Religion Clause

Sunday, May 02, 2021

Suit Challenges Connecticut Elimination of Religious Exemption To Immunization Requirement

Suit was filed last week in a Connecticut federal district court challenging Connecticut's recent elimination of religious exemptions to school immunization requirements. The suit was brought by three parents-- Greek Orthodox, Catholic and Muslim-- and two advocacy groups. The complaint (full text) in We the Patriots USA, Inc. v. Connecticut Office of Early Childhood Development, (D CT, filed 4/30/2021), contends that the repeal violated plaintiffs' rights to free exercise of religion, privacy and medical freedom, equal protection, child rearing, as well as of the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act. Bronx News 12 reports on the lawsuit.

Friday, April 30, 2021

President Declares May As Jewish American Heritage Month

Today President Biden issued a Proclamation (full text) declaring May 2021 as Jewish American Heritage Month. The Proclamation reads in part:

Alongside this narrative of achievement and opportunity, there is also a history — far older than the Nation itself — of racism, bigotry, and other forms of injustice. This includes the scourge of anti-Semitism. In recent years, Jewish Americans have increasingly been the target of white nationalism and the antisemitic violence it fuels.

As our Nation strives to heal these wounds and overcome these challenges, let us acknowledge and celebrate the crucial contributions that Jewish Americans have made to our collective struggle for a more just and fair society; leading movements for social justice, working to ensure that the opportunities they have secured are extended to others, and heeding the words of the Torah, “Justice, justice shall you pursue.”

A website honoring the month has been created by The Library of Congress, National Archives and Records Administration, National Endowment for the Humanities, National Gallery of Art, National Park Service and United States Holocaust Memorial Museum.

Biden Nominates Sarah Margon To State Department Human Rights Post

Yesterday President Biden submitted to the Senate the nomination of Sarah Margon to be Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor. According to Wikipedia:

Margon began her career as a humanitarian and conflict policy advisor for Oxfam. She later worked as a staffer on the United States Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on Africa and Global Health Policy and as a foreign policy advisor to Senator Russ Feingold. She later worked as the associate director for sustainable security and peace-building at the Center for American Progress and deputy Washington director of Human Rights Watch. Margon has most recently worked as a U.S. foreign policy advisor for the Open Society Foundations.

The State Department Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor works to advance human rights, including freedom of religion.

State Moves To Restrict Abortions Continue

A number of states continue attempts to restrict abortion rights.

In Montana, Governor Greg Gianforte last Monday signed three bills: HB 136 (full text) barring "perform[ing] an abortion of an unborn child capable of feeling pain unless it is necessary to prevent a serious health risk to the unborn child's mother; HB 140 (full text) requiring that before an abortion a pregnant woman must be given the opportunity to view an active ultrasound and hear a fetal heart tone; and HB 171 (full text) setting out procedures for prescribing abortion-inducing drugs, barring delivery of such drugs by mail and prohibiting providing such drugs in schools or on school grounds. Also yesterday the Montana legislature approved HB 167 (full text) calling for a referendum on the adoption of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. Law & Crime reports on these developments.

In Oklahoma in recent days Governor Kevin Stitt has signed five bills on abortion: HB 1102 (full text) which defines “unprofessional conduct” to include the performance of an abortion unless performed to prevent the death or significant physical impairment of the mother; HB 1904 (full text) requiring doctors performing abortions to be board certified in obstetrics and gynecology; HB 2441 (full text) barring abortions if a fetal heartbeat can be detected, except to prevent death or serious risk of significant physical impairment of the mother; SB 584 (full text) extending ban on funding of provider who has been found by a court to have trafficked in fetal body parts to funding by cities or counties, as well as the state; SB 918 (full text) making abortion illegal if the U.S. Supreme Court overrules Roe v. Wade or a federal constitutional amendment restores state authority to outlaw abortions. AP reports on some of these developments.

Yesterday the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments (audio of full oral arguments) in Memphis Center for Reproductive Health v. Slatery. In the case, a Tennessee federal district court issued a temporary restraining order barring enforcement of two bans on pre-viability abortions. One bans abortions when a fetal heartbeat is detectable. The other bans pre-viability abortions sought because of the race or sex of the fetus or a Down syndrome diagnosis. (See prior posting.) Courthouse News Service reports on the oral arguments. [Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]

Catholic School Campus Minister's Claims Dismissed Under Ministerial Exception Doctrine

In Simon v. Saint Dominic Academy, (D NJ, April 28, 2021), a New Jersey federal district court applied the ministerial exception doctrine as defined in recent U.S. Supreme Court precedent to dismiss statutory and contract-based claims by the former Chairperson of the Religious Department and Campus Minister at a women's Catholic high school. Plaintiff was terminated the day after she returned from a leave due to a motor vehicle accident. She contends that she was dismissed because of her age, disability, and whistleblowing activities. The court said in part:

Plaintiff pleads that she was replaced by a younger individual who was not qualified to teach religion.... Plaintiff’s allegations ... will require the Court to second guess SDA’s decision to terminate a minister, which is precisely what the ministerial exception is intended to prohibit and will necessarily entangle the Court in internal church governance.

Thursday, April 29, 2021

New West Virginia Law Bans Transgender Women From Women's Competitive Athletic Teams

The Hill reports that West Virginia Governor Jim Justice yesterday signed into law HB 3293 (full text) which bars transgender girls or women from competing on women's athletic teams at public middle or high schools or at state colleges and universities. The ban is limited to teams where selection is based on competitive skill or the activity involved is a contact sport.

Connecticut Eliminates Future Religious Exemptions From Immunization Requirements

Yesterday Connecticut Governor Ned Lamont signed HB 6423 (full text) which eliminates the previously available religious exemption from the state's immunization requirements for school children. However, the new law allows children who have previously been granted a religious exemption to maintain the exemption, with certain exceptions for grade-school children. AP reports on the adoption of the new law. [Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]

3rd Circuit Dismisses Inmate's Complaint of Religious Necklace Confiscation

In Adams v. Correctional Emergency Response Team, (3rd Cir., April 26, 2021), the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of an inmate's complaint that his religious necklace was confiscated in violation of the 1st Amendment, saying in part:

The complaint stated only that the missing necklace reflected Adams’s religious faith, with no description of how losing it affected his religious practice.

The court also held that RLUIPA does not permit actions against state officials in their individual capacities.

Wednesday, April 28, 2021

Arizona Enacts New Abortion Restrictions

Yesterday Arizona Governor Doug Ducey signed SB 1457 (full text) placing additional limits on abortion in the state. The new law bans abortions sought because of a genetic abnormality of the fetus, except in medical emergencies. It prohibits performance of abortions in facilities run by or located on the property of public educational institutions, except when necessary to save the life of the mother. It prohibits the use of public funds for research that involves fetal cells. It prohibits mail delivery of abortion-inducing drugs. It requires that bodily remains from a surgical abortion be disposed of by cremation or burial, and gives the mother the right to determine the method to be used. ADF issued a press release announcing the bill signing.

New Jersey Sues Township Alleging Anti-Jewish Zoning Actions

New Jersey's Attorney General yesterday announced that the state has filed a lawsuit against Jackson Township (NJ) alleging that in response to residents who have complained about the number of Orthodox Jews moving in, the Township has adopted discriminatory zoning ordinances and enforcement practices. The complaint (full text) in Grewal v. Jackson Township, (NJ Super. Ct., filed 4/27/2021) alleges that New Jersey's Law Against Discrimination has been violated and reads in part:

Defendants have exercised their zoning authority to intentionally target Orthodox Jewish religious practices and rituals, such as communal prayer, the erection of sukkahs, and the establishment of yeshivas and eruvim. They have exercised their zoning authority to enact ordinances for the purpose of deterring Orthodox Jews from building and operating religious schools, as well as the dormitories associated with those schools within the Township. And they have exercised their authority by discriminatorily investigating alleged violations of Township ordinances by Orthodox Jews, while acknowledging that resident complaints have been “exaggerated” and that significant resources have been wasted on enforcement without the discovery of any significant ordinance violations.

Insider NJ reports on the lawsuit.

Students Sue Yeshiva University For Refusal To Recognize LGBTQ Organizations

Suit was filed this week in a New York state trial court against Yeshiva University by an LGBTQ student organization and four current and former students claiming that the university's continued refusal to recognize a student organization for LGBTQ students violates New York City's Human Rights Law. The complaint (full text) in YU Pride Alliance v. Yeshiva University, (NYCty. Sup. Ct., filed 4/26/2021) alleges in part:

[D]isparate treatment and the denial of these concomitant benefits to club recognition, solely based on Plaintiffs’ sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity, is not only harmful to the students, but also unlawful as it amounts to a failure to provide equal access to facilities in violation of New York City laws.

Washington Post, reporting on the lawsuit, sets out a portion of the university's response to the lawsuit:

Our LGBTQ+ students are our sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, family and friends. Our policies on harassment and discrimination against students on the basis of protected classifications including LGBTQ+ are strong and vigorously enforced. Our Torah-guided decision about this club in no way minimizes the care and sensitivity that we have for each of our students, nor the numerous steps the university has already taken.

Tuesday, April 27, 2021

Cert. Petition Filed In Challenge To New York's Abortion Coverage Requirement

A petition for certiorari (full text) was filed with the U.S. Supreme Court last week in Roman Catholic Diocese of Albany v. Lacewell, (cert. filed 4/22/2021). In the case, a New York state appellate court rejected a challenge by several religious organizations and other plaintiffs to a New York administrative regulation requiring health insurance policies in New York to provide coverage for medically necessary abortion services. (See prior posting.) According to the petition for review, the New York regulation "exempts religious entities whose 'purpose' is to inculcate religious values and who 'employ' and 'serve' primarily coreligionists. But religious organizations must cover abortions if they have a broader religious mission (such as service to the poor)or if they employ or serve people regardless of their faith." New York's highest state court denied leave to appeal. Becket Fund issued a press release announcing the filing of the petition for review.

Montana Enacts A Religious Freedom Restoration Act

On April 22, Montana Governor Greg Gianforte signed SB215, the Montana Religious Freedom Restoration Act (full text). It provides in part:

State action may not substantially burden a person's right to the exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, unless it is demonstrated that applying the burden to that person's exercise of religion: (a) is essential to further a compelling governmental interest; and (b) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.

Christianity Today reports on the new law.

Supreme Court Refuses Original Suit By Texas Against California

Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court in Texas v. California, (Sup. Ct., April 26, 2021), (SCOTUSblog case page) denied the state of Texas leave to invoke the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction to file a bill of complaint against the state of California. USA Today described the background:

California passed a law in 2016 prohibiting taxpayer-funded travel – such as for state employees to attend conferences – to any state that doesn’t ban discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Texas law allows foster-care and adoption agencies to deny same-sex couples on religious grounds.

Texas took California directly to the Supreme Court last year, asserting the travel ban was "born of religious animus" and that it violates the Constitution....

The justices had been considering whether to take the suit for months. The court did not explain its decision not to hear the case.

Justice Alito, joined by Justice Thomas, dissented, saying in part:

The practice of refusing to permit the filing of a complaint in cases that fall within our original jurisdiction is questionable, and that is especially true when, as in this case, our original jurisdictional is exclusive. As the history recounted above reveals, the Court adopted this practice without ever providing a convincing justification....

Texas raises novel constitutional claims, arguing that California’s travel ban violates the Privileges and Immunities Clause, U. S. Const., Art. IV, §2, cl. 1, the Commerce Clause, Art. I, §8, cl. 3, and the Equal Protection Clause, Amdt. 14, §1. I express no view regarding any of those claims, but I respectfully dissent from the Court’s refusal even to permit the filing of Texas’s complaint.

Monday, April 26, 2021

Certiorari Denied In Suit Over California Curriculum On Hinduism

The U.S. Supreme Court today denied review in California Parents for the Equalization of Educational Materials v. Torlakson, (Docket No. 20-1137, certiorari denied 4/26/2021). (Order List). In the case, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal of a suit claiming that California's History-Social Science Standards and Framework incorrectly describe Hinduism and treat it negatively in relation to the treatment of other religions.

Supreme Court GVR's Challenge To California Limits On Indoor Worship

In February, the U.S. Supreme Court in South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom, (US Sup. Ct., Feb. 5, 2021), enjoined while a petition for certiorari is pending a portion of California's restrictions on indoor worship services. (See prior posting.) Today in the case (Docket No. 20-746, April 26, 2021) the Supreme Court granted certiorari, summarily vacated the 9th Circuit's judgment upholding the restrictions, and remanded for further consideration in light of Tandon v. Newsom. (Order List).

Supreme Court Hears Oral Arguments Today In Challenge To California's Required Disclosure of Donors To Non-Profits

The U.S. Supreme Court this morning will hear consolidated oral arguments in Thomas More Law Center v. Rodriquez (SCOTUSblog case page) and Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Rodriquez (SCOTUSblog case page). At issue is a California administrative rule requiring non-profit organizations that wish to solicit tax deductible contributions in the state to file an annual report that includes an unredacted IRS Form 990 Schedule B. That Schedule contains the names and contributions of significant donors. Petitioners argue that disclosure subjects donors to dangers of hate mail and retaliation. Thomas More Law Center describes its mission, in part, as preserving America’s Judeo-Christian heritage and defending the religious freedom of Christians. This post will be updated with a link to the transcript of the oral arguments when it becomes available later today.

Here are links to the audio and transcript of the full arguments.

Virginia GOP Rejects Rule Change To Allow Absentee Voting For Religious Reasons In Upcoming Saturday Convention

Washington Post reports that in a vote last Thursday, Virginia's Republican State Central Committee refused to amend its rules to allow observant Jews and others with religious objections to vote absentee in the upcoming Saturday, May 8, nominating convention for governor and two other statewide offices. While a narrow majority favored the change, rules required a 75% vote to change party rules. Those who opposed the change said that the issue was raised too close to the election date. The request was made in a letter from four rabbis earlier this month. The absentee option is already available for active-duty military. [Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]

Cutoff of Pastor's City Council Invocation Did Not Violate 1st Amendment

In Gundy v. City of Jacksonville, Florida, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78850 (MD FL, March 22, 2021)-- decided last month but just available on Lexis-- a Florida federal district court dismissed a suit by a pastor who contended that City Council president Aaron Bowman improperly shut off plaintiff's microphone in the middle of the invocation that he was offering. Finding that plaintiff's 1st Amendment rights were not violated, the court said in part:

First, the Court finds Mr. Bowman's actions were not viewpoint discrimination. Mr. Bowman's comment when interrupting Plaintiff and the subsequent removal of Plaintiff's amplification were for the stated purpose of preserving the invocation for its intended purpose. That purpose, according to the City, was to maintain "a tradition of solemnizing its proceedings . . . for the benefit and blessing of the Council." ...

During his invocation, Plaintiff's remarks were at times objectively disparaging of the City Council and the incumbent administration.... While the remarks might have been entirely appropriate if delivered in a more public forum or even Plaintiff's pulpit, they were subject to the reasonable and viewpoint-neutral limitations set by the City for the invocation period — a nonpublic forum.

Plaintiff has filed an appeal. Florida Politics has additional background on the case.