Religion Clause

Monday, October 30, 2023

Sunday, October 29, 2023

President's Statement on 25th Anniversary of International Religious Freedom Act

On Friday, President Biden issued a Statement (full text) the 25th Anniversary of the International Religious Freedom Act. He said in part:

Here at home, we are facing a rising tide of antisemitism, Islamophobia, and other forms of discrimination that are fueling violence and hate across our country. And, around the world, billions of people live in countries where they are either persecuted or prevented from freely choosing, practicing, teaching, or leaving their faith. That’s especially true for members of religious minority communities too often endure intimidation, violence, and unequal protection under the law, while also facing restrictions on their movement, constraints on their access to education and healthcare, and the fear that their children will be taken and their faith erased. We have seen attacks on Christians in some countries. And we also continue to see repressive governments and violent extremists reach across borders and to target groups for their beliefs—an abhorrent abuse of the human rights and dignity entitled to all people.

The United States will continue to defend religious freedom, today and always.

[Corrected].

Friday, October 27, 2023

West Virginia School Settles Suit Over Religious Activities

The Freedom From Religion Foundation announced yesterday the settlement of a suit against a West Virginia school, its principal and a substitute teacher for scheduling and hosting an evangelical Christian revival as an assembly in the school auditorium during homeroom period in violation of the Establishment Clause. Yesterday the parties jointly dismissed Mays v. Cabell County Board of Education, (SD WV, dismissed 10/26/2023).. According to FFRF:

As part of a settlement, the board agreed to amend its policies relating to religion in schools. The board voted on Oct. 17 to adopt the policy revisions. Significantly, those changes require annual training of teachers about religion in school. School administrators also are tasked with greater monitoring of school events. Finally, the policy provides greater detail to ensure that employees do not initiate or lead students in religious activities. [Full text of amended policy.]

The settlement also includes nominal damages and attorneys' fees of $175,000 paid by the school board's insurers. (See prior related posting.)

Tennessee Sues to Restore Title X Grant Without Making Abortion Referrals

Tennessee's Attorney General this week filed suit against the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services seeking to restore Tennessee's $7 million annual Title X family planning grant which had been cancelled because of the state's abortion referral policy. The complaint (full text) in State of Tennessee v. Becerra, (ED TN, filed 10/24/2023), challenges the HHS rule that requires Title X grantees to furnish information and nondirective counseling on abortion if pregnant clients request it. Tennessee was only willing to make referrals and provide counseling as to procedures that are legal in Tennessee, HHS takes the position that where, as in Tennessee, abortion is outlawed, out-of-state referrals would be required. the suit contends that the HHS rule violates various provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act. It asks the court, among other things, to:

Enjoin Defendants from withholding Title X funds from Tennessee for refusing to offer counseling and referrals (including out-of-state) for abortions that are otherwise illegal under Tennessee law.

Catholic World Report reports on the lawsuit.

Thursday, October 26, 2023

Texas Supreme Court Hears Oral Arguments from JP Sanctioned for Refusing to Perform Same-Sex Weddings

The Texas Supreme Court yesterday heard oral arguments (video of full oral arguments) in Hensley v. State Commission on Judicial Conduct, (TX Sup. Ct., Oct. 25, 2023). (Briefs filed in the case.) In the case, the state Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of a suit challenging a public warning issued by the Commission on Judicial Conduct that concluded plaintiff, a justice of the peace, had cast doubt on her ability to act impartially toward LGBTQ litigants. Plaintiff refused to perform same-sex weddings, while continuing to perform weddings for heterosexual couples. She contended that the Commission on Judicial Conduct violated her rights under the Texas Religious Freedom Act. (See prior posting.) The appeals court held that the suit was an impermissible collateral attack on the Commission's order. Texas Tribune reports on the oral arguments.

OK Supreme Court: Church Autonomy Doctrine Requires Dispute Over Disaffiliation to Be Dismissed

In Oklahoma Annual Conference of the United Methodist Church v. Timmons, (OK Sup. Ct., Oct. 24, 2023), the Oklahoma Supreme Court held that under the church autonomy doctrine, a state trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to issue the temporary injunction it had entered in a dispute between the United Metodist Church and a local congregation, some of whose members wished to have the congregation disaffiliate from the parent body. The initial vote by the Church of the Servant congregation fell slightly short of the number needed under United Methodist Book of Discipline to disaffiliate. The District Superintendent refused to exercise the discretion he had under Church rules to call another vote on the matter within a specified time period. The trial court concluded that the District Superintendent was biased against the congregation and ordered the parent body to allow a revote, even though it was beyond the time specified for it in the Book of Discipline. The Supreme Court said in part:

In ordering the temporary mandatory injunction in favor of Church of the Servant, Respondent found the church was likely to succeed on the merits and would be irreparably harmed without the injunction.... In so finding, the District Court interpretated the Book of Discipline church doctrine and procedures for UMC and fashioned a remedy contrary to Book of Discipline procedures.

Wednesday, October 25, 2023

New House Speaker Has Long Record of Conservative Advocacy on Religious Freedom Issues

Newly elected Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, Mike Johnson (R- LA), has a long record, before he was in Congress, of advocacy on conservative Christian religious issues. Wikipedia reports:

Before his election to Congress, Johnson was a partner in the Kitchens Law Firm and a senior attorney and national media spokesman for the Alliance Defense Fund, now known as Alliance Defending Freedom. Johnson was also formerly chief counsel of the nonprofit law firm Freedom Guard.

In September 2016, Johnson characterized his legal career as "defending religious freedom, the sanctity of human life, and biblical values, including the defense of traditional marriage, and other ideals like these when they’ve been under assault."

Johnson served as a trustee of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission within the Southern Baptist Convention from 2004 to 2012.

Johnson came to some prominence in the late 1990s when he and his wife appeared on national television to represent Louisiana's newly passed marriage covenant laws, which made divorce more difficult legally.

Louisiana House of Representatives

After the 8th District seat was vacated in 2015, Johnson ran for the position unopposed....

In April 2015, Johnson proposed the Marriage and Conscience Act, a bill similar in content to Indiana's controversial Religious Freedom Restoration Act passed a few days earlier, though Johnson denied that his legislation was based on the Indiana law.

Johnson's Marriage and Conscience Act would have prevented adverse treatment by the State of any person or entity on the basis of the views they may hold with regard to marriage. Critics denounced the bill as an attempt to protect people who discriminate against same-sex married couples.

An e-mail statement from First Liberty Institute says that Johnson was also once a First Liberty attorney.

Georgia Supreme Court: 2019 Heartbeat Abortion Ban Was Not Void Ab Initio

In State of Georgia v. SisterSong Women of Color Reproductive Justice Collective, (GA Sup. Ct., Oct. 24, 2023), the Georgia Supreme Court rejected a state trial court's holding that the state's heartbeat abortion ban (Living Infants Fairness and Equality Act) enacted in 2019 was void ab initio. The state Supreme Court had previously granted a stay of the trial court's order while the appeal was pending. Yesterday's decision keeps the law in effect while other challenges to it work their way through the courts. In yesterday's decision, the court said in part:

[T]he trial court concluded that portions of the LIFE Act were void when enacted in 2019 because they “were plainly unconstitutional [under the United States Constitution] when drafted, voted upon, and enacted.” According to the trial court, this was true even though the LIFE Act would comply with the United States Constitution if enacted today and the same United States Constitution governs today as governed when the LIFE Act was enacted.

This incorrect conclusion rests on a faulty premise — that, in Dobbs, the United States Supreme Court changed not only its interpretation of the United States Constitution but also the meaning of the Constitution itself. This could be true, however, only if (1) the United States Supreme Court, as opposed to the United States Constitution, is the source of the Constitution’s meaning or (2) the United States Supreme Court has the power not only to interpret the Constitution but also to amend it.... [B]oth of these propositions conflict with well-established, foundational principles of law that are essential to our system of government.

The case now goes back to the trial court for it to consider other challenges under the state constitution to the law.

Justice Ellington filed a dissenting opinion. WABE News reports on the decision. ACLU issued a press release reacting to the decision.

Consent Decree Entered In RLUIPA Suit Charging Discrimination Against Orthodox Jews

Last week, a New York federal district court entered a consent decree (full text) in United States v. Village of Airmont, (SD NY, Oct. 19, 2023). The decree settles a RLUIPA suit brought by the Justice Department charging the Village with religious discrimination. The consent decree supersedes a preliminary injunction issued by consent in 2021. (See prior posting.) According to the Justice Department's press release describing last week's consent decree:

The lawsuit alleged that Airmont had revised its zoning code in 2018 to discriminate against Orthodox Jewish residents and make it more difficult for them to worship in their own homes. The consent decree increases the amount of space in private homes that can be used for worship, removes restrictions that limited who residents are allowed to invite into their own homes to pray and eliminates the use of an arbitrary, drawn-out application process designed to delay and effectively deny permits for even minor alterations to private houses. Since 1991, this is the third lawsuit brought by the United States against Airmont for discriminating against the Orthodox Jewish community.

Principal Can Move Ahead with Claim He Was Nonrenewed Because of Speech to Fellowship of Christian Athletes

In Littlefield v. Weld County School District RE-5J, (D CO, Oct. 19, 2023), a Colorado federal district court refused to dismiss a retaliation claim against a school Superintendent brought by a former high school principal who was demoted and then whose contract was not renewed. Plaintiff, who alleged discrimination because he was a conservative Christian male, claimed that these action against him were taken because of a motivational speech he had given to the Fellowship of Christian Athletes before school started. The court said in part:

Dr. Littlefield has plausibly alleged that Ms. Arnold retaliated against him for his association with the FCA in violation of his First Amendment rights when she issued a negative performance review and demoted him.

Plaintiff's freedom of association claim against the Assistant Superintendent of Human Resources was dismissed.

Tuesday, October 24, 2023

Oklahoma AG Sues State's Charter School Board Over Its Approval of Religious Charter School

Last week Oklahoma's Attorney General filed suit against the Oklahoma Statewide Virtual Charter School Board challenging its approval of the Catholic Archdiocese's application for a state-funded online religious charter school. (See prior related posting.) The ACLU and Americans United had previously filed suit in a state trial court challenging the Board's action. The Attorney General's action was filed directly with the Oklahoma Supreme Court. As reported by PBS News, the AG's action came after 3 members of the Board signed a contract this week for the school. In Drummond v. Oklahoma Statewide Virtual Charter School Board, (OK Sup. Ct., filed 10/20/2023), the Attorney General filed an Application to Assume Original Jurisdiction and Petition for Writ of Mandamus and Declaratory Judgment, as well as a Brief in Support (full text) of its motions. The brief reads in part:

Make no mistake, if the Catholic Church were permitted to have a public virtual charter school, a reckoning will follow in which this State will be faced with the unprecedented quandary of processing requests to directly fund all petitioning sectarian groups.... For example, this reckoning will require the State to permit extreme sects of the Muslim faith to establish a taxpayer funded public charter school teaching Sharia Law. Consequently, absent the intervention of this Court, the Board members’ shortsighted votes in violation of their oath of office and the law will pave the way for a proliferation of the direct public funding of religious schools whose tenets are diametrically opposed by most Oklahomans.

As to the merits, this case is simple: Oklahoma’s Constitution disallows sectarian control of its public schools and the support of sectarian practices—indirect or otherwise....

The brief also asserted that the Board's action violates the 1st Amendment's Establishment Clause. The Oklahoma Attorney General issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Monday, October 23, 2023

Colorado Ban on Medication Abortion Reversal Violates Clinic's Free Exercise Rights

In Bella Health and Wellness v. Weiser, (D CO, Oct. 21, 2023), a Colorado federal district court issued a preliminary injunction barring the state from taking enforcement action under a law enacted earlier this year against an anti-abortion pregnancy center for offering and advertising its medication abortion reversal services. The court said in part:

Bella Health considers it a religious obligation to provide treatment for pregnant mothers and to protect unborn life if the mother seeks to stop or reverse an abortion.... The State Defendants have not contested that SB 23-190 burdens Bella Health’s religious practice. Indeed, it is not up to the State or the Court to second-guess the sincerity of Bella Health’s religious motivations or to suggest alternative means of satisfying Plaintiffs’ religious calling.

The more difficult question is whether Section Three’s prohibition on abortion pill reversal is neutral and generally applicable. It is not for three reasons. First, the law treats comparable secular activity more favorably than Bella Health’s religious activity.... Second, the law contains mechanisms for exemptions that undercut the State’s expressed interests.... Third, the law’s object and effect is to burden religious conduct in a way that is not neutral.

Colorado Politics reports on the decision. [Thanks to Thomas Rutledge for the lead.]

Sunday, October 22, 2023

Christian Pre-School May Get State Aid Without Complying With Non-Discrimination Rules Which Violate Its Beliefs

In Darren Patterson Christian Academy v. Roy, (D CO, Oct. 20, 2023), a Colorado federal district court issued a preliminary injunction barring Colorado from excluding a private Christian pre-school from its Univeral Pre-School Program. The state requires participating schools to agree that they will not discriminate on the basis of gender, race, ethnicity, religion, national origin, age, sexual orientation, gender identity, citizenship status, education, disability, socio-economic status, or any other identity.” The court said in part:

... [T]he Department’s non-discrimination policy likely violates Plaintiff’s rights by interfering with the school’s selection of key employees in accordance with its religious convictions under the “ministerial exception.” ...

Second, Plaintiff has the right to expressive association which the State’s hiring rules likely violate.... The freedom to associate with others also includes the freedom not to associate with others if doing so would compromise the associating group’s expression of beliefs....

Third, the Department’s rules also force Plaintiff to choose between adhering to religious beliefs and risking exclusion from the program or complying with the Department’s rules. In the specific context of excluding religious schools from participation in educational benefits programs, the Supreme Court has thrice held that a state may not exclude religious observers from receiving otherwise available educational funding because of a school’s religious status or practice....

Plaintiff seeks to hire only coreligionists, and to continue internal policies related to gender distinctions rooted in religious beliefs. These polices violate the Department’s non-discrimination standards for participating preschools.... The First Amendment forbids imposing such a choice.

Fourth, the State’s rules are likely not neutral and generally applicable..... They allow both categorical and individualized exemptions that would undermine the government asserted interests, and thereby trigger strict scrutiny.... See Fulton v. City ...

Plaintiff is also likely to succeed on the merits of its Free Speech claim, at least to the extent that the state would require Plaintiff and its staff to use a student’s or employee’s preferred pronouns as a condition of participating in the program.

[Thanks to Eugene Volokh via Religionlaw for the lead.]

Friday, October 20, 2023

Canadian Court Says Oath to Monarchy Does Not Infringe Sikh Lawyer's Rights

In Wirring v. Law Society of Alberta, (AB KB, Oct. 16, 2023), the Court of King's Bench of the Canadian province of Alberta (sitting as a trial court) rejected a challenge to the oath of allegiance to the British monarch that law school graduates are required to take in order to be admitted to the Law Society and practice law in Alberta. According to the court:

Mr. Wirring is an amritdhari Sikh. He has pledged an absolute oath of allegiance to Akal Purakh, the divine being in the Sikh tradition. Mr. Wirring asserts that the oath of allegiance to the Queen is incompatible with the oath he has sworn to Akal Purakh.

The court held, however, that the oath requirement did not infringe plaintiff's freedom of religion, or his equality rights, that are protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The court said in part:

[117] ... [T]he Oath of Allegiance ... should be interpreted ... not as an oath to the Queen as a person, but as a symbolic oath to our constitutional democracy by those seeking to be barristers and solicitors....

[165] I ... accept Mr. Wirring’s own words that he can only see the Oath of Allegiance as an oath to the Queen. However, and importantly, I do not find that portion of his evidence to be part of his sincerely held religious belief. The conclusion that the Oath of Allegiance is an oath to the Queen is Mr. Wirring’s own legal interpretation....

[166] ... [T]he interpretation of the Oath of Allegiance is an objective exercise performed by the Court....

[172] Because I have found the Oath of Allegiance to be symbolic, Mr. Wirring is not required under the LPA to pledge allegiance to a spiritual or secular entity other than Akal Purakh. Therefore, there is no objective interference with Mr. Wirring’s freedom of religion by the state.

[173] ... [I]t is Mr. Wirring’s misunderstanding of the Oath of Allegiance’s meaning, and not the requirement to take the Oath of Allegiance, which is preventing him from admission to the legal profession in Alberta.

YesPunjab reports on the decision.

Thursday, October 19, 2023

5th Circuit: Religious Objection to Medications Must Be Considered In Forcible Medication Determination

United States v. Harris, (5th Cir., Oct. 17, 2023), involved a defendant who was charged with threatening to assault a federal judge. Defendant was found incompetent to stand trial and was involuntarily hospitalized to determine whether it was likely that he will attain competency in the foreseeable future. The government sought to involuntarily medicate defendant who, as a Jehovah's Witness, had refused for religious reasons to take medications. Under Supreme Court precedent (Sell v. United States), one of the factors to be considered in deciding whether involuntary medication is permissible is whether important governmental interests are at stake, taking into account that special circumstances may lessen the importance of that interest. In the case the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals held that said in part:

If ... secular circumstances are important enough to lessen the Government’s interest in prosecution, ... we believe religious liberty must be at least as important....

Harris’s religious beliefs, combined with his lengthy detention and his potential civil confinement, thus lessen the Government’s interests under the first Sell factor.

We hasten to emphasize the limits in today’s holding. We do not hold that religious faith constitutes a get-out-of-jail-free card. We also do not hold that all religious objections eliminate the Government’s interests under the first Sell factor. We hold only that religious liberty can constitute a “special circumstance” under Sell,,,,

Employees' Objections to Covid Vaccine Were Not Religious

In Foshee v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP, (D MD, Oct. 17, 2023), a Maryland federal district court dismissed a Title VII religious discrimination claim by two employees who were denied a religious exemption from a company's Covid vaccine mandate, finding that their objections were not religious in nature. The court said in part:

Both Foshee and Pivar made similar assertions – that they are guided in their important decisions by God or the Holy Spirit, respectively, that they personally do not see the value in and are concerned about the risks associated with the COVID-19 vaccines, and that they have not felt God or the Holy Spirit calling them to disregard their consciences and get the vaccine....

Foshee’s position, that God gave him a conscience that tells him what to do, similarly amounts to a “blanket privilege.” The same conscience-based justification could be used to evade any job requirement that Foshee disagreed with. Pivar’s position that he listens to the guidance of the Holy Spirit which guides him in his difficult decisions is in the same vein....

Of course, harboring secular reasons alongside religious reasons does not automatically disqualify the religious beliefs, but in this circumstance, the reasons are inextricably intertwined in a way that dilutes the religious nature. For example, plaintiffs do not want to take the vaccines, therefore their consciences tell them not to do it, and they believe it is God’s will or in accord with the Holy Spirit that they follow their consciences. That reasoning is not subject to any principled limitation in its scope. Their beliefs thus confer the type of unverifiable “blanket privilege” that courts cannot permit to be couched as religious in nature.

Wednesday, October 18, 2023

School Material on Islam Did Not Violate Current Establishment Clause Test

As previously reported, in November 2020 in Hilsenrath v. School District of the Chathams, a New Jersey federal district court held that the 7th grade World Cultures and Geography course presentation of material about Islam did not violate the Establishment Clause. Subsequently the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals (2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 20588 (July 20, 2022)) remanded the case to the district court for further consideration in light of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District. Now in Hilsenrath v. School District of the Chathams, (D NJ, Oct. 16, 2023), the district court reaffirmed its former conclusion, saying in part:

In sum, the curriculum and materials here were not coercive and do not otherwise bear or resemble the “hallmarks of religious establishments the framers sought to prohibit when they adopted the First Amendment.” Accordingly, the Board did not violate the Establishment Clause. I will enter summary judgment in the Board’s favor on Hilsenrath’s remaining nominal-damages claim.

India's Supreme Court Refuses to Recognize Same-Sex Marriage

In Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty v. Union of India, (Sup. Ct. India, Oct. 17, 2023), a 5-judge bench of India's Supreme Court, in 4 opinions spanning 366 pages, refused to recognize same-sex marriages, but called on the government to study and implement further rights for same-sex couples. As summarized by BBC News:

The petitioners had argued that not being able to marry violated their constitutional rights and made them "second-class citizens".

They had suggested that the court could just replace "man" and "woman" with "spouse" in the Special Marriage Act - which allows marriage between people from different religions, castes and countries - to include same-sex unions.

The government and religious leaders had strongly opposed the petitions. The government had insisted that only parliament could discuss the socio-legal issue of marriage and argued that allowing same-sex marriage would lead to "chaos" in society.

On Tuesday, the judges agreed with the government, saying that only parliament could make law and the judges could only interpret them.

They accepted Solicitor General Tushar Mehta's proposal on behalf of the government to set up a committee, headed by the country's top bureaucrat, to consider "granting queer couples" rights and privileges available to heterosexual couples.

Tuesday, October 17, 2023

FBI Releases 2022 Hate Crime Statistics

The FBI yesterday released 2022 Crime Statistics, including data on hate crimes (Methodology) (Data on Incidents). According to the FBI:

In 2022, law enforcement agency participation significantly increased ... with a population coverage of 91.7% submitting incident reports.... There were over 11,000 single-bias hate crime incidents.... [T]he top three bias categories ... were race/ethnicity/ancestry, religion, and sexual-orientation.

The FBI reported 2,042 incidents of religiously-motivated hate crimes. 1,122 of these were anti-Jewish. The next most numerous were 181 anti-Sikh incidents; 158 anti-Muslim and 107 anti-Catholic. President Biden issued a Statement (full text) on the Hate Crime Statistics, saying in part:

The data is a reminder that hate never goes away, it only hides. Any hate crime is a stain on the soul of America.

To those Americans worried about violence at home, as a result of the evil acts of terror perpetrated by Hamas in Israel, we see you. We hear you. And I have asked members of my team ... to prioritize the prevention and disruption of any emerging threats that could harm Jewish, Muslim, Arab American, or any other communities during this time. My Administration will continue to fight Antisemitism and Islamophobia.