Cert. Denied in Alabama Frozen Embryo Case

Among the hundreds of cases in which the U.S. Supreme Court denied review on Monday was Center for Reproductive Medicine v. Burdick-Aysenne, (Sup. Ct., Docket No. 24-127, certiorari denied, Oct. 7, 2024). (Order List). In the case, the Alabama Supreme Court held, by a vote of 7-2, that Alabama's Wrongful Death of a Minor Act covers the negligent destruction of frozen embryos created during IVF treatment and kept in a clinic's cryogenic nursery. (See prior posting.) AP reports on the Court's denial of review.

11th Circuit Denies En Banc Rehearing in Alabama's Ban on Gender-Affirming Treatment of Minors

In August 2023, the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals vacated a district court's preliminary injunction against Alabama's ban on hormone blockers and cross-sex hormones to treat minors with gender dysphoria, holding that the statute is only subject to rational basis review. (See prior posting.) Now, in Eknes-Tucker v. Governor of the State of Alabama, (11th Cir., Aug. 28, 2024), a majority of the 11th Circuit voted not to grant an en banc rehearing in the case. However, that decision generated a series of concurring and dissenting opinions spanning 173 pages.

Chief Judge William Pryor concurred in the denial but filed an opinion to respond to the dissenting opinion of Judge Jordan. The Chief Judge said in part:

The doctrine of substantive due process does violence to the text of the Constitution, enjoys no historical pedigree, and offers judges little more than shifting and unilluminating standards with which to protect unenumerated rights.... [U]nelected judges with life tenure enjoin enforcement of laws enacted by elected representatives following regular procedures, all in the name of fundamental rights that the Constitution never names but allegedly secures....

Judge Lagoa filed a concurring opinion, saying in part:

The propriety of the medications at issue is a quintessential legislative question, not a constitutional one.  Judges Jordan and Rosenbaum would have this Court end the debate by judicially fencing off these questions from state legislatures.  But our experience with the intersection of the Constitution and these types of issues suggests that this is a misguided effort. See Roe v. Wade.... 

Judge Rosenbaum’s and Judge Wilson’s dissents also disagree with our equal-protection holding, arguing that the Act discriminates based on sex and transgender status....  But the Act applies equally to everyone regardless of their sex or transgender status.  And transgender status is not a classification protected by the Equal Protection Clause.

Judge Wilson, joined by Judge Jordan, filed a dissenting opinion, saying in part:

This case presents numerous questions “of exceptional importance” worthy of en banc review.... Seeing that this case implicates the contours of substantive due process, fundamental rights, and equal protection, it is difficult to envision issues of greater importance.

Judge Jordan, joined by Judges Rosenbaum and Jill Pryor, filed a dissenting opinion, saying in part:

In this case, the panel characterized the liberty interest in part by asking whether there is a history of recorded uses of transitioning medications for transgender individuals (e.g., puberty blockers and cross-sex hormone treatments) as of 1868, when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified....

The panel’s decision necessarily means that the fundamental right of parents to obtain medical treatment for their children extends only to procedures and medications that existed in 1868, and not to modern advances like the polio vaccine...,, cardiac surgery..., organ transplants..., and treatments for cancer like radiation ... and chemotherapy...

Judge Rosenbaum, joined by Judge Jill Pryor and in part by Judge Jordan, filed a dissenting opinion, saying in part:

... [P]arents’ liberty interest in directing that their child receive well-established, evidence-based, non-experimental medical treatment, subject to medically accepted standards and a physician’s independent examination and medical judgment, is a fundamental right, “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition, and implicit in the concept of ordered liberty, such that neither liberty nor justice would exist if they were sacrificed”....

We ... receive no medical training in law school.  We don’t go through residencies or fellowships.  We don’t engage in medical research.  And we don’t practice medicine at all.  In fact, many of us went into the law because, among other reasons, we weren’t good at math or science.  Given our lack of medical expertise, we have no business overriding either the medical consensus that transitioning medications are safe and efficacious or clinicians’ ability to develop individualized treatment plans that follow the governing standards of care....

... [T]he Act discriminates based on two quasi-suspect classifications: sex and transgender status.  So either classification requires us to apply intermediate scrutiny.  When we do that, the Act cannot survive.  

11th Circuit Enjoins New Title IX Rules in 4 States, Pending Appeal

 In State of Alabama v. U.S. Secretary of Education, (11th Cir., Aug. 22, 2024), the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision, issued an injunction pending appeal barring enforcement in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina of the Department of Education's new rules under Title IX.  The new rules define discrimination on the basis of sex as including discrimination on the basis of gender identity. They also reduce the threshold for concluding that conduct amounts to sex discrimination. The majority pointed out:

Before this action, every court to consider the issue across the nation—seven district courts and two courts of appeals— preliminarily enjoined enforcement of the rule.  The district court here, by contrast, refused to enjoin the rule a day before it was supposed to go into effect.

Judge Wilson dissented contending that plaintiffs have not shown the irreparable injury required for obtaining an injunction. ADF issued a press release announcing the decision.

Alabama May Not Prosecute Those Who Arrange Out-of-State Abortions for Women

In Yellowhammer Fund v. Marshall, (MD AL, May 6, 2024), an Alabama federal district court held that the state Attorney General would violate women's right to travel and the free expression rights of reproductive health providers and their staffs if he carried out his threat to prosecute anyone who assists women in arranging out-of-state abortions that would be illegal if performed in Alabama. Refusing to dismiss these claims by plaintiffs, the court said in part:

... [T]he Constitution protects the right to cross state lines and engage in lawful conduct in other States, including receiving an abortion.  The Attorney General’s characterization of the right to travel as merely a right to move physically between the States contravenes history, precedent, and common sense.  Travel is valuable precisely because it allows us to pursue opportunities available elsewhere.  “If our bodies can move among states, but our freedom of action is tied to our place of origin, then the ‘right to travel’ becomes a hollow shell.”...

Moving to plaintiffs' free expression claim, the court rejected the state's reliance on the exception found in the Supreme Court's 1949 Giboney decision for speech integral to unlawful conduct. The court went on to say in part:

Having established that the Attorney General’s attempt to invoke Giboney is unavailing, the court turns to whether the plaintiffs have stated a viable First Amendment claim, taking the factual allegations in their complaints as true.  The plaintiffs submit that the State plans to initiate a prosecution under Alabama’s statutes punishing conspiracy, complicity, solicitation, and other crimes based on the content of the speech they and their staff wish to engage in about out-of-state abortions.  “[C]ontent-based speech regulations face ‘strict scrutiny,’ the requirement that the government use the least restrictive means of advancing a compelling government interest.”...   

The Attorney General does not argue that his threatened prosecutions can satisfy strict scrutiny.

The Hill reports on the decision.

Alabama Supreme Court: Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine Does Not Apply to Church Property Ownership Dispute

In Ex parte The Alabama-West Florida Conference of the United Methodist Church, Inc., (AL Sup. Ct., April 12, 2024), the Alabama Supreme Court held that the parent bodies of the Methodist Church in Alabama had not shown that an ownership dispute between them and a local church in Dothan, Alabama should be dismissed under the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine. The Methodist Church's Book of Discipline required church deeds to contain a clause providing the property was held in trust for the parent church. The deed to the Dothan church did not contain such a clause. Four of the Court's 9 Justices recused themselves in the case, and two lower appellate court judges were appointed to sit with the remaining 5 regular Justices to hear the case.  In the opinion for the court written by Justice Cook and concurred in by three others, the Court said in part:

First, the AWFC and the GCFA's claim that this is a church dispute over ecclesiastical, rather than property, issues is premised on the erroneous assertion that "Harvest wants the [trial] court to create a new disaffiliation process just for Harvest contrary to church law." ...

Harvest's complaint does not seek judicial review of the disaffiliation procedure set forth in the Book of Discipline or otherwise ask the trial court to judicially declare that Harvest's vote to sever its affiliation with the UMC was consistent with the Book of Discipline's requirements....

Instead, the complaint asks that the trial court (1) to recognize that Harvest "alone is the absolute, full, exclusive, fee simple owner of all real or personal property that is owned by [Harvest], held for [Harvest], or titled in its name," (2) to declare that the UMC and the AWFC do not have "any trust, equitable, or beneficial interest in any of the real or personal property so owned by [Harvest],"....

Accordingly, Harvest's claim, on the face of the complaint, pertains solely to the ownership and control of the local church property -- an issue that civil courts generally can resolve by applying "neutral principles of law." 

Chief Justice Parker filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the result, saying in part:

While I believe that the main opinion accurately applies our precedents on the limited issue of church-property disputes, I believe that it goes too far in announcing a grand unifying theory applicable to all church-dispute cases that will unfortunately result in a loss of religious liberty. 

Justice Sellers filed an opinion concurring in the result, saying in part:

[I]n my opinion, once Harvest used the civil legal system to file its deed and organizational documents, it consented to have secular law applied to its filings and, thus, opened the door to have any property dispute resolved pursuant to neutral principles of law.

Special Justice Edwards concurred in the result. 

Alabama Supreme Court Affirms Dismissal of Church Property Dispute

 In Sails v. Weeks, (AL Sup. Ct., April 5, 2024), the Alabama Supreme Court by a vote of 8-1, without an opinion for the majority, affirmed the dismissal of a suit challenging the use and disposal of church property. Defendants contended that plaintiffs are not members of the church and thus could not bring suit on its behalf. Justice Mendheim filed a concurring opinion, saying in part: 

[I]t is inaccurate to attribute the genesis of the ecclesiastical-abstention doctrine to the First Amendment. The delicacy with which courts approach church-dispute cases arose more organically from America's history of seeking to disentangle church denominations from state governance...

I believe that our invocation of the ecclesiastical-abstention doctrine should come from a desire to protect religious freedom rather than an unfounded fear that religious ideas might taint our civil jurisprudence....

The Sails plaintiffs argued that the heart of this dispute concerns the alleged mismanagement or misuse of church property. However, I believe that the Sails plaintiffs' property allegations are a proxy for asking the courts to decide who controls the church -- an issue our courts lack the means and expertise to decide....

... "[T]he nature of the underlying dispute" is whether the Sails plaintiffs, who stopped attending the church several years ago, are still members of the spiritual church, who are the ones that ultimately control the incorporated church and the property it holds. In short, there is no way around the fact that, in this case, a decision concerning the use of the church property implicates the spiritual church because church membership is a spiritual concern. 

Justice Sellers filed a dissenting opinion, saying in part:

Defendants ... moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing, in part, that the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring an action on behalf of Union Baptist because, they claimed, Union Baptist was no longer a recognized legal entity under Alabama law because of the official name change that occurred in 2017....

... [C]hanging the name of a corporation, amending an organizational document, or reforming a deed involves the use of our civil legal system that by its very nature is not ecclesiastical.  The issue in this case then is who has the authority to act on behalf of the organization?  And, after identifying that issue, the question then becomes whether secular courts can decide that issue or whether that decision should be left to some ecclesiastical authority?  Because we have no ecclesiastical courts with enforcement authority, I am uncertain how the issue can be decided without court intervention. 

Alabama Passes Law Protecting IVF Clinics from Liability

Reacting to the recent Alabama Supreme Court decision holding that the state's wrongful death statute applies to the negligent destruction of frozen embryos created during IVF treatment, the Alabama legislature yesterday passed, and Governor Kay Ivey immediately signed SB159 (full text) which provides in part:

Related to in vitro fertilization and notwithstanding any provision of law ..., no action, suit, or criminal prosecution for the damage to or death of an embryo shall be brought or maintained against any individual or entity when providing or receiving services related to in vitro fertilization....

... [N]o criminal prosecution may be brought for the damage to or death of an embryo against the manufacturer of goods used to facilitate the in vitro fertilization process or the transport of stored embryos.

The statute explicitly has retroactive effect. NPR reports on the new law.

Alabama Supreme Court: Wrongful Death Law Covers Destruction of Frozen Embryos

In LePage v. Center for Reproductive Medicine, P.C., (AL Sup. Ct., Feb. 16, 2024), the Alabama Supreme Court held, by a vote of 7-2, that Alabama's Wrongful Death of a Minor Act covers the negligent destruction of frozen embryos created during IVF treatment and kept in a clinic's cryogenic nursery. The destruction occurred when a patient wandered into the fertility clinic, removed several embryos and then dropped them when his hands were freeze burned.  Justice Mitchell's majority opinion said in part:

[Defendants] ask us to recognize an unwritten exception for extrauterine children in the wrongful-death context because, they say, our own precedents compel that outcome....

... [Defendants and Alabama Medical Association as amicus] assert that treating extrauterine children as "children" for purposes of wrongful-death liability will "substantially increase the cost of IVF in Alabama" and could make cryogenic preservation onerous.... 

While we appreciate the defendants' concerns, these types of policy-focused arguments belong before the Legislature, not this Court.... Here, the text of the Wrongful Death of a Minor Act is sweeping and unqualified.  It applies to all children, born and unborn, without limitation.  It is not the role of this Court to craft a new limitation based on our own view of what is or is not wise public policy.  That is especially true where, as here, the People of this State have adopted a Constitutional amendment directly aimed at stopping courts from excluding "unborn life" from legal protection.  Art. I, § 36.06, Ala. Const.

Chief Justice Parker filed a concurring opinion focusing on Art. I of the Alabama Constitution which provides that declares "it is the public policy of this state to recognize and support the sanctity of unborn life...." The Chief Justice said in part:

... [T]he theologically based view of the sanctity of life adopted by the People of Alabama encompasses the following: (1) God made every person in His image; (2) each person therefore has a value that far exceeds the ability of human beings to calculate; and (3) human life cannot be wrongfully destroyed without incurring the wrath of a holy God, who views the destruction of His image as an affront to Himself. Section 36.06 recognizes that this is true of unborn human life no less than it is of all other human life -- that even before birth, all human beings bear the image of God, and their lives cannot be destroyed without effacing his glory.

Justice Shaw, joined by Justice Stewart filed a concurring opinion. 

Justice Mendheim filed an opinion concurring in the result, saying in part:

In my judgment, the main opinion's view that the legal conclusion is "clear" and "black-letter law" is problematic because when the Wrongful Death of a Minor Act was first enacted in 1872, and for 100 years thereafter, IVF was not even a scientific possibility....

Ultimately ... we must be guided by the language provided in the Wrongful Death of a Minor Act and the manner in which our cases have interpreted it. Under those guideposts, today's result is correct. However, the decision undoubtedly will come as a shock in some quarters of the State. I urge the Legislature to provide more leadership in this area of the law given the numerous policy issues and serious ethical concerns at stake....

Justice Sellers filed an opinion dissenting in part, saying in part:

To equate an embryo stored in a specialized freezer with a fetus inside of a mother is engaging in an exercise of result-oriented, intellectual sophistry, which I am unwilling to entertain.

Justice Cook filed a 56-page dissenting opinion, saying in part:

...   I believe the main opinion overrules our recent Wrongful Death Act caselaw that requires "congruence" between the definition of "person" in Alabama's criminal-homicide statutes and the definition of "minor child" in the Wrongful Death Act.  Both the original public meaning and this recent caselaw indicate the same result here -- that the Wrongful Death Act does not address frozen embryos. 

Moreover, there are other significant reasons to be concerned about the main opinion's holding.  No court -- anywhere in the country -- has reached the conclusion the main opinion reaches. And, the main opinion's holding almost certainly ends the creation of frozen embryos through in vitro fertilization ("IVF") in Alabama....

1819 News reports on the decision.

[Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]

11th Circuit Rejects RLUIPA Challenge to Novel Execution Method; Supreme Court Denies Review

In Smith v. Commissioner, Alabama Department of Corrections, (11th Cir., Jan. 24, 2024), the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 decision refused to stop the January 25 execution of death row inmate Kenneth Smith.  The U.S. Supreme Court also refused to stay Smith's execution and denied certiorari in the case, initially in an Order dated January 24 (Smith v. Alabama, (Docket No. 23-6517)), and subsequently in an order dated January 25, to which Justice Sotomayor filed a dissent, as did Justice Kagan joined by Justice Jackson. (Smith v. Hamm, (Docket No. 23-6562)). Smith was executed in the evening of January 25. The case has garnered substantial news coverage because Alabama used a novel execution method-- nitrogen gas-- after a first attempt at execution by lethal injection failed. In addition to 8th Amendment claims, Smith, who wished to engage in audible prayer as he was being executed, raised free exercise claims under RLUIPA (as well as other claims).  The 11th Circuit affirmed the district court's refusal to issue a preliminary injunction, saying in part:

Here, Smith argues that the Protocol substantially burdens his ability to audibly pray during the course of his execution because he faces an untenable choice—audibly pray or face a substantial risk of superadded pain or prolonged death due to a dislodged mask. It is not speculative that Smith would engage in religious exercise because he both audibly prayed and sang the contemporary hymn “I Am Not Alone” during his failed execution. However, we cannot say that the district court clearly erred when it found that any risk of the mask gaping or dislodging is speculative based upon the same factual findings regarding the mask’s design, fit, and nitrogen volumes above. Without such findings, we cannot conclude that Smith will be substantially burdened in his ability to audibly pray during the course of the execution. Based upon this standard of review, we are bound to accept the district court’s findings as to Smith’s claim and affirm the district court on its RLUIPA holding.

Judge Wilson filed a concurring opinion and Judge Pryor filed a dissent on the 8th Amendment issue.

11th Circuit: Buddhist Organization Prevails Under Alabama State Constitution in Zoning Fight

In Thai Meditation Association of Alabama, Inc. v. City of Mobile, Alabama,(11th Cir., Oct. 2, 2023), the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals partly reversed the summary judgments entered in favor of the city of Mobile at the district court level.  At issue is Mobile's denial zoning approval for a Buddhist organization to use a house in a residential district for religious purposes. The appeals court held that neither party is entitled to summary judgment under RLUIPA because of factual disputes.  It held that the district court correctly dismissed plaintiff's Free Exercise claim because the zoning designation process is neutral and generally applicable. It held however, that the Buddhist organization is entitled to an injunction under the Alabama Religious Freedom Amendment to the state constitution, saying in part:

To begin, we have never held that neighborhood character or zoning are compelling government interests sufficient to justify abridging core constitutional rights....  ... [A]mici also note that generalized, high-level invocations of “zoning” are often used to target minority faith’s land use applications.... These concerns underscore why it is necessary to hold government entities to their burden to state and support a well-defined government interest. 

Here, the City has failed to carry its burden to demonstrate a compelling government interest. The generalized invocations of neighborhood character and zoning fail as a matter of law under our precedents. The City’s invocation of traffic concerns fare slightly better..., but they are unsubstantiated in the record....

11th Circuit: No Constitutional Right to Treat Minors with Gender Transition Medications

 In Eknes-Tucker v. Governor of Alabama, (11th Cir., Aug. 21, 2023), the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals vacated a district court's preliminary injunction against Alabama's ban on hormone blockers and cross-sex hormones to treat minors with gender dysphoria. The court said in part:

On review, we hold that the district court abused its discretion in issuing this preliminary injunction because it applied the wrong standard of scrutiny. The plaintiffs have not presented any authority that supports the existence of a constitutional right to “treat [one’s] children with transitioning medications subject to medically accepted standards.” Nor have they shown that section 4(a)(1)–(3) classifies on the basis of sex or any other protected characteristic. Accordingly, section 4(a)(1)–(3) is subject only to rational basis review. Because the district court erred by reviewing the statute under a heightened standard of scrutiny, its determination that the plaintiffs have established a substantial likelihood of success on the merits cannot stand.

Judge Brasher filed a concurring opinion, saying in part:

[E]ven if the statute did discriminate based on sex, I think it is likely to satisfy intermediate scrutiny. If Alabama’s statute involves a sex-based classification that triggers heightened scrutiny, it does so because it is otherwise impossible to regulate these drugs differently when they are prescribed as a treatment for gender dysphoria than when they are prescribed for other purposes. As long as the state has a substantial justification for regulating differently the use of puberty blockers and hormones for different purposes, then I think this law satisfies intermediate scrutiny.

AL.com reports on the decision.

Alabama Law Protects Identity of Donors, Supporters, Volunteers and Members of Non-Profits

Yesterday, Alabama Governor Kay Ivey signed S-59, The Personal Privacy Protection Act (full text). The new law prohibits any governmental agency from requiring disclosure of, or from releasing information about, the identity any member. supporter, volunteer, or donor of a non-profit organization.  It also bars requiring any current or prospective contractor or grantee to disclose non-profits to which it has donated or provided support. The Act contains a number of exceptions, including required disclosures under campaign finance laws.  Indiana has recently enacted a similar statute. (See prior posting.) ADF issued a press release announcing the signing of the law.

Certiorari Denied in Challenge by Preacher to University's Speaker Permit Rule

The U.S. Supreme Court today denied review in Keister v. Bell, (Docket No. 22-388, certiorarari dened, 3/20/2023). (Order List.) In the case, 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. (See prior posting.) Links to filings with the Supreme Court in the case are available here.  Reuters reports on the Court's action. [Thanks to Thomas Rutledge for the lead.]

Alabama Executive Order Protects Religious Freedom of Licensees, Grantees, Employees and Others

 Alabama Governor Kay Ivey has issued Executive Order No. 733 (Jan. 20, 2023) requiring the executive branch of state government to enforce the Alabama Religious Freedom Amendment to the greatest extent practicable.  The Order sets out specific religious freedom protections for state licensees, contractors, grant recipients, recipients of government benefits and state employees. Among other non-discrimination and free exercise protections, the Order provides:

A state executive-branch agency shall protect the religious-exercise rights of current or prospective licensees (i.e., any person or entity authorized or seeking to be authorized to engage in any profession, trade, business, or activity that requires state government licensure, certification, permitting, chartering, or other formal permission)...

The agency shall not require a current or prospective contractor or grant recipient to alter aspects of its religious character as a condition of receiving or maintaining a contract or grant unless strictly necessary to further a compelling governmental interest.

The state issued a press release announcing the signing of the Executive Order.

5th Circuit Hears Oral Arguments On Alabama COVID Limits On Religious Gatherings

 On Oct. 3, the 5th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals heard oral arguments (audio of full arguments) in Spell v. Edwards. Former Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice and U.S. Senate candidate Roy Moore argued for appellant. In the case, a Louisiana federal district court dismissed a challenge to a now expired COVID Order limiting the size of religious gatherings. The district court dismissed because the challenged restrictions had already expired, and defendants had qualified immunity in the claim for damages. (See prior posting.) AP reports on the oral arguments.

Alabama High School Athletic Association Changes Rules To Accommodate Sabbath Observance

1819 News reports that yesterday the Alabama High School Athletic Association voted to amend its rules to accommodate religious requests for scheduling changes. The rule change comes in response to a lawsuit filed in May by Oakwood Adventist Academy after it was forced to forfeit a Saturday afternoon 1A high school playoff game that conflicted with its Sabbath observance. Becket issued a press release announcing the rule change.

Certiorari Denied In Christian Ministry's Challenge To Defamation Standard

Yesterday the U.S. Supreme Court denied review in Coral Ridge Ministries Media, Inc. v. Southern Poverty Law Center, (Docket No. 21-802, certiorari denied 6/27/2022). In the case, the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed an Alabama federal district court's dismissal of a defamation suit brought by a Christian ministry and media company. Coral Ridge is designated as a "hate group" by the Southern Poverty Law Center because of Coral Ridge's religious beliefs opposing LGBTQ conduct. The Circuit Court dismissed the defamation claim because plaintiff failed to adequately plead actual malice (i.e., knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard of the truth). Justice Thomas filed an opinion dissenting from the denial of certiorari, saying in part:

I would grant certiorari in this case to revisit the “actual malice” standard. This case is one of many showing how New York Times and its progeny have allowed media organizations and interest groups “to cast false aspersions on public figures with near impunity.” ... SPLC’s “hate group” designation lumped Coral Ridge’s Christian ministry with groups like the Ku Klux Klan and Neo-Nazis. It placed Coral Ridge on an interactive, online “Hate Map” and caused Coral Ridge concrete financial injury by excluding it from the AmazonSmile donation program.

Law & Crime reports on the case.

Alabama Enjoined From Enforcing Ban On Medical Treatments For Transgender Minors

In Eknes-Tucker v. Marshall, (MD AL, May 13, 2022), an Alabama federal district court issued an injunction pending trial of  the portion of the Alabama Vulnerable Child Compassion and Protection Act that restricts transgender minors from being treated with puberty blockers and hormone therapies. The court said in part:

Parent Plaintiffs have a fundamental right to direct the medical care of their children. This right includes the more specific right to treat their children with transitioning medications subject to medically accepted standards. The Act infringes on that right and, as such, is subject to strict scrutiny. At this stage of litigation, the Act falls short of that standard because it is not narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling government interest. Accordingly, Parent Plaintiffs are substantially likely to succeed on their Substantive Due Process claim,

The court also found that parents were substantially likely to succeed on their equal protection challenge because "discrimination based on gender-nonconformity equates to sex discrimination." GLAD and other advocacy groups representing plaintiffs issued a press release announcing the decision.

Denial Of Permission To Build Buddhist Meditation Center Did Not Violate RLUIPA

In Thai Meditation Association of Alabama, Inc. v. City of Mobile, Alabama, an Alabama federal district court dismissed a RLUIPA and 1st Amendment challenge to the city's denial of permission to build a meditation center and related structures in an area zoned residential. Plaintiff is a Buddhist religious organization.  The court said in part:

The Court finds Plaintiffs have shown, for the purposes of summary judgment, the City’s decision effectively deprives them of any viable means by which to engage in protected religious exercise, but the application of the City’s Zoning Ordinance generally does not since the meditation center could be located at a commercially zoned property as of right.... 

... Plaintiffs have not demonstrated the City’s zoning decisions substantially burdened their religious exercise, and even if Plaintiffs’ religious exercise was substantially burdened by the denial of their Applications, the Court finds the decision was the least restrictive means to further the City’s compelling interest in its Zoning Ordinance...

Plaintiff's Ban From Space Center Upheld

In Duvall v. United States Space and Rocket Center, (ND AL, April 11, 2022) an Alabama federal district court dismissed claims that plaintiff's free exercise, free speech and freedom of assembly rights were violated when he was banned from the Space Center's property. The ban was imposed after plaintiff was trying at the Center "to bust open Seal No. 7 of the Holy Bible.”