Virginia Becomes 20th State To Ban Conversion Therapy

Virginia Governor Ralph Northam this week signed into law House Bill 386 (full text) which bans licensed health professionals from engaging in conversion therapy with anyone under 18 years of age. New York Times reports that this makes Virginia the twentieth state to ban these attempts to change sexual orientation of gender identity. It is the first southern state to do so.

Transcript of Oral Arguments In June Medical Services Case Now Available

Here is the transcript of today's oral arguments in the U.S. Supreme Court in June Medical Services L.L.C. v. Russo -- the constitutional challenge to Louisiana's abortion law. Vox reports on the oral arguments, headlining it "Abortion rights had a surprisingly hopeful day in the Supreme Court". CNN however headlines its report "Supreme Court appears split after hearing first major abortion case with strong conservative majority".

10th Circuit: Inedible Vegan Diet Burdened Buddhist Inmate's Religious Exercise

In Blair v. Raemisch, (10th Cir., March 2, 2020), the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals held that a Buddhist inmate's complaint about the vegan diet he was served adequately stated a claim under the 1st Amendment's free exercise clause and under RLUIPA. According to plaintiff's complaint, on 19 out of each 28 days, he was served a vegan patty made at the prison from left-over beans, yams, oatmeal, tomato paste, and seasoning combined in a blender and then baked. He alleged that these were inedible, and caused him to vomit. This forced him to go hungry or purchase vegan food from the commissary. The court concluded that, if true, this substantially burdened plaintiff's sincerely held religious beliefs and put pressure on him to abandon them. Colorado Politics reports on the decision.

Supervision of Sex Offender's Church Attendance Upheld

In State of Washington v. Mecham, (WA App., March 2, 2020), a Washington state appellate court rejected a free exercise challenge to a community custody condition imposed on a convicted sex offender. Under a negotiated plea agreement, appellant, among other things, was prohibited from attending church services unless accompanied and supervised by an adult aware of his offenses and approved by his Community Corrections Officer.  In upholding the prohibition, the court said in part:

Mecham’s crime involved abusing an unsupervised child at church. The day of the offense, Mecham was attending church with his mother, father, and older brother. Mecham has failed to show that these members of his family, who presumably know his offense, will be unable to supervise his attendance at church. Thus, from the record, Mecham will be able to continue attending church services in the same manner as before his conviction.

Further, even if the restriction unduly burdened Mecham’s free exercise, the restriction satisfies strict scrutiny....

The State has a compelling interest to protect families who attend church services from Mecham. Mecham committed the offense in a church. He abused a seven-year-old in the church playroom while the congregation enjoyed lunch upstairs....  Mecham needs supervision to prevent this type of contact.

Supreme Court To Hear Arguments Today In High-Profile Abortion Case

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court hears oral arguments in a high profile abortion case-- June Medical Services v. Russo. At issue is the constitutionality of the Louisiana Unsafe Abortion Protection Act which requires any abortion provider to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of the location where abortions are performed. In March 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court summarily upheld a preliminary injunction issued by the district court preventing the Act from going into effect. In September 2018, the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district court and upheld the statute. In January 2019, the full 5th Circuit, by a vote of 6-9, denied en banc review. Plaintiff appealed the substantive holding to the Supreme Court. The state cross-appealed the grant of third-party standing to the abortion clinic plaintiff. (See prior posting.) Meanwhile in February 2019 the Supreme Court stayed the 5th Circuit's decision pending appeal to the Supreme Court, with four justices dissenting. The SCOTUS blog case page has links to all the filings (including dozens of amicus briefs) in the case, as well as to commentary on the case.

I will post a link to the transcript of the oral arguments when they become available later today.

Buffalo Catholic Diocese Files For Bankruptcy Reorganization

The Catholic Diocese of Buffalo (NY) announced last week that it has filed for bankruptcy reorganization, saying in part that the petition has:

a primary aim of enabling financial resolution for the most number of individuals who have filed claims under the Child Victims Act - a year-long window that opened on August 14, 2019 that suspends the statute of limitations related to allegations of past sexual abuse.  A further objective of reorganization is that it allows the Diocese to continue uninterrupted its mission throughout Western New York, while working to settle claims with existing Diocesan assets and insurance coverages....

Parishes of the Diocese are separately incorporated under New York State's Religious Corporation Law and not included in today's filing. Similarly, Catholic elementary and secondary schools are also not part of the Chapter 11 case, given that they are owned by parishes or are separately incorporated entities. Catholic Charities of Buffalo, with its extensive ministries that serve residents throughout Western New York, providing critical social services, is also separately incorporated under New York's Not for Profit Corporation Law and will not be part of the filing. This is also true for the Diocese's capital and endowment Campaign - Upon This Rock.

The Bradford Era reports on the filing.

Suit Challenges Tennessee School Voucher Law

Suit was filed yesterday in a Tennessee state trial court challenging the constitutionality under the state constitution of the Tennessee's school voucher law. The funding law applies only to two urban counties (Nashville an Memphis areas). The complaint (full text) in McEwen v. Lee, (TN Chancery Ct., filed 3/2/2020) alleges violations of the state constitution's home rule provision, its education and equal protection clauses, and state provisions on appropriation of public funds. The complaint alleges in part:

The Voucher Law diverts taxpayer dollars to private schools that are not required to adhere to the same academic, accountability, governance, and non-discrimination requirements as Tennessee’s public schools. Diverting limited public education funding to private schools that do not provide students the same standards of education and civil rights protections as public schools violates Tennessee’s Constitution and state law.

The ACLU of Tennessee issued a joint press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

House Holds Hearings On Anti-Semitic Domestic Terrorism

On Feb. 26, a subcommittee of the House Homeland Security Committee held a hearing titled Confronting the Rise in Anti-Semitic Domestic Terrorism, Part II. Transcripts of testimony and opening statements, as well as a video of the entire hearing, are available on the Committee's website. Part I of the hearings were held in January. (Transcripts and video of testimony).

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• James T. Lindgren, The Religious Beliefs, Practices, and Experiences of Law Professors, (15 University of St. Thomas Law Journal 342 (2019)).
• Faisal Daudpota, An Overview of Pakistan's Jurisprudence on: Free Exercise Clause, and Religious Freedom of Minorities, (February 21, 2020).
• Neil James Foster, Respecting the Dignity of Religious Organisations: When is it Appropriate for Courts to Decide Religious Doctrine?, (University of Western Australia Law Review, Vol. 47, No. 1, 2020).
• Ian Turner, Limits to Terror Speech in the UK and USA: Balancing Freedom of Expression With National Security, (Amicus Curiae, 2020).

From SmartCILP:

• Lalita Moskowitz. God Is a Woman: Feminism as a Religion Protected Under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, 27 American University Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law 399-430 (2019).
• Marian Burchardt, Zeynep Yanasmayan & Matthias Koenig. The Judicial Politics of Burqa Bans in Belgium and Spain--Socio-Legal Field Dynamics and the Standardization of Justificatory Repertoires. 44 Law & Social Inquiry 333-358 (2019).
• Gregory S. Parks & Derek S. Hicks. "How Much a Dollar Cost?" Political Ideology, Religion, and Poverty Policy Through the Lens of Kendrick Lamar's Music, 28 Southern California Review of Law & Social Justice 197-260 (2019).
• Russell Powell, Social Justice and Islamic Jurisprudence, 17 Seattle Journal for Social Justice 1-23 (2018).
• Pamela A. Wilkins. Law School in a Different Voice: Legal Education as a Work of Mercy, 63 St. Louis University Law Journal 401-452 (2019).

British Tribunal Denies Asylum To Disingenuous Iranian Convert To Christianity

Britain's appellate court that reviews decisions on visa and asylum applications and the right to enter or stay in the UK-- the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber-- has recently issued an interesting decision on how to treat a citizen of Iran who disingenuously converts from Islam to Christianity in Britain in order to create a basis for an asylum claim. In PS (Iran) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, (UKUT IAC, Feb. 20, 2020), the court concluded that such aperson does not run a real risk of persecution upon return to Iran, and therefore is not entitled to asylum in the UK. the court said in part:

PS has been out of Iran since 2013; he has claimed asylum on at least two occasions, variously asserting fear as a result of being caught up in the green movement protests, ‘honour’ based violence and latterly on the basis that he had converted to Christianity; he attended church between May 2015 and sometime in 2016 and was baptised after he had been going to that church for about two weeks; he has no known contact with the authorities prior to leaving Iran; he has no known connection with any persons of interest, nor any adverse social media content to be concerned about. He has no known connection with any organisation which could be connected by the Iranian government to the house church movement.  He may be asked to sign an undertaking promising that he will not undertake any Christian activities. There is no reason why PS would refuse. We find that he is likely to be judged to present a negligible risk to the security of Iran. He will be released fairly quickly and we are not satisfied that there is any risk of ill-treatment. PS may be placed under surveillance. Once the authorities are satisfied that he is not attending house church or attempting to contact known Christians he will be of no further interest to the authorities.  Accordingly, we find that PS does not face a real risk of persecution upon return to Iran and his appeal is dismissed. 

The Tribunal also issued a new Country Guidance based on this case. Law & Religion UK reports on the case at greater length.

German Top Court Upholds Hijab Ban For Legal Interns Involved In Official Proceedings

In a decision handed down last month, but not published until yesterday, Germany's Federal Constitutional Court in a 7-1 decision rejected a challenge by a legal intern to the requirement that she remove her hijab when involved in court hearings.  The full decision in German is here. In a press release, the court summarized the decision:

In an order published today, the Second Senate of the Federal Constitutional Court rejected as unfounded the constitutional complaint of a female legal trainee (Rechtsreferendarin) in the Land Hesse; the complaint was directed against the ban on wearing a headscarf when performing certain official tasks. Under constitutional law, the legislature’s decision to establish a duty of neutral conduct with respect to ideological and religious matters for legal trainees must be respected. While this duty amounts to an interference with the complainant’s freedom of faith and other fundamental rights, it is justified. Such an interference can be justified by the constitutional principles of the state’s religious and ideological neutrality and of the proper functioning of the justice system as well as by the negative freedom of religion of others. In the case at hand, none of the conflicting legal interests outweighs the others to such an extent that it would be required under constitutional law to prevent the complainant from wearing religious symbols in the courtroom, or to allow her to do so.

Justice Department Sides With Wedding Photographer In District Court Case

The Department of Justice announced yesterday that it has filed a Statement of Interest (full text) in Chelsey Nelson Photography, LLC v. Louisville/ Jefferson County Metro Government, (WD KY, filed 2/27/20).  As previously reported, in the case the owner of a wedding photography business seeks a preliminary injunction to prevent enforcement of Louisville's public accommodation ordinance against her. Plaintiff "only accepts requests for services which are consistent with her editorial, artistic, and religious judgment."  This precludes her from providing photography and social media services for same-sex weddings. DOJ sides with the photographer, arguing in part:

Most commercial transactions will not involve requiring an unwilling speaker to participate in someone else’s expressive activity. But where public accommodations laws do intrude on expression in this way, they are subject to heightened scrutiny....

Photography—and particularly the bespoke wedding photography in which Ms. Nelson engages—is inherently expressive.... By ... compelling her to engage in expression promoting and celebrating a ceremony in violation of her conscience, Defendants infringe upon the fundamental “principle of autonomy to control one’s own speech.”

... That is not to say that every application of a public accommodations law to protected expression will violate the Constitution. In particular, laws targeting race-based discrimination may survive heightened First Amendment scrutiny....  The Supreme Court has not similarly held that classifications based on sexual orientation are subject to strict scrutiny or that eradicating private individuals’ opposition to same-sex marriage is a uniquely compelling interest.

Court Refuses To Order Church Membership Meeting

In Ceglar v. Christ's Harbor Church, (TX App., Feb. 27, 2020), a Texas state appellate court dismissed on ecclesiastical abstention grounds a suit brought by some 25 church members seeking a court order forcing the Church Elders to call a membership meeting.  Two female members of the Church charged its newly-hired senior pastor with inappropriate behavior. Plaintiffs wanted the membership meeting to decide whether the pastor should be disciplined or fired. Under the Church's bylaws, calling a special meeting requires a petition signed by 15% of the Church's members. The court concluded that, given the criteria for Church membership set out in the by-laws, the court cannot determine who is a member without delving into doctrinal matters.

Suit Challenges South Carolina's Anti-LGBTQ Curriculum Law

Three advocacy organizations filed suit yesterday in a South Carolina federal district court challenging the constitutionality of S.C. Code §59-32-30(A)(5) which prohibits public school sex education programs from discussing "alternate sexual lifestyles from heterosexual relationships including, but not limited to, homosexual relationships except in the context of ... sexually transmitted diseases." The complaint (full text) in Gender and Sexuality Alliance v. Spearman, (D SC, filed 2/26/2020)contends that the law violates the equal protection clause, saying in part:

The Anti-LGBTQ Curriculum Law harms LGBTQ students. It stigmatizes them by creating a state-sanctioned climate of discrimination in schools and denies LGBTQ students health education opportunities equal to those of their heterosexual peers.

WCSC reports on the lawsuit.

Trump Praises Modi's Efforts On Religious Freedom In India

At his press conference (full text) in New Delhi, India yesterday, President Donald Trump responded to a question about religious freedom in India:

Q    While you’ve been here in the country, in the capital, the northeast part of Delhi, there have been violent clashes.  Police have been killed, some demonstrators.  Nine deaths so far, we hear, and about 100-plus injured.  What did Prime Minister Modi say to you about this amended citizenship law?  And how concerned are you about this kind of religious violence in India?

THE PRESIDENT:  So, we did talk about religious freedom.  And I will say that the Prime Minister was incredible on what he told me.  He wants people to have religious freedom, and very strongly.  And he said that in India they have — they have worked very hard to have great and open religious freedom.  And if you look back and look at what’s going on, relative to other places especially, but they have really worked hard on religious freedom.

I asked that question in front of a very large group of people today.  And he talked about it; we talked about it for a long time.  And I really believe that’s what he wants.

As far as the individual attack, I heard about it but I didn’t discuss that with him.  That’s up to India.

The Hill reports on these remarks.

Religious Discrimination Suit Dismissed As Moot

In Fiedor v. Florida Department of Financial Services, (ND FL, Feb. 24, 2020), a Florida federal district court dismissed a state government employee's lawsuit alleging religious discrimination.  The court describes the facts of the case:

This case arises from a state agency’s regional manager’s mistaken view that agency policy prohibited employees from discussing religion at work or posting church-related materials on an office bulletin board. After the mistake came to light as a result of this lawsuit, the agency issued an unequivocal correction.  Employees of the regional office now may discuss religion and post church-related materials on the bulletin board. Following a bench trial, this opinion holds moot the plaintiff employee’s challenge to the manager’s now-abandoned position.

2nd Circuit: Chinese Christian Convert Does Not Have Reasonable Fear of Persecution Upon Deportation

In Wang v. Barr, (2d Cir., Feb. 24, 2020), the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the denial of asylum to a Chinese citizen who had converted to Christianity. It held that she failed to prove a well-founded fear of future persecution. The court said in part:

Wang argues that there is a reasonable possibility that the Chinese government will become aware of her religious practice because she intends to attend an underground church, and that there is a reasonable possibility that she will be persecuted as a result because the government has a pattern or practice of persecuting similarly situated Christians. ....

The State Department’s 2015 International Religious Freedom Report states that there are approximately 45 million Christians practicing in unregistered churches in China and that authorities in some areas of the country allow unregistered churches to hold services “provided they remained small in scale,” although authorities in other areas target and close such churches.... The news reports in the record concern abuses against people who are not similarly situated to Wang—who testified that she would attend services at an unregistered church, but not that she would take a leadership role, proselytize, or engage in other activism—or concern areas of China other than Wang’s native Fujian province.

9th Circuit Upholds HHS Family Planning Grant Rules

In a 7-4 en banc decision yesterday, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the Trump Administration's rules that apply to recipients of family planning grants under Title X. In State of California v. Azar, (9th Cir., Feb. 24, 2020),  the majority in an 82-page opinion vacated injunctions that had been entered by three district courts.  The court described the major provisions of the challenged rules:

While referrals for abortion as a method of family planning are not allowed, the Title X project may give a pregnant client a “list of licensed, qualified, comprehensive primary health care providers,” which may include “providers of prenatal care[], some, but not the majority, of which also provide abortion as part of their comprehensive health care services.” .... The Title X project may also provide referrals for abortion when such a procedure is medically necessary....

... [T]he Final Rule ... requires that a Title X project be organized “so that it is physically and financially separate . . . from activities that are prohibited under section 1008 of the Public Health Service Act..... [in order to avoid] the appearance and perception that Title X funds being used in a given program may also be supporting that program’s abortion activities.... 

The dissenters argued that the HHS rules violate Congressional mandates, saying in part:

The majority would return us to an older world, one in which a government bureaucrat could restrict a medical professional from informing a patient of the full range of health care options available to her. Fortunately, Congress has ensured such federal intrusion is no longer the law of the land.

ABC News reports on the decision.

Supreme Court Denies Cert. In Title VII Religious Accommodation Case

The U.S. Supreme Court today denied review in Patterson v. Walgreen Co., (Docket No. 18-349. certiorari denied 2/24/2020). In the case, the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, in a suit alleging religious discrimination and retaliation, held that Walgreen had offered reasonable accommodations for the religious needs of a Seventh Day Adventist employee whose beliefs did not permit him to work on Saturday. (See prior posting). In a concurring opinion (full text) accompanying the denial of cert, Justice Alito, joined by Justices Thomas and Gorsuch, said that in an appropriate case the Court should reconsider its holding in the Hardison case that an employer need accommodate an employee's religious observance only if it imposes no more than a de minimis hardship on the employer. They concluded however that "this case does not present a good vehicle for revisiting Hardison."

Supreme Court GVRs Puerto Rico Decision On Pension Liability of Catholic Church

Th U.S. Supreme Court today issued opinions granting certiorari, vacating the judgment of the Puerto Rico Supreme Court and remanding for further proceedings the case of Roman Catholic Archdiocese of San Juan v. Feliciano, (US Sup. Ct., Feb. 24, 2020). At issue was whether the Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church in Puerto Rico was liable for pension benefits of Catholic School employees in Puerto Rico.  The petition for certiorari argued that civil courts must respect the Church's own views on its internal structure. The Supreme Court in a per curiam opinion concluded, however, that it need not reach that issue because Puerto Rican courts lost jurisdiction over the case when it was removed to federal court and had not yet been remanded. Justice Alito, joined by Justice Thomas, wrote to note important issues that may arise on remand. They said in part:

[T]he Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment at a minimum demands that all jurisdictions use neutral rules in determining whether particular entities that are associated in some way with a religious body may be held responsible for debts incurred by other associated entities....

Beyond this lurk more difficult questions, including (1) the degree to which the First Amendment permits civil authorities to question a religious body’s own understanding of its structure and the relationship between associated entities and (2) whether, and if so to what degree, the First Amendment places limits on rules on civil liability that seriously threaten the right of Americans to the free exercise of religion as members of a religious body.