is under-represented in the upper Chamber. What we are talking about is whether this anachronistic situation of additional, guaranteed representation should exist for one Church and one institution alone, above all others.

Among those supporting the role of Bishops was Andrew Selous who said in part:

We have an angry and divided public square, social media lynch mobs, and so on. The world view that we pick up from the Church, however imperfectly demonstrated by the bishops, is one of love, forgiveness and grace, and we have never needed that more in our public life than we do at the moment. We need humility and hopefulness, and that is part of what the bishops point to. That is very necessary and extremely important in a troubled and hurting world. If it’s not broke, don’t change it.

And Neil Coyle who said in part:

I support reform of the House of Lords, but just targeting bishops for removal would leave the House full of Tory donors and political patronage, and that is not a House I would be happy to see.... Frankly, the composition of the upper House is less of an issue than its role....

I am mindful that a bishop at least represents a diocese, which gives them—more than others they sit with—a constituency, of sorts, to reflect in the House of Lords.... The bishops’ contributions come from their expertise and experience, are based on years of service, and are underpinned by values that are integral to what they bring to our upper Chamber.... Although there are so few bishops in the Lords, they have been crucial to narrow recent wins. Their votes have been decisive—I thank them for their service—including on the Government’s plan to sack nurses for daring to strike in favour of their employment rights and pay.... Lords should be commended for serving until 4 am, rather than being told that their contribution is unwelcome.

[Thanks to Law & Religion UK for the lead.]

County Did Not Show Compelling Interest in Requiring Amish Plaintiffs to Use Septic Tanks

In Must v. County of Fillmore, (MN App., July 10, 2023), a Minnesota state appellate court in a suit brought under RLUIPA held that the county had not shown that it has a compelling interest in requiring appellants-- 3 members of the Amish community-- to use septic tanks in violation of their religious beliefs. The court said in part:

[T]he district court relied on speculation in making key findings about the harmful content of Amish gray water, the amount of water the Amish use, the number of objecting households, and the amount of Amish gray-water discharge. The district court’s reliance on speculation is precisely what the Supreme Court forbids in Fulton [v. City of Philadelphia]. Thus, we conclude that the record evidence is insufficient to support the district court’s ruling that the septic-tank requirement furthers a compelling state interest specific to these appellants.

In 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court had remanded the case for consideration in light of the Fulton decision. (See prior posting.) Courthouse News Service reports on yesterday's Minnesota court decision.

9th Circuit: Falun Gong Can Move Ahead With Human Rights Suit Against Cisco

In Doe I v. Cisco Systems, Inc., (9th Cir., July 7, 2023), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in a 93-page opinion, held that Falun Gong victims of human rights abuses carried out by China can move ahead with claims against Cisco Systems and its executives for their assistance that enabled China to carry out monitoring of Internet activity by Falun Gong members. The court said in part:

Plaintiff-Appellants are practitioners of Falun Gong, a religion originating in China in the 1990s. They allege that they or family members are victims of human rights abuses committed by the Chinese Communist Party and Chinese government officials. The alleged abuses, Plaintiffs contend, were enabled by the technological assistance of Defendants, U.S. corporation Cisco Systems, Inc., and two Cisco executives....

Plaintiffs initiated this lawsuit more than a decade ago, alleging that Cisco aided and abetted or conspired with Chinese officials in violation of the Alien Tort Statute, the Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991 ... and other federal and state laws. Specifically, Plaintiffs contend that Cisco, operating largely from its corporate headquarters in California, “designed, implemented and helped to maintain a surveillance and internal security network” for Chinese officials, greatly enhancing their capacity to identify Falun Gong practitioners and ensnare them in a system of physical and mental torture, forced labor, and prolonged and arbitrary detention. 

... We once again recognize aiding and abetting liability under the ATS ... and hold Plaintiffs’ allegations against corporate defendant Cisco sufficient to meet the applicable aiding and abetting standard. We also conclude that this case involves a permissible domestic application of the ATS against corporate defendant Cisco, because much of the corporation’s alleged conduct constituting aiding and abetting occurred in the United States. Finally, we reverse the district court’s dismissal of the claim under the TVPA against Chambers and Cheung, as the TVPA does provide a private right of action against those who aid and abet torture, and the allegations against [Cisco executives] Chambers and Cheung are sufficient to meet the aiding and abetting standard.

NTD reports on the decision.

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Paolo Davide Farah, Global Issues in a Globalized World: The Unescapable Dialogue between Sharīʿa and the Constitution, (in Federico Lorenzo Ramaioli, Shari'a and the Constitution in Contemporary Legal Models: Two Worlds in Dialogue, Global Issues Series, Palgrave MacMillan, 2023).
• Robert L. Tsai & Mary Ziegler, Abortion Politics and the Rise of Movement Jurists, (UC Davis Law Review, Vol. 57, 2024).
• Bhumi Sharma, Inter-Religious Marriages in India - Still An Obstacle?, (November 5, 2022).
• Guy Baldwin, Same-Sex Marriage in Japan and the Role of Courts in a Dominant Party System,   (Comparative Constitutional Studies (2023) (forthcoming)).
• Afsha Moin, LGBTQIA and Feminism: All Individuals Are Entitled to Equal Rights, (April 9, 2023).
• Afrasiab Ahmed Rana & Fiza Zulfiqar, Role of Federal Shariat Court in Islamisation of Laws in Pakistan: A Case Law study of Leading Cases, (June 16, 2023).

From SmartCILP:

• Stephen M. Feldman, White Christian Nationalism Enters the Political Mainstream: Implications for the Roberts Court and Religious Freedom, 53 Seton Hall Law Review 667-742 (2023).

6th Circuit Stays Injunction Against Tennessee's Ban on Treatment of Transgender Youth

In L.W. v. Skrmetti, (6th Cir., July 8, 2023), the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 decision stayed a district court's preliminary injunction against Tennessee's ban on providing puberty blockers and hormone therapy for minors suffering from gender dysphoria. Chief Judge Sutton's majority opinion first held that the district court had abused its power by issuing a state-wide injunction in the case. It went on to hold that plaintiffs are unlikely to prevail on their due process or equal protection challenges, saying in part:

Life-tenured federal judges should be wary of removing a vexing and novel topic of medical debate from the ebbs and flows of democracy by construing a largely unamendable federal constitution to occupy the field....

Parents, it is true, have a substantive due process right “to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children.”.... But the Supreme Court cases recognizing this right confine it to narrow fields, such as education ... and visitation rights.... No Supreme Court case extends it to a general right to receive new medical or experimental drug treatments.....

Gender-affirming procedures often employ FDA-approved drugs for non-approved, “off label” uses. Tennessee decided that such off-label use in this area presents unacceptable dangers.... Many medical professionals and many medical organizations may disagree. But the Constitution does not require Tennessee to view these treatments the same way as the majority of experts or to allow drugs for all uses simply because the FDA has approved them for some....

Equal protection.... The Act bans gender-affirming care for minors of both sexes. The ban thus applies to all minors, regardless of their biological birth with male or female sex organs. That prohibition does not prefer one sex to the detriment of the other.....

The plaintiffs separately claim that the Act amounts to transgender-based discrimination, violating the rights of a quasi-suspect class. But neither the Supreme Court nor this court has recognized transgender status as a quasi-suspect class. Until that changes, rational basis review applies to transgender-based classifications....

These initial views, we must acknowledge, are just that: initial. We may be wrong. It may be that the one week we have had to resolve this motion does not suffice to see our own mistakes. In an effort to mitigate any potential harm from that possibility, we will expedite the appeal of the preliminary injunction....

Judge White dissented in part, agreeing that the injunction was too broad, but concluding that plaintiffs would likely succeed on their Equal Protection challenge because the law discriminates on the basis of sex.

Politico reports on the decision.

State AG's Warn Target Corp. About Consequences of Its Pride Campaign

Earlier this week, the Indiana Attorney General, joined by the Attorneys General of Arkansas, Idaho, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri and South Carolina sent a joint letter (full text) to the CEO of Target Corp. complaining about the company's promotion and sale of products supporting Pride month. The states' legal officers suggested that Target may have violated state child-protection and parental rights laws.  It also suggests that Target has violated its duties to the states as shareholders of Target stock (presumably held in state pension funds).  The 5-page, heavily footnoted letter said in part:

As the chief legal officers of our States, we are charged with enforcing state laws protecting children and safeguarding parental rights.... 

In light of these responsibilities, we wish to communicate our concern for Target’s recent “Pride” campaign. During this campaign, Target wittingly marketed and sold LGBTQIA+ promotional products to families and young children as part of a comprehensive effort to promote gender and sexual identity among children...  Target also sold products with anti-Christian designs, such as pentagrams, horned skulls, and other Satanic products....

In connection with its “Pride” campaign, Target provides financial support to an organization called GLSEN (pronounced “glisten”). GLSEN furnishes resources to activists for the purpose of undermining parents’ constitutional and statutory rights by supporting “secret gender transitions for kids” and directing public schools to withhold “any information that may reveal a student’s gender identity to others, including [to] parents or guardians.”...

...Target’s directors and officers have a fiduciary duty to our States as shareholders in the company. The evidence suggests that Target’s directors and officers may be negligent in undertaking the “Pride” campaign, which negatively affected Target’s stock price. Moreover, it may have improperly directed company resources for collateral political or social goals unrelated to the company’s and its shareholders’ best interests....

We live in a different day and age from our nation’s founding. But certain immutable precepts and principles must always endure so long as America is to remain free and prosperous.

CBS News reports on the letter.

North Carolina Governor Vetoes Bills On Women's Sprots, Parental Rights and Gender Transition

On Wednesday, North Carolina Governor Roy Cooper announced that he has vetoed three bills passed by the state's legislature: 

(1) House Bill 574, Fairness in Women's Sports Act that prohibits transgender women from participating on school sports teams designated for women.

(2) Senate Bill 49, Parents Bill of Rights which increases parental rights and involvement in their children's education, including the right to seek a religious exemption from immunization requirements, the right to withhold consent for the child to participate in reproductive health education programs, and the right to review all material their child has borrowed from a school library, among many other rights.

(3) House Bill 808, Gender Transition for Minors, which prohibits medical professionals from performing surgical gender transition procedures on a minor or prescribe puberty blocking drugs or cross-sex hormones to a minor.

Christian Post reports on the Governor's action.

Ministerial Exception Applies to Slander, But Not Contract Claims

In Gackenheimer v. Southern New England Conference of the United Church of Christ, Inc., (CT Super., June 29, 2023), a minister who was fired from his position as executive director of a church's conference center sued the church and its senior leaders for defamation, infliction of emotional distress and breaches of express and implied contract.  Plaintiff alleged that the leaders misrepresented the reasons for his firing in communications to community religious leaders and church volunteers. A Connecticut trial court applied the ministerial exception doctrine to dismiss defamation related claims, but permitted plaintiff to move ahead with his contract claims. The court said in part:

The ministerial exception ... does not categorically preclude all claims brought against a religious institution. ..."...[E]ven if it is established that the plaintiff's primary duties render him a ministerial employee ... Connecticut courts must consider whether adjudicating the particular claims and defenses in the case would require the court to intrude into a religious institution's exclusive right to decide matters pertaining to doctrine or its internal governance or organization."... Therefore, the court will separately examine each of the plaintiff's causes of action in order to determine whether they are barred by the ministerial exception.

In counts one and two, the plaintiff alleges slander and slander per se causes of action based on two statements allegedly made by SNE's senior leaders to members of the community.... Therefore, to adjudicate the plaintiff's slander claims, the court would necessarily have to delve into the veracity of comments made by SNE's leaders regarding its decision to terminate the plaintiff's employment.... Such an examination into the decision-making process of church leadership is exactly what the ministerial exception prohibits. Accordingly, the court strikes counts one and two.

Counts three and four state claims for negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress... based on SNE's decision to terminate his employment and the immediate aftermath of the process... . "[T]hese claims arise directly from, and in furtherance of, the defendants' decision to terminate the employment of the plaintiff...." On that basis, the court grants the motion to strike counts three and four....

Unlike the claims brought by the plaintiff in counts one through four, counts five through eight do not involve the plaintiff's termination process and the reasons behind it. Rather, in these counts, the plaintiff asks the court to determine if SNE breached its employment contract with him or, alternatively, ... the plaintiff is entitled to relief under the doctrine of promissory estoppel. Importantly, the plaintiff alleges that he earned this claimed compensation years before he was fired. Therefore, when deciding this dispute, the court will not be excessively entangled in SNE's decision about whether to retain the plaintiff as its minister.... The court ... therefore denies the motion to strike counts five, six, seven and eight.

School District's Preferred Name Policy Upheld

In Willey v. Sweetwater County School District No. 1 Board of Trustees, (D WY, June 30, 2023), a Wyoming federal district court, in a 56-page opinion, upheld, over parental objections, most of a school district's policy requiring school district personnel to use a student's preferred/ chosen name or pronoun in verbal, written, and electronic communications. However, the court issued a preliminary injunction barring the school district from (absent a reasonable concern of harm or abuse) precluding teachers from responding to a parent's inquiry, or lying to parents. The court then largely rejected a challenge by a teacher who had religious objections to the policy.  It said that "it is hard to imagine why a public employee's free exercise rights would warrant more protection than their free speech rights." It went on to say that, as to free speech, the policy only compels the teacher to speak pursuant to her official duties and does not restrict her speech as a citizen on matters of public concern.

Court Says Dobbs Decision Does Not Undercut Freedom of Access To Clinic Entrances Act

In United States v. Gallagher, (MD TN, July 3, 2023), a Tennessee federal district court became the first court to rule on whether the Supreme Court's Dobbs decision affects the constitutionality of the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances ("FACE") Act.  In the case, eleven co-defendants sought dismissal of their indictments for violating FACE. They first argued that since Dobbs held abortion is not entitled to heightened protection under the 14th Amendment, Congress' reliance in enacting the law on its 14th Amendment Section 5 enforcement powers is undercut. The court responded in part:

While the question of how section 5 applies to the FACE Act may be of some abstract or academic interest, however, it is of limited practical importance, given that section 5 is only one of two powers on which Congress relied in enacting the FACE Act, the other of which—the power to regulate interstate commerce—was not at issue in Dobbs.

Later in its opinion, the court rejected defendants' argument that Dobbs effectively created a carveout of abortion services from commerce clause coverage. It also rejected defendants' argument that they could not be prosecuted under 18 USC §241 for conspiring to prevent the exercise of a federal right. The court said "§ 241 does not require that the right in question be constitutional, only that it be federal. FACE is, of course, a federal statute...."

The court also rejected defendants' argument that the government is engaged in impermissible selective enforcement because it has not brought enough prosecutions under the FACE Act against individuals who have interfered in the operation of anti-abortion “crisis pregnancy centers.”

It went on to reject defendants' free speech arguments, saying in part:

Nor is the FACE Act being applied in an unconstitutional manner to these particular defendants based on their viewpoints or participation in First Amendment-protected activities, as would be required for a so-called “vindictive prosecution” defense. “...

Because there is no actual evidence of any such improper motive, the defendants engage in a sleight of hand, whereby they have treated any statement by the Department of Justice indicating a desire to safeguard access to abortion as evidence of a desire to punish these defendants for Dobbs. The defendants, though, are not the center of the moral or political universe. A desire to safeguard access to abortion is a desire to safeguard access to abortion—not an affront directed at them. More importantly, safeguarding access to abortion is, particularly under Dobbs, an entirely appropriate thing for legislatures and executives to do, if that is the course they choose. Indeed, it is harder to imagine a more fulsome endorsement of the elected branches’ power to set abortion policy than Dobbs...

Moving to defendants' Free Exercise/ RFRA claims, the court said in part:

The boundaries of the Free Exercise Clause are a topic of much disagreement.... The defendants’ argument, however, goes to something much more fundamental. Although the defendants go to great lengths to make this issue more complicated than it is, they ultimately ask a straightforward question: Does the Free Exercise Clause grant individuals who are acting out of religious motivations freedom to commit actions that otherwise would be crimes against the person or property of others through physical invasion, intimidation, or threat? The answer is similarly straightforward: No, it does not....

The defendants argued that RFRA requires that the state have a compelling interest to substantially burden religious exercise, and that after Dobbs there cannot be a compelling interest in protecting access to abortion. The court responded in part:

... [T]he Supreme Court has never held that a “compelling interest” depends upon something being considered a fundamental right. They are different constitutional concepts, performing different jurisprudential functions.

Court Strongly Criticizes Performance of Counsel for The Satanic Temple

In March 2021, The Satanic Temple and one of its members filed suit in a Texas federal district court challenging Texas' requirement that a woman have a sonogram prior to an abortion. The complaint alleged that in light of the Satanic Temple's Satanic Abortion Ritual, the Texas requirement violated plaintiffs' free exercise, substantive due process and equal protection rights. (See prior posting.) After the U.S. Supreme Court's Dobbs decision, The Satanic Temple filed a Third Amended Complaint.  In The Satanic Temple, Inc. v. Young, (SD TX, July 3, 2023), the Texas district court then dismissed the suit for lack of standing and on sovereign immunity grounds.  The court added:

Without any supporting detail, Plaintiffs assert two causes of action under the First Amendment, one being a claim swirling together the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses, and the other pertaining to the Establishment Clause. Young argues that these claims are so inadequately pleaded as to deprive her of fair notice as to what exactly this suit is about in the wake of Dobbs....

The court also refused to grant plaintiffs leave to replead their claims.  In doing so, the court set out an unusually strong criticism of the performance of plaintiffs' counsel, saying in part:

Given the detail of the prior complaints and these substantial changes in the law, the deficiencies in the operative complaint are no doubt intentional. And indeed, the filing of a willfully deficient amended complaint is of a piece with the mulish litigation conduct by counsel for Plaintiffs, Attorney Matt Kezhaya, in this and other actions representing The Satanic Temple. Recently considered in this regard was whether to revoke his permission to proceed pro hac vice in light of sanctions entered against him in other federal courts after his appearance here. For example, [in one of those cases:]

He ... filed a second motion for TRO containing negligible legal analysis, with six pages of the main analysis dedicated to presentation of what’s purported to be a five-act play.....

Litigation of constitutional claims is a serious matter. Such issues deserve serious attention from counsel desiring to be taken seriously. As it turns out, Plaintiffs might have been better served by proceeding pro se, as applicable standards would dictate that their filings would be “liberally construed” and “held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.”...

And any repleading at this stage would manifest undue prejudice to a range of current and former Defendants who still have little clue as to the exact nature of the claims brought in this case. The Court is also of the firm belief that any further attempt at repleading would be futile, given that Attorney Kezhaya’s filings become more conclusory, reductive, and intemperate over time, in line with his performative and obstinate conduct to date.

Suit Challenges Georgia Ban on Treatment of Minors for Gender Dysphoria

Suit was filed last week in a Georgia federal district court challenging the constitutionality of Georgia Senate Bill 140 which prohibits irreversible sex reassignment surgery and hormone replacement treatment of minors for gender dysphoria. The complaint (full text) in Koe v. Noggle, (ND GA, filed 6/29/2023), alleges in part:

The Health Care Ban violates the fundamental rights of parents to make medical decisions to ensure the health and well-being of their children. By prohibiting medical providers from treating minors with gender dysphoria—a rare condition often requiring medical and therapeutic treatment and care—in accordance with the standards of care and clinical practice guidelines, the Ban prohibits Georgia parents from seeking and obtaining appropriate medical treatment for their children.

... [It] also violates the guarantees of equal protection by denying transgender youth essential, and often lifesaving, medical treatment based on their sex and on their transgender status.

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

Defendant's Beliefs About Psilocybin Were Personal, Not Religious

In State of Ohio v. Sobel, (OH App., June 30, 2023), an Ohio appellate court rejected appellant's claim that his sentence for drug possession was based in part on his statements about his use of mushrooms as part of his religion. The court said in part:

... Sobel failed to establish that he uses psilocybin mushrooms in connection with a sincerely held religious belief. He described the “Church of Freewater” as consisting of three people providing life coaching to drug and alcohol addicted persons in the manner of Tony Robbins (a noted inspirational, self-help, motivational personality). Sobel does not describe any particular religious beliefs or tenets of the organization, other than to help people “be themselves, through mind, body, and spirit.” Freewater’s core belief appears to be allowing people to believe whatever he or she wants to believe....

Sobel also does not describe how the mushrooms are utilized in furtherance of the religion as part of a rite or ceremony. He only states opaquely, “mushrooms are a holy sacrament and [unintelligible] medicine for myself and for the Freewater organization that helps me with past traumas both immediate and ancestral and tap into the divine knowledge that is only accessible with the aid of these divine teachers.” ...

[T]hroughout the proceedings, rather than claiming a religious use, Sobel represented that mushrooms were used to treat chronic pain and PTSD.

Under the circumstances of this case, the alleged belief that was infringed would be most accurately characterized as a personal preference, rather than as a deeply held religious conviction.

Monell Claims Opposing Transcendental Meditation Program in Chicago Schools Move Ahead

In Hudgins v. Board of Education of the City of Chicago, (ND IL, June 30, 2023), two former high school students and the mother of one of the students sued claiming that a Quiet Time transcendental meditation program in the Chicago public schools violated the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses as well as the Illinois Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Plaintiffs claim that the program contained hidden Hindu religious elements. A number of plaintiffs' claims were dismissed, primarily on statute-of-limitations grounds. However, the court allowed plaintiffs to move ahead with their Section 1983 Monell claims for damages against the Chicago Board of Education and the David Lynch Foundation which operated the program under contract in the schools.