10th Circuit Hears Oral Arguments in Fraud Suit Against LDS Church

Yesterday, the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments (audio of full arguments) in Gaddy v. Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. In the case, a Utah federal district court dismissed a Second Amended Complaint in a class action lawsuit brought by former members of the LDS Church. The suit alleged that the Church has fraudulently misrepresented its founding to its members while its leaders did not have a sincere religious belief in the narrative. It also alleged that the Church made fraudulent misrepresentations about the use of money received from members' tithing. (See prior posting.) Courthouse News Service reports at greater length on the oral arguments.

Missouri Supreme Court Issues Opinions Supporting Prior Order on Abortion Ballot Measure

As previously reported, on September 14 the Missouri Supreme Court ruled that the Missouri's Right to Reproductive Freedom amendment must appear on the November ballot, reversing a decision by a trial court. It indicated that opinions supporting its order would follow. Now the Court has filed those opinions.  In Coleman v. Ashcroft, (MO Sup. Ct., Sept. 20, 2024), the Missouri Supreme Court in a 4-3 decision held that petitions proposing a state constitutional amendment only need to identify existing sections of the state constitution that are inconsistent and irreconcilable with the proposed amendment. Petitions need not identify all statutes that might later be declared invalid if the proposed amendment is approved. The court also held that the proposed amendment does not violate the state constitution's single subject requirement.

Judge Powell issued a concurring opinion.  Judge Broniec, joined by Judges Fischer and Gooch, filed a dissenting opinion contending that Missouri law also requires petitions to list existing statutes that would be in direct conflict with the proposed constitutional amendment.

6th Circuit Rules on Christian Plaintiffs' Standing to Challenge Michigan's Civil Rights Acts

In Christian Healthcare Centers, Inc. v. Nessel, (6th Cir., Sept. 20, 2024), a Christian membership-based medical service ministry and two Catholic K-12 schools challenged prohibitions on sexual orientation and gender-identity discrimination under Michigan's public accommodation law (EAA) and its Elliot-Larsen Civil Rights Act. The U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals found that plaintiffs had standing to seek an injunction only as to some of their challenges. The court summarized its holding:

In these three related cases, Plaintiffs allege that Michigan’s laws chill their speech and conduct in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments.  The district court dismissed each case for want of standing, reasoning that no Plaintiff had shown that Michigan’s laws arguably proscribed its speech or conduct and that, in the alternative, there was no credible threat that Michigan would enforce its laws against any Plaintiff.

We agree only in part....

We express no view regarding the merits of any claim, the appropriate resolution on remand of the motions for preliminary relief, or what conclusions might be warranted concerning any issue after discovery.  We hold only that (a) no Plaintiff has established standing to challenge the EAA, (b) Christian Healthcare has plausibly established standing to challenge the ELCRA’s public-accommodation provision, employment provision, and the publication clauses of each provision, (c) Sacred Heart has plausibly established standing to challenge the same provisions, the ELCRA’s education provision, and the publication clause of that provision, and (d) St. Joseph has failed to plausibly establish standing.

Judge Murphy filed a concurring opinion.

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Mark Satta, Same-Sex Wedding Service Refusals and Obergefell's "Decent and Honorable" Dicta, (Wayne State University Law School Research Paper (forthcoming)).
• Thomas Charles Berg, Religious Liberty in a Polarized Age: Introduction, (in Religious Liberty in a Polarized Age, (Eerdmans Publishing 2023)).
• P. Saliya Sumanatilake, Might Buddhist Tenets Be Shown to Have Founded or Substantially Influenced Any Doctrine of Western Jurisprudence?, (August 19, 2023).
• Rabea Benhalim, Agreeing to Disagree: Abortion Jurisprudence in Jewish and Islamic Law, (B.Y.U. L. Rev.____ (2025) (forthcoming)).
• Jeremy Rovinsky, We Should Meat: A Reply To Professor Siddhanth Prasad, (10 J. Global Just. & Pub. Pol. 34, 2024).
• Andrew Hull, Caste Discrimination and the Imperfect Promise of Labor Arbitration, (31 Asian American Law Journal (Forthcoming)).
• Nicolas Garon, Veiling Laws Throughout Iranian History: The Relationship to Religion, Before and During Islamic Law, (August 22, 2022).
• Nisar Muarrah, A Comparative Analysis of Rehabilitation Principles in Islamic and Western Criminal Justice Systems, (June 20, 2024).
• James M. Oleske, Jr., Law Office History and the Unrelenting Attack on Public Accommodations Law, (32 William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal 959 (2024)).

From SmartCILP:

• Symposium, Law vs. Antisemitism, Lewis & Clark Law Review, Volume 27, Number 4, 2024.

Kentucky Governor Issues Executive Order Limiting Conversion Therapy for Minors

 After attempts to get the Kentucky state legislature to ban conversion therapy for minors failed, on Wednesday Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear issued Executive Order 2024-632 (full text) which uses executive powers available to him to limit the practice. The Executive Order provides in part:

The Cabinet for Health and Family Services shall take all actions necessary to prohibit the direct or indirect use of state and federal funds for the practice of conversion therapy on minors, referring a minor for conversion therapy, or extending health benefits coverage for conversion therapy with a minor....

Any state agency that discovers or receives a report that a provider certified or licensed to practice in Kentucky engages in conversion therapy efforts with a person under 18 years of age or performs counseling on conversion therapy as part of his training for any profession licensed under a professional certification or licensing board within the Commonwealth of Kentucky shall report that provider to the appropriate professional certification or licensing board within the Commonwealth for potential disciplinary action....

The Governor's office issued a press release announcing the signing of the Executive Order. AP reports on the Executive Order. [Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]

Supreme Court Review Sought for NY Health Insurance Abortion Coverage Mandate

 A petition for certiorari (full text) was filed yesterday with the U.S. Supreme Court in Roman Catholic Diocese of Albany v. Harris, (Sup. Ct., filed 9/18/24). In the case 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 only available to entities whose purpose is to inculcate religious values and that primarily employ and serve persons who share their 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. (See prior posting.) Becket Fund issued a press release announcing the filing of the petition for review.

European Court Says Spain Violated Rights of Jehovah's Witness in Authorizing Blood Transfusion

In Case of Pindo Mulla v. Spain, (ECHR, Sept. 17, 2024), the European Court of Human Rights held that Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights was violated by Spanish courts when they authorized a blood transfusion for a critically ill woman who, because of her beliefs as a Jehovah's Witness, had refused all blood transfusions. The court said in part:

181.  The Court fully appreciates that the actions taken in relation to the applicant on the day in question by the staff of both hospitals were motivated by the overriding concern to ensure the effective treatment of a patient who was under their care, in keeping with the most fundamental norm of the medical profession. It does not question their assessments regarding the severity of the applicant’s condition at the time, the urgency of the need to treat her, the medical options available in the circumstances, or that the applicant’s life was saved that day.

182.  However, the authorisation by the duty judge to proceed with whatever treatment was considered necessary resulted from a decision-making process that was affected by the omission of essential information about the documenting of the applicant’s wishes, which had been recorded in various forms and at various times in writing. Since neither the applicant nor anyone connected with her was aware of the decision taken by the duty judge, it was not possible, even in theory, to make good that omission. Neither this issue, nor the issue of her capacity to take a decision, were addressed in an adequate manner in the subsequent proceedings. In light of this, it cannot be said that the domestic system adequately responded to the applicant’s complaint that her wishes had been wrongly overruled....

183.  In the Court’s view, the shortcomings identified above ... indicate that the interference complained of was the result of a decision-making process which, as it operated in this case, did not afford sufficient respect for the applicant’s autonomy as protected by Article 8, which autonomy she wished to exercise in order to observe an important teaching of her religion.

Eight of the 17 judges dissented as to the damages awarded by the majority. Courthouse News Service reports on the decision.

10th Circuit: Jail Violated Free Speech Rights of Volunteer Minister

In Jarrard v. Sheriff of Polk County, (11th Cir., Sept. 16, 2024), the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals held that Georgia jail officials violated the free speech rights of a volunteer county jail minister. Irritating both jail officials and other volunteer jail ministers, Rev. Jarrard believed and taught that baptism by immersion is necessary to salvation and that, without it, a person will be condemned to Hell. Policies governing participation as a volunteer minister went through a number of revisions. Ultimately, they resulted in Jarred being excluded from the program and baptism of inmates being prohibited. The court said in part:

At least for summary-judgment purposes, therefore, we conclude that Moats and Sharp engaged in viewpoint discrimination based on their disagreement with Jarrard’s beliefs about baptism.  We further conclude that their disapproval of his volunteer ministry application can’t survive strict scrutiny.  ...Moats and Sharp assert that they denied Jarrard’s applications for fear that his participation in the volunteer ministry program would “(1) tend to undercut inmate well-being and (2) unreasonably create problems for jail administrators.”  Even if we were to indulge those assertions ...  and even assuming that they constitute compelling governmental interests, denying Jarrard’s application was not the least restrictive means of achieving those ends.  As just one example, the Jail could have posted notices stating that Jarrard would be addressing a potentially contentious topic and let the inmates decide whether they wanted to attend....  So too, they could have allowed other volunteer ministers to opt out of working with Jarrard so as to reduce the risk of contentious interactions.  And to the extent that they were worried about security issues related to the performance of baptisms, they could have instituted precautions to minimize them.  They could, for instance, have limited attendance at an inmate’s baptism or required an inmate being baptized to be shackled throughout the process to reduce risk of escape.  There is no indication that Moats and Sharp attempted to take any such (or other similar) steps.....

The court also found that two versions of the policy gave jail administrators unbridled discretion in passing on volunteer ministers' applications. 

 Judge Rosenbaum filed an opinion dissenting in part, contending that insofar as damages were sought from the sheriff and his chief deputy, they were protected by qualified immunity.

Jewish Students Sue Haverford College Alleging Title VI Violations

Suit was filed last week in a Pennsylvania federal district court by Jewish students as Haverford College alleging that the college has violated Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act by discriminatory application of its nondiscrimination policy and willful failure to enforce its nondiscrimination policy to protect Jewish students. The complaint also alleges breach of contract. The complaint (full text) in Jews at Haverford v. The Corporation of Haverford College, (ED PA, filed 5/13/2024), alleges in part:

Haverford has become an illiberal institution fixated on appeasing the demands of anti-Israel students and faculty.  Haverford refuses to tolerate ideas about Israel that are at odds with its new political orthodoxy—in particular, the Jewish people’s ethnic, historical, shared ancestral and religious claims to their ancestral homeland in Israel.  This intolerance is enforced through shunning of Jewish students committed to the existence of the State of Israel as a Jewish state, and through the lauding and accepting of antisemitic student demands by Haverford’s President Wendy Raymond and her administration....

Haverford has violated Title VI by failing to protect the rights of Jewish Haverford students to participate fully in college classes, programs, and activities, without fear of harassment if they express beliefs about Israel that are anything less than eliminationist.  In this pervasively hostile environment, Jewish students hide their beliefs, as well as their attendance at religious services or even secular events at which support for the existence of Israel is articulated or defended.  While Israel-hating students march across the campus chanting quotes from the terrorist group Hamas calling for Israel’s destruction—as they have done frequently and without any restraint or interference from the Administration— these Jewish students hide in their rooms, feeling unable even to go to class or to engage in any of the other activities that constitute the life of an undergraduate....

The Deborah Project has more information on the lawsuit.

10th Circuit Upholds Colorado's Ban on Conversion Therapy

In Chiles v. Salazar, (10th Cir., Sept. 12, 2024), the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 decision held that Colorado's Minor Conversion Therapy Law that bans mental health professionals from providing conversion therapy to minors does not violate the free speech or free exercise rights of mental health professionals. Rejecting petitioner's free speech argument, the majority said in part:

The statute is part of Colorado’s regulation of the healthcare profession and, as the district court correctly found, applies to mental health professionals providing a type of prohibited treatment to minor patients. On the record before us, we agree the MCTL regulates professional conduct that “incidentally involves speech.”....

Ms. Chiles may, in full compliance with the MCTL, share with her minor clients her own views on conversion therapy, sexual orientation, and gender identity. She may exercise her First Amendment right to criticize Colorado for restricting her ability to administer conversion therapy. She may refer her minor clients to service providers outside of the regulatory ambit who can legally engage in efforts to change a client’s sexual orientation or gender identity.....

Rejecting petitioner's free exercise claim, the majority said in part: 

Because, on the record before us, we find Ms. Chiles has failed to show the MCTL lacks neutrality and general applicability, the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding the MCTL is subject to rational basis review..... And ... the MCTL survives rational basis review...

Judge Hartz dissenting said in part:

The issue in this case is whether to recognize an exception to freedom of speech when the leaders of national professional organizations declare certain speech to be dangerous and demand deference to their views by all members of their professions, regardless of the relevance or strength of their purported supporting evidence. As I understand controlling Supreme Court precedent, the answer is clearly no.... 

In particular, a restriction on speech is not incidental to regulation of conduct when the restriction is imposed because of the expressive content of what is said. And that is the type of restriction imposed on Chiles....

The consensus view of organizations of mental-health professionals in this country is that only gender-affirming care (including the administration of drugs) should be provided to minors, and that attempts to change a minor’s intent to change gender identity are dangerous—significantly increasing suicidal tendencies and causing other psychological injuries. The organizations insist that this view reflects the results of peer-reviewed studies.

But outside this country there is substantial doubt about those studies. In the past few years there has been significant movement in Europe away from American orthodoxy.....

Advocate reports on the decision.

[Corrected: The majority opinion was written by Judge Rossman. Judge Hartz dissented. The prior version of this post incorrectly identified the Judge Rossman as the dissenter instead of being the author of the majority opinion.]

Supreme Court Asked to Review Decision on Opting Students Out of Instruction on Gender and Sexuality

A petition for certiorari (full text) was filed last week with the U.S. Supreme Court in Mahmoud v. Taylor, (Sup. Ct., cert. filed 9/12/2024). Petitioners seek review of a 2-1 decision by the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals 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 contend that refusal to provide an opt out alternative violates their religious free exercise rights. The 4th Circuit affirmed a Maryland federal district court's refusal to grant a preliminary injunction. (See prior posting.). Becket Fund issued a press release announcing the filing of the petition for review.

Nebraska Supreme Court Approves Competing Initiative Measures on Abortion

Last Friday, the Nebraska Supreme Court rejected challenges to two competing state constitutional amendments relating to abortion. In State of Nebraska ex. rel. Brooks v. Evnan, (NE Sup. Ct., Sept. 13, 2024), the Nebraska Supreme Court held that the ballot initiative titled Protect the Right to Abortion does not violate the Nebraska Constitution's single subject rule. In State of Nebraska ex. rel. Constance v. Evnan, (NE Sup. Ct., Sept. 13, 2024), the Nebraska Supreme Court similarly held that the ballot initiative titled Protect Women and Children does not violate the state constitution's single subject rule. Nebraska Public Media reports on the decisions.

Recent Articles of Interest

 From SSRN:

• L. Joe Dunman, Testing Religious Insanity, (70 Wayne Law Review __ (2025) (forthcoming)).
• Aaron J. Rappaport, The American Creed and the Constitutional Order, (58 Creighton L. Rev. __ (2024)).
• L. Ali Khan, The German Far-Right An Examination of the AfD Manifesto, (August 17, 2024).
• Sara Saleem, Inheritance to Great-Grand Children, (July 15, 2024).
• Andre Oboler, et. al., Online Anti-Muslim Hate and Racism Against Palestinians and Arabs, (October 2023 – February 2024 | Report: IR2403).
• Samiul Hasan, Constitutionalism in Muslim Majority Countries: Religiously Required, Judicially Wrecked, (August 01, 2024).
• Ross Hickey, A. Abigail Payne & Justin Smith, Canadian Tax Foundation (CTF), Policy Forum: Understanding the Efficacy of Tax Credits for Charitable Donations in Canada, (Canadian Tax Journal/Revue fiscale canadienne, Vol. 72, No. 2, 2024, pp. 317 - 327).
• Teresa Stanton Collett, Personhood and the Post-Dobbs Abortion Debate, (U of St. Thomas (Minnesota) Legal Studies Research Paper No. 24-12 (2024).

From SmartCILP:

• Larry J. Obhof, Assessing the Future of "Offended Observer" Standing in Establishment Clause Cases,72 Cleveland State Law Review 395-432 (2024).
• Mark Strasser, Free Exercise, the Respect for Marriage Act, and Some Potential Surprises,72 Cleveland State Law Review 433-474 (2024).
• Nathan J. Ristuccia, The Priesthood of All Citizens: On the Pseudo-Theology of Penitent Privilege, 93 Mississippi Law Journal 291-348 (2023).
• Andrew B. Rogers, Beyond Undue Hardship: Religion and Sincerity in a Post-Groff World, 62 University of Louisville Law Review 341-482 (2024).

Buffer Zone Ordinance Violates Free Speech Rights of Protesters Because of Inadvertent Breadth of Ban

In Sisters for Life, Inc. v. Louisville-Jefferson County Metro Government, (WD KY, Sept. 13, 2024), anti-abortion sidewalk counselors challenged a city ordinance that created a ten-foot buffer zone from the street to the door of health care clinics.  Only clinic personnel, patients and those accompanying them, law enforcement and persons walking through to a different destination could enter the buffer zone. The ordinance was passed because of problems at one particular abortion clinic. The court found that the Ordinance would have been permissible if limited to clinics with problems but violated free speech rights because it applies to all healthcare facilities. The court said in part:

At the time of the ordinance’s passage, the city had established healthcare access problems at only one facility—EMW—and principally on Saturday mornings.... It is clear from the record that the Council intended for the ordinance to create buffer zones only at facilities which were having access or safety issues and chose to request a buffer zone, like abortion clinics, battered women’s shelters, and emergency rooms.... This is what the legislators expected in drafting and passing the ordinance.... And how EMW understood the ordinance to work....  And how LMPD enforced its terms.... 

... Metro Council gave careful consideration to each alternative and endeavored to choose the least burdensome option.  But for its inadvertent application to facilities with no established access issues, it is difficult to imagine how the ordinance could be more closely tailored to the city’s interest in preserving safe access to healthcare facilities. Regardless, the Court is bound by the Sixth Circuit’s holding: “The [Supreme] Court’s conclusion in McCullen applies here.  This buffer zone is not narrowly tailored.”...

The court also concluded that the ordinance did not violate plaintiffs' free exercise rights or the Kentucky Religious Freedom Restoration Act because the ordinance is neutral and generally applicable. 

Tribe Seeks Supreme Court Review of Transfer of Sacred Site to Mining Company

A petition for certiorari (full text) was filed this week with the U.S. Supreme Court in Apache Stronghold v. United States, (Sup. Ct., filed 9/11/2024). In the case, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals sitting en banc, by a vote of 6-5, refused to enjoin the government from transferring to a copper mining company federally-owned forest land that is of significant spiritual value to the Western Apache Indians. (See prior posting.) The petition for review raises issues under both RFRA and the 1st Amendment's Free Exercise clause. Becket Fund issued a press release announcing the filing of the petition seeking Supreme Court review.

Indiana Trial Court Rejects "As Applied" Challenge to State Abortion Restrictions

Last year, Indiana's Supreme Court rejected a facial challenge to the state's 2022 abortion law. In that case, the Indiana Supreme Court held:

Article 1, Section 1 protects a woman’s right to an abortion that is necessary to protect her life or to protect her from a serious health risk. Yet, this holding does not support Plaintiffs’ claim for a preliminary injunction. That is because they framed their claim as a facial challenge to the entire statute in all conceivable circumstances rather than an as-applied challenge to the law’s application in any particular set of circumstances where a pregnancy endangers a woman’s life or health. (See prior posting.)

Plaintiffs then filed an "as applied" constitutional challenge to the Indiana law. In Planned Parenthood Great Northwest, Hawai'i, Alaska, Indiana, Kentucky, Inc. v. Members of the Medical Licensing Board of Indiana, (IN Cir. Ct., Sept. 11, 2024), an Indiana state trial court now rejected that challenge.  The court said in part:

Plaintiffs have not shown a that S.B.1 materially burdens the rights of any specific patient or well-defined class of patients to access constitutionally protected abortion care. Significant and compelling evidence regarding the policy implications of S.B. 1-- and its effect on medical professionals in particular-- was presented. However, the Court cannot substitute its own policy preferences for that of the Indiana General Assembly and the Court limits its examination to the General Assembly's constitutional authority post-Planned Parenthood. Plaintiffs have not shown an instance where an abortion is necessary to treat a serious health risk but would also fall outside of the Health and Life Exception.  Additionally, Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that the Hospital Requirement is materially burdensome to constitutionally protected abortion access, nor that it fails rational basis review as to statutorily authorized (but not constitutionally protected) abortions.

Liberty Counsel issued a press release announcing the decision.

North Dakota Trial Court Says State Abortion Ban Violates State Constitution

 In Access Independent Health Services, Inc. v. Wrigley, (ND Dist, Ct., Sept. 12, 2024), a North Dakota state trial court judge held that the state's current abortion law that bans abortions (with limited exceptions), violates the state constitution.  The court said in part:

[T]he court concludes that (1) the Amended Abortion Ban set forth in Chapter 12.1-19.1, N.D.C.C., as currently drafted, is unconstitutionally void for vagueness; and (2) pregnant women in North Dakota have a fundamental right to choose abortion before viability exists under the enumerated and unenumerated interests protected by the North Dakota Constitution for all North Dakota individuals, including women-- specifically, but not necessarily limited to, the interests in life, liberty, safety, and happiness enumerated in Articles [I], section 1 of the North Dakota Constitution.

The court also observed:

... [T]he decision in this matter may be one of the most important this Court issues during its time on the bench. However, in reaching the decision below, it is also not lost on the Court that, on appeal, this Court's decision is given no deference.

... The Court is left to craft findings and conclusions on an issue of vital public importance when the longstanding precedent on that issue no longer exists federally, and much of the North Dakota precedent on that issue relied on the federal precedent now upended-- with relatively no idea how the appellate court in this state will address the issue.

North Dakota Monitor reports on the decision.

South Carolina Supreme Court: State Scholarship Program for Private School Students Violates State Constitution

 In Edison v. South Carolina Department of Education, (SC Sup. Ct., Sept. 11, 2024), the South Carolina Supreme Court in a 3-2 decision held that the state's Education Scholarship Trust Fund Act violates the state constitution insofar as it authorizes use of ESTF funds to pay tuition and fees to private educational institutions.  Article XI, Sec. 4 of the South Carolina Constitution provides:

No money shall be paid from public funds nor shall the credit of the State or any of its political subdivisions be used for the direct benefit of any religious or other private educational institution.

The court said in part:

A parent who chooses to use a scholarship to pay their child's private school tuition is undoubtedly using public funds to provide a direct benefit to the private school....  After we clear away the window dressing, we can see the Act funnels public funds to the direct benefit of private schools.  This is what our constitution forbids.  We conclude Petitioners have carried their burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt the portion of the Act that allows tuition payments from public funds for the direct benefit of private educational institutions violates Article XI, Section 4.

Chief Justice Kittredge, joined by Justice Few, filed a dissenting opinion, saying in part:

Under the South Carolina Constitution, the use of public funds for the direct benefit of a private school is impermissible; the use of public funds for the indirect benefit of a private school is entirely permissible....

In my view, ... the structure and operation of the ESTF Act provide an indirect benefit to schools of the families' choice—both private and public alike. Nonetheless, the majority opinion today defines the phrase "direct benefit" so broadly that it swallows any possible meaning of "indirect benefit" in the process.

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

10th Circuit: School Administrator Fired Over Religious Comments Has Discrimination, But Not Retaliation, Claim

 In McNellis v. Douglas County School District, (10th Cir., Sept. 10, 2024), the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal of retaliation claims by a high school Assistant Principal/ Athletic Director, but reversed dismissal of his religious discrimination claims under Title VII and the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act.  Plaintiff Corey McNellis was fired after he complained about the depiction of Christians in an upcoming school play about the 1998 hate-motivated murder of Matthew Shepard in Wyoming. The court concluded the McNellis's speech was not protected by the 1st Amendment because it was made in the course of performing his official duties. It also concluded the McNellis's complaints about being investigated because of his Christian beliefs were not the cause of his firing. In allowing plaintiff to proceed with his discrimination claims, the court said that plaintiff had alleged sufficient facts to give rise to an inference of discrimination.

9th Circuit: Requiring Tree Trimming Did Not Violate Plaintiff's Free Exercise Rights

In Joseph v. City of San Jose, (9th Cir., Sept. 11, 2024), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected plaintiff's claim that enforcement of municipal code restrictions violated his 1st Amendment religious free exercise rights. The court said in part:

Joseph asserts that the City’s assessments against his trees placed a substantial burden on the free exercise of his “religious and spiritual beliefs,” which he describes as having “Buddhist, Taoist, Celtic, quantum physics, evolutionary, neurological, numerological, and cosmological foundations.”  Although “[i]t is not within the judicial ken to question the centrality of particular beliefs or practices to a faith, or the validity of particular litigants’ interpretations of those creeds,” a court may properly consider “whether the alleged burden imposed by the [challenged state action] is a substantial one.”... We hold that the City’s actions did not create a substantial burden.  Joseph voluntarily complied with the generally applicable municipal code requirements to trim the trees’ overgrown vines, and he stated during his deposition that such trimming did not impair the trees’ spiritual or religious value.... .  “The right to freely exercise one’s religion ... ‘does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a valid and neutral law of general applicability on the ground that the law proscribes (or prescribes) conduct that his religion prescribes (or proscribes).’”....