Religion Clause

Thursday, March 31, 2022

Lipstadt Finally Confirmed As Special Envoy To Combat Antisemitism

Late yesterday, The U.S. Senate by voice vote confirmed Prof. Deborah Lipstadt to be Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism, with the rank of Ambassador. The Forward reports on the Senate's action. Confirmation has been held up for months, largely because of concerns by Foreign Relations Committee member Ron Johnson about tweets from Lipstadt last March critical of him. (See prior posting.)

Arizona Governor Signs Bills On Transgender Issues And Abortion

As described in a press release from the Governor's office, yesterday Arizona Governor Doug Ducey signed the following bills into law:

Senate Bill 1138, sponsored by Sen. Warren Petersen, delays irreversible gender reassignment surgery until the age of 18. The bill does not prohibit puberty blocking hormones or any other hormone therapy and will not require any child to go off any prescriptions they may be taking....

The Governor also signed S.B. 1165, sponsored by Sen. Nancy Barto. This legislation requires all Arizona public schools, and any private schools that compete against them, to expressly designate their interscholastic athletics teams based on the biological sex of the participating students....

Continuing Arizona’s commitment to protecting preborn children, the Governor also signed S.B. 1164, sponsored by Sen. Nancy Barto. The bill prohibits a physician from performing an abortion past 15 weeks gestation, except in a medical emergency....

Women who received an abortion after 15 weeks may not be prosecuted.

NBC News reports on these developments.

No Title VII Violation In Denying Hospital Employee 7 Days Off For Jewish Holiday Observance

In Wagner v. Saint Joseph's/ Candler Health Systems, Inc., (SD GA, March 28, 2022), a Georgia federal district court held that a hospital did not violate Title VII when it fired an Orthodox Jewish admissions notification specialist for taking off four days, in addition to the three days that were approved, to observe the Fall Jewish holidays. The court said in part:

The evidence shows that, due to the unique nature of Wagner’s job, accommodating her request would have required her supervisors and fellow employees ... to perform Wagner’s job for seven days over a seventeen-workday period. The parties agree that Wagner’s job was “time-sensitive” and that there were financial ramifications for the Hospital if Wagner (or whoever was performing her job) failed to notify insurance companies of inpatient stays involving one of their insureds within twenty-four hours.... Wagner also concedes that if the Hospital were to have granted her seven days off to observe the October High Holidays, [fellow employees] ... would have had to bear an additional workload, which would have taken them away from their own jobs....

This evidence suggests that the Hospital would have—and ultimately did— endure more than a de minimis cost in order to accommodate Wagner’s request to miss seven days of work to observe the October High Holidays.

11th Circuit Grants Limited Stay Of Injunction Against Navy's Vaccine Mandate

In Navy SEAL 1 v. Secretary of the U.S. Department of Defense, (11th Cir., March 30, 2022), the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals granted a limited stay of a Florida district court's preliminary injunction granted to two service members who objected on religious grounds to complying with the military's COVID vaccine mandate. The court allowed the Navy to consider the plaintiffs’ vaccination status in making deployment, assignment, and other operational decisions while appeals are pending. However the court refused to stay the injunction more broadly. Liberty Counsel issued a press release announcing the decision.

Wednesday, March 30, 2022

Ban On Proselytizing At City Farmers Market Violates Free Speech Rights

In Denton v. City of El Paso, (WD TX, March 29, 2022), a Texas federal magistrate judge concluded that plaintiff's free speech rights were violated by a policy of the city whose Museums and Cultural Affairs Department refused to allow Plaintiff to proselytize at the Downtown Art and Farmers Market. The city's policy barred First Amendment expression and religious proselytizing within and during the Market. The magistrate judge recommended granting of nominal damages and injunctive relief.

European Court Says Refusal To Register Jehovah's Witnesses Violates ECHR

In Christian Religious Organization of Jehovah's Witnesses in the NKR v. Armenia, (ECHR, March 22, 2022), the European Court of Human Rights held that refusal by Nagorno Karabakh to register Jehovah's Witnesses as a religious organization amounts to a violation by Armenia of Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights. [Thanks to Law & Religion UK for the lead.]

Tuesday, March 29, 2022

District Court Issues Class-Wide Injunction To Navy SEALS Vaccine Objectors

In U.S. Navy SEALs 1-26 v. Austin, (ND TX, March 28, 2022), a Texas federal district court granted a class-wide preliminary injunction to 4,095 Navy servicemembers who object on religious grounds to the Navy's COVID-19 vaccine mandate and have filed religious accommodation requests. The court also certified two sub-classes. However, the court immediately stayed the injunction "insofar as it precludes the Navy from considering respondents’ vaccination status in making deployment, assignment, and other operational decisions." This decision expands the court's previous grant of a preliminary injunction to 35 individual plaintiffs into a class-wide injunction. That order was stayed, pending appeal, by the Supreme Court, insofar as it barred the Navy from considering the COVID vaccination status of the service members in making deployment, assignment and operational decisions. (See prior posting.) Liberty Counsel issued a press release announcing the decision.

Monday, March 28, 2022

Certiorari Denied In Synagogue Picketing Case

Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court denied review in Brysk v. Herskovitz, (Docket No. 21-1024, certiorari denied 3/21/2022). (Order List). In the case, the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed a suit by synagogue members against anti-Israel pickets who have picketed services at the Beth Israel Synagogue in Ann Arbor, Michigan every week since 2003. A majority held that the picketers were protected by the First Amendment. (See prior posting).

11th Circuit Rejects Preacher's Challenge To Campus Permit Requirement

In Keister v. Bell, (11th Cir., March 25, 2022), the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected a challenge to the University of Alabama's policy that requires a permit in order for a speaker to participate in expressive conduct on University grounds, with an exception for “casual recreational or social activities.” The challenge was brought by a traveling evangelical preacher who, with a friend, set up a banner, passed out religious literature and preached through a megaphone on a campus sidewalk. The court concluded that the sidewalk was a limited public forum, even if it was technically owned by the city rather than the University. Thus the University could impose reasonable, viewpoint neutral restrictions. It also concluded that the exception for "casual ... activities" was not unconstitutionally vague and that the University's advance notice requirement was constitutional.

Iowa Adopts IHRA Definition Of Antisemitism

On March 23, Iowa Governor Kim Reynolds signed HF 2220 (full text) which provides that in the enforcement of state anti-discrimination laws, in determining whether an act was undertaken with antisemitic intent, the state shall take into consideration the definition of antisemitism adopted in 2016 by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance.

Governor Reynolds also signed HF2373 (full text) which expanded the definition of "company" in the state's Israel Anti-boycott law.

KCRG News reported on the governor's actions.

Sunday, March 27, 2022

No Qualified Immunity For Requiring Patient To Attend Religious Service

In Erie v. Hunter, (MD LA, March 23, 2022), a Louisiana federal district court rejected a qualified immunity defense raised by a psychiatric aide employed by a state mental health facility. Plaintiff, who had been civilly committed to the facility, contended that he was forced to attend a Christian religious service. He sued for damages, alleging an Establishment Clause violation. Defendant argued that she was the only aide on the ward and could not leave any patient in their room with no one on duty. Therefore she was faced with the choice of requiring plaintiff to attend or prohibiting all patients on the ward from attending. The court said in part:

Defendant contends that she exercised "fair and reasonable judgment in ensuring the safety and security of the residents under her care while also allowing those residents who wish to attend the service to do so."...

This argument fails on multiple levels. First, the "clearly established" prong of the qualified immunity analysis does not measure the reasonableness of a defendant's actions against the circumstances presented; rather, it measures the reasonableness of the defendant's actions against the "state of the law" at the time the defendant acted....

Second, assuming for present purposes that Defendant only had two options available to her, she nonetheless chose the option that favored religion.... Ultimately, whether Defendant's choice to force Plaintiffs attendance at the religious service violated the Establishment Clause's guarantee of religious neutrality will turn on whether she acted with the ostensible and predominant purpose of advancing religion." ...

[W]hile Defendant's motive/intent may ultimately bear on the outcome of Plaintiffs Establishment Clause claims—particularly if those motives are consistent with the state's interest in maintaining safety of all ELMHS residents—such issues cannot be determined from the allegations of Plaintiffs complaint and require factual development through discovery.

[Thanks to Glenn Katon for the lead.]

Saturday, March 26, 2022

Supreme Court Stays District Court's Ban On Navy Applying Vaccine Mandate To SEALs With Religious Objections

Yesterday in Austin v. U.S. Navy Seals 1-26, (Sup.Ct., March 25, 2022), in a case on its shadow docket, the U.S. Supreme Court by a vote of 6-3 stayed a Texas district court's order that barred the Navy from considering the COVID vaccination status of 35 service members in making deployment, assignment and operational decisions. The service members all have religious objections to the vaccines. The Court's stay remains in effect while appeals to the 5th Circuit and, subsequently if necessary, to the Supreme Court are pending. The stay was granted through an unsigned one-paragraph order. However, Justice Kavanaugh filed a concurring opinion, saying in part:

[T]he District Court, while no doubt well-intentioned, in effect inserted itself into the Navy’s chain of command, overriding military commanders’ professional military judgments. The Court relied on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act... But even accepting that RFRA applies in this particular military context, RFRA does not justify judicial intrusion into military affairs in this case. That is because the Navy has an extraordinarily compelling interest in maintaining strategic and operational control over the assignment and deployment of all Special Warfare personnel—including control over decisions about military readiness. And no less restrictive means would satisfy that interest in this context.

Justice Thomas dissented without opinion. Justice Alito, joined by Justice Gorsuch, filed a dissenting opinion, which concluded that the Navy had not satisfied the requirements of RFRA or the 1st Amendment. However, the opinion would grant limited relief to the Navy while appeals are pending. The opinion said in part:

While I am not sure that the Navy is entitled to any relief at this stage, I am also wary, as was the District Court, about judicial interference with sensitive military decision making. Granting a substantial measure of deference to the Navy, I would limit the [district court's] order to the selection of the Special Warfare service members who are sent on missions where there is a special need to minimize the risk that the illness of a member due to COVID–19 might jeopardize the success of the mission or the safety of the team members.

NBC News reports on the decision. [Thanks to Joshua Sarnoff via Religionlaw for the lead.]

Friday, March 25, 2022

Michigan City Violated RLUIPA In Applying Special Requirements On Places Of Worship

In United States v. City of Troy, (ED MI, March 18, 2022), a Michigan federal district court enjoined the city of Troy, Michigan from enforcing its zoning ordinance that imposes stricter setback and parking standards on places of worship than it does on non-religious uses in the same zoning district. The Zoning Board of Appeal refused to grant a variance from these requirements to the Islamic Adam Community Center. The court held that the city had violated the "equal terms" provisions of RLUIPA, saying in part:

While it may be true that places of worship do cause some of the negative impacts to which Troy refers—a high number of visitors, traffic influxes during short periods of time, safety considerations due to increased traffic, and nuisances such as increased noise, light, or exhaust fumes—Troy fails to provide evidence as to how exactly these concerns are unique with respect to places of worship and not similar institutions such as schools or banquet halls.

The court also concluded that the city had violated the "substantial burden" provisions of RLUIPA. [Thanks to John Kulesz for the lead.]

DHS Issues New Interim Final Rule On Asylum Application Procedures

Yesterday, in a 512-page Release (full text), the Department of Homeland Security adopted an Interim Final Rule (IFR) on procedures for deciding on applications for asylum. It summarized the new rule in part as follows:

The principal purpose of this IFR is to simultaneously increase the promptness, efficiency, and fairness of the process by which noncitizens who cross the border without appropriate documentation are either removed or, if eligible, granted protection. The IFR accomplishes this purpose both by instituting a new process for resolving the cases of noncitizens who have been found to have a credible fear of persecution or torture and by facilitating the use of expedited removal for more of those who are eligible, and especially for populations whose detention presents particular challenges.

Suit Says Border Agents Questioned Muslims About Their Religious Practices

Suit was filed yesterday in a California federal district court by three Muslim Americans who claim that they were asked religiously intrusive questions by U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents upon their return from international travel. Among the questions were: “How often do you pray?” “Do you attend mosque?” “Which mosque do you attend?” “Are you Sunni or Shi’a?” The complaint (full text) in Kariye v. Mayorkas, (CD CA, filed 3/24/2022), contends in part:

Religious questioning such as this violates the U.S. Constitution. It furthers no valid—let alone compelling—government interest, and it is an affront to the First Amendment freedoms of religion and association. Moreover, because Defendants specifically target Muslim Americans for such questioning, they also violate the First and Fifth Amendments’ protections against unequal treatment on the basis of religion. Just as border officers may not single out Christian Americans to ask what denomination they are, which church they attend, and how regularly they pray, singling out Muslim Americans for similar questions is unconstitutional....

This practice also violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

Wall Street Journal reports on the lawsuit.

Thursday, March 24, 2022

Supreme Court Says Pastor Should Be Allowed To Pray Audibly And Lay Hands On Prisoner Being Executed

In Ramirez v. Collier, (Sup.Ct., March 24, 2022), the U.S. Supreme court in n 8-1 decision held that a death row prisoner was likely to succeed in his RLUIPA lawsuit challenging limits on his pastor's activities in the execution chamber. The Court held that petitioner is entitled to a preliminary injunction barring Texas from proceeding with his execution without permitting his pastor, during the execution, to lay hands on the prisoner and audibly pray with him. Chief Justice Roberts majority opinion said in part:

First, prison officials say that absolute silence is necessary in the execution chamber so they can monitor the inmate’s condition through a microphone suspended overhead. They say that audible prayer might impede their ability to hear subtle signs of trouble or prove distracting during an emergency.... But respondents fail to show that a categorical ban on all audible prayer is the least restrictive means of furthering their compelling interests....

Second, prison officials say that if they allow spiritual advisors to pray aloud during executions, the opportunity “could be exploited to make a statement to the witnesses or officials, rather than the inmate.” ... But there is no indication in the record that Pastor Moore would cause the sorts of disruptions that respondents fear...

Respondents’ categorical ban on religious touch in the execution chamber fares no better.... Under Texas’s current protocol, spiritual advisors stand just three feet from the gurney in the execution chamber.... A security escort is posted nearby, ready to intervene if anything goes awry.... We do not see how letting the spiritual advisor stand slightly closer, reach out his arm, and touch a part of the prisoner’s body well away from the site of any IV line would meaningfully increase risk.

Justices Sotomayor and Kavanaugh each filed a concurring opinion. Justice Thomas filed a 23-page dissent, saying in part:

Petitioner John Henry Ramirez stabbed Pablo Castro 29 times during a robbery that netted $1.25. Castro bled to death in a parking lot. Since that day, Ramirez has manufactured more than a decade of delay to evade the capital sentence lawfully imposed by the State of Texas. This Court now affords yet another chance for him to delay his execution. Because I think Ramirez’s claims either do not warrant equitable relief or are procedurally barred, I respectfully dissent.

CNN reports on the decision.

Idaho Governor Signs A Heartbeat Abortion Ban

Yesterday, Idaho Governor Brad Little signed Senate Bill 1309, the Fetal Heartbeat Preborn Child Protection Act (full text). While news media report that the law is modeled on Texas SB8, there are differences between the two laws. Like the Texas law, SB 1309 prohibits abortions after a fetal heartbeat can be detected-- generally 6 weeks, and provides for private enforcement. However the Idaho law has an exception for rape or incest (if reported to law enforcement authorities) or for medical emergencies. The Texas law only excepts medical emergency. Under the Idaho law, a private enforcement action may be brought only by the father, grandparent, sibling, aunt or uncle of the pre-born child. They may sue for actual damages plus statutory damages of $20,000. Under the Texas law, anyone (other than a state or local official) may sue. Under the Idaho law, criminal penalties and license suspensions for health care professionals who violate the law are triggered "thirty (30) days following the issuance of the judgment in any United States appellate court case in which the appellate court upholds a restriction or ban on abortion for a pre-born child because a detectable heartbeat is present on the grounds that such restriction or ban does not violate the United States constitution."

Mandatory LGBTQ Anti-Discrimination Training Did Not Violate Title VII

In Zdunski v. Erie 2-Chautauqua-Cattaraugus BOCES, (WD NY, Feb. 16, 2022), a New York federal district court dismissed Title VII and state law religious discrimination claims brought by Raymond Zdunski, an account clerk at the Board of Cooperative Educational Services. BOCES required all of its employees to attend LGBTQ anti-discrimination training after one of its employees requested accommodation for gender transition. Zdunski refused, contending that the training was aimed at changing his religious beliefs on gender and sexuality and that attending would violate his religious beliefs. He was fired for insubordination. The court said in part:

Mr. Zdunski has not presented any evidence that the trainings were directed toward him or other Christian employees in a discriminatory manner....

Here, Mr. Zdunski's proposed accommodation—that he be excused from the mandatory LGBTQ anti-discrimination training—amounts to more than a de minimis cost to his employer's business operations. BOCES is bound by New York State law to provide annual anti-discrimination trainings for all employees and to maintain "an environment free of discrimination and harassment." See N.Y. Educ. Law Tit. 1 Art. 2 §§ 10, 13. Allowing Mr. Zdunski's requested accommodation to forego anti-discrimination trainings would have put his employer in the position of violating the training requirements set forth in DASA. An accommodation that would require an employer to run afoul of state law constitutes a substantial hardship and would be more than a de minimis cost to the employer.

No RLUIPA Or Free Exercise Violation In Denying Sewer Service To Proposed Church Building

In Canaan Christian Church v. Montgomery County Maryland, (4th Cir., March 22, 2022), the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals held that Montgomery County did not violate a church's rights under RLUIPA or the 1st Amendment when it refused to extend public sewer lines to properties on which the church proposed to construct a new larger building for its congregation. The land use and water plans covering the properties provided that no public sewer service would be permitted (except for public health requirements). The church's purchase contracts for the properties were contingent on the county's approval of sewer service. The court said in part:

Because Appellants were well aware of the difficulties in development of the Property when they entered into the contract to purchase the Property, they could not have a reasonable expectation of religious land use. Further, the land use restrictions are rationally related to the government’s interest in protecting the region’s watershed.

A concurring opinion by Judge Richardson took issue with some of the analysis in the majority opinion.