Religion Clause

Monday, October 21, 2024

Court Enjoins Disciplining of Doctors Performing Certain Abortions in Tennessee

In Blackmon v. State of Tennessee, (TN Chanc. Ct., Oct. 17, 2024), a Tennessee state Chancery Court issued a temporary injunction barring the state from instituting disciplinary proceedings against plaintiff physicians for performing abortions in any of four specified medical situations. The court found that plaintiffs are likely to succeed in their challenges under the right to life, liberty or property and the equal protection clauses of the state constitution and in their vagueness challenge. The court said in part:

The question remains ... whether the Medical Necessity Exception, as currently written, serves a compelling state interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that goal. Given the range of interpretations proffered through the expert declarations ..., the Court finds that the issue of which conditions, and the timing of when they present and escalate to life-threatening conditions, constitute medical emergencies within the Medical Necessity Exception is demonstrably unclear, notwithstanding the “reasonable medical judgment’ of the physician standard set forth in the Exception. This lack of clarity is evidenced by the confusion and lack of consensus within the Tennessee medical community on the circumstances requiring necessary health- and life-saving abortion care. The evidence presented underscores how serious, difficult, and complex these issues are and raises significant questions as to whether the Medical Necessity Exception is sufficiently narrow to serve a compelling state interest....

Plaintiff Patients, as pregnant women, claim they are similarly situated to non-pregnant women who seek and are in need of emergency medical care. Yet because of the criminal abortion statute, pregnant women are treated differently than non-pregnant women because their access to emergency medical care is restricted....

While the court enjoined disciplinary proceedings, it held that it lacked jurisdiction to enjoin enforcement of the state's criminal abortion statute. The Hill reports on the decision. [Thanks to Thomas Rutledge for the lead.]

Lufthansa Fined $4M For Discrimination Against Jewish Passengers Flying On Pilgrimage To Hungary

On Oct. 7, a Consent Cease-and-Desist Order (full text) was issued by the U.S. Department of Transportation imposing civil penalties of $4 million on the air carrier Lufthansa for religious discrimination against Jewish passengers traveling to Budapest in 2022 to participate in the annual pilgrimage to the shrine of the so-called "miracle rabbi" Yeshaya Steiner (known as Rabbi Shayele). (Background). The airline received a credit for $2 million that it had already paid to passengers.

Some 128 identifiably Orthodox Jewish passengers were on a flight from New York, with a connection in Frankfurt to go on to Budapest. They were all barred from boarding the connecting flight in Frankfurt after some 60 of the passengers refused on the first leg of the flight to comply with the Covid-related requirement to wear masks on the flight and some also gathered in aisles and near exits. The DOT Consent Order said in part:

Lufthansa’s decision to affix an HPC [High Priority Comment] to the reservations of nearly every passenger traveling in a group to Budapest without limiting such affixation to those passengers who Lufthansa verified failed to follow crew instructions on LH 401, which did not comport with Lufthansa’s own boarding procedures, directly resulted in the inability of the passengers to travel on the flights they purchased. As such, Lufthansa took action that had an adverse effect on these passengers whose only affiliation with each other was that they were of the same religion and/or ethnicity.

Lufthansa’s actions impacted passengers who did not engage in problematic conduct. OACP finds that, under the totality of the circumstances, Lufthansa’s treatment of the 128 Jewish passengers as a collective group, based on the alleged misconduct of a smaller number of those individuals, constitutes discrimination based on religion in violation of 49 U.S.C. § 40127.

DOT issued a press release announcing the Consent Order. AP reported on the Consent Order. [Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]

Sunday, October 20, 2024

Florida Voters Sue Claiming Invalid Signatures on Abortion Rights Amendment Petitions

Suit was filed last week in a Florida state trial court against election supervisors in 12 Florida counties, as well as against the Secretary of State, other state officials and the sponsors of Amendment 4, a proposed abortion rights amendment that appears on the November Florida ballot. The complaint, brought by four Florida voters, alleges illegal and fraudulent petition signature-gathering efforts. Plaintiffs rely in large part on the Office of Election Crimes and Security's October 2024 Interim Report to Legislature on Initiative Petition Fraud Related to the Abortion Initiative. The complaint (full text) in Hoffman v. Barton, (FL Cir. Ct., filed 10/16/2024), includes 348 pages of exhibits and alleges in part:

186, Because FPF submitted signatures collected on a pay-per-signature basis, the petition process was substantially infected by fraud and corruption. The substantial fraud and corruption that permeated the election process constitutes a basis for the Court to decertify and strike Amendment 4 from the 2024 General Election Ballot or—if this case is not resolved before the election—to enjoin the State Defendants from counting the votes or, if passed, to enjoin the State Defendants from giving effect to votes cast in favor of Amendment 4.

187. Although the Secretary of State has issued a certificate of ballot placement, the certificate does not cure the fraud and corruption that infected the petition process. Moreover, if the 2024 General Election occurs prior to the resolution of this action, passage will similarly not cure the fraud and corruption that resulted in Amendment 4’s passage.

In October, the ACLU responded to the Interim Report, saying in part:

The Secretary of State’s unprecedented and suspiciously-timed report makes nonsensical claims about a few hundred petitions, which would have had no effect on the campaign meeting the statutory requirements. Importantly, the state had an opportunity to file objections to petitions before April, but did not object to the inconsequential petitions for which it is now attempting to sanction and publicly chastise the campaign.

Liberty Counsel issued a press release last week announcing the filing of last week's lawsuit.

Saturday, October 19, 2024

Suit Challenges Oklahoma Bible Education Mandate and Purchase of Bibles

Suit was filed this week by public-school parents, their minor children, teachers, and clergy challenging Oklahoma's recently imposed requirement for all public schools to incorporate the Bible in their curricula. The suit was filed in the Oklahoma Supreme Court asking it to assume original jurisdiction because of the importance and time-sensitiveness of the case. The suit seeks a declaratory judgment, injunction and writ of mandamus providing that the Bible Education Mandate is invalid and unenforceable and seeks orders preventing the purchase of Bibles under the RFP issued by the state. (See prior posting.) The complaint (full text) in Walke v. Walters, (OK Sup. Ct., filed 10/17/2024), alleges in part:

The planned $3 million in spending on Bibles would unlawfully support an invalid rule. The spending is also illegal for a number of other reasons. No statutory or other legislative authority exists for Respondents to spend state funds on curricular materials that they select; rather, their authority is limited to providing state funds to individual school districts that the districts can then spend on texts of their own choice. Respondents intend to spend on the Bibles funds that were designated for other purposes and have not been lawfully reallocated. The Request for Proposal to supply Bibles violates state procurement requirements because it is gerrymandered to favor two particular providers. And religious freedom provisions of Oklahoma’s Constitution—specifically Section 5 of Article II and Section 2 of Article I—prohibit spending state funds on the Bibles, because they are religious items and the spending would support one particular religious tradition.

AP reports on the lawsuit.

Florida Enjoined from Threatening Legal Action Against Broadcasters Airing Pro-Abortion Rights Ads

In Floridians Protecting Freedom, Inc. v. Ladapo, (ND FL, Oct. 17, 2024), a Florida federal district court issued a temporary restraining order barring the head of the Florida Department of Health from continuing to threaten legal proceedings against television stations broadcasting plaintiff's ads which favor Florida's abortion rights amendment that appears on the November ballot. The Department of Health's general counsel sent letters to Florida television stations contending that the ads constituted a sanitary nuisance under Florida Statutes Sec. 386.01. The statute defines a statutory nuisance as anything "by which the health or life of an individual ... may be threatened or impaired." The court said in part:

Plaintiff’s political advertisement is political speech—speech at the core of the First Amendment. And just this year, the United States Supreme Court reaffirmed the bedrock principle that the government cannot do indirectly what it cannot do directly by threatening third parties with legal sanctions to censor speech it disfavors. The government cannot excuse its indirect censorship of political speech simply by declaring the disfavored speech is “false.” “The very purpose of the First Amendment is to foreclose public authority from assuming a guardianship of the public mind through regulating the press, speech, and religion.” ...

By threatening criminal proceedings for broadcasting a “political advertisement claiming that current Florida law does not allow physicians to perform abortions necessary to preserve the lives and health of pregnant women,” ... Defendant has engaged in viewpoint discrimination....

Whether it’s a woman’s right to choose, or the right to talk about it, Plaintiff’s position is the same—“don’t tread on me.” Under the facts of this case, the First Amendment prohibits the State of Florida from trampling on Plaintiff’s free speech.

Wednesday, October 16, 2024

Local Congregation Cannot Sue Parent in Property Dispute After All Its Members Were Excommunicated

Church of God of Crandon v. Church of God, (WI App., Oct. 15, 2024), involved a dispute between a local congregation-- the Crandon Church-- and its parent body, Church of God (COG). The Crandon Church opposed the parent body's decision that the local church would be merged with a congregation in a different location and the Crandon Church property would be sold. Crandon members filed suit against the parent body seeking a declaration confirming its interest in local church building and its bank accounts. In response, the COG Bishop issued a Declaration excommunicating Crandon Church members and then moved to dismiss the lawsuit against COG on the ground that Crandon no longer had any members so that it effectively has ceased to exist and has no interest in Crandon property. The appellate court agreed, saying in part:

... [T]he 1994 warranty deed states that all property—both real and personal—becomes the property of the COG should a “local congregation” “cease to … exist.” The Crandon Church cannot file a lawsuit to obtain an interest in property that it does not own. Because we conclude that the First Amendment prohibits our review of the Declaration, the Crandon Church lacks standing to bring the current lawsuit seeking interests in the property and the CoVantage accounts....

... [A] civil court cannot, under the First Amendment, review: whether the 2018 Minutes [giving the Bishop the authority to excommunicate unruly or uncooperative members] complied with due process or the Bible; what the COG meant by “unruly or uncooperative”; or whether Cushman properly determined that the excommunicated members were “unruly or uncooperative.” Similarly, the First Amendment prohibits a civil court from examining the International Executive Committee’s review of those issues. To hold otherwise “would undermine the general rule that religious controversies are not the proper subject of civil court inquiry.” ... Under the facts of this case, we must defer to the resolution of any ecclesiastical issues by the International Executive Committee, which denied the excommunicated members’ appeal.

Federal Court Refuses to Enjoin Distribution of Notice from Rabbinical Court

In Esses v. Rosen, (ED NY, Oct. 15, 2024), a New York federal district court refused to issue a preliminary injunction barring defendants from disseminating in plaintiff's neighborhood a rabbinical court's notice (a sieruv) that plaintiff has failed to respond to a summons from the rabbinical court. Plaintiff also asked that the seiruv be taken down or removed from places where it had been posted. Plaintiff alleged claims for defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The court said in part:

While plaintiff does not dispute that she brought the claims in this case before a secular court rather than a religious one, she suggests that the seiruv is defamatory because it indicates that her doing so was “improper[].” That statement is nowhere contained in the seiruv itself. But even if the seiruv is read to convey that implication through its reference to plaintiff’s civil filing, the First Amendment would prevent this Court from second-guessing a religious court’s view of impropriety. ...

Plaintiff next claims that the instructional document distributed with the seiruv is defamatory because it falsely conveys “that the rabbis of the beth din were encouraging social ostracism and shaming in this case.” ... In any event, the Establishment Clause would preclude this Court from finding defamation on that ground. To decide whether the instructional document was true or false in its asserted characterization of plaintiff’s seiruv, the Court would be “called upon to inquire into the rules and customs governing rabbinical courts as they are utilized in the Orthodox Jewish religion,”

[Thanks to Volokh Conspiracy for the lead.]

Court Says Indian Penal Code Does Not Punish Insults to Religion That Do Not Outrage Targets

In Kumar v. State of Karnataka, (High Ct. Karnataka, Sept. 13, 2024), a single-judge bench of the High Court of the Indian state of Karnataka gave a narrow interpretation to Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code which prohibits the deliberate and malicious outraging of the religious feelings of any class of citizens. At issue are the acts of two individuals who barged into a mosque and shouted "Jai Sriram" (Glory to Lord Rama). While the perpetrators have not yet been identified by investigators, this suit was filed to quash the ongoing investigation of the incident. Agreeing to quash the investigation, the court said in part:

Section 295A deals with deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs. It is ununderstandable as to how if someone shouts ‘Jai Sriram’ it would outrage the religious feeling of any class. When the complainant himself states that Hindu – Muslims are living in harmony in the area the incident by no stretch of imagination can result in antimony....

The acts that have no effect on bringing out peace or destruction of public order will not lead to an offence under Section 295A of the IPC.

Law Beat reports on the decision.

6th Circuit Finds That Employee's Objections to Covid Testing Were Not Religious

In DeVore v. University of Kentucky Board of Trustees, (6th Cir., Oct. 11, 2024), the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of a lawsuit by a former department manager at the University of Kentucky who was denied a religious accommodation that would exempt her from the University's policy that required weekly testing of employees who were not vaccinated against Covid. Plaintiff filed a suit claiming religious discrimination in violation of Title VII. She alleged in part that the University's policy was designed to coerce her to get tested. the court said:

Such coercion, she explained, was “wrong” because “[t]rying to manipulate somebody into doing something to attain a result that you want by holding something over them” is “not right behavior.”...

DeVore drew no connection between her fairness conclusion and any “religious principle” she follows, leaving it simply to reflect her “personal moral code.”... DeVore’s “subjective evaluation” of the Policy against this rubric of “secular values” does not establish a religious conflict with the Policy.

Religious College Sues Georgia Seeking Inclusion in State Grant and Scholarship Programs

Yesterday suit was filed in a Georgia federal district court challenging the constitutionality of excluding Luther Rice College and Seminary from state scholarship and grant programs for students attending private colleges. Georgia law excludes schools or colleges of theology or divinity. The complaint (full text) in Luther Rice College and Seminary v. Riley, (ND GA, filed 10/15/2024), alleges in part:

9. Georgia allows other religious schools—including schools with religious missions that offer religious undergraduate degree programs like Luther Rice—to participate in Georgia student aid programs....

11. If Luther Rice did not have a religious mission, offer religious degree programs, and teach all courses from a Christian worldview, its undergraduate students could receive Georgia student aid.

12. So Luther Rice faces a choice between (a) maintaining its religious mission and degree programs and teaching all courses from a Christian worldview, or (b) giving up that religious character and exercise to participate equally with other schools in the State.

13. Putting the school to that choice is unconstitutional....

Plaintiffs allege that the exclusion violates the free exercise and Establishment Clauses, the equal protection clause and plaintiff's free expression rights. ADF issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Tuesday, October 15, 2024

Certiorari Denied in Dispute Over Standing to Challenge Covid Restrictions on Churches

The U.S. Supreme Court today denied review in Grace Bible Fellowship v. Polis, (Docket No. 24-226, certiorari denied 10/15/2024). (Order List). (Certiorari petition). In the case, the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals (10th Circuit opinion) held that plaintiffs lacked standing to obtain prospective declaratory relief in their challenge to Colorado's authority to impose public health restrictions on houses of worship.

Monday, October 14, 2024

Air Force Officers' Suit Over Vaccine Mandate Is Now Moot

Still working their way through the courts are dozens of cases brought by employees or former employees who were denied religious exemptions from Covid vaccine mandates. One of the more interesting is Air Force Officer v. Austin, (MD GA, Oct. 11, 2024), a class action suit on behalf of Air Force officers who were denied religious exemptions from the military's Covid vaccine mandate. The mandate has been rescinded by the military after Congress ordered it to do so. At issue in the case is whether the lawsuit is now moot. Plaintiffs made two basic arguments against mootness. One is that the government has not shown that the mandate will not be reimposed at some later time. The second is that plaintiffs are seeking an injunction that applies to exemptions from all military vaccine mandates, not just Covid vaccine requirements. The court rejected both claims. The court said in part:

Understandably so, Plaintiffs and Defendants just disagree whether there is no reasonable expectation that “the same kind of COVID-19 vaccination requirement will be reinstated,” but it can’t be overlooked that “for almost two years now” there hasn’t been any indication that the COVID-19 vaccination mandates will be reinstated. In this Court’s opinion, that’s quite persuasive....

Friday, October 11, 2024

Biden Addresses Call to Jewish Leaders Ahead of Yom Kippur

The Jewish holiday of Yom Kippur begins at sundown this evening. Last Wednesday, President Biden spoke for over ten minutes (full text of remarks) during a White House Call with Jewish Faith Leaders for High Holidays. The President said in part:

In the last three years, it’s been the honor to do this High Holiday with all of you from the White House in a season of joy and a season of pain....

... I know this year’s call is very different, and it’s a ... difficult time for the Jewish community and for Jews around the world. In the midst of the High Holidays, two days ago, we commemorated the first anniversary of October 7th, the deadliest day for Jewish people since the Holocaust....

I also want you to know that I see you, I hear you, I see your pain from the ferocious surge of antisemitism in America and, quite frankly, around the world — absolutely despicable. And I hope ... we learned a lesson from our parents’ generation. We have to stand up. We have to call it out. It has to be stopped....

My administration is calling on the social media companies to adopt a zero-tolerance policy toward antisemitism and other hateful content, including the vile antisemitic attacks online that we’ve seen in recent days against public officials leading responses to recovery efforts to Hurricane Helene and Hurricane Milton....

Let me close with this. I think about the wisdom I’ve learned from Jewish communities in Delaware and across the country that I’ve gotten to know over the years. It seems to me there is a delicate yet profound balance between joy and pain to the High Holidays....

From my perspective, Jewish people have embodied this duality of pain and joy for generations. It’s your strength. The Jewish people have always chosen to find joy and happiness and light, despite centuries of suffering, persecution, and pain.

... [I]t’s an enduring lesson and legacy for the Jewish people and for all of America to understand.