Texas' Claim Against HHS Over Pharmacy Guidance Dismissed As Moot

In State of Texas v. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, (WD TX, April 5, 2024), a Texas federal district court dismissed as moot a challenge to an HHS Guidance Document for pharmacies. Initially, HHS issued Guidance reminding retail pharmacies of their non-discrimination obligations. The state of Texas and a pharmacy sued contending that the Guidance required Texas pharmacies to dispense abortion-inducing drugs in violation of Texas law and in violation of religious beliefs of plaintiff pharmacy. HHS denied this and moved for dismissal of the complaint. The court disagreed. The court now describes that decision by saying in part:

So based on the suspicion that Defendants were “smurfing” the administration’s policy goal contrary to the Supreme Court’s holding in Dobbs, the Court shot down Defendants’ motion. [See prior posting.]

Three months after the court refused to dismiss the suit, HHS issued a revised Guidance which explicitly provided that the Guidance does not require pharmacies to fill prescriptions for the purpose of abortions. The court went on:

[D]espite the textual changes, which appear crafted specifically to capitulate to Plaintiffs’ claims, Plaintiffs remain unpersuaded....

Plainly put, Plaintiffs’ concern is that anyone—pregnant or not—can walk into a pharmacy with a prescription for methotrexate, which the pharmacy must fill under every circumstance because the prescription was lawfully prescribed for a non-abortion purpose like rheumatoid arthritis. It’s not an unreasonable concern....

From the Court’s perspective, it’s hard to account for the Revised Guidance’s plain text, Defendants’ reasons for issuing the Revised Guidance, and Defendants’ in-person statements, but then still conclude that Plaintiffs will be forced to dispense drugs for abortion purposes. Indeed, it seems the only way the Court could even “reasonably expect” that Plaintiffs’ alleged injury would occur at this point would be for the Court to disregard all of Defendants’ actions as deceptive litigation posturing.  

To be sure, that argument appeals to the Court’s healthy distrust for the fourth branch of government. But there is no evidence that Defendants have tried to enforce these “obligations” against Mayo or any pharmacy in Texas in the almost two years since the  Pharmacy Guidance was issued. ...

Plaintiffs have received everything they asked for; they should take the win. As a result, the issues are now moot and the Court lacks jurisdiction.

ADF issued a press release reacting to the decision.

2nd Circuit: Plaintiffs Lack Standing to Challenge Zoning Law That Accommodates Jewish Worship Sites

In Citizens United to Protect Our Neighborhoods v. Village of Chestnut Ridge, New York, (2d Cir., April 5, 2024), the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals held that neither the organizational nor the individual plaintiffs had standing to bring an Establishment Clause challenge to the Village's 2019 zoning law applicable to places of worship.  According to the court:

... [A]t the urging of the Orthodox Jewish Coalition of Chestnut Ridge ..., the Village began the process of amending its zoning laws so that places of worship could more easily be built in Village neighborhoods, accommodating the need of Orthodox Jewish observers “to pray within walking distance of their homes.”...

In sum, even if it could be argued that the challenged law improperly promotes religion, Plaintiffs point to no cognizable harm that is actual or imminent.  They claim that the Village spent tax money in passing the law yet fail to allege how those funds were anything more than a routine use of the Village’s planning budget....  They claim that they will be directly exposed to newly authorized religious structures without asserting that they have even seen one of those structures or when and where they might ever do so in the future.  And while they contend that the law denies them the same opportunity as religious groups to host large gatherings, they do not assert that they have any particular interest in holding such events....  Ultimately, even if Plaintiffs have a sincere objection to the challenged law, our Article III standing doctrine requires them to first establish a real stake in their challenge before bringing it in federal court.

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Michael P. Foran, Discrimination and Manifestation of Belief: Higgs v Farmor's School [2023] EAT 89, (Industrial Law Journal, Forthcoming).
• Jack M. Balkin, Rabbi Akiva and the Crowns: A Parable of Constitutional Fidelity, (Boston University Law Review, Forthcoming).
• Jaan Islam, Islamic History (tārīkh) and Civilization in the Tas-heel Curriculum, (March 5, 2024).

From SmartCILP:

• Thomas D. Howes, Religion as a Basic Human Good, [Abstract], 66 American Journal of Jurisprudence 239-268 (2021).
• Marc O. DeGirolami, Book Review. The End of the Affair. Post-Liberal Religious Liberty: Forming Communities of Charity, by Joel Harrison, [Abstract], 66 American Journal of Jurisprudence. 409-414 (2021).
• Ryan Houser & Andres Constantin, COVID-19, Religious Freedom and the Law: The United States' Case, 49 American Journal of Law & Medicine 24-40 (2023).

Religiously Motivated Aid for Drug Abusers Not Protected by RFRA or 1st Amendment

In United States v. Safehouse, (ED PA, April 3, 2024), a Pennsylvania federal district court held that neither the Religious Freedom Restoration Act nor the Free Exercise Clause of the 1st Amendment is violated by prosecuting Safehouse for violating 21 USC §856 (Maintaining Drug-Involved Premises). Safehouse is a nonprofit corporation that plans to open a safe injection site for those struggling with opioid abuse. Its founders were religiously motivated, but the corporation's articles do not set out any religious purpose. The court said in part:

Here, the organizers and leaders of Safehouse profess religious motivation, but the work of Safehouse itself is in no respect religious....

As an entity unaffiliated with any specific faith or religious institution, Safehouse claims protection for its non-religious actions, based solely upon the religious motivation of its founders.  Neither RFRA nor the free exercise clause extends that far, as religion cannot provide a “limitless excuse for avoiding all unwanted obligations.” ...  That is necessarily so, because “‘the very concept of ordered liberty precludes allowing’ [a plaintiff], or any other person, a blanket privilege ‘to make his own standards on matters of conduct in which society as a whole has important interests.’”...  The noble intentions of Safehouse and its founders are self-evident, and the public health crisis they seek to address continues unabated, but their religious inspiration does not provide a shield against prosecution for violation of a federal criminal statute barring its operation.

WHYY News reports on the decision.

Indiana Appeals Court: Plaintiffs' Religious Rights Are Violated by State's Abortion Restrictions

In Individual Members of the Medical Licensing Board of Indiana v. Anonymous Plaintiff 1, (IN App., April 4, 2024), an Indiana state appellate court held that plaintiffs are entitled to a preliminary injunction in their suit claiming that the state's Religious Freedom Restoration Act is violated when they are prohibited by Indiana's abortion law from obtaining an abortion that their religious beliefs direct them to obtain. However, the court found that the injunction entered by the trial court was broader than just protecting plaintiffs' religious rights and sent the case back for the trial court to tailor its injunction more narrowly. The court said in part:

The State has provided little authority—and none that we find persuasive—to support the more restrictive view that religious exercise does not encompass the pregnancy terminations at issue here.... If a corporation can engage in a religious exercise by refusing to provide abortifacients—contraceptives that essentially abort a pregnancy after fertilization—it stands to reason that a pregnant person can engage in a religious exercise by pursuing an abortion....

... [W]e need look no further than the language of the Abortion Law to determine that the General Assembly does not view the State’s compelling interest as beginning at fertilization. The Abortion Law exempts in vitro fertilization procedures from its scope, although there is the potential for life that might be destroyed in the process of this procedure.... That broad exemption suggests any compelling interest by the State is absent at fertilization. Beyond that, the Abortion Law expressly permits abortions at all stages of gestation provided certain express requirements are met.... The Abortion Law allows a conditional right to abortions “to prevent any serious health risk to the pregnant woman or to save the pregnant woman’s life.” ... This amounts to an exception to the Abortion Law’s prohibitions based on a prioritization of the pregnant woman’s health over the survival of the zygote, embryo, or fetus. But that is the same sort of prioritization reflected in the Plaintiffs’ religious beliefs, albeit on a different scale....

Thus, the broader religious exemption that Plaintiffs effectively seek has the same foundation as the narrower exceptions already existing in the Abortion Law: all are based on the interests of the mother outweighing the interests of the zygote, embryo, or fetus. The religious exemption that Plaintiffs seek, based on their sincere religious beliefs, merely expands the circumstances in which the pregnant woman’s health dictates an abortion....

The State asserts the injunction is so broad that it enjoins future government action that may not violate RFRA.... Plaintiffs’ response is that the preliminary injunction should be interpreted more narrowly because Plaintiffs never sought such broad relief.

Judge May concurred without a separate opinion and Judge Bailey filed a concurring opinion. Indiana Capital Chronicle reports on the decision. [Thanks to Thomas Rutledge for the lead.]

Australian State Enacts Elaborate Conversion Therapy Baan

In the Australian state of New South Wales, with assent by the Governor on April 3, the Conversion Practices Ban Bill 2024 became law, effective in April 2025. The new law bans treatments or efforts to change or suppress a person's sexual orientation or gender identity where the treatment or efforts cause substantial mental or physical harm or endanger an individual's life. Violations may be punished with up to 5 years in prison. The law however includes a number of specific examples of both gender-affirming treatment and religious expression that are not prohibited. It provides in part:

A conversion practice does not include— (a) a health service or treatment provided by a registered health practitioner that— (i)  the registered health practitioner has assessed as clinically appropriate ... and (ii) complies with all relevant legal, professional and ethical requirements,

Examples ... [are]  • genuinely assisting an individual who is exploring the individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity or considering or undergoing a gender transition • genuinely assisting an individual who is receiving care and treatment related to the individual’s gender identity • genuinely advising an individual about the potential impacts of gender affirming medical treatment.

(b) genuinely facilitating an individual’s coping skills, development or identity exploration to meet the individual’s needs, including by providing acceptance, support or understanding to the individual, or

(c) the following expressions if the expression is not part of a practice, treatment or sustained effort, directed to changing or suppressing an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity— (i) an expression, including in prayer, of a belief or principle, including a religious belief or principle, (ii) an expression that a belief or principle ought to be followed or applied.

(4) To avoid doubt, the following are examples of what does not constitute a conversion practice under this section— (a) stating what relevant religious teachings are or what a religion says about a specific topic, (b)  general requirements in relation to religious orders or membership or leadership of a religious community, (c) general rules in educational institutions, (d)  parents discussing matters relating to sexual orientation, gender identity, sexual activity or religion with their children.

The law also sets out an elaborate civil complaint structure. Unlike most statutes passed by U.S. jurisdictions, the Australian law appears to apply to adults as well as to minors. Law & Religion Australia reports on the new law.

Texas Man Sentenced To 37 Years in Muslim Hate Crime Murder

A Department of Justice press release reports that yesterday a Texas federal district court sentenced a defendant to 37 years in prison (with credit for time served before sentencing) for a mass shooting at a Dallas car repair business. Thirty-nine year old Anthony Paz Torres had pleaded guilty to five federal hate crime counts. DOJ explains:

 According to court documents, Torres admitted that a few days prior to the shooting, he went to Omar’s Wheels and Tires, made anti-Muslim comments, and pledged that he would come back. When he returned to the business on Dec. 24, 2015, Torres asked customers if they were Muslim. After being escorted back to his vehicle by Omar’s Wheels and Tires employees, Torres discharged his firearm in the direction of multiple employees and customers. Torres admitted that he killed one person and attempted to kill four other people at Omar’s Wheels and Tires because he believed that they were Muslim. 

Uganda Constitutional Court Upholds Most of Anti-Homosexuality Act; Mandatory Reporting of Homosexuality Invalidated

In Odoi-Oywelowo v. Attorney General, (Const. Ct. Uganda, April 3, 2024), Uganda's Constitutional Court in a unanimous 203-page opinion upheld the constitutionality of most of the country's Anti-Homosexuality Act, 2023. The Act bans homosexuality and the promotion of homosexuality and contains various enforcement provisions. Plaintiffs contended that the law violated a number of provisions of the Ugandan Constitution, including protections of human dignity, equality, privacy and expression. While upholding most of the law, the court struck down provisions that punish unintentional transmission of HIV and provisions prohibiting leasing or allowing of premises to be used for homosexuality. It also found that Section 14 of the Act that imposed a duty to report homosexuality and gave immunity to a person who reports it in violation of a privilege violates the constitutional rights to health, privacy and freedom of religion. That provision would have presumably required clergy who learn of homosexuality in privileged conversations to report it. Reuters reports on the decision.

Iowa Enacts Religious Freedom Restoration Act

Yesterday Iowa Governor Kim Reynolds signed SF 2095, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. (Governor's press release.) (Full text of Act.) It provides in part:

State action shall not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, unless the government demonstrates that applying the burden to that person's exercise of religion is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest and is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.

The Gazette reports on the bill.

Inmates Sue Claiming Religious Need to Watch Solar Eclipse

Suit was filed last week in a New York federal district court by six inmates at the Woodbourne Correctional Facility in Sullivan County, New York seeking to enjoin a 3-hour statewide prison lock down scheduled for April 8 that will prevent inmates from viewing the solar eclipse.  Plaintiffs are Christian, Muslim, Santerian and Atheist. The complaint (full text) in Zielinski v. New York Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, (ND NY, filed 3/29/2024), alleges that plaintiffs "have each expressed a sincerely held religious belief that April’s solar eclipse is a religious event that they must witness and reflect on to observe their faiths." The complaint sets out the nature of each plaintiff's religious belief. It alleges that the lock down violates plaintiffs' rights under RLUIPA, the Free Exercise and the Equal Protection Clauses. CBS News reports on the lawsuit.

UPDATE: AP, April 5, reports:

Thomas Mailey, a spokesperson for the corrections department, said the department has agreed to permit the six individuals to view the eclipse, while plaintiffs have agreed to drop their suit with prejudice.

Fraud and Negligence Claims Move Ahead Against Church Over Mistreatment of Members

In Ramirez v. World Mission Society, Church of God, (D NJ, April 1, 2024), plaintiff brought suit in a New Jersey federal district court against various defendants, including a church and its Pastor, for fraud, intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligence. Plaintiff claims that she was pressured into joining defendant Church, in part through concealment of the identity of the Church's leader. She was further coerced into donating 10% of her income to the church based on misrepresentations that the donations would be used for charitable purposes rather than salaries. The Church indoctrinated its members so that they would work long hours at low pay. It alienated plaintiff from her family and friends, and told members they could not have children which led plaintiff to get an abortion and subsequently attempt suicide. The court dismissed many of the claims because elements were not adequately pleaded. Only a claim against the Church and its Pastor for intentional fraud based on false representations and a claim for negligence against the Church survived defendants' motion to dismiss.

Satanic Temple Can Move Ahead with Establishment Clause Challenge to Its Treatment by City Council

In The Satanic Temple v. The City of Chicago, (ND IL, March 31, 2024), an Illinois federal district court held that The Satanic Temple ("TST") had alleged enough to move ahead on its claim that the city had violated the Establishment Clause by constantly delaying for over three years a request by a TST clergyman to deliver an invocation at a Chicago City Council meeting.  The court said in part:

The Establishment Clause requires that the City treat Vavrick the same as it would any other clergy member from any other religion. Assuming, therefore, that the City has not scheduled Vavrick to give an invocation because of his religious beliefs, such practice violates the Establishment Clause.

The court however dismissed plaintiffs' free speech claim finding that plaintiffs had not plausibly alleged that City Council invocations are anything other than government speech. It also refused to grant a preliminary injunction.

Suit For Misappropriating Church Funds Not Precluded by Church Autonomy Doctrine

In Buck v. Peace Apostolic Church, Inc., (CA Super. Ct., March 8, 2024), a California trial court rejected the contention that the church autonomy or ecclesiastical abstention doctrine precludes the court from adjudicating a claim that two church officers and directors improperly spent church funds.  The court said in part:

The First Amendment does not immunize the Church or the individual defendants from illegal acts that apply equally to everyone, religious or not. The Plaintiffs alleged and proved that Defendants committed fraud and engaged in false advertising. Defendants solicited donations from the public promising that “no part of the income or assets of this corporation shall ever inure to the benefit of any director, officer, or member thereof or to the benefit of any private person.”... Prince used her position in the church and the representations made by her and by the church to enrich herself. While Brown did not enrich herself, she facilitated the enrichment of her son, Howard Woods. The defendants cannot take money based on a representation that it would be used for charitable purposes and church mission and use it for personal benefit. That's not internal church governance. That's fraud. The activities that occurred in that case are not protected by the First Amendment.... 

On December 19, 2023, the Court ordered injunctive relief. In part, PAC was ordered to post warnings that read “WARNING: A Jury has found that Tamara Swancy-Prince, Priscilla Woods Brown and Peace Apostolic Church have improperly misappropriated donations.” PAC objects to the injunction arguing that the Court misapplied the law.... The Court is simply not convinced that similar abuses won’t recur.

Florida Supreme Court Clears Abortion Rights Proposal for November Ballot

 In Advisory Opinion to the Attorney General re: Limiting Government Interference with Abortion, (FL Sup. Ct., April 1, 2024), the Florida Supreme Court, in a 4-3 decision, rejected challenges to placing a proposed abortion rights constitutional amendment on the November ballot. The proposed amendment provides:

Limiting government interference with abortion.—Except as provided in Article X, Section 22, no law shall prohibit, penalize, delay, or restrict abortion before viability or when necessary to protect the patient’s health, as determined by the patient’s healthcare provider.

The court said in part:

We decline to adopt a standard that would effectively vest us with the power to bar an amendment from the ballot because of a supposed ambiguity in the text of the amendment.  We decline to encroach on the prerogative to amend their constitution that the people have reserved to themselves.

Chief Justice Muniz filed a concurring opinion, joined by Justices Canaday and Couriel concur, saying in part:

... [Q]uestions of justice are appropriately at the heart of the voters’ assessment of a proposed amendment like the one under review.  With its reference to the existence of “inalienable rights” in all persons, our constitution’s Declaration of Rights assumes a pre-constitutional, objective moral reality that demands our respect—indeed, a moral order that government exists to protect.  The proposed amendment would constitutionalize restrictions on the people’s authority to use law to protect an entire class of human beings from private harm.  It would cast into doubt the people’s authority even to enact protections that are prudent, compassionate, and mindful of the complexities involved.  Under our system of government, it is up to the voters—not this Court—to decide whether such a rule is consistent with the deepest commitments of our political community.

Justice Grosshans filed a dissenting opinion in which Justic Sasso concurs. Justice Francis filed a dissenting opinion. Justice Sasso filed a dissenting opinion in which Justices Grosshans and Francis concur, saying in part:

I agree with the majority that, at a very high level, the voters will understand that this amendment creates a broad right to abortion in Florida.  However, our precedent has consistently required that the summary explain more than the amendment’s general aim.  Indeed, we have said that ballot summaries must explain the “material legal effect,” so that the electorate is advised of the “true meaning, and ramifications, of an amendment” and is thereby “adequately informed.” 

The summary here does none of this.

In a separate decision yesterday, the Florida Supreme Court held that the state Constitution's Privacy Clause does not protect abortion rights. (See prior posting.) Orlando Sentinel reports on the two decisions.

Florida Supreme Court Overrules Cases Holding State Constitution Protects Abortion

In Planned Parenthood of Southwest and Central Florida v. State of Florida, (FL Sup. Ct., April 1, 2024), the Florida Supreme Court in a 6-1 decision receded from (i.e. overruled) its prior decisions that held the Privacy Clause of the Florida Constitution protects the right to abortion. Focusing on the original public meaning of the Privacy Clause that was adopted by Florida voters in 1980, the Court said in part:

The Privacy Clause of the Florida Constitution does not mention abortion or include a word or phrase that clearly incorporates it.  Era-appropriate dictionary definitions and contextual clues suggest that abortion does not naturally fit within the rights at issue.  Reliable historical sources, like the technical meaning of the terms contained in the provision, the origin of the amendment, and the framing of the public debate, similarly do not support a conclusion that abortion should be read into the provision’s text.  Roe is also relevant to our analysis of the public meaning of the Privacy Clause.  But speculation as to Roe’s effect on voter understanding does not overcome the combined force of the substantial evidence we have examined above.  Thus, we cannot conclude that in 1980 a voter would have assumed the text encompassed a polarizing definition of privacy that included broad protections for abortion.

The Court thus rejected Planned Parenthood's suit seeking a temporary injunction against enforcement of Florida's 15-week abortion ban. As the dissent points out, however, the decision also has the effect of triggering in 30 days the effectiveness of the state's 6-week Heartbeat Protection Act. That Act, by its terms, was to take effect if the state Supreme Court held that the state Constitution's right to privacy does not protect abortion, if it allowed the 15-week ban to remain in effect or if the Court receded from any of its prior cases protecting abortion.

Justice Sasso filed a concurring opinion focusing on the issue of standing. Justice Labarga filed a dissenting opinion, saying in part:

The majority concludes that the public understanding of the right of privacy did not encompass the right to an abortion. However, the dominance of Roe in the public discourse makes it inconceivable that in 1980, Florida voters did not associate abortion with the right of privacy.

In a second case decided yesterday, the Florida Supreme Court cleared a proposed constitutional amendment protecting pre-viability abortion rights for placement on the November ballot. (See posting on decision.)  Orlando Sentinel reports on the two decisions.

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Laura Portuondo, Gendered Liberty, (Georgetown Law Journal, Forthcoming).
• Robert W. McGee, Human Rights and Religious Intolerance of Mixed Marriages: A Case Study of Indonesia, (February 26, 2024).
• Marc O. De Girolami, The Death and New Life of Law and Religion, (Oxford Journal of Law and Religion (forthcoming)).
• Stephanie H. Barclay, Constitutional Rights as Protected Reasons, (University of Chicago Law Review, Forthcoming).
• Zalman Rothschild, The Impossibility of Religious Equality, (Columbia Law Review (2024-2025), Forthcoming).
• Gabrielle Girgis, A Strict Scrutiny Regime for Free Exercise Post-Smith, (February 29, 2024). 
• Kimberly L. Wehle, The Ninth Amendment Post-Dobbs: Could Federalism Swallow Unenumerated Rights?, (Maryland Law Review, Vol. 83, No. 3, 2024).
• Martin Katz, Bostock and the Limits of Textualism: A Structuralist Approach, (U Denver Legal Studies Research Paper No. 24-06 (2024)).
• Rebecca E. Zietlow, Constitutional Allies: Abortion Rights, Fugitives from Slavery and the Networks that Support Them, (February 27, 2024).
• Nick Robinson, The Regulation of Foreign Funding of Nonprofits in a Democracy, (Virginia Journal of International Law, Forthcoming).

From SmartCILP:

• Michael J. Broyde & Alexa J. Windsor, Contract Law Should Be Faith Neutral: Reverse Entanglement Would Be Stranglement for Religious Arbitration, 79 N.Y.U. Annual Survey of American Law 17-88 (2023).

Appeals Court Upholds Preliminary Injunctions Against Texas Treating Gender-Affirming Care as Child Abuse

In Abbott v. Doe, (TX App., March 29, 2024), a Texas state appellate court upheld a trial court's preliminary injunction against the state's Department of Family and Protective Services and its Commissioner. The preliminary injunction barred these defendants from taking investigative or enforcement action based on the state Attorney General's Opinion, the Governor's letter and Statement by the Department implementing it that deemed many of the procedures used to treat gender dysphoria to be child abuse. (See prior posting.) The court, concluding that the trial court had not abused its discretion in entering the injunction, said in part:

The injuries Appellees allege, and that the injunction redresses, are that the application or threatened application of the allegedly invalid rule announced in the Department Statement interferes with or impairs the Doe Parents’ right to make imminent decisions about their child’s medical care, Mary’s guarantee of equal rights and equality under law, and Appellees’ rights to due process because the rule is unconstitutionally vague.  See Tex. Const. art. I, §§ 3, 3a, 19....

The temporary injunction specifically precludes the Department from taking action against Appellees based on the rule announced in the Department Statement, which references the Governor’s Directive and the Attorney General’s opinion....  The temporary injunction remedies Appellees’ injuries because it temporarily reinstates Department policies and procedures for screening reports and conducting investigations as they existed prior to February 22, 2022....  At that time, the Department would have applied the same policies and standards to a report concerning gender-affirming medical care as to any other case of suspected child abuse....  Before February 22, 2022, the Department had no rule that categorically deemed the provision of gender-affirming medical care presumptively abusive or required investigation and a disposition for every report of gender-affirming medical care without regard to medical necessity....

In Muth v. Voe, (TX App, March 29, 2024), a second case upholding two temporary injunctions issued by a different state trial court, the appellate court said in part:

We hold that at a minimum the Families have established a probable right to relief on their claim that the Department Statement is an invalid rule because it is a rule within the meaning of the APA and it was adopted without following proper rulemaking procedures.  This claim is sufficient to support the trial court’s temporary injunctions.

Reuters reports on the decision.

President Biden Sends Easter Greetings

The White House today posted a Statement from President Biden (full text) sending Easter greetings to the world's Christians.  The Statement reads:

Jill and I send our warmest wishes to Christians around the world celebrating Easter Sunday. Easter reminds us of the power of hope and the promise of Christ’s Resurrection.

As we gather with loved ones, we remember Jesus’ sacrifice. We pray for one another and cherish the blessing of the dawn of new possibilities. And with wars and conflict taking a toll on innocent lives around the world, we renew our commitment to work for peace, security, and dignity for all people.

From our family to yours, happy Easter and may God bless you.

White House Statements Trigger Partisan Religious Controversy

The confluence this year of the dates for Easter and for the international Transgender Day of Visibility has resulted in an unusual religious controversy.  President Biden issued a Proclamation (full text) designating today as Transgender Day of Visibility, saying in part:

Transgender Americans are part of the fabric of our Nation.  Whether serving their communities or in the military, raising families or running businesses, they help America thrive.  They deserve, and are entitled to, the same rights and freedoms as every other American, including the most fundamental freedom to be their true selves.  But extremists are proposing hundreds of hateful laws that target and terrify transgender kids and their families — silencing teachers; banning books; and even threatening parents, doctors, and nurses with prison for helping parents get care for their children.  These bills attack our most basic American values,,,,

As reported by NBC News, this, along with the terms of a White House Easter Egg design contest for youths from National Guard families has sparked criticism from numerous Republican politicians. The flyer (full text) calling for youths to submit their Easter Egg designs includes in the lengthy instructions the following:

The Submission must not contain material that promotes bigotry, racism, hatred or harm against any group or individual or promotes discrimination based on race, gender, religion, nationality, disability, sexual orientation or age....

The Submission must not include any questionable content, religious symbols, overtly religious themes, or partisan political statements....

A statement yesterday (full text) from the Trump campaign called Biden's Proclamation "blasphemous" and said in part:

Sadly, these are just two more examples of the Biden Administration’s years-long assault on the Christian faith. We call on Joe Biden’s failing campaign and White House to issue an apology to the millions of Catholics and Christians across America who believe tomorrow is for one celebration only — the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Husband's Defamation Action Against Organization Assisting His Wife in Obtaining a Get Is Dismissed

 In Satz v. Organization for the Resolution of Agunot, Inc., (SD NY, March 28, 2024), a New York federal district court dismissed a husband's suit alleging defamation and several other torts brought against an organization that assists Jewish women who have obtained divorces in civil courts but whose husbands refuse to provide them with a Jewish bill of divorce ("Get").  According to the court:

ORA posted on its website a graphic bearing Plaintiff’s picture, labeling him a “GET-REFUSER,” and asserting that “GET REFUSAL IS DOMESTIC ABUSE”.... ORA also posted a copy of a “Psak Din,” a ruling by a rabbinical court, which states that Plaintiff’s “recalcitran[ce]” justifies doing “anything that is not a criminal offense . . . to cause him to comply” with rabbinical court proceedings....

Expressions of opinion are not actionable....  Taken in context, ORA’s statement on the flyer posted on its website that “GET-REFUSAL IS DOMESTIC ABUSE” is not a statement of fact....  In this context, the statement that Get-refusal is domestic abuse clearly is an expression of opinion by an advocacy organization....

Finally, Plaintiff takes issue with the flyer’s statement that “Jewish law forbids” various forms of association with Plaintiff....  [A]djudicating the truth or falsity of ORA’s statement about what “Jewish law forbids,” would impermissibly entangle the Court in an “inquiry . . . into religious law.”...

New York courts also apply a qualified privilege to statements “fairly made by a person in the discharge of some public or private duty, legal or moral.” ... [T]here is a colorable argument that rabbis presiding over Get proceedings are engaged in the discharge of a moral duty and, therefore, the statements in the Psak Din, which ORA republished, are privileged.....

For this Court to adjudicate whether ORA defamed Plaintiff by republishing the Psak Din, the Court would have to determine the truth of the challenged statements in the Psak Din, which would impermissibly entangle the Court in questions of Jewish law.