Alabama Commission Hires Law Prof To Prosecute Charges Against Chief Justice

As previously reported, earlier this month the Alabama Judicial Inquiry Commission filed ethics charges against Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore over his administrative order to all probate judges telling them that they had a duty under Alabama law to continue to refuse to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples despite federal court orders to the contrary. Now, as reported by AL.com, the Judicial Inquiry Commission has hired John Carroll,   professor and former dean of the Cumberland School of Law and former interim director of the Alabama Ethics Commission to prosecute the case against Moore.  In a strongly worded press release yesterday, Moore's attorneys, Liberty Counsel, objected to Carroll because of his service 32 years ago as Legal Director of the Southern Poverty Law Center. SPLC includes Liberty Counsel on its list of Extremist Groups.

Judicial Inquiry Commission Files Complaint Against Alabama CJ

As reported by AP, the Alabama Judicial Inquiry Commission yesterday filed a Complaint (full text) against Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore contending that Moore abused his authority and acted in violation of the Code of Judicial Ethics when in January he issued an administrative order to all probate judges telling them that they had a duty under Alabama law to continue to refuse to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. (See prior posting.)  Moore's action ignored federal court orders to the contrary.

Transgender Bathroom Bills Trigger Strong Responses

Two developments yesterday highlight the reactions to legislative initiatives to ban transgender individuals from using restrooms that match their gender identity.  As reported by the New York Times, the Justice Department yesterday sent a letter (full text) to North Carolina Governor Pat McCrory warning that compliance with North Carolina's recently enacted House Bill 2 places the state in violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and threatens millions of dollars in federal funding.  The letter says in part:

Access to sex-segregated restrooms and other workplace facilities consistent with gender identity is a term, condition, or privilege of employment. Denying such access to transgender individuals, whose gender identity is different from their gender assigned at birth, while affording it to similarly situated non-transgender employees, violates Title VII.

The Justice Department also told the University of North Carolina that compliance violates Title IX, and told the state Department of Public Safety that it amounts to a violation of the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act.

Meanwhile, in Oxford, Alabama, the City Council voted 3-2 yesterday to rescind the public restroom ordinance that it passed last week.  (See prior posting.) The ordinance had not yet been signed by the mayor and so had not become law. As reported by Alabama Media Group, the ACLU was already planning a legal challenge, and the city attorney had warned that the ordinance as written might violate Title IX. The ordinance was a response to a policy announcement by Target stores that they welcome employees and customers to use restrooms and fitting rooms that correspond to their gender identity.

UPDATE: On May 2, the EEOC issued a Fact Sheet on Bathroom Access Rights for Transgender Employees Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Corporate Counsel reports on the EEOC's action.

Alabama City Outlaws Restroom Use Conforming To Gender Identity That Differs From Birth Certificate

In the latest chapter in the "bathroom wars," on Tuesday the Oxford, Alabama City Council unanimously passed Ordinance No. 2016-18 (full text) barring anyone from using rest rooms or changing facilities that do not correspond to the gender stated on the person's birth certificate. A violation is punishable by a $500 fine and up to 6 months in jail.  As reported by the Anniston Star, Council's action came in response to last week's announcement by the department store chain Target that their employees and customers are welcome to use the restroom or fitting room facility that corresponds with their gender identity. Target has a store in Oxford.  Prosecutions under the new ordinance will only occur only if a violation is reported by a witness or committed in the presence of a police officer.  After passage of the ordinance, city council president Steven Waits read from a prepared statement, saying in part that the ordinance was enacted "to protect our women and children."

Court Says Minister Can Move Ahead With Challenge To Ban on His Transitional Housing Project

Martin v. Houston, (MD AL, April 6, 2016), involves an attempt by the Alabama legislature to close down a transitional housing arrangement consisting of a group of mobile homes for male sex offenders being released from prison.  The facility was set up by a Christian minister who imposed behavior standards on residents and required them to attend church services. The Alabama legislature passed a statute tailored only to apply to this facility. The law, whose coverage was limited to one county, declared a facility where more than one sex offender lived together to be a public nuisance.  In a suit by the minister operating the facility, an Alabama federal district court held that plaintiff had adequately alleged free exercise, bill of attainder and due process claims.  It held that the complaint had not adequately alleged a RLUIPA violation because the law does not involve government making individualized assessments of proposed property use.

Supreme Court: Alabama Must Recognize Georgia's Order Granting Same-Sex Spouse Adoption Rights [CORRECTED]

The U.S. Supreme Court today in a summary per curiam opinion reversed the Alabama Supreme Court's refusal to recognize a Georgia court's approval of the adoption of one woman's children by her lesbian partner.  In V.L. v. E.L., (Sup. Ct., March 7 2016), the Supreme Court held that the Constitution's full faith and credit clause requires Alabama courts to recognize the Georgia adoption order.  The Alabama Supreme Court had wrongly concluded that Georgia courts lacked jurisdiction to enter the order.  The issue arose in the context of the adoptive mother seeking visitation rights after the couple separated. New York Times reports on the decision. [Note correction-- an earlier version of this posting incorrectly referred to Louisiana instead of Alabama.]

Alabama Supreme Court Narrowly Avoids Confrontation With SCOTUS On Same-Sex Marriage

The Alabama Supreme Court yesterday in Ex parte State of Alabama ex rel. Alabama Policy Institute, (AL Sup. Ct., March 4, 2016), issued a per curiam order dismissing all pending motions and petitions in a suit that sought to require Alabama probate judges to refuse to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.  However the Order also generated six separate opinions from the 9 justices spanning 170 pages. Three of the opinions were particularly defiant of the U.S. Supreme Court's authority to hand down its Obergefell decision.

Chief Justice Roy Moore who has been in the lead in resisting same-sex marriage in Alabama (see prior posting) wrote the longest and most defiant opinion.  He actually submitted two opinions totaling 106 pages-- one an opinion on why he now decided not to recuse himself, even though he had done so at earlier stages of the case, and the second longer opinion attacking the U.S. Supreme Court's same-sex marriage decision. Explaining why he was willing to concur in the dismissal of the suit, Moore said:

Today this Court by order dismisses all pending motions and petitions and issues the certificate of judgment in this case. That action does not disturb the existing March orders in this case or the Court's holding therein that the Sanctity of Marriage Amendment, art. I, § 36.03, Ala. Const. 1901, and the Alabama Marriage Protection Act, § 30-1-9, Ala. Code 1975, are constitutional.

In perhaps his most radical attack, Moore said (at pp. 87-88):

The general principle of blind adherence to United States Supreme Court opinions as "the law of the land" is a dangerous fallacy that is inconsistent with the United States Constitution. Labeling such opinions as "the rule of law" confuses the law itself -- the Constitution -- with an opinion that purports to interpret that document.

Article VI, by its plain terms, binds "the judges in every state" to obedience to the Constitution itself, not to unconstitutional and illegitimate opinions of the United States Supreme Court. Just as the little boy in Hans Christian Andersen's tale pointed out that the Emperor, contrary to the assertions of his courtiers, was actually stark naked, so also the "judges in every state" are entitled to examine Supreme Court opinions to see if they are clothed in the majesty of the law of the Constitution itself rather than in naked propositions of men with no cognizable covering from that document.

Moore also emphasized religious liberty in his attack on the Obergefell majority, saying in part (at pg. 58):

The Obergefell majority, conspicuously overlooking the "essential and historic significance" of the connection between religious liberty and "supreme allegiance to the will of God," failed to appreciate the seriousness of imposing a new sexual-revolution mandate that requires Alabama public officials to disobey the will of God.

Justices Parker and Murdock also wrote defiant concurring opinions, while Justice Shaw's concurring opinion was highly critical of Chief Justice Moore's approach.

Justice Bolin's somewhat temperate concurrence is of particular interest. He said in part:

Although I have many times not agreed with a decision of the United States Supreme Court, or a decision of the Alabama Supreme Court for that matter, I have never criticized an opinion from any court in the manner in which I regrettably do so today. I am, however, able to count to five--and I know that five votes trump four; and, although that does not make it right, it does make it a majority opinion....

The foregoing being said, I am further compelled to concur specially to express my concern, which remains to be determined in future cases, that the Obergefell decision may have emasculated this State's entire statutory licensing scheme governing "marriage" to the point of rendering it incapable of being enforced prospectively.

Al.com reports at length on the decision.

Alabama Chief Justice Tells Probate Judges To Continue Refusing To Issue Same-Sex Marriage Licenses

Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore is once again seeking to defy federal courts on the issue of same-sex marriage. (See prior posting.)  In March 2015, the Alabama Supreme Court in the Alabama Policy Institute ("API")  case ordered probate judges in the state to discontinue issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples despite federal district court orders already holding Alabama's ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional. (See prior posting.)  Of course, in June 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down the Obergefell decision, finding bans on same-sex marriage in Ohio, Tennessee, Michigan and Kentucky unconstitutional.  Three days later, the Alabama Supreme Court invited parties in the API case to file briefs addressing the effect of the Obergefell decision on the Alabama order in API.  Subsequently two probate court judges petitioned the Alabama Supreme Court for orders protecting their refusals to issue same-sex marriage licenses.  All of these matters remain pending before the Alabama Supreme Court.

Today, Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore issued an Administrative Order (full text) addressing what he described as the "confusion and uncertainty" that exists among Alabama probate judges.  He says that "an elementary principle of federal jurisdiction [is that] a judgment only binds the parties to the case before the court," suggesting that technically Obergefell  is not binding on Alabama judges.  He went on:

As Administrative Head of the Unified Judicial System of Alabama, authorized and empowered pursuant to Section 12-2-30(b)(7), Ala. Code 1975, to "take affirmative and appropriate action to correct or alleviate any condition or situation adversely affecting the administration of justice within the state," and under Section 12-2-30(b)(8), Ala. Code 1975, to "take any such other, further or additional action as may be necessary for the orderly administration of justice within the state, whether or not enumerated in this section or elsewhere"...

IT IS ORDERED AND DIRECTED THAT: Until further decision by the Alabama Supreme Court, the existing orders of the Alabama Supreme Court that Alabama probate judges have a ministerial duty not to issue any marriage license contrary to the Alabama Sanctity of Marriage Amendment or the Alabama Marriage Protection Act remain in full force and effect.

AL.com reports on today's order.

Supreme Court Stays Alabama Refusal To Recognize Georgia Adoption

On Monday in V.L. v. E.L., (Docket No. 15-648) the U.S. Supreme Court issued a stay of an Alabama Supreme Court decision while it considers whether to grant certiorari in the case. (Order List, 12/14/2015.)  At issue is the Alabama Supreme Court's refusal to grant full faith and credit to a 2007 Georgia adoption decision involving a lesbian couple who were living together in Alabama as partners since 1995.  As reported by the Washington Post, one of the women, E.L., had three children conceived in 2002 and 2004 through donor insemination. The couple moved briefly to Georgia so that V.L. could obtain parental rights.  They then moved back to Alabama.  When the couple broke up in 2011, V.L. sought joint custody or visitation rights, but the Alabama Supreme Court refused holding that Georgia had violated its own laws in granting the initial adoption.  It held it need not recognize the adoption because the Georgia court lacked subject matter jurisdiction when it granted it.

Judicial Ethics Complaint Cites Alabama Justice's Remarks On Same-Sex Marriage Precedent

The Southern Poverty Law Center yesterday filed an ethics complaint (full text) with the Judicial Inquiry Commission of Alabama alleging that Alabama Supreme Court Justice Tom Parker violated the state's Code of Judicial Ethics when, in a radio interview, he suggested that the Alabama Supreme Court defy the U.S. Supreme Court's Obergefell decision legalizing same-sex marriage. As summarized by an SPLC press release:

The complaint cites comments made by Parker during an Oct. 6 radio show, “Focal Point,” hosted by Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association. Fischer has used his radio show to promote outrageous, denigrating claims about LGBT people, Muslims, Native Americans and African Americans.

In the interview, Parker not only discussed a marriage equality case pending before the Alabama Supreme Court – Ex parte State v. King – he voiced his personal opinion about the case and suggested that Alabama should defy the U.S. Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage in order to lead to a “revival of what we need in this country.”

Probate Judge Asks Alabama Supreme Court To Protect His Refusal To Issue Same-Sex Marriage Licences

As reported by AL.com, on Wednesday Alabama Probate Judge Nick Williams filed an "Emergency Petition for Declaratory Judgment and/or Protective Order In Light of Jailing of Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis" (full text of petition) and a Memorandum In Support of the motion (full text). Williams objects on religious grounds to issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The petition begins:

The jailing of Kentucky Clerk Kimberly B. Davis puts at immediate risk the liberty interest of all faithful and religiously sincere public officials in Alabama whose office has responsibility for making decisions as to whether to give sanction and honor to homosexual relationships to include the issuance of a license to engage in sodomy.  These officers need this Court's declaration that their sincerely held religious beliefs do not disqualify them from holding their office.

Last March, the Alabama Supreme Court issued a writ of mandamus ordering Probate Court judges around the state to discontinue the issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples, (See prior posting.)  Judge Williams emergency motion was technically filed as a motion in that case, captioned in the motion as Ex parte State of Alabama ex rel Alabama Policy Institute v. King (Case No. 1140460). .

Alabama Supreme Court Upholds Preliminary Injunction In Church Election Case

Ex parte Cornell L. Tatum, Sr.,  (AL Sup. Ct., July 10, 2015), is a mandamus action-- essentially an interlocutory appeal-- in a suit in which members of a Baptist Church sued seeking an order to require deacons of the church to abide by a vote of church members ousting them from their positions. The trial court issued a preliminary injunction barring the deacons from "undertaking any act as a member of [the board] of [the church] including any participation in Deacon
meetings or performing any duties or responsibilities of a deacon while this order is in effect." The deacons petitioned the Alabama Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus ordering the trial court to vacate its order for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The Alabama Supreme Court in a summary order denied the petition.

While there was no opinion for the court, Justice Parker wrote an opinion concurring specially, saying in part:

I write specially to emphasize that a circuit court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to apply judicial notions of due process to church proceedings when the highest adjudicatory body of a church decides a purely ecclesiastical matter.  Additionally, I write to note that a circuit court may recognize a decision by the highest adjudicatory body of a church concerning a purely ecclesiastical matter and, based on that decision, enjoin persons from taking unauthorized actions on behalf of the church....

Admittedly, however, it is unclear whether the April 20, 2014, vote constituted a decision by the highest adjudicatory body of the church. In a Baptist church, the majority of the congregation is the highest adjudicatory body, unless the church bylaws provide otherwise.... This lack of clarity, however, does not require that this Court grant the petitioners' petition..... The petitioners have not demonstrated that the April 20, 2014, meeting was not a decision by the highest adjudicatory body of the church. Accordingly, the petitioners have failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought.

Chief Justice Moore filed a dissenting opinion, arguing in part that "any decision by the circuit court regarding the ability of the petitioners to serve as deacons in the church necessarily requires the court to resolve a number of antecedent issues that are inextricably intertwined with church governance." He added:

A court's involvement in a religious matter is not sanitized merely because the court purports to ratify, rather than annul, a church's decision. What violates church autonomy is not the substance of the court's ultimate determination, but the judiciary's very participation in the intra-church conflict.

Justice Murdock filed a brief dissent based on failure to join necessary parties. 

Alabama Bill To Eliminate Marriage Licenses Dies In House Judiciary Committee

The Daily Caller reported yesterday that in Alabama SB 377 previously passed by the Alabama state Senate to eliminate marriage licenses died in the House Judiciary Committee last week. As previously reported, the bill which would have replaced issuance of licenses with marriage contracts entered into and recorded by the couple was seen in part as a way of dealing with religious objections by some probate court employees to issuing licenses to same-sex couples. One Republican member of the House Judiciary Committee who voted against the bill explained: "It didn’t make sense to me to make such a sweeping change about how we do marriage, just because of concern about some probate judges in a bit of a spot."

More Legal Maneuvering Against Same-Sex Marriage In Alabama As U.S. Supreme Court's Decision Nears

With the U.S. Supreme Court less than a month away from finally settling the issue, legal sparring over same-sex marriage continues in Alabama. Two groups that had secured from the Alabama Supreme Court a writ of mandamus ordering Probate Court judges around the state to discontinue the issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples (see prior posting) filed a "Motion for Clarification and Reaffirmation of the Court's Orders Upholding and Enforcing Alabama's Marriage Laws".  The motion and supporting memorandum of law (full text) in Ex parte State of Alabama ex rel. Alabama Policy Institute, (AL Sup. Ct., filed 6/2/2015), asked the state Supreme Court to reaffirm its order in light of intervening U.S. federal district court decisions (see prior posting) granting a preliminary injunction (which the district court then stayed pending the U.S. Supreme Court's upcoming decision) barring all Alabama probate judges from refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Liberty Counsel issued a press release announcing the filing of the motion which said in part: "The Alabama Supreme Court’s prior mandamus Order, and perhaps its disposition of this motion, should send a message that any ruling by Judge Granade or even the United States Supreme Court inventing a right to same-sex 'marriage'a under the U.S. Constitution is illegitimate."

More Alabama Same-Sex Marriage Developments

Alabama has been "ground zero" for opposition to same-sex marriage.  Two more developments help it keep that title.  According to the Montgomery Advertiser, in Prattville, Alabama last week, a Unitarian minister pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct charges and was sentenced to six months unsupervised probation and a $250 fine. The charges were filed last February when Anne Susan DiPrizio offered to marry a lesbian couple who had just received a marriage license, planning to conduct the ceremony inside the Autauga County Probate Office.  However, the local Probate Judge had stopped all marriages in the office.  After DiPrizio refused to leave, sheriff's deputies were called and disorderly conduct charges were filed.

Meanwhile also last week, the Alabama state Senate passed and sent to the state House of Representatives SB 377 (full text) that would end the issuance of marriage licences in the state.  Instead a couple would enter a "marriage contract" containing specified information and would record that contract in the office of the county probate court.  If and when same-sex marriage becomes legal in Alabama, this procedure eliminates the issue of whether a probate court employee who objects to same-sex marriage must issue a license to a same-sex couple. The bill's sponsor defines the bill's purpose more broadly, saying: "When you invite the state into those matters of personal or religious import, it creates difficulties." (Yellowhammer News, 4/30/15).

Another Decision Invalidating Alabama's Same-Sex Marriage Ban

In Alabama last week, a federal district court took another step toward requiring all counties to issue licenses for same-sex marriages.  A federal district court had already issued an injunction against the attorney general and one state probate judge requiring them to issue marriage licenses to same sex-couples. (See prior posting.) Now in Strawser v. Strange (Doc. 122), (SD AL, May 21, 2015), the same federal district court permitted plaintiffs to turn the case into a class action against "all Alabama county probate judges who are enforcing or in the future may enforce Alabama’s laws barring the issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples and refusing to recognize their marriages."  It also certified as a plaintiff class "all persons in  Alabama who wish to obtain a marriage license in order to marry a person of the same sex and to have that marriage recognized under Alabama law, and who are unable to do so because of the enforcement of Alabama’s laws prohibiting the issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples and barring recognition of their marriages."

Then in a second opinion the same day, Strawser v. Strange (Doc. 123), (SD AL, May 21, 2015), the court again held that Alabama's marriage laws that prohibit and refuse to recognize same-sex marriages violated the equal protection and due process clauses of the 14th Amendment. It granted plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction, but stayed it until the U.S. Supreme Court issues its opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges, expected within the next several weeks.  Christian Science Monitor reports on the decision.

Alabama Governor Signs Student Religious Liberties Act

Last Thursday (coinciding with the National Day of Prayer), Alabama Governor Robert Bentley signed into law the Alabama Student Religious Liberties Act of 2015 (full text).  It prohibits discrimination against students or parents on the basis of religious viewpoint or religious expression.  It provides in part:

Students may express their beliefs about religion in homework, artwork, and other written and oral assignments free from discrimination based on the religious content of their submissions. Homework and classroom assignments shall be judged by ordinary academic standards of substance and relevance and against other legitimate pedagogical concerns....

It also provides that:

Students in public schools may pray or engage in religious activities or religious expression before, during, and after the school day in the same manner and to the same extent that students may engage in nonreligious activities or expression.

AL.com reports on the enactment of the new law. [Thanks to Blog From the Capital for the lead.]

In Latest Installment, Alabama Federal District Court Refuses To Stay Same-Sex Marriage Order

In the latest episode of dueling orders, the Alabama federal district court in Strawser v. Strange. (SD AL, March 16, 2015), has denied a motion by Probate Judge Don Davis to stay its preliminary injunction finding Alabama's laws banning same-sex marriage unconstitutional. Davis argued that he has been placed in a potential conflict between the district court's injunction and orders of the Alabama Supreme Court. (See prior posting.) The district court said:

Judge Davis states that he complied with this court’s preliminary injunction order and that all of the current plaintiffs in this case have received marriage licenses. Judge Davis points to rulings by the Alabama Supreme Court ordering Alabama Probate Judges not to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. However, Davis has not shown how this court’s preliminary injunction results in irreparable harm to him.

Reuters reports on the decision.

Alabama Supreme Court Subjects Remaining Probate Judge To Its Order Banning Issuance of Same-Sex Marriage Licenses

On Tuesday the Alabama Supreme Court followed up its March 3 decision that ordered all Probate Court judges around the state to discontinue the issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples. (See prior posting.)  In that earlier decision, Mobile County Probate Judge Don Davis asked to be excluded as a respondent on the ground that he was subject to a conflicting federal court order in Strawser v. Strange. (See prior posting.)  In Ex parte State of Alabama ex. rel. Alabama Policy Institute, (AL Sup. Ct., March 10, 2015), in a 6-1 decision, the Alabama Supreme Court concluded that Davis is not subject to a conflicting order because the federal court had only granted injunctive relief requiring him to issue marriage licenses to the four couples who were plaintiffs in the Strawser case. Those license have now already been issued. The Supreme Court thus added Davis as a respondent who is bound by its March 3 order. AL.com reports on the decision.

Alabama Supreme Court Upholds State's Tuition and Scholarship Tax Credit Law

In Magee v. Boyd, (AL Sup. Ct., March 2, 2015), the Alabama Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality under the state constitution of Alabama's law creating a refundable income tax credit to parent of students in failing schools to be used to pay to transfer them to other public or private schools. It also upheld tax credits for contributions to scholarship organizations that grant opportunity scholarships to students in failing schools.  In a 145-page opinion, the majority rejected procedural challenges to the law's enactment.  It rejected challenges under Alabama's Blaine amendments, finding that tax credits do not amount to appropriations for purposes of the state constitution's limits on appropriation to schools not under state control (Sec. 73) or to sectarian or denominational schools (Sec. 263).  It also concluded that the law does not violate Sec. 3, the religion clauses of the state constitution.  Six justices joined the majority opinion. Two justices concurred in part, and one justice dissented. AP reported on the decision.