Ban of Bus Ads on Controversial Issues Violates Constitution

In WallBuilder Presentations v. Clarke, (D DC, May 21, 2024), a D.C. federal district court granted a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of a Guideline of the Washington Metropolitan Transit Authority which bars bus ads that are "intended to influence members of the public regarding an issue on which there are varying opinions...." Plaintiffs submitted two ads that promoted the idea that the nation's founders were Christians. The court said in part:

... [N]othing in Guideline 9’s text answers basic questions about its reach, and the “indeterminate scope” of Guideline 9 is not “clarif[ied]” or “saved” by any official guidance..... Enforcement of Guideline 9 is thus left to individual reviewers to determine, on a....case-by-case basis, what constitutes an “[a]dvertisement intended to influence” and what constitutes “an issue on which there are varying opinions.”  Such determinations “require[] a government decision-maker to maintain a mental index” of all the issues on which varying opinions exist—which, in turn, requires the decisionmaker to know not only the issues on which opinions differ, but also the precise degree to which opinions differ—an enterprise that the D.C. Circuit has said is “not reasonable.”....   

This Court thus joins the many courts that have rejected similar phrases as constitutionally suspect.... Without objective, workable standards in Guideline 9’s text or accompanying official guidance, reviewers’ “own politics may shape [their] views on what counts” as “an issue on which there are varying opinions,” and the risk of “unfair or inconsistent enforcement,” and even “abuse” is “self-evident.”  ....

However, relying on Circuit Court precedent, the court refused to enjoin enforcement of Guideline 12 that  prohibits advertisements that promote or oppose any religion, religious practice or belief.

ACLU issued a press release announcing the decision.

Texas School Sues Over New Title IX Rules on Sex Discrimination

Suit was filed this week in a Texas federal district court challenging the Biden administration's new rules under Title IX on sex discrimination by educational programs receiving federal financial assistance. Among other things, the new rules provide that sex discrimination includes discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.  The complaint (full text) in Carroll Independent School District v. U.S. Department of Education, (ND TX, filed 5/21/2024), alleges in part:

7.... This bureaucratic fiat prevents Carroll ISD from protecting private spaces like bathrooms, locker rooms, and showers for both girls and boys, opens girls’ sports to males, and infringes on the constitutional rights of students and staff.  

8. The administrative rewrite achieves the exact opposite of Title IX’s goal to promote equal opportunity for women. For fifty years, “sex” has meant the biological binary—differences between male and female. Respecting these biological differences is essential to achieving that goal—and Title IX recognizes as much. But now the Biden administration’s regulations will require schools to ignore sex to promote a person’s subjective “sense” of their gender.  

9. Schools must do so even though it deprives their female students of the equal opportunities in education that Title IX promised.

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

New York's Top Court Says That Religious Employer Exemption from Abortion Coverage Mandate Is Not Too Narrow

In Roman Catholic Diocese of Albany v Vullo, (NY Ct. App., May 21, 2024), New York's highest appellate court rejected a claim that the "religious employer" exemption to the state's requirement that health insurance policies cover medically necessary abortion services is too narrow.  The exemption is available only to an employer that meets 4 criteria-- it is a non-profit organization whose purpose is the inculcation of religious values and it primarily employs and serves persons who share the entity's religious tenets. Plaintiffs, which are religiously affiliated entities, contend that their free exercise rights are infringed because they do not meet the criteria for the exemption, The court said in part:

... [B]oth the regulation itself and the criteria delineating a "religious employer" for the purposes of the exemption are generally applicable and do not violate the Free Exercise Clause. Neither the existence of the exemption in the regulation nor the defined criteria allow for "individualized exemptions" that are standardless and discretionary, nor do they allow for comparable secular conduct while discriminating against religious conduct.

Reuters reports on the decision.

Medicaid Limit on Reimbursing for Family Care Did Not Violate Muslim Family's Free Exercise Rights

In Alsyrawan v. Department of Human Services, (PA Commonwealth Ct., May 20, 2024), a Pennsylvania state appellate court held that Medicaid rules limiting reimbursement of family members providing in-home and companion services to a total of 60 hours per week did not violate a Muslim family's rights under Pennsylvania's Religious Freedom Protection Act. The Medicaid recipient was a non-verbal adult male with Down syndrome and several other disabilities who was being cared for by his mother and sister. According to the court:

... [The] family, including Petitioner, follows Islamic law set forth in the Quran, which forbids ... unrelated males and females from being alone together, and unrelated males from providing personal care involving nudity or exposed private areas....  Therefore, to protect Petitioner from sin, only Mother, Sister, or other closely related female relatives may be alone with Petitioner, and only a father, brother, uncle, or grandfather could provide his more intimate bathroom and shower care....  Mother added that the prohibition of unrelated males and females being alone together likewise prohibits her from being alone with an unrelated male caretaker while he is tending to Petitioner....

... Petitioner also asserts that the Department’s refusal to grant him an exception to the 40/60 Rule violates the RFPA, where he has shown by clear and convincing evidence that placement of an unrelated caregiver in his home would burden his and his family’s religious exercise, and the Department cannot show that its denial of an exception is the least burdensome way to serve a compelling interest....

... [S]substantial record evidence supports that Islamic law allows an unrelated, non-Islamic male aide to assist Petitioner outside Mother’s presence (i.e., either outside the home or when Mother leaves the home to attend to personal business), before and after which Mother could provide Petitioner’s necessary intimate personal care.... 

... Because Petitioner has not shown by clear and convincing evidence that the 40/60 Rule “[s]ignificantly constrains or inhibits conduct or expression mandated by [his] sincerely held religious beliefs[,]” “[s]ignificantly curtails [his] ability to express adherence to [his] faith[,]” “[d]en[ies] [him] reasonable opportunity to engage in activities . . . fundamental to [his] religion[,]” nor “[c]ompels conduct or expression which violates a specific tenet of [his] religious faith[,]” 71 P.S. § 2403, he has failed to meet his initial burden of proving that the application of the 40/60 Rule substantially burdens his free exercise of religion under the Free Exercise Clause or the RFPA.

Rabbi Sues Homeowners' Association for Blocking Synagogue Construction

Suit was filed last week in a Florida federal district court by a Chabad rabbi and related plaintiffs charging a Homeowners' Association with religious discrimination in violation of state and federal Fair Housing Acts and civil rights protections. The complaint (full text) in Hertzel v. Loggers' Run, Inc., (SD FL, filed 5/17/2024), alleges in part:

This action arises out of a campaign by the HOA... to discriminate against the Hertzels and, more broadly, to slow the growth of Jews within the Loggers’ Run planned residential community..... 

The campaign began when the Hertzels began exploring the possibility of constructing a synagogue within Loggers’ Run, which they proposed locating near multiple similarly situated churches attended by HOA board members and residents. This synagogue is essential to the growth of the Orthodox Jewish community within Loggers’ Run because central tenets of that faith prohibit driving to religious services on the Sabbath and Jewish holidays. Members of the HOA Board intervened to prevent the HOA from even considering the Hertzels’ proposal.... Although the HOA would eventually muster pretextual reasons for the rejection, individual members of the HOA and its agents were shockingly honest, explaining that the HOA “didn’t want Jews” in Loggers’ Run and, more recently, that a synagogue would be constructed over then-HOA Board President Harp’s “dead body.”

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

Supreme Court Denies Review of Standing Decision in Challenge to School's Policy Supporting Transgender Students

Yesterday the U.S. Supreme Court denied review in John and Jane Parents 1 v. Montgomery County Board of Education, (Docket No. 23-601, certiorari denied 5/20/2024) (Order List). In the case, the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision (full text of the Aug. 14, 2023 opinion) held that parents who did not allege a substantial risk of injury lacked standing to challenge school board Guidelines that allowed schools to support transgender students and to withhold information from parents about this when the family is not supportive of the student's gender transition. The district court had upheld the Guidelines. (See prior posting).  SCOTUSblog reports on the denial of certiorari.

Church Sues Town Over Zoning Objections to Temporary Shelter Ministry

Suit was filed last week in a Colorado federal district court by a non-denominational Christian church challenging a town's claim that the church's Temporary Shelter Ministry violates the town's zoning ordinance. The complaint (full text) in Church of the Rock, Inc. v. Town of Castle Rock, Colorado, (D CO, filed 5/13/2024) alleges that the church's rights under the First Amendment as well as the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act are violated by the town's objections to the church's use of an RV and a trailer in the church's parking lot as temporary or emergency shelter for homeless families. The church also claimed unlawful retaliation by the town. Plaintiff additionally filed a Memorandum in Support of Its Motion for Preliminary Injunction (full text). First Liberty issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Civil Rights Commission Holds Briefing on Prisoners' Religious Freedom

Last Friday, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights held a lengthy hearing on The Federal Role in Enforcing Religious Freedom in Prisons. A video of the full hearing is available on YouTube. In announcing the hearing, the Commission said:

The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights will hold a briefing on, Friday, May 17, 2024, on whether prisoners’ religious freedom rights are being protected and enforced in accordance with constitutional and statutory provisions. This is an update to the Commission’s 2008 statutory enforcement report, Enforcing Religious Freedom in Prison.

Specifically, the Commission will review the constitutional and federal statutory provisions of the First Amendment, the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act of 1980 (CRIPA), the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1990 (RFRA), the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA), and the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA).

At this public briefing, the Commission will hear from subject matter experts such as government officials, religious leaders, academics, prisoners’ rights advocates, religious liberty organizations, and legal experts. The Commission will accept written materials from the public for consideration as we prepare our report....

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Chad G. Marzen & Michael Conklin, Solar Eclipses and the Law, (May 13, 2024).
• Michele Statz, The Scandal of Particularity: A New Approach to Rural Attorney Shortages and Access to Justice, (South Dakota Law Review, Forthcoming).
• Nicole Stelle Garnett & Tim Rosenberger, Unconstitutional Religious Discrimination Runs Rampant in State Programs, (Manhattan Institute Policy Report, December 2023).
• Nicole Huberfeld, Brief for Amici Curiae Legal Scholars, Moyle v. U.S./Idaho v. U.S,. (Boston Univ. School of Law Research Paper Forthcoming).
• Stephen E. Sachs, Dobbs and the Originalists, (Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, Forthcoming).
• Mark Satta, The Supreme Court’s Refusal to Acknowledge Sexual-Orientation Discrimination in 303 Creative v. Elenis, (Wayne State University Law School Research Paper Forthcoming).
• Nicole Huberfeld, Confusion, Chaos, and Conflict in U.S. Law and Health Care after Dobbs, (Boston Univ. School of Law Research Paper Forthcoming).

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

• Emmanuel Arthur-Ewusie, The Cross - Cultural Legitimacy of Human Rights: Can Human Rights be Relocated in Cultures different from their Origin?, (May 10, 2024).
• Emmanuel Arthur-Ewusie, Has the Non -refoulement Principle Acquired Customary Status in International Law?, (May 10, 2024).
• Csongor István Nagy, The Diagonal Application of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights: From “Displacement” through “Agency” to “Scope” and Beyond, (German Law Journal, 2024, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 155-184).
• Cynthia Soohoo, Turning Away From Criminal Abortion Laws and Towards Support for Pregnant People and Their Families, (104 B.U. Law Review Online 109 (2024)).
• Jean d'Aspremont, Affects, Emotions and the Cartesian Epistemology of International Law, (14 Journal of International Dispute Settlement (2023) 281–284).
• Talia Einhorn, Parenthood in Israeli Law, (Liber Amicorum Bea Verschraegen (Heindler, Huber & Schacherreiter, eds.), Manz Verlag (Wien, 2023)).

Longer Bus Routes for Parochial School Students Upheld

In Swiech v. Board of Education of the Sylvania City School District, (OH Com. Pl., March 19, 2024), an Ohio trial court dismissed a suit brought by parents of students attending a Catholic school. Plaintiffs complained that bus transportation furnished by the District to and from non-public schools involved much longer transportation times than bus service for public school students. While public school students were taken directly to school, non-public students were taken to a central transfer point and then transferred to other busses to get to their schools.  Among the court's holdings was that no Equal Protection violation was involved because the District only needed a rational basis for the differential treatment. Conservation of limited financial resources meets that test.  The court also rejected plaintiffs' Free Exercise challenge

Plaintiffs have offered no evidence of any coercive effects on their religious practice: there is no evidence that the transportation plan has compelled Plaintiffs to do anything forbidden by their religion or that it has caused them to refrain from doing something required by their religion. Plaintiffs have also not offered any evidence that the transportation plan has compelled them to affirm or disavow a belief forbidden or required by their religion.

Congressional Committee Releases Staff Report on Harvard's Response to Antisemitism on Campus

Yesterday the House Committee on Education and the Workforce released a Staff Report titled Investigative Update-- The Antisemitism Advisory Group and Harvard’s Response: Clarity and Inaction (full text). The Report's Executive Summary says in part:

On October 27, 2023, Harvard University’s then-President Claudine Gay announced the formation of an eight-member Antisemitism Advisory Group (AAG, or the Group) amidst considerable scrutiny of the University’s response to increased antisemitism on its campus following Hamas’ October 7, 2023, terrorist attack on Israel....

The Committee on Education and the Workforce investigation has found that in mid-December 2023 the AAG presented Harvard’s leaders with a robust set of significant recommendations on combating antisemitism at Harvard, which were not made public and remain unimplemented. 

These recommendations include “zero tolerance” of classroom disruptions; protecting shared learning environments; holding student organizations accountable for adhering to University rules; countering antisemitic speech; reviewing the academic rigor of classes and programs with antisemitic content; reviewing Harvard’s Office of Equity, Diversity, Inclusion, and Belonging’s (OEDIB) inadequacy in addressing antisemitism; increasing intellectual diversity; and investigating the potential influence of “dark money” from Iran, Qatar, and associates of terrorist groups on campus....

The failure to implement the AAG’s advice did not come from a lack of engagement by Harvard’s seniormost leaders.... Unfortunately, this involvement, even if well-intentioned, did not translate to taking the actions required to address the explosion of virulent antisemitism at Harvard in a meaningful way.

JNS has a lengthy report on reactions to the release of the Congressional committee staff report.

3 New USCIRF Commissioners Appointed by House Speaker Johnson

The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom is comprised of 9 Commissioners, 3 selected by the President, 2 selected by Congressional leaders of the President's party, and 4 selected by Congressional leaders of the other party. Commissioners are appointed for two-year terms.  Wednesday, the appointment of 3 Commissioners by Speaker of the House Mike Johnson was announced in the Congressional Record. The new Commissioners are Vicky Hartzler, Maureen Ferguson and Asif Mahmood.

Maureen Ferguson is a Senior Fellow with The Catholic Association and co-host of the radio show Conversations with Consequences. She is also on the Advisory Committee for the de Nicola Center for Ethics and Culture at the University of Notre Dame.

Asif Mahmood, who was born in Pakistan and received his medical education there, is a member of the Medical Board of California, is on the board of Hope of the Valley Rescue Mission, is on the California Democratic Party Central Committee and was an unsuccessful Democratic candidate for Congress from California in 2022. 

Vicky Hartzler, a conservative Christian, served 6 terms in Congress from Missouri before losing a bid for a Senate seat from Missouri in 2022. According to the Kansas City Star:

She rose to prominence in Missouri as face of the campaign to ban same-sex marriage in Missouri in 2004, traveling the state to support an amendment to the state’s constitution defining marriage as between a man and a woman....

[In Congress] She sponsored bills to protect Christians persecuted in China and often signed on to legislation purporting to advance religious freedom. She also continued to push back against LGBTQ rights.

CLARIFICATION UPDATE: Sec. 6431 of the International Religious Freedom Act provides:

(ii) Three members of the Commission shall be appointed by the President pro tempore of the Senate, of which two of the members shall be appointed upon the recommendation of the leader in the Senate of the political party that is not the political party of the President, and of which one of the members shall be appointed upon the recommendation of the leader in the Senate of the other political party. (iii) Three members of the Commission shall be appointed by the Speaker of the House of Representatives, of which two of the members shall be appointed upon the recommendation of the leader in the House of the political party that is not the political party of the President, and of which one of the members shall be appointed upon the recommendation of the leader in the House of the other political party.

South Carolina Legislature Passes Bill Barring Gender Transition Care for Minors and Mandating Schools Notifying Parents

The South Carolina legislature this week gave final passage to H4624 (full text) which prohibits health care professionals from providing puberty blocking drugs, cross-sex hormones or gender reassignment surgery to individuals under 18 years of age. It also bars use of public funds for gender transition procedures and provides:

(A) A nurse, counselor, teacher, principal, or other official or staff at a public school shall not knowingly: (1) encourage or coerce a minor to withhold from the minor's parent or legal guardian the fact that the minor's perception of his or her gender is inconsistent with his or her sex, as defined in Section 44-42-310; or (2) withhold from a minor's parent or legal guardian information related to the minor's perception that his or her gender is inconsistent with his or her sex, as defined in Section 44-42-310.

(B) The principal, vice principal, or counselor at a public school shall immediately notify in writing a minor's parent or legal guardian if the minor: (1) asserts to any school employee that the minor's gender is inconsistent with his or her sex, as defined in Section 44-42-310; or (2) requests a school employee to address a minor using a pronoun or title that does not align with the minor's sex.

The bill now goes to Governor Henry McMaster for his signature. The Hill reports on the passage of the bill.

4th Circuit: Denial of Opt-Out From LGBTQ-Friendly Books Did Not Violate Parents' Free Exercise Rights

In Mahmoud v. McKnight, (4th Cir., Maay 15, 2024), the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 decision affirmed a Maryland federal district court's denial of a preliminary injunction in a challenge to a school board's refusal to allow parents to opt their children out of exposure to a group of LGBTQ inclusive books. The parents contended that refusal to provide an opt out alternative violates their religious free exercise rights. The majority said in part:

As an initial matter, there’s no evidence at present that the Board’s decision not to permit opt-outs compels the Parents or their children to change their religious beliefs or conduct, either at school or elsewhere....

The Parents do not really take issue with the foregoing conclusion; instead, they argue that the Board’s decision nonetheless coerces religious exercise by compelling them to expose their children to views that are at odds with their religious faith....

Supreme Court precedent requires some sort of direct or indirect pressure to abandon religious beliefs or affirmatively act contrary to those beliefs....

We understand the Parents’ contention that the Storybooks could be used in ways that would confuse or mislead children and, in particular, that discussions relating to their contents could be used to indoctrinate their children into espousing views that are contrary to their religious faith. But none of that is verified by the limited record that is before us....

Put simply, we cannot conclude that a policy requiring the presence of an individual in the classroom when these materials may be read ipso facto creates an impermissibly coercive environment....

Judge Quattlebaum dissented, saying in part:

 ... [W]hen the onion layers of the board’s argument are peeled back, the board seems to question the relative importance of the parents’ religious beliefs that their children should not be taught with the books the board required be used to promote diversity and inclusivity to the LGBTQ+ community. To explain, the board only denied opt-outs for instruction involving those books. So, despite disclaiming that it is doing so, the board’s arguments, which the district court adopted, really view the parents’ religious objections to the texts as less important than the board’s goals to improve inclusivity for the LGBTQ+ community. But this is the precisely the sort of value judgment about parents’ religious claims that courts must not make....

Bloomberg Law reports on the decision.

Mississippi Enacts Law Defining "Sex" In Biological Terms

On May 13, Mississippi Governor Tate Reeves signed Senate Bill 2753, the Securing Areas for Females Effectively and Responsibly (SAFER) Act (full text). The law requires separate (or single sex or family) restrooms, changing facilities and educational housing space for males and females at public schools and colleges. It then goes on to define gender terms found in these as well as for other sections of Mississippi statutes as follows:

(1)  "Female" means an individual who naturally has, had, will have, or would have, but for a developmental or genetic anomaly or historical accident, the reproductive system that at some point produces eggs.

(2)  "Male" means an individual who naturally has, had, will have, or would have, but for a developmental or genetic anomaly or historical accident, the reproductive system that at some point produces sperm.

(3)  "Sex," when used to classify a natural person, means the biological indication of male and female as observed or clinically verified at birth, without regard to a person's psychological, chosen, or subjective experience, feelings, actions, or sense of self.

(4)  The following additional provisions apply to the use of "sex" and related terms: (a) There are only two (2) sexes, and every individual is either male or female. (b)  "Sex" is objective and fixed. (c)  Persons with "DSD conditions" (sometimes referred to as "differences in sex development", "disorders of sex development", or "intersex conditions") are not members of a third sex.

Liberty Counsel issued a press release announcing the governor's action.

2nd Circuit Reverses Dismissal of Muslim Inmate's Complaint About Eid Meal

In Brandon v. Royce, (2d Cir., May 15, 2024), the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals held that the district court erred in granting summary judgment dismissing a Muslim inmate's free exercise of religion claim against three Sing Sing prison officials. At issue was plaintiff's participation in a special meal for Muslim inmates and their guests around Eid al-Adha. Because the event was overbooked, prison officials offered inmates the special meal in their cells if they withdrew from attending the group event. Plaintiff withdrew but did not receive a meal.  On appeal, defendants argued, among other things, that they had a legitimate penological interest in not delivering the meal to plaintiff's cell-- a concern that civilian and inmate cooks who prepared meals for the event might place contraband in the meal trays. The court concluded:

In granting summary judgment to the defendants, the district court did not resolve the parties’ dispute as to whether the September 26 event was a religious event related to Eid al-Adha or an unrelated “family event.”  Rather, the district court relied on the defendants’ asserted penological interests and their view that there was an alternative means of Brandon exercising his First Amendment right: by attending the September 26 event and receiving the special meal there.  Neither ground supports granting judgment as a matter of law to the defendants at the summary judgment stage....

To be sure, we do not dispute that an increased possibility that a visitor would introduce contraband into a prison is a legitimate penological concern ....  We simply conclude that there is no unambiguous record support for the defendants’ claim that they denied Brandon a meal tray on September 26 because “the presence of outside guests increased the risk that contraband could be hidden in the food.”...  And we further conclude, based on the evidence before the district court, that the penological concerns relied on by the district court and raised on appeal cannot at this juncture support summary judgment in favor of the defendants....

11th Circuit: Excluding Sex Change Surgery from Health Plan Violates Title VII

 In Lange v. Houston County, Georgia, (11th Cir., May 13, 2024), the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 decision held that an employer violated Title VII's ban on sex discrimination in employment when its employee health insurance plan excluded coverage for sex change surgery. The majority said in part:

The Exclusion is a blanket denial of coverage for gender-affirming surgery.  Health Plan participants who are transgender are the only participants who would seek gender-affirming surgery.  Because transgender persons are the only plan participants who qualify for gender-affirming surgery, the plan denies health care coverage based on transgender status....

 By drawing a line between gender-affirming surgery and other operations, the plan intentionally carves out an exclusion based on one’s transgender status.  Lange’s sex is inextricably tied to the denial of coverage for gender-affirming surgery.

Judge Brasher dissenting said in part:

... [T] the employer-provided health insurance plan here does not deny coverage to anyone because he or she is transgender. The alleged problem with this plan is that it excludes coverage for sex change surgeries, not that it denies coverage to transgender people. On the face of this policy, it doesn’t treat anyone differently based on sex, gender nonconformity, or transgender status....

... [T]he majority’s reasoning effectively eliminates “disparate impact” as a separate theory of liability. For various reasons, Lange is proceeding here under a disparate treatment theory, which is why the claim requires a showing of discriminatory intent. But we have developed an entire body of law—disparate impact—to address claims about certain facially nondiscriminatory employment policies that harm members of a protected class.... That body of law requires, among other things, an evaluation of an employer’s legitimate business reasons for adopting the policy.....

TLDEF issued a press release announcing the decision.

18 States Sue EEOC Over Guidance on Transgender Sexual Harassment

Eighteen states filed suit this week in a Tennessee federal district court challenging an EEOC Enforcement Guidance on Harassment in the Workplace issued on April 29.  The lengthy Guidance includes the following:

[S]ex-based harassment includes harassment based on sexual orientation or gender identity, including how that identity is expressed. Harassing conduct based on sexual orientation or gender identity includes epithets regarding sexual orientation or gender identity; physical assault due to sexual orientation or gender identity; outing (disclosure of an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity without permission); harassing conduct because an individual does not present in a manner that would stereotypically be associated with that person’s sex; repeated and intentional use of a name or pronoun inconsistent with the individual’s known gender identity (misgendering); or the denial of access to a bathroom or other sex-segregated facility consistent with the individual’s gender identity.

The complaint (full text) in State of Tennessee v. EEOC, (ED TN, filed 5/13/2024) among other things alleges that the Guidance violates the First Amendment, saying in part:

By purporting to require employers and their employees to convey the Administration’s preferred message on controversial gender-identity preferences— for example, requiring the use of pronouns that align with an employee’s self-professed gender identity and prohibiting the use of pronouns consistent with that employee’s biological sex—the Enforcement Document unconstitutionally compels and restrains speech, even if contrary to the regulated parties’ viewpoints....

Requiring that employers and their employees adhere to EEOC’s chosen gender ideology orthodoxy likewise treads on religious freedoms.  Because Title VII provides exemptions for small employers, it is not “generally applicable,” and the Enforcement Document triggers strict scrutiny under free-exercise caselaw.... EEOC’s gender-ideology-accommodation mandate impermissibly violates employers’ and employees’ free-exercise rights.... Thus, adopting the policies required by the Enforcement Document would cause Plaintiff States to violate their employee’s First Amendment rights.

Tennessee's Attorney General issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

New Report Finds 63% of Americans Support Legalized Abortion

Yesterday, the Pew Research Center released a new report on public attitudes toward legal abortion. The Report (full text) is titled Broad Public Support for Legal Abortion Persists 2 Years After Dobbs. The Center's Summary of the Report says in part:

About six-in-ten (63%) say abortion should be legal in all or most cases. This share has grown 4 percentage points since 2021 – the year prior to the 2022 decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization that overturned Roe....

A narrow majority of Americans (54%) say the statement “the decision about whether to have an abortion should belong solely to the pregnant woman” describes their views extremely or very well. Another 19% say it describes their views somewhat well, and 26% say it does not describe their views well.

... About a third of Americans (35%) say the statement “human life begins at conception, so an embryo is a person with rights” describes their views extremely or very well, while 45% say it does not describe their views well....

Americans say medication abortion should be legal rather than illegal by a margin of more than two-to-one (54% vs. 20%). A quarter say they are not sure.

A second report concludes:

Seven-in-ten adults say IVF access is a good thing. Just 8% say it is a bad thing, while 22% are unsure.

European Court: Romania Violated European Convention When It Reversed Conviction of 2 Nazi War Criminals

In Zăicescu and Fălticineanu v. Romania, (ECHR, April 23, 2024), the European Court of Human Rights in a Chamber Judgment held that Romania had violated the European Convention on Human Rights when, in the late 1990's, it reopened the conviction of two Nazi war criminals and acquitted them of war crimes.  As summarized in a press release issued by the Court:

The applicants stated that they felt humiliated and traumatised because of the revision of historically and judicially established facts that, in their opinion, had amounted to a denial of the ethnically motivated violence of which they had been victims during the Holocaust.

The Court held that that the findings of the Supreme Court of Justice – specifically that only German troops had carried out on the territory of Romania actions against Jews and that R.D. had only followed orders issued by a superior – in the acquittal decisions of 1998 and 1999 had been excuses or efforts to blur responsibility and put blame on another nation for the Holocaust contrary to well established historical facts – all elements of Holocaust denial and distortion.

States that had experienced Nazi horrors could be regarded as having a special moral responsibility to distance themselves from the mass atrocities perpetrated by the Nazis. This obligation formed part of the case at issue, where alleged discriminatory acts had been performed by State authorities.  

As matters of public interest, the authorities should have publicised the retrial proceedings and their outcome. The Court found that, owing to that failure, the applicants had found out about them by accident, which could have caused them to feel vulnerable and humiliated. 

The Court was satisfied that the Government had not provided relevant and sufficient reasons for the revision of historical convictions for crimes connected with the Holocaust. The acquittals had therefore been “excessive” and “not necessary in a democratic society”, leading to a violation of Article 8 read in conjunction with Article 14.

In its opinion, the Court quoted findings of the International Commission on the Holocaust in Romania which concluded in part:

Of all the allies of Nazi Germany, Romania bears the responsibility for the greatest contribution to the extermination of the Jews, outside of Germany itself.

The Court's majority refused however to find violations of Article 3's prohibition on torture and inhuman or degrading treatment because these actions occurred before Romania became a party to the European Convention and indeed before the Convention came into existence. A partially dissenting opinion by two judges argued against this part of the majority's decision.

The two survivors who filed suit had not requested damages.  The Court said in part:

[The applicants] contended that the issue in this case was a matter of principle and that no financial compensation could correlate to the mental harm, humiliation and psychological suffering endured as result of the State’s actions. Under these circumstances, the Court considers that there is no call to award any sum in respect of damage.

The Court did award costs and expenses.