White House Fact Sheet Focuses on Administration's Protection of Access to Reproductive Health Care

On Monday, which was the 51st anniversary of the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade, the White House issued a Fact Sheet (full text) announcing new actions to protect access to reproductive health care. According to the Whtie House, these include:

The Departments of the Treasury, Labor, and Health and Human Services (HHS) are issuing new guidance to clarify standards and support expanded coverage of a broader range of FDA-approved contraceptives at no cost under the Affordable Care Act....

The Secretary of HHS is issuing a letter to private health insurers, state Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Programs, and Medicare plans about their obligations to cover contraception for those they serve....

... The Administration is committed to helping ensure all patients, including women who are experiencing pregnancy loss and other pregnancy-related emergencies, have access to emergency medical care required under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA). The Administration has long taken the position that the required emergency care can, in some circumstances, include abortion care. The Department of Justice (DOJ) is defending that interpretation of the law before the Supreme Court, which is expected to rule by June. 

To increase awareness of EMTALA and improve the procedures for ensuring that patients facing all types of medical emergencies receive the care to which they are entitled, HHS is announcing today a comprehensive plan to educate all patients about their rights and to help ensure hospitals meet their obligations under federal law....

The Fact Sheet went on to outline at length steps the Administration has taken to protect access to abortion, including medication abortion, and to contraception. The Fact Sheet comes as the White House is convening the fourth meeting of its Task Force on Reproductive Health Care.

Nurse Sues Clinic for Refusing to Accommodate Her Objection to Prescribing Contraceptives

A religious discrimination lawsuit was filed last week in a Florida federal district court by a nurse-practitioner who was fired from her position at a Florida CVS MinuteClinic. The complaint (full text) in  Kristofersdottir v. CVS Health Corp., (SD FL, filed 1/18/2024), alleges that CVS revoked all religious accommodations that allowed employees to refuse to prescribe contraceptives, including the accommodation it had given to plaintiff for more than 7 years.  Plaintiff, a Roman Catholic, objected to prescribing hormonal contraceptives for patients. According to the complaint:

CVS corporate culture changed around 2021. Instead of protecting religious freedom, CVS began to treat religious practice as a source of "privilege."...

CVS never discussed possible accommodation options with Ms. Kristofersdottir even though CVS had numerous ways to provide a reasonable accommodation without undue hardship on the business.

When Florida subsequently passed a law protecting conscience-based objections by employees, CVS offered plaintiff her job back, but she declined the offer. The complaint alleges violations of Title VII and the Florida Civil Rights Act.

First Liberty issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Catholic Bishops Issue Report on Religious Liberty In the United States

Last week, the Committee on Religious Liberty of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops issued its Annual Report on The State of Religious Liberty in the United States (full text) (executive summary). The 48-page Report reviews developments at the national level in Congress, the Supreme Court and the Executive Branch.  It goes on to examine national trends in politics, culture and law. It forecasts important issues for 2024 and identifies what its authors see as the top 5 threats to religious liberty in the coming year.

EEOC Religious Discrimination Suit Against Hospital That Refused Vaccine Exemption Settled For $50,000

The EEOC announced yesterday that Trinity Health Grand Rapids, a Michigan hospital, has agreed to pay $50,000 in damages to settle a Title VII religious discrimination lawsuit brought on behalf of a job applicant whose job offer was rescinded when the applicant applied for a religious exemption to the requirement that employees receive a flu shot. The applicant had received a conditional offer for a position as business office coordinator. The consent decree also enjoins the hospital from refusing to hire applicants because of their sincerely held religious beliefs opposing taking flu vaccine, or denying religious exemptions from vaccination in the future, unless doing so would impose an undue hardship. It also calls for compliance training of personnel.

Church Sues City Over Operation of Ministry for Homeless

Suit was filed yesterday in an Ohio federal district court seeking to enjoin the city of Bryan, Ohio from enforcing its zoning ordinances in an attempt to prevent a Christian church that ministers to the homeless from remaining open 24-hours a day. The complaint (full text) in Dad's Place of Bryan, Ohio v. City of Bryan, (ND OH, filed 1/22/2024), contends that the city has begun "a coordinated effort to exclude ministries from operating downtown." The city has charged the church's pastor with 18 criminal counts for allowing homeless to reside on the property for an extended amount of time in violation of zoning rules. The Church in its complaint contends that the city has violated the 1st and 14th Amendments, RLUIPA, the Fair Housing Act and the Ohio Constitution. First Liberty Institute issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

UPDATE: Friendly Atheist has additional background on the city's concerns regarding the church's activities.

Montana AG Says Abortion Rights Initiative Cannot Go on Ballot

In a Memorandum dated January 16, Montana's Attorney General has ruled that proponents of an abortion rights amendment to the Montana Constitution may not begin to collect signatures to get the proposal on the ballot because the proposal is legally insufficient. (Full text of AG's ruling.) Montana's Supreme Court in Armstrong v. State (1999) has previously held that the state Constitution's privacy provisions protect the right to pre-viability abortion. The proposed Amendment as summarized by the Secretary of State would explicitly protect that right, would assure the right to abortion even post-viability when necessary to protect the pregnant person's life or health, and would prohibit the state from taking adverse action against patients, healthcare providers or anyone assisting someone in obtaining reproductive care. The Attorney General's Memorandum concludes that the proposed Amendment "logrolls multiple distinct political choices into a single initiative," in violation of the separate-vote provision of the state Constitution. Montana Free Press reporting on the Attorney General's action, says that Amendment proponents plan to challenge the Attorney General's action in court. [Thanks to Thomas Rutledge for the lead.]

Controversial Hindu Temple Dedication Takes Place In India

In the Indian holy city of Ayodhya, the politically and religiously controversial dedication of the Ram Mandir, a Hindu Temple, took place this morning. An article last week in Time explains the significance of the event. Here are excerpts:

A decades-long flashpoint in India’s sectarian politics is poised to reach a climax next week. The Ram Mandir, a Hindu temple, will be consecrated Jan 22. on a contested holy site once home to a mosque in India’s northern city of Ayodhya. The special ceremony for the temple, which is still in construction, has been a decades-long effort in the making.

For Hindus, site marks the birthplace of Lord Ram, one of the most revered deities in the Hindu faith. But the site is also revered by Muslims for having once housed the 16th century Babri Mosque, a monument of faith for Indian Muslims that stood on the site for centuries before it was razed by a Hindu nationalist mob in 1992. Sectarian riots ensued, killing thousands of people....

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, whose Hindu-nationalist government has overseen a steady rise in violence against Muslims and other religious minorities, will play a key role in the ceremony—one observers say will mark the unofficial start of his campaign to win a third consecutive term when Indians go to the polls in the spring....

In 2019, India's Supreme Court awarded the site to the Hindu community. (See prior posting.).

Sign Ordinance Restricting Anti-Abortion Protester Does Not Violate 1st Amendment

In Roswell v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, (D MD, Jan.19, 2024), a Maryland federal district court dismissed a suit by an anti-abortion sidewalk counselor who communicates with women entering and exiting a Planned Parenthood Clinic. A city ordinance prevented plaintiff from using A-frame signs in front of the clinic to communicate his religious convictions about abortions as well as information about alternatives to abortion. A permit to erect such signs can be obtained only by the owner of the property or an agent of the owner. Finding that the city ordinance did not violate plaintiff's free speech rights, the court said in part:

Plaintiff asks this Court to find that zoning ordinances cannot distinguish between the owners and tenants of adjacent properties utilizing A-frame signs for non-residential uses and those with no such property interest without running afoul of First Amendment principles. Fatal to Roswell’s position is the simple fact that the regulations do not “target speech based on its communicative content.” ...

The court also rejected plaintiff's free exercise of religion challenge, saying in part: 

Here, the challenged ordinances are unconcerned with religious exercise. They neither prohibit nor compel religious conduct. And even if the ordinances did burden religious exercise, a law that “incidentally burden[s] religion” does not violate the Free Exercise Clause if it is “neutral and generally applicable.”

State Department Names Recipients of International Religious Freedom Awards

Last Thursday, the State Department announced that Secretary Blinken has awarded the Department's International Religious Freedom Awards to individuals in New Zealand, Nigeria, Iraq, Pakistan, Nicaragua, South Africa, and People's Republic of China-Tibet, as well as to a group of nine Orthodox clergy in Lithuania. Detailed information about the award recipients is available on the website of the State Department's Office of International Religious Freedom.

Defamation Claim Not Subject to Ministerial Exception Doctrine; Discrimination and Contract Claims Are

In Uzomechina v. Episcopal Diocese of New Jersey, (D NJ, Jan. 18, 2024), a New Jersey federal district court held that the ministerial exception doctrine requires the court to dismiss racial discrimination and wrongful discharge claims brought by an African-American Episcopal priest who was dismissed from his position after allegedly false charges of financial and sexual misconduct. The court dismissed the claims saying that they "directly implicate the employment relationship between the religious institution and its ministerial employee." It dismissed breach of contract claims for similar reasons.

Plaintiff also brought a defamation claim against the Diocese for passing on false information about him to his subsequent employer-- a drug abuse rehabilitation center. The court concluded that this claim was not barred by the ministerial exception doctrine, saying in part:

... [B]y sharing its internal disciplinary procedures and beliefs with a secular third-party, ... the Diocese Defendants subjected itself to the laws that govern the public realm. In other words, exercising jurisdiction over Plaintiff's claim will not second-guess or threaten the Diocese Defendants' decisions to investigate its clergy, find misconduct by a clergy member, or impose internal disciplinary measures against a member of the church. What it will threaten is a religious organization's ability to make false and defamatory statements about its clergy or members to the general public, outside of the organization's internal operations. The ministerial exception, therefore, is not applicable to Plaintiff's defamation claims.

The court, nevertheless, dismissed this claim without prejudice for failing to adequately set out facts supporting the claim.

Michigan Prisons Implement Settlement Agreement on Religious Practices

In a press release yesterday, the Department of Justice announced that Michigan correctional authorities have now fully implemented prison reforms required by a 2021 settlement agreement. DOJ had alleged that various prison policies violated the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. The challenged policies required at least 5 people for group worship, barred group religious practices for Hindu, Yoruba, Hebrew Israelite and Thelema inmates and allowed access to the kosher Passover diet only to those who were on the year-round kosher diet.  According to DOJ's press release:

MDOC changed each of these policies to expand access to religious practice in compliance with the settlement. Under the revised policies, MDOC allows group religious practice for groups of two or more, permits previously banned religious groups to hold group services and allows people to participate in the Passover diet even if they do not participate in the kosher diet year-round. Department monitoring revealed that a significant number of people whose religious exercise was previously limited by policy can now worship together and can celebrate Passover consistent with their beliefs.

Denial of Vaccine Mandate Exemption for Nurse Is Upheld

 In St. Hillaire v, Montefiore Medical Center, (SD NY, Jan. 16, 2024), a New York federal district court rejected claims of religious discrimination brought by a hospital's Patient Safety Manager who was denied a religious exemption from a state Covid vaccine mandate and subsequently was fired. Plaintiff is an Apostolic Pentecostal Christian.  Denying Plaintiff's claim under Title VII, the court said in part:

As a New York hospital system, Defendant is legally obligated to comply with the DOH Mandate and is subject to stringent penalties for non-compliance, including loss of its license.... Defendant could not have accommodated Plaintiff’s request because Plaintiff was a registered nurse... and was a person covered by the DOH Mandate. Had Defendant granted Plaintiff’s request for an exemption, it would have been in direct violation of New York State law, thus suffering an undue hardship.

The court also rejected plaintiff's 1st Amendment free exercise claim because defendant is not a state actor. 

Certiorari Denied In Transgender Bathroom Case

Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court denied review in Metropolitan School District v. A.C., (Docket No. 23-392, certiorari denied 1/16/2024) (Order List). In the case (A.C. v. Metropolitan School District, (7th Cir., Aug. 1, 2023)) the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals-- invoking Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause-- affirmed an injunction issued by an Indiana federal district court ordering a school to grant a transgender boy access to boys' rest rooms. ACLU issued a press release on the Supreme Court's action.

New Report on Attitudes Toward Religious Freedom Released

Becket yesterday released its 2023 Religious Freedom Index (full text). This is the fifth year the Report has been compiled. The Executive Summary of the 99-page report says in part:

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

In addition to the 21 repeating Index questions, the survey contains additional questions that differ from year to year and ask Americans about timely or special topics. This year, the Index asked about the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (which is celebrating the 30th anniversary of its passage), religion and parental rights in education, and the proper standard for religious accommodations on issues like abortion and Native American sacred sites....

Across a variety of questions, this year’s Index shows that Americans are deeply committed to the rights of parents to educate and raise their children in accordance with their faith and values....

Today Is Religious Freedom Day

Today is Religious Freedom Day, commemorating Virginia's adoption of the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom on January 16, 1786. President Biden last week signed a Proclamation (full text) designating today as Religious Freedom Day in 2024.  The Proclamation reads in part:

Everyone must be free to practice their faith without fear, whether they are gathering for worship, attending a religious school, participating in the activities of other faith-based organizations, or simply walking down the street wearing the symbols of their faith.  That is why, working with the Congress, my Administration secured the greatest increase in funding in our history for the physical security of non-profits — including churches, gurdwaras, mosques, synagogues, temples, and other places of worship.  In my 2024 Budget proposal to the Congress, I requested that this funding be raised to $360 million, and my Administration works continually to protect places of worship, including through an annual Protecting Places of Worship Week of Action.

School Did Not Violate Title VII in Denying Religious Exemption to Covid Rules

In Russo v. Patchogue-Medford School District, (ED NY, Jan. 12, 2024), a New York federal district court held that a school district did not violate title VII's ban on religious discrimination in employment when it refused to accommodate a school psychologist's religious objection to a state mandate to either test weekly for Covid or show proof of vaccination.  Plaintiff considered both of these alternatives to be medical interventions that would violate her faith in God's ability to protect her and keep her healthy.  She instead sought as an accommodation either periodically completing a health questionnaire or working remotely. Rejecting those alternatives, the school placed her on unpaid leave. The court said in part:

The state’s test-or-vaccination requirement was a neutral law of general applicability that only incidentally affected employees with religious objections and did not “target[] religious conduct for distinctive treatment.” ... The requirement is, therefore, constitutionally permissible if it survives rational basis review.... The state’s requirement clearly satisfies this standard....

Plaintiff’s claim that she was unlawfully denied a religious accommodation also fails....

A proposed accommodation becomes an undue hardship for an employer if it would cause the employer to violate the law....

Defendant’s rejection of Plaintiff’s proposed accommodation of working remotely also did not violate Title VII.... [H]er proposal that she be permitted to work remotely going forward included a request that Defendant cut back on her job responsibilities to accommodate remote work.... Plaintiff, therefore, implicitly conceded that her proposed accommodation would “involve the elimination of an essential function of [her] job,” thereby rendering the proposal unreasonable....

The court also concluded that plaintiff's employer did not violate the Genetic Information Nondisclosure Act.

State Department Issues Updated List of Religious Freedom Violators; USCIRF Reacts

On January 4, the State Department, pursuant to the International Religious Freedom Act, released its annual list of countries and entities that have engaged in or tolerated serious violations of religious freedom.  Secretary of State Blinken's announcement (full text) said in part:

I have designated Burma, the People’s Republic of China, Cuba, the DPRK, Eritrea, Iran, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Tajikistan, and Turkmenistan as Countries of Particular Concern for having engaged in or tolerated particularly severe violations of religious freedom.  In addition, I have designated Algeria, Azerbaijan, the Central African Republic, Comoros, and Vietnam as Special Watch List countries for engaging in or tolerating severe violations of religious freedom.  Finally, I have designated al-Shabab, Boko Haram, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, the Houthis, ISIS-Sahel, ISIS-West Africa, al-Qa’ida affiliate Jamaat Nasr al-Islam wal-Muslimin, and the Taliban as Entities of Particular Concern.

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

The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) calls for a congressional hearing after reiterating its extreme disappointment that the U.S. Department of State yet again failed to designate Nigeria and India as Countries of Particular Concern (CPC), despite both countries repeatedly meeting the legal standard. Despite this disappointment, USCIRF welcomed the State Department’s decision to include Azerbaijan on its Special Watch List (SWL) for committing or tolerating severe violations of religious freedom pursuant to the International Religious Freedom Act (IRFA).

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Marc Spindelman, Dobbs' Sex Equality Troubles, (William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal, Vol. 32, No. 1, 2023).
• Stephanie H. Barclay, Strict Scrutiny, Religious Liberty, and the Common Good, (Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, Vol. 46, No. 937, 2023).
• Ori Aronson & Shahar Lifshitz, A Jewish and Democratic State: Intra-Jewish Perspectives, (forthcoming, Oxford Handbook of the Israeli Constitution (Aharon Barak, Barak Medina, & Yaniv Roznai eds., 2024)).
• Josh Blackman, Reviewing The Three Trump Appointees: Ex Ante and Ex Post, (1 Texas A&M Journal of Law and Civil Governance, Forthcoming).

Court Supervision of Church Election Invalidated by Mississippi Supreme Court

In Melton v. Union Hill Missionary Baptist Church, (MS Sup. Ct., Jan. 11, 2024), the Mississippi Supreme Court reversed and vacated a decision of a state Chancery Court in a dispute over whether a church had dismissed its pastor.  After an initial vote to oust the pastor, the pastor continued to preach at the church.  The church filed suit and the chancellor ordered the congregation to hold a second vote at a church meeting at which the chancellor would preside. That meeting voted to retain the pastor. Invalidating the chancellor's order to hold a new meeting, the Supreme Court said in part:

The chancellor’s self appointment to oversee a congregational election outside the courthouse and inside a house of worship is far removed from the judicial function and treads heavily upon Mississippi’s Constitution and the Establishment Clause. Thus, the chancellor’s actions, though undoubtedly well intended, amounted to a constitutional violation, resulting in a blending of church and state. This unusual arrangement was the antithesis of the constitutional doctrine that historically has demanded separation of church and state....

Because the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine applies, this Court reverses and vacates the orders of the Madison County Chancery Court.

Students Sue Harvard for Antisemitism Violating Title VI

Suit was filed this week in a Massachusetts federal district court by Harvard University students against the University charging that the University is in violation of Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act by failing to protect Jewish students from "rampant anti-Jewish hatred and harassment." It also alleges breach of contract claims. The 77-page complaint (full text) in Kestenbaum v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, (D MA, filed 1/10/2024) says in part:

Harvard’s antisemitism cancer—as a past Harvard president termed it—manifests itself in a double standard invidious to Jews. Harvard selectively enforces its policies to avoid protecting Jewish students from harassment, hires professors who support anti-Jewish violence and spread antisemitic propaganda, and ignores Jewish students’ pleas for protection. Those professors teach and advocate through a binary oppressor-oppressed lens, through which Jews, one of history’s most persecuted peoples, are typically designated “oppressor,” and therefore unworthy of support or sympathy. Harvard permits students and faculty to advocate, without consequence, the murder of Jews and the destruction of Israel, the only Jewish country in the world. Meanwhile, Harvard requires students to take a training class that warns that they will be disciplined if they engage in sizeism, fatphobia, racism, transphobia, or other disfavored behavior....

Harvard’s purported excuse for refusing to take disciplinary measures and sitting by idly as the Jew-bashing on campus escalates—that antisemitic harassment is protected by free expression principles—confirms its antisemitic double standard. Considering that Harvard aggressively enforces policies to address bias against other minorities and regularly disciplines students and faculty members who harass other groups or espouse viewpoints Harvard deems inappropriate, its refusal to discipline students attacking, harassing, or intimidating Jews is glaring. Based on its track record, it is inconceivable that Harvard would allow any group other than Jews to be targeted for similar abuse or that it would permit, without response, students and professors to call for the annihilation of any country other than Israel....

Harvard must now be compelled to implement institutional, far-reaching, and concrete remedial measures, including, among other things: (i) disciplinary measures, including the termination of, deans, administrators, professors, and other employees responsible for antisemitic discrimination and abuse, whether because they engage in it or permit it; (ii) disciplinary measures, including suspension or expulsion, against students who engage in such conduct; (iii) declining and returning donations, whether from foreign countries or elsewhere, implicitly or explicitly conditioned on the hiring or promotion of professors who espouse antisemitism or the inclusion of antisemitic coursework or curricula; (iv) adding required antisemitism training for Harvard community members; and (v) payment of appropriate damages for lost or diminished educational opportunities, among other things.

Harvard Crimson reports on the lawsuit.