State Office Violated Title VII by Refusing to Allow Jehovah's Witness to Attach Addendum to Required Employment Oath

In Bolden-Hardge v. Office of the California State Controller, (ED CA, Aug. 29, 2025), a California federal district court, in a case on remand from the 9th Circuit (see prior posting), granted summary judgment to plaintiff on her Title VII failure to accommodate claim.  Plaintiff, a Jehovah's Witness, insisted on attaching an Addendum to the oath she was required to take as an employee of the State Controller's Office.  She contended that the required Oath violated her religious beliefs in four ways, one of which was the Oath’s language that she "will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California."  She contended that this conflicted with her religious belief that "her allegiance is first and foremost to God."

The court said in part:

The Court finds that there is no genuine dispute that Plaintiff’s religious beliefs conflict with the “true faith and allegiance” provision.  Plaintiff’s expert Dr. Schmalz opined that “the requirement to ‘bear true faith and allegiance’ presents a conflict with a typical Jehovah’s Witness’ most basic loyalty to Jehovah God — a fundamental precept guiding Watchtower belief and practice.” 

Plaintiff's proposed Addendum read:

I, [Plaintiff], vow to uphold the Constitutions of the United States and that of the State of California while working in my role as an employee of the [SCO].  I will be honest and fair in my dealings and neither dishonor the Office by word nor deed.  By signing this oath, I understand that I shall not be required to bear arms, engage in violence, nor participate in political or military affairs.  Additionally, I understand that I am not giving up my right to freely exercise my religion, nor am I denouncing my religion by accepting this position.

The court concluded:

... [T]he undisputed evidence shows that Defendants would not have experienced an undue hardship if Plaintiff had been allowed to attach the Proposed Addendum and sign the Oath, as she requested.

The court dismissed several of plaintiff's other claims.

Supreme Court Review Sought by California Baker

A petition for certiorari (full text) was filed this week in Miller v. Civil Rights Division, (Sup. Ct., certiorari filed 8/26/2025). In the case, a California state appellate court held that a bakery, Cathy's Creations, and its owner violated the anti-discrimination provisions of California law when they refused to sell a predesigned cake to a customer because the cake would be used at a same-sex wedding reception. The California court rejected defendant's free exercise and free speech defenses. (See prior posting.) The California Supreme Court denied review. Washington Times reports on the petition seeking U.S. Supreme Court review.

LA Sued Over Its handling of Permit Application for Christian Revival Event

Suit was filed last week in a California federal district court by leaders of May Day USA, a nationwide Christian revival event, contending that the manner in which Los Angeles officials handed their application for a permit to hold a revival on Hollywood Boulevard violated their 1st and 14th Amendment rights. The 54-page complaint (full text) in Donnelly v. City of Los Angeles, California, (CD CA, filed 8/21/2025), alleges in part:

15. LAPD wielded the unconstitutionally unbridled discretion afforded it under the City’s permitting scheme to subject MayDay to lengthy and pretextual administrative hurdles....

16. Among the LAPD’s many demands was a requirement that MayDay conduct a petition of Hollywood Boulevard’s business owners and vendors to ensure at least 51% approved of MayDay’s expressive activity and speech....

19. The City’s permitting scheme thus enshrined an unconstitutional heckler’s veto upon MayDay and its expressive activities....

21. The City refused to provide MayDay with any concrete answer on its permit application until the last minute, prohibiting MayDay from finalizing their planned event, advertising it, or otherwise adequately preparing to engage in the event....

23. Three days prior to its requested event, the City denied the permit actually requested by MayDay ...and “granted” the application to host the event at a location ... it never requested and out of the site of the hecklers who Defendants believed would veto MayDay’s speech. In essence, the City tried to put MayDay unconstitutionally out of sight, and out of mind....

25. Simply put, the City said MayDay could speak, but only if it did it quietly, quickly, and where no one who might object would be forced to hear it. Defendants denied MayDay’s permit application on the basis of the views it planned to espouse and out of concern that Hollywood Boulevard was not an appropriate place for their religious speech, exercise, and expression.

Liberty Counsel issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Good News Clubs Must Have Equal Access to School Facilities

In Child Evangelism Fellowship NorCal, Inc. v. Oakland Unified School District Board of Education, (ND CA, Aug. 15, 2025), a California federal district court issued a preliminary injunction barring the Oakland School District from denying Christian Evangelism Fellowship and its Good News Clubs access to school facilities after school on an equal basis with the access provided similarly situated nonprofit organizations. Plaintiff had been denied use of school facilities, in part because all space was being used by two broad afterschool programs that choose subcontractors to provide content. The court said in part:

Even assuming that afterschool space is now controlled by the lead agencies, as OUSD seems to urge, Plaintiff has provided an example of a lead agency similarly denying CEF access as a subcontractor because of its religious affiliation....

In short, the Court finds that the law and facts clearly favor Plaintiff’s position that OUSD violated CEF’s free speech rights.

Catholic News Agency reports on the decision.

9th Circuit Rejects Christian Day Care's Challenge to Licensing Requirement

In Foothills Christian Ministries v. Johnson, (9th Cir., Aug. 14, 2025), Foothills, a Christian day care center, challenged a California licensing provision requiring that day care centers ensure that children are free to attend religious services or activities of their parents' choice. The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held that plaintiff lacks standing to challenge the regulation on free exercise grounds because the state has repeatedly taken the position that the regulation does not prohibit operating a day care center with a mandatory religious curriculum, where parents are made aware of this in advance of enrollment. 

However, the court held that Foothills does have standing to challenge the general licensing requirement on the ground that some secular child day care centers are exempt from licensing. But the court rejected that claim on the merits, saying in part:

Foothills contends that the Act’s exemption of “recreation programs conducted for children by” the YMCA “or similar organizations,”...  But this provision only exempts recreation programs from the licensure requirement; it explicitly does not exempt “child day care programs conducted by” the same organizations and so creates no mechanism for granting individualized exemptions for such facilities....

Foothills points to the exception for any “child daycare program that operates only one day per week for no more than four hours on that one day.”... This exemption applies to, among other things, Sunday schools. But a program that oversees children for only four hours a week does not present a threat to children’s health and safety comparable to that of a facility that can operate up to 24 hours a day....

Foothills alleges that the Act’s exemption of certain sectarian organizations—such as the YMCA and Boy Scouts of America—from licensing gives preferential treatment to certain religions in violation of the Establishment Clause.... 

If Foothills sought to operate a recreation program, it would not be subject to the Act. And if the YMCA or the Boy Scouts sought to operate a child day care facility, they would. This exemption draws no lines based on religion....

The court also held that the required disclosure to parents of the right for their child to attend religious activities of their choice does not infringe Foothills' free speech rights, distinguishing the Supreme Court case of Nat’l Inst. of Fam. & Life Advocs. v. Becerra , saying in part:

 Because the Act merely requires Foothills to inform parents of their children’s rights and does not “convey a message fundamentally at odds with its mission,” the required disclosure is not controversial....

Challenge to Church's Switch in Denominations Fails

In Wimber v. Scott, (CA App., July 30, 2025), a California state appellate court held that plaintiffs who were tithing congregants of a Protestant church formerly known as Vinyard Christian Fellowship and now known as Dwelling Place lack standing to sue the church's pastors and board of directors on behalf of the church for fraud, misrepresentation, breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty. It also held that the First Amendment precludes granting the relief sought. Following the wishes of the church's senior pastor, the pastor and the board of directors disaffiliated the church from the Vinyard Movement and used the church's $62 million in assets to start and fund a new movement. Plaintiffs included the widow of the founder of the Vinyard Movement and a congregant who had contributed over $500,000 to the church. The court said in part:

The NRC [California Nonprofit Religious Corporations Code] limits who may bring a representative lawsuit to, as relevant here, a “member” alleging a director violated their authority (§ 9141, subd. (a)) and a “member” or “former member” alleging breach of a trust. (§ 9142, subd. (a)(1).)  

Because churches are these unique species of corporation, the NRC recognizes the church may refer to persons who are part of its congregation as “‘members.”’ (§ 9332, subd. (a).) But the NRC does not allow these individuals to assert representative lawsuits. Only those persons explicitly authorized to do so by the corporation’s articles or bylaws have the power to bring a representative lawsuit. (Ibid.) Otherwise, any one of a church’s potentially hundreds or thousands of congregants could at any time bring a representative lawsuit....

Appellants’ allegations demonstrate they are members of the congregation, not the corporation....

 Although the statements may constitute misrepresentations, the Scotts made the statements to the “Search Committee and the Board,” of which only Director Appellants were a part. As such, [those plaintiffs who were not directors] ... have not alleged a cause of action for fraud based on misrepresentation....

Even assuming the complaint stated sufficient facts to allege causes of action, the First Amendment would bar this case from going forward....

Appellants ask the court to impose a trust over Dwelling Place’s assets in favor of Vineyard USA and to require the Scotts to keep Dwelling Place a part of the Vineyard Movement and Vineyard USA. Even if the facts alleged in the complaint entitled Appellants to such relief, they are essentially asking the court to manage and run Dwelling Place in a manner consistent with their religious beliefs. We would have to administer Dwelling Place’s assets to further a religious doctrine to which Appellants ascribe. 

Worse, we would then potentially violate the Scotts’ religious beliefs by forcing them to minister Dwelling Place in a mode Appellants see appropriate. We will not do any of this....

We note the ministerial exception also bars Appellants’ claims....  We cannot litigate Appellants’ claims or grant the relief they seek without in some way punishing the church for its hiring of the Scotts, retention of the Scotts, or ratification of the Scotts’ decisions and actions. 

Challenge To California's Investigation of Caste Discrimination Dismissed on Procedural Grounds

In Hindu American Foundation, Inc. v. Kish, (ED CA, July 18, 2025), a California federal district court dismissed on various procedural grounds a suit contending that the California Civil Rights Department is violating the constitutional rights of Hindu Americans by "conflat[ing] a discriminatory caste system with the Hindu religion" in an investigation of Cisco Systems, Inc. Individual plaintiffs in the case include employees of Cisco.

The court first concluded that the Younger abstention doctrine requires it to dismiss the case because it would pose "a serious risk of direct interference with state court proceedings...." The court went on to find a lack of standing to pursue plaintiffs' Establishment Clause claim, saying in part:

In the present case, the Individual Plaintiffs do not allege that they were direct targets of the Department's enforcement action but instead allege that they learned of it through, among other things, conversation or reading about the State Action.... Plaintiffs contend in conclusory fashion that the Department's conduct has chilled their participation in "the political community," but do not identify what political community they refer to in this regard.... Instead, plaintiffs vaguely allege that the Department's conduct has led to conversations at discrete, unidentified social events.... In this way, plaintiffs' allegations merely state an abstract stigmatic injury, rather than an injury caused by direct contact with the Department's actions and are therefore insufficient to establish plaintiffs' standing to assert their claim under the Establishment Clause....

The court also found a lack of standing as to plaintiffs' Free Exercise claims, saying in part: 

Plaintiffs cannot persuasively maintain that there "exists some conflict between one of [their] religious convictions and a challenged governmental action[]" precisely because they contend that caste discrimination is not one of their religious convictions....

Because plaintiffs have not alleged that they plan to engage in religious conduct which could arguably be the target of an enforcement action brought by the Department, the court concludes that they have not shown standing to bring a pre-enforcement action pursuant to the Free Exercise Clause....

The SAC now includes allegations from the Individual Plaintiffs regarding how they feel stigmatized, however, it includes no allegations that the Department has pursued any discriminatory action against the Individual Plaintiffs....

The court similarly found a lack of standing as to plaintiffs' due process and equal protection claims. It also concluded that the Hindu American Foundation lacks organizational or associational standing, saying in part:

Plaintiffs’ theory appears to be that the Foundation was forced to respond to the Department’s actions insofar as it spent any resources responding to those actions rather than on other initiatives.  The Supreme Court has explicitly rejected such a theory of standing.

The Mooknayak reports on the decision.

Justice Department Sues California Over Its Gender Identity Policy in School Sports

Last week, the Department of Justice sued California, alleging that it violates Title IX by permitting transgender girls to compete in girls' interscholastic athletics. The complaint (full text) in United States v. California Interscholastic Federation, (CD CA, filed 7/9/2025), alleges in part:

1. Across the State of California, girls must compete against boys in various sports pursuant to policies enforced by the California Department of Education (“CDE”) and the California Interscholastic Federation (“CIF”).  These discriminatory policies and practices ignore undeniable biological differences between boys and girls, in favor of an amorphous “gender identity.”  The results of these illegal policies are stark: girls are displaced from podiums, denied awards, and miss out on critical visibility for college scholarships and recognition.  In the words of the Governor of California, it is “deeply unfair” for girls to compete against boys. 

2. This discrimination is not only illegal and unfair but also demeaning, signaling to girls that their opportunities and achievements are secondary to accommodating boys.  It erodes the integrity of girls’ sports, diminishes their competitive experience, and undermines the very purpose of Title IX: to provide equal access to educational benefits, including interscholastic athletics.  Despite warnings from the United States Department of Education, Defendants continue to require California schools to allow boys to compete against girls.  The United States accordingly files this action to stop Defendants’ illegal sex discrimination against female student athletes....

26. Title IX and the Implementing Regulations use the term “sex” to mean biological sex; the term “sex” thus does not mean “gender identity.”...

47. The California Sex Equity in Education Act, Cal. Educ. Code § 221.5(f), referenced in the CDE’s “Gender Equity/Title IX” guidance, states in part:  “A pupil shall be permitted to participate in sex-segregated school programs and activities, including athletic teams and competitions, and use facilities consistent with his or her gender identity, irrespective of the gender listed on the pupil’s records.”  Cal. Educ. Code § 221.5....

The Justice Department issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Section 1981 Suit Can Move Ahead Against Defendants Who Disrupted Jewish Religious Celebration

Congregation Hazon Ovadya, Inc. v. Rabbinical Council of California, (CD CA, July 1, 2025), is a suit by a Sephardic Jewish synagogue against several individuals of Ashkenazi Jewish origin as well as a group of Ashkenazi rabbis. The court describes the dispute:

On or about July 13, 2022, CHO organized a procession and solemn, religious ceremony centered around the dedication of a Torah.... In preparation for the Ceremony, CHO contracted with various rabbis and vendors, including musicians, a disc jockey, and equipment providers....

Plaintiffs allege that the Rabbinical Defendants contacted hundreds of people, including the Individuals Defendants, to organize a riot and frustrate the Ceremony.... Plaintiffs further allege that Defendants were motivated by their bias and animosity towards people of Sephardic origin.... In addition to playing sirens and other noises, some of the Individual Defendants shouted racial slurs at Plaintiff Vanounou, including but not limited to calling him "Arab."....

Due to the riot, the musicians and other vendors were unable to perform their contractual duties during the Ceremony....

Plaintiffs sued under 42 USC §1981 which prohibits discrimination on account of race in the making and enforcement of contracts. The court denied defendants' motion to dismiss the case under California's anti-SLAPP law, saying that the suit does not seek to hold defendants liable for their speech. The court refused to dismiss the suit against three individual defendants, saying in part:

The Court acknowledges that § 1981 is not "meant to provide an omnibus remedy for all racial injustice."... And the facts at issue in this action certainly do not fall within the typical kinds of claims raised under § 1981. However, having been presented with no authority expressly precluding claims of this nature, the Court does not view dismissal on this ground appropriate at this stage. At bottom, Plaintiffs have sufficiently pled that their contractual rights were impaired...

However the court dismissed charges against the Rabbinical organization, saying in part:

Even if the Rabbinical Defendants organized the riot and some of the participants engaged in racial chants, Plaintiffs have failed to allege facts supporting the idea that the Rabbinical Defendants engaged in this conduct themselves or otherwise ordered or condoned it....

California May Proceed With False Advertising Charges Against Abortion Pill Reversal Promoters

In Culture of Life Family Services, Inc. v. Bonta, (SD CA, June 13, 2025), a California federal district court refused to enter a preliminary injunction to prevent California's attorney general from moving ahead with an enforcement action against a Catholic community health clinic that promoted "abortion pill reversal". California claimed that the clinic violated Unfair Commpetition and False Advertising laws. The clinic contended its promotion of abortion pill reversal is speech protected by the First Amendment. The court said in part:

The Court has already found that the challenged laws are not content-based and do not warrant application of a strict scrutiny standard.... But as content-neutral regulations, they are generally subject to heightened scrutiny: the government may impose reasonable restrictions on the time, place, or manner of protected speech, provided the restrictions “are justified without reference to the content of the regulated speech, that they are narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest, and that they leave open....

The court concluded that the clinic was engaged in commercial speech and that, "it would be at the very least potentially misleading to state that supplemental progesterone can “reverse” an abortion." It went on to conclude that a number of other staements that the clinic made regarding abortion pill reversal are, or are potentially, false and misleading. The court went on to say in part:

Although this regulation involves reproductive rights, AG Bonta is not aiming to limit the actual practice of APR. And reproductive choices are not apart from consumer choices: women, in exercising their reproductive rights, are also consumers who must be given the correct information to make knowledgeable decisions for themselves....

In sum, Plaintiff cannot carry its burden of showing likelihood of success. Commercial speech that is inherently false or misleading does not receive First Amendment protection. For potentially misleading speech, the AG has more than carried his burden under Central Hudson.

DOJ Sues California Coffee House for Discriminating Against Jewish Customers

On Monday, the Justice Department filed suit in a California federal district court against an Oakland, California coffee house alleging violations of Title II, the Public Accommodation provisions, of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The suit alleges that the coffee house refuses to serve Jewish patrons.  The complaint (full text) in United States v. Harara, (ND CA, filed 6/9/2025), alleges in part:

Among the drinks the coffee house sells are "Iced In Tea Fada," an apparent reference to intifada and "Sweet Sinwar." The coffee house announced these new drinks on Instagram on the one-year anniversary of the October 7, 2023 Hamas terrorist attacks on Israel....

The Justice Department's press release announcing the filing of the suit summarizes the discrimination charges in the complaint, saying in part:

The lawsuit ... alleges that defendants discriminated against Jewish customers through policies and practices that denied them the full and equal enjoyment of the Jerusalem Coffee House’s services, accommodations, and privileges. Specifically, the lawsuit alleges that on two separate occasions, Harara ordered Jewish customers — identified because they were wearing baseball caps with Stars of David on them — to leave the coffee house. During one incident, an employee told a Jewish customer who was trying to make a purchase, “You’re the guy with the hat. You’re the Jew. You’re the Zionist.  We don’t want you in our coffee shop. Get out.” During another incident, Harara accused another Jewish customer who was with his five-year-old son of wearing a “Jewish star,” being a “Zionist,” and supporting “genocide.” Harara repeatedly demanded that the customer and his son leave and falsely accused them of “trespassing” to the Oakland police....

Teacher's Refusal to Use Student's Preferred Pronouns Justified Her Being Fired

 In Ramirez v. Oakland Unified School District, (ND CA, May 27, 2025), a California federal district court dismissed claims by a former kindergarten teacher that her free speech and free exercise rights were violated by her termination for refusing to refer to a student using male pronouns when the student appeared to be biologically female. Both school officials and the student's parents requested that male pronouns be used. Plaintiff contended that her Catholic faith does not allow her to refer to a person using pronouns that differ from the person’s “divinely-intended gender.” The court held that the school district itself was protected by sovereign immunity and that the individual plaintiffs have qualified immunity as to any action for damages. The court went on to hold that plaintiff also failed to adequately allege either a speech or religious exercise claim, saying in part:

The complaint fails to state a claim because the alleged speech was not protected. Ms. Ramirez agreed to serve as an elementary school teacher at a public school. To do the job, a teacher must address and interact with their students. As other courts have observed, while addressing students is not part of the curriculum itself, “it is difficult to imagine how a teacher could perform [their] teaching duties on any subject without a method by which to address individual students.”,,, 

The plaintiff’s main argument in opposition — that the above analysis does not apply because this case concerns compelled speech — fails both legally and factually. While the Supreme Court has suggested that compelled speech outside of an employee’s official duties warrants heightened protection, the government may insist that the employee deliver any lawful message when the speech is part of the employee’s official duties....

Here, the plaintiff does not contest that the district’s anti-discrimination policy is facially neutral. Instead, she contends that school officials were impermissibly hostile towards her religious beliefs when enforcing the policy. The argument fails because, even accepted as true, the well-pleaded facts do not plausibly allege hostility. 

California Agrees to Consent Decree Allowing Sectarian Schools to Participate In IDEA

 As previously reported, last October the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a California federal district court's dismissal of a suit by the parents of special needs children and by two Orthodox Jewish schools. The suit challenges as a violation of the Free Exercise and Equal Protection Clauses California's rules that preclude sectarian schools from receiving payments for special needs children under the federal Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). This week, in the district court the parties filed a Joint Motion for Entry of Consent Judgment and Permanent Injunction in Loffman v, California Department of Education, (CD CA, May 19, 2025). The injunction bars California from enforcing requirements that schools be nonsectarian in order to participate in the IDEA program. Fox News reports on these developments.

Exclusion of Religious Organization from Non-Profit Discount Challenged Under California's Unruh Act

Suit was filed yesterday in a California federal district court by a Christian non-profit claiming that OpenAI's non-profit discount policy that excludes academic, medical, religious, and governmental institutions violates plaintiff's rights under California's Unruh Civil Rights Act. The complaint (full text) in Holy Sexuality v. OpenAI, Inc., (SD CA, filed 5/21/2025), alleges in part:

1. Plaintiff Holy Sexuality is a Christian nonprofit based in Texas that uses video courses to teach young people and their families about biblical principles on human sexuality.  

2. To operate more effectively, Holy Sexuality contacted Defendant OpenAI, Inc., a San Francisco-based tech company, to receive OpenAI’s 20% nonprofit discount for a ChatGPT subscription....  

4. But OpenAI and Goodstack denied Holy Sexuality the discount because “religious … institutions are not eligible.” 

5. This categorical denial, OpenAI’s published policy, and Goodstack’s enforcement of that policy are invidious religious discrimination. And they are illegal under California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act....

6. People of faith aren’t second-class citizens in California, and tech companies cannot provide lesser services to customers simply because they are religious....

ADF issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Church's Removal of Congregant from Services Did Not Violate 1st Amendment

 In Devi v. Sacramento Bhartiya Sabha, (ED CA, May 2, 2025), a California federal magistrate judge recommended dismissal of a suit against a church and the city by plaintiff who was removed from a church service by police serving her with a trespass notice at the request of church board members. The court said in part:

Plaintiff alleges that the Board of Trustees and the President of the Church defendant prohibited her from entering the Church and “exercising her rights to freely practice her religious beliefs and to her rights to free speech” under the First Amendment....  She alleges that she was removed from the Church because the Church defendant did not approve of plaintiff’s opinions and questions and was attempting to stop her from stating these opinions....  She alleges the Church defendant retaliated against her by preventing her from attending services because she expressed her opinions and concerns about the Church’s finances....

To state a claim for a violation of the First Amendment, plaintiff must allege facts sufficient to show that defendants acted under the color of state law....

In order to successfully bring her claim, plaintiff has to show that there is significant state involvement in the private party’s actions.  Plaintiff has made no allegations that the Church defendant’s alleged decision to exclude her from the Church is a “traditionally and exclusively governmental” function.  She also still has not demonstrated that there was “significant” state involvement in the Church defendant’s decision to remove her from the Church.  Based on plaintiff’s allegations, the Church decided to call the police to remove plaintiff from the Church premises because she was trespassing.  To the extent plaintiff is alleging that the Church defendant was a state actor because it had plaintiff removed by the City of Sacramento Police Department, “merely complaining to the police does not convert a private party into a state actor.”

Parents Lack Standing to Challenge Law Barring Schools from Disclosing Child's Change of Name or Pronoun

In Chino Valley Unified School District v. Newsom, (ED CA, April 18, 2025), a California federal district court held that plaintiffs, parents of school children, lack standing to challenge a California law that prohibits public schools from requiring disclosure to parents, without their child's consent, of their child's change of name or gender pronoun at school. Plaintiffs are "devout Christians and believe that God created man and woman as distinct, immutable genders." They contend that the law violates their free exercise rights and their right to control the upbringing and medical care of their children.  The court said in part:

While the Court has no doubt as to the concern that Plaintiff Parents have toward the implementation of AB 1955, Plaintiff Parents have not shown that they have suffered or will imminently suffer any form of harm as a result the Act.  For example, Plaintiff Parents do not allege that their own child has gone or goes by a different name at school, that their children’s school has deprived the parents of relevant information about their child, or that this is something that is likely to happen in the future....

Appellate Court Upholds $1.2M Fine Against Church for Violating Covid Public Health Orders

In People of the State of California v. Calvary Chapel San Jose, (CA App., April 15, 2025), a California state appellate court affirmed the imposition of administrative fines totaling $1,228,700 on defendant church for violating Covid public health orders requiring face coverings and submission of a social distancing protocol. The court rejected Calvary Chapel's Free Exercise defense. The court said in part:

...  [T]he People have met their burden to establish as a matter of law that the face covering requirements set forth in the orders are neutral and of general applicability, and Calvary Chapel has failed to submit admissible evidence sufficient to create a triable issue of fact. 

First, the text of the revised risk reduction order and the safety measures order shows that these orders are neutral because they are not specifically directed at religious practice, do not discriminate on their face, and religious exercise is not the object of the orders....

Having reviewed the very limited exemptions that Calvary Chapel asserts show that the face covering requirements in public health orders are not of general applicability, we decide that Calvary Chapel has provided no evidence to create a triable question of fact regarding general applicability.

The court also rejected Calvary Chapel's due process claims and additionally held:

... [T]he undisputed facts show that Calvary Chapel’s level of culpability due to violating the public health orders requiring face coverings is high, and therefore the fines in the amount of $1,228,700 do not violate the excessive fines clause of the Eighth Amendment.

Denial of Conditional Use Permit to Church Violated RLUIPA and 1st Amendment

In Anchor Stone Christian Church v. City of Santa Ana, (CD CA, April 7, 2025), a California federal district court issued a preliminary injunction allowing a church to operate and make renovations to an office building it had acquired. The city had denied a conditional use permit to the church. The court concluded that the denial violated RLUIPA's equal terms and substantial burden provisions, as well as the Free Exercise clause of the First Amendment. The court said in part:

... [T]he City must do more than identify some similarly situated nonreligious assemblies that are treated as badly as religious assemblies—the City must show that it treats “every” similarly situated nonreligious assembly equally to religious assemblies....

In short, it appears unlikely that the City will meet its burden to establish that the Zoning Ordinance treats religious assembly on equal terms with similarly situated nonreligious assembly uses.... 

The Court concludes that, based upon the totality of the circumstances, Anchor Stone has met its burden to show that the City’s denial of its CUP application substantially burdened Anchor Stone’s religious exercise....

The City’s reasons for denying a CUP to Anchor Stone also appear particularly arbitrary in view of the City’s reasons for granting a CUP to Compass Bible Church....

The Planning Commission and the City Council refused to consider or apply RLUIPA in connection with Anchor Stone’s CUP application.  Multiple commissioners and councilmembers expressed “offense” at the mention of RLUIPA, while the City’s staff affirmed that it was the City’s “position” that RLUIPA was “outside the scope” of the CUP application process.  One councilmember regarded the mention of RLUIPA as a “smack in [his] face” and an attempt to “circumvent [Santa Ana’s] local laws.” Such comments from a government official fall far short of fulfilling the “First Amendment’s guarantee that our laws be applied in a manner that is neutral toward religion,”....

First Liberty issued a press release announcing the decision.

Court Upholds California's Repeal of Personal Belief Exemption from School Vaccination Mandate

 In Royce v. Pan, (SD CA, March 17, 2025), a California federal district court rejected a free exercise challenge to California's removal of the "personal belief" exemption from the state's compulsory school vaccination requirements. The court rejected arguments that the repeal of the exemption evidenced hostility to religion and that the law is not generally applicable because it exempts comparable secular activity.  The court said in part:

First, SB 277 did not specifically repeal a religious exemption.  Rather, it repealed a general personal belief exemption that was secular and neutral on its face.  Repeal of a secular exemption does not demonstrate hostility towards any religion or religious practice.  Second, even if SB 277 could be characterized as repealing a religious exemption, repealing a prior religious exemption is not hostile towards religion per se....

Plaintiffs argue that SB 277 is substantially underinclusive and treats secular activity more favorably than religious exercise by eliminating exemptions for religious reasons but permitting secular exemptions that undermine the State’s interest in a similar way.....  In particular, Plaintiffs highlight medical exemptions, exemptions for home schooled children and children enrolled in independent student programs, exemptions for students who qualify for IEPs, exemptions for students over 18 years of age, and conditional enrollment for migrant, homeless, foster, and military children.....

The court concluded that none of these exemptions are comparable to a religious exemption and that rational basis review applies because the law is neutral and generally applicable.

9th Circuit: Profs Lack Standing to Challenge Addition of Caste Discrimination to University's Anti-Discrimination Policy

In Kumar v. Koester, (9th Cir., March 12, 2023), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held that two Hindu California State University college professors lack standing to challenge the addition of "caste" as a protected class under the university's anti-discrimination and harassment policy. Plaintiffs claim that this addition falsely attributes a caste system to Hinduism. The court said in part:

Appellants allege that the Policy’s inclusion of “caste” stigmatized their religion and caused them to self-censor certain religious practices, like celebrating holidays and discussing religious texts....

The complaint ... alleges that the Policy violates the Religious Clauses of the First Amendment by defining the Hindu religion as including a caste system, and in doing so, “ascrib[es] an oppressive and discriminatory caste system to the entire Hindu religion.”...  

Appellants failed to show that they intend to engage in any religious practice that could reasonably constitute caste discrimination or harassment such that the Policy would be enforced against them....

... How can Appellants be injured by a policy prohibiting conduct that they have no intention to engage in?...

... Appellants have alleged no injury to their ability to exercise their religion.  Rather, their claims only indicate that they are offended by an alleged association of the caste system with Hinduism.  This is the exact “moral, ideological, or policy objection to a particular government action” that the injury in fact requirement is meant to “screen[] out.”...

... [T]he district court made a factual finding that the Policy had no hostility toward religion.  It based that finding on (1) the fact that the Policy does not mention Hinduism; (2) dictionary definitions show “caste” is “readily defined without reference to Hinduism” 

... If the Policy does not stigmatize Hinduism, Appellants have no spiritual injury.  And if there is no injury, there is no standing....  Appellants’ Establishment Clause claim fails for lack of Article III standing....

[Thanks to Dusty Hoesly for the lead.]