Certiorari Filed with Supreme Court in Challenge to Colorado Conversion Therapy Ban

 A petition for certiorari (full text) was filed with the U.S. Supreme Court last Friday in Chiles v. Salazar, (Sup. Ct., cert. filed 11/8/2024). In the case, the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 decision held that Colorado's Minor Conversion Therapy Law that bans mental health professionals from providing conversion therapy to minors does not violate the free speech or free exercise rights of mental health professionals. (See prior posting.) ADF issued a press release announcing the filling of the petition for review.

10th Circuit Upholds Colorado's Ban on Conversion Therapy

In Chiles v. Salazar, (10th Cir., Sept. 12, 2024), the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 decision held that Colorado's Minor Conversion Therapy Law that bans mental health professionals from providing conversion therapy to minors does not violate the free speech or free exercise rights of mental health professionals. Rejecting petitioner's free speech argument, the majority said in part:

The statute is part of Colorado’s regulation of the healthcare profession and, as the district court correctly found, applies to mental health professionals providing a type of prohibited treatment to minor patients. On the record before us, we agree the MCTL regulates professional conduct that “incidentally involves speech.”....

Ms. Chiles may, in full compliance with the MCTL, share with her minor clients her own views on conversion therapy, sexual orientation, and gender identity. She may exercise her First Amendment right to criticize Colorado for restricting her ability to administer conversion therapy. She may refer her minor clients to service providers outside of the regulatory ambit who can legally engage in efforts to change a client’s sexual orientation or gender identity.....

Rejecting petitioner's free exercise claim, the majority said in part: 

Because, on the record before us, we find Ms. Chiles has failed to show the MCTL lacks neutrality and general applicability, the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding the MCTL is subject to rational basis review..... And ... the MCTL survives rational basis review...

Judge Hartz dissenting said in part:

The issue in this case is whether to recognize an exception to freedom of speech when the leaders of national professional organizations declare certain speech to be dangerous and demand deference to their views by all members of their professions, regardless of the relevance or strength of their purported supporting evidence. As I understand controlling Supreme Court precedent, the answer is clearly no.... 

In particular, a restriction on speech is not incidental to regulation of conduct when the restriction is imposed because of the expressive content of what is said. And that is the type of restriction imposed on Chiles....

The consensus view of organizations of mental-health professionals in this country is that only gender-affirming care (including the administration of drugs) should be provided to minors, and that attempts to change a minor’s intent to change gender identity are dangerous—significantly increasing suicidal tendencies and causing other psychological injuries. The organizations insist that this view reflects the results of peer-reviewed studies.

But outside this country there is substantial doubt about those studies. In the past few years there has been significant movement in Europe away from American orthodoxy.....

Advocate reports on the decision.

[Corrected: The majority opinion was written by Judge Rossman. Judge Hartz dissented. The prior version of this post incorrectly identified the Judge Rossman as the dissenter instead of being the author of the majority opinion.]

10th Circuit: School Administrator Fired Over Religious Comments Has Discrimination, But Not Retaliation, Claim

 In McNellis v. Douglas County School District, (10th Cir., Sept. 10, 2024), the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal of retaliation claims by a high school Assistant Principal/ Athletic Director, but reversed dismissal of his religious discrimination claims under Title VII and the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act.  Plaintiff Corey McNellis was fired after he complained about the depiction of Christians in an upcoming school play about the 1998 hate-motivated murder of Matthew Shepard in Wyoming. The court concluded the McNellis's speech was not protected by the 1st Amendment because it was made in the course of performing his official duties. It also concluded the McNellis's complaints about being investigated because of his Christian beliefs were not the cause of his firing. In allowing plaintiff to proceed with his discrimination claims, the court said that plaintiff had alleged sufficient facts to give rise to an inference of discrimination.

Parents Sue Over School Policy That Places Students Together on Overnight Trips on Basis of Gender Identity

Suit was filed this week in a Colorado federal district court by parents of Jefferson County, Colorado school children challenging the district's policy of assigning students and counselors on overnight school trips to room together on the basis of shared gender identity rather than biological sex. The complaint (full text) in Wailes v. Jefferson County Public Schools, (D CO, filed 9/4/2024), alleges that the policy violates parents' right to control the upbringing and education of their children, students' right of bodily privacy, and the free exercise rights of both parents and students.  The complaint, which asks that Plaintiff students in the future not be placed in accommodations with transgender students, says in part:

346. Parent Plaintiffs have a sincere religious belief that they must teach their children to practice modesty and protect their children’s modesty. This requires that their children not undress, use the restroom, shower, complete other intimate activities, or share overnight accommodations with the opposite sex. 

347. Parent Plaintiffs have a sincere religious belief that God created all people in His image as male and female. Genesis 1:27; Genesis 5:2. 

348. Parent Plaintiffs believe that a person’s sex is binary and fixed at conception. They do not believe a person can change their sex....

412. Student Plaintiffs’ sincerely held religious beliefs require them to avoid intimate exposure, or the risk of intimate exposure, of their own bodies or intimate activities to the opposite sex.

413. Student Plaintiffs’ sincerely held religious beliefs also require them to avoid intimate exposure, or the risk of intimate exposure, to the body or intimate activities of someone of the opposite sex....

415. Student Plaintiffs have a sincere religious belief that God created all people in His image as male and female. Genesis 1:27; Genesis 5:2. 

416. Student Plaintiffs believe that a person’s sex is binary and fixed at conception. They do not believe a person can change their sex.

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

Church Obtains Preliminary Injunction Under RLUIPA Allowing Its On-Site Shelter Program to Continue

In Church of the Rock, Inc. v. Town of Castle Rock, Colorado, (D CO, July 19, 2024), a Colorado federal district court granted a church a preliminary injunction preventing the Town of Castle Rock from interfering with the church's use of an RV and a trailer on church property in its On-Site Temporary Shelter Ministry. The court said in part:

The Town argues that the Church’s RLUIPA claim is not likely to succeed because the applicable zoning regulations do not substantially burden the Church’s exercise of its religious beliefs.... The Town instead characterizes the nature of the burden as a “mere inconvenience” and suggests that the Church could find other ways to satisfy its religious compulsion to provide for the needy, such as by providing hotel rooms or housing in other areas that are zoned for residential use.... It also suggests that finding a substantial burden in this case “effectively would be granting an automatic exemption to religious organizations from generally applicable land use regulations.”

The Church responds that its religious beliefs don’t just obligate it to provide for the needy in some general way; they obligate it to provide for the needy on Church property....

The Church has carried its burden on this question.... Although the Town alludes to a bit of a disconnect between the Church’s assertion that it is compelled to allow the poor to “live among you” and its desire to have people live in RVs on Church grounds rather than in homes and residential areas where Church members live, it does not ultimately dispute the sincerity of the Church’s assertions on this point, which are supported by sworn affidavits....

(See prior related posting.)  CBS News reports on the decision.

Catholic Preschools Must Be Able to Conditionally Participate in Colorado Universal Preschool Program

In St. Mary Catholic Parish in Littleton v. Roy, (D CO, June 4, 2024), a Colorado federal district court in a 101-page opinion, held that Colorado cannot exclude from its Universal Preschool Program two Catholic schools that will not enroll LGBTQ children or children from LGBTQ families so long as the state continues to improperly grant an exemption from religious anti-discrimination requirements to faith-based pre-schools that limit their enrollment to members of their own congregations. The court said in part:

Defendants have established a compelling interest in denying an exemption from the sexual-orientation and gender-identity aspects of the equal-opportunity requirement for Plaintiff Preschools specifically....

In sharp contrast to the evidence Defendants presented to establish a compelling interest with respect to the sexual-orientation and gender-identity aspects of the equal-opportunity requirement, Defendants did not offer any evidence relating to discrimination on the basis of religious affiliation....

Defendants enable faith-based providers to effectively discriminate on the basis of religious affiliation in their admission of preschoolers but, at the same time, deny Plaintiff Preschools an explicit exemption from the related aspect of the equal-opportunity requirement. Defendants have provided no compelling interest for their course of conduct....

The application by Defendants ... acting in their official capacities on behalf of the Colorado Department of Early Childhood, of the religious affiliation aspect of the equal-opportunity requirement...violates Plaintiffs’ rights secured by the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution....

The Court immediately and permanently enjoins Defendants ... from requiring, as a condition for participation in the Colorado Universal Preschool Program, that the preschools operated by Plaintiffs St. Mary Catholic Parish ... and St. Bernadette Catholic Parish... agree to provide or provide eligible children an equal opportunity to enroll and receive preschool services regardless of religious affiliation for as long as Defendants allow exceptions from the religious affiliation aspect of the equal-opportunity requirement set out in Colorado Revised Statute § 26.5-4-205(2)(b) and in the Colorado Universal Preschool Program Service Agreement.

Becket Fund issued a press release announcing the decision. 

Church Sues Town Over Zoning Objections to Temporary Shelter Ministry

Suit was filed last week in a Colorado federal district court by a non-denominational Christian church challenging a town's claim that the church's Temporary Shelter Ministry violates the town's zoning ordinance. The complaint (full text) in Church of the Rock, Inc. v. Town of Castle Rock, Colorado, (D CO, filed 5/13/2024) alleges that the church's rights under the First Amendment as well as the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act are violated by the town's objections to the church's use of an RV and a trailer in the church's parking lot as temporary or emergency shelter for homeless families. The church also claimed unlawful retaliation by the town. Plaintiff additionally filed a Memorandum in Support of Its Motion for Preliminary Injunction (full text). First Liberty issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

10th Circuit: Vaccine Exemption for Only Some Religions Violates 1st Amendment

In Jane Does 1-11 v. Board of Regents of the University of Colorado, (10th Cir., May 7, 2024), the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals held that the policies for granting or denying a religious exemption from the Covid vaccine mandate on one of the campuses of the University of Colorado violated the 1st Amendment's Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses. As explained by the court:

The September 1 Policy declared that “[a] religious exemption may be submitted based on a person’s religious belief whose teachings are opposed to all immunizations.” ...  The Administration made clear that it would “only accept requests for religious exemption that cite to the official doctrine of an organized religion . . . as announced by the leaders of that religion.”  ....

...  Therefore, as the Administration explained to Anschutz students and employees, Christian Scientists and Jehovah’s Witnesses would qualify for an exemption under the Administration’s criteria.  However, the Administration would reject an application for an exemption if it deemed the applicant’s beliefs “personal,” not “religious,” or “not part of a comprehensive system of beliefs.”...  For example, the Administration decided that “it is ‘morally acceptable’ for Roman Catholics to take vaccines against COVID-19,” and that any Roman Catholic objections to the COVID-19 vaccine are “personal beliefs,” not “religious beliefs.” ... For similar reasons, the Administration refused to approve exemptions for Buddhist applicants.  Nor would the Administration approve exemptions for applicants who were members of the Eastern Orthodox Church.  The Administration also rejected exemption applications from Evangelical Christians, non-denominational Protestants, and applicants who did not specify whether they were affiliated with a particular religious organization....

The University adopted a modified policy on September 24 in the face of litigation, but, according to the majority, it was a mere pretext to continue its September 1 policy. The majority found that both policies were unconstitutional, summarizing its holding in part as follows:

We hold that a government policy may not grant exemptions for some religions, but not others, because of differences in their religious doctrines, which the Administration’s first policy did.  We further hold that the government may not use its views about the legitimacy of a religious belief as a proxy for whether such belief is sincerely-held, which the Administration did in implementing the first policy.  Nor may the government grant secular exemptions on more favorable terms than religious exemptions, which the Administration’s second policy does.  Finally, we hold that the policies at issue in this appeal were motivated by religious animus, and are therefore subject to strict scrutiny—which neither policy survives.  The district court concluded otherwise and, in so doing, abused its discretion.....

Judge Ebel filed a partial dissent, saying in part:

I agree the September 1 mandate should be enjoined preliminarily, although for reasons different from those relied upon by the majority.  However, I would not enjoin the September 24 mandate....  

... I see no evidence indicating that the University adopted either mandate out of an animus—that is, a hostility—toward religion generally or toward some religions in particular.  Second, Plaintiffs have not shown that the two inquiries the University posed to those applying for a religious exemption under the September 1 mandate infringed any First Amendment protection.  The University was entitled to ask applicants why they opposed being vaccinated in order to determine whether that opposition was based on religious beliefs and, if so, whether those religious beliefs were sincerely held and, if so, how those beliefs could be accommodated.

Thomas More Society issued a press release announcing the decision. 

District Court Enters Final Order in Wedding Website Designer Case

As previously reported, last year the U.S. Supreme Court in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis held that the 1st Amendment's free speech protection bars Colorado from using its public accommodation anti-discrimination law to require a wedding website designer to design websites for same-sex weddings in violation of her religious beliefs. Now in the case on remand, 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, (D CO, March 26, 2024), the Colorado federal district court entered a final Order in the case which provides in part:

ORDERED that the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause prohibits Colorado from enforcing CADA’s Communication Clause to prevent plaintiffs from posting the following statement on her website or from making materially similar statements on her website and directly to prospective clients:  

I firmly believe that God is calling me to this work. Why? I am personally convicted that He wants me – during these uncertain times for those who believe in biblical marriage – to shine His light and not stay silent. He is calling me to stand up for my faith, to explain His true story about marriage, and to use the talents and business He gave me to publicly proclaim and celebrate His design for marriage as a life-long union between one man and one woman.  

These same religious convictions that motivate me also prevent me from creating websites promoting and celebrating ideas or messages that violate my beliefs. So I will not be able to create websites for same-sex marriages or any other marriage that is not between one man and one woman. Doing that would compromise my Christian witness and tell a story about marriage that contradicts God’s true story of marriage – the very story He is calling me to promote.

It is further ORDERED that defendants, their officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and those acting in active concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of this order are permanently enjoined from enforcing:  

a. CADA’s Accommodations Clause to compel plaintiffs to create custom websites celebrating or depicting same-sex weddings or otherwise to create or depict original, expressive, graphic or website designs inconsistent with her beliefs regarding same-sex marriage; and  

b. CADA’s Communication Clause to prevent plaintiffs from posting the above statement on her website and from making materially similar statements on her website and directly to prospective clients.

Colorado Ban on Medication Abortion Reversal Violates Clinic's Free Exercise Rights

In Bella Health and Wellness v. Weiser, (D CO, Oct. 21, 2023), a Colorado federal district court issued a preliminary injunction barring the state from taking enforcement action under a law enacted earlier this year against an anti-abortion pregnancy center for offering and advertising its medication abortion reversal services. The court said in part:

Bella Health considers it a religious obligation to provide treatment for pregnant mothers and to protect unborn life if the mother seeks to stop or reverse an abortion.... The State Defendants have not contested that SB 23-190 burdens Bella Health’s religious practice. Indeed, it is not up to the State or the Court to second-guess the sincerity of Bella Health’s religious motivations or to suggest alternative means of satisfying Plaintiffs’ religious calling. 

The more difficult question is whether Section Three’s prohibition on abortion pill reversal is neutral and generally applicable. It is not for three reasons. First, the law treats comparable secular activity more favorably than Bella Health’s religious activity.... Second, the law contains mechanisms for exemptions that undercut the State’s expressed interests.... Third, the law’s object and effect is to burden religious conduct in a way that is not neutral.

Colorado Politics reports on the decision. [Thanks to Thomas Rutledge for the lead.]

Christian Pre-School May Get State Aid Without Complying With Non-Discrimination Rules Which Violate Its Beliefs

In Darren Patterson Christian Academy v. Roy, (D CO, Oct. 20, 2023), a Colorado federal district court issued a preliminary injunction barring Colorado from excluding a private Christian pre-school from its Univeral Pre-School Program. The state requires participating schools to agree that they will not discriminate on the basis of gender, race, ethnicity, religion, national origin, age, sexual orientation, gender identity, citizenship status, education, disability, socio-economic status, or any other identity.” The court said in part:

... [T]he Department’s non-discrimination policy likely violates Plaintiff’s rights by interfering with the school’s selection of key employees in accordance with its religious convictions under the “ministerial exception.” ...

Second, Plaintiff has the right to expressive association which the State’s hiring rules likely violate.... The freedom to associate with others also includes the freedom not to associate with others if doing so would compromise the associating group’s expression of beliefs....

Third, the Department’s rules also force Plaintiff to choose between adhering to religious beliefs and risking exclusion from the program or complying with the Department’s rules. In the specific context of excluding religious schools from participation in educational benefits programs, the Supreme Court has thrice held that a state may not exclude religious observers from receiving otherwise available educational funding because of a school’s religious status or practice....

Plaintiff seeks to hire only coreligionists, and to continue internal policies related to gender distinctions rooted in religious beliefs. These polices violate the Department’s non-discrimination standards for participating preschools.... The First Amendment forbids imposing such a choice.

Fourth, the State’s rules are likely not neutral and generally applicable..... They allow both categorical and individualized exemptions that would undermine the government asserted interests, and thereby trigger strict scrutiny.... See Fulton v. City ...

Plaintiff is also likely to succeed on the merits of its Free Speech claim, at least to the extent that the state would require Plaintiff and its staff to use a student’s or employee’s preferred pronouns as a condition of participating in the program.

[Thanks to Eugene Volokh via Religionlaw for the lead.]

Catholic Schools Sue Over Rules for Inclusion in Colorado's Universal Preschool Funding

Suit was filed this week in a Colorado federal district court by the Catholic Archdiocese of Denver and two Catholic schools challenging the restrictions imposed on participation in Colorado's universal preschool funding program. The complaint (full text) in St. Mary Catholic Parish in Littleton v. Roy, (D CO, filed 8/16/2023) alleges that plaintiffs' free exercise and free speech rights were infringed by conditions that did not allow giving preference to Catholic families. Rules did allow preference for members of the church's congregation, but not for a broader religious preference. The complaint also alleged that the program's non-discrimination requirements prevent Catholic schools from requiring teachers. administrators and staff to abide by Catholic teachings on marriage, gender and sexuality; from considering whether a student or family has identified as LGBTQ; and from assigning dress requirements, pronoun usage and restroom use on the basis of biological sex. Becket issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Supreme Court: Web Designer's Free Speech Rights Allow Her to Refuse to Design Websites for Same-Sex Weddings

The U.S. Supreme Court today in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, (Sup. Ct., June 30, 2023), in a 6-3 decision, held that the 1st Amendment's free speech protections bars Colorado from using its public accommodation anti-discrimination law to require a wedding website designer to design websites for same-sex weddings in violation of her religious beliefs. Justice Gorsuch's majority opinion says in part:

The Tenth Circuit held that the wedding websites Ms. Smith seeks to create qualify as “pure speech” under this Court’s precedents.... We agree....

Under Colorado’s logic, the government may compel anyone who speaks for pay on a given topic to accept all commissions on that same topic—no matter the underlying message—if the topic somehow implicates a customer’s statutorily protected trait.... Taken seriously, that principle would allow the government to force all manner of artists, speechwriters, and others whose services involve speech to speak what they do not believe on pain of penalty. The government could require “an unwilling Muslim movie director to make a film with a Zionist message,” or “an atheist muralist to accept a commission celebrating Evangelical zeal,” so long as they would make films or murals for other members of the public with different messages.....

Of course, as the State emphasizes, Ms. Smith offers her speech for pay and does so through 303 Creative LLC, a company in which she is “the sole member-owner.”... But none of that makes a difference. Does anyone think a speechwriter loses his First Amendment right to choose for whom he works if he accepts money in return? Or that a visual artist who accepts commissions from the public does the same? Many of the world’s great works of literature and art were created with an expectation of compensation. Nor, this Court has held, do speakers shed their First Amendment protections by employing the corporate form to disseminate their speech. This fact underlies our cases involving everything from movie producers to book publishers to newspapers....

In this case, Colorado seeks to force an individual to speak in ways that align with its views but defy her conscience about a matter of major significance. In the past, other States in Barnette, Hurley, and Dale have similarly tested the First Amendment’s boundaries by seeking to compel speech they thought vital at the time. But, as this Court has long held, the opportunity to think for ourselves and to express those thoughts freely is among our most cherished liberties and part of what keeps our Republic strong.

Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson, filed a dissenting opinion, saying in part:

A public accommodations law has two core purposes. First, the law ensures “equal access to publicly available goods and services.”...

Second, a public accommodations law ensures equal dignity in the common market. Indeed, that is the law’s “fundamental object”: “to vindicate ‘the deprivation of personal dignity that surely accompanies denials of equal access to public establishments.’”...

Time and again, businesses and other commercial entities have claimed constitutional rights to discriminate. And time and again, this Court has courageously stood up to those claims—until today. Today, the Court shrinks....

This Court has long held that “the First Amendment does not prevent restrictions directed at commerce or conduct from imposing incidental burdens on speech.”...

CADA’s Accommodation Clause and its application here are valid regulations of conduct. It is well settled that a public accommodations law like the Accommodation Clause does not “target speech or discriminate on the basis of its content.”... Rather, “the focal point of its prohibition” is “on the act of discriminating against individuals in the provision of publicly available goods, privileges, and services.”...

Petitioners remain free to advocate the idea that same-sex marriage betrays God’s laws.... Even if Smith believes God is calling her to do so through her for-profit company, the company need not hold out its goods or services to the public at large. Many filmmakers, visual artists, and writers never do....

The decision threatens to balkanize the market and to allow the exclusion of other groups from many services. A website designer could equally refuse to create a wedding website for an interracial couple, for example. How quickly we forget that opposition to interracial marriage was often because “‘Almighty God . . . did not intend for the races to mix.’”... Yet the reason for discrimination need not even be religious, as this case arises under the Free Speech Clause. A stationer could refuse to sell a birth announcement for a disabled couple because she opposes their having a child.... And so on.....

AP reports on the decision.

Christian Pre-School Challenges Exclusion from Colorado State Aid Program

Suit was filed this week in a Colorado federal district court challenging requirements that Colorado has imposed on pre-schools in order for them to participate and receive funding in the state's universal pre-school program. The complaint (full text) in Darren Patterson Christian Academy v. Roy, (D CO, filed 6/20/2023), alleges in part:

9.... [T]he Colorado Department of Early Childhood ... is requiring religious preschools like Darren Patterson Christian Academy to forgo their religious character, beliefs, and exercise to participate in UPK.

10. The Department does so through two provisions that prohibit discrimination against any person based on religion, sexual orientation, or gender identity.

11. So even though the school welcomes all families and children, these provisions would force it to hire employees who do not share its faith and to alter internal rules and policies that are based on the school’s religious beliefs about sexuality and gender, including those that relate to restroom usage, pronouns, dress codes, and student housing during school expeditions and field trips....

Plaintiff contends that the requirements violate its rights under the federal Constitiuion's Free Exercise, Free Speech and Equal Protection Clauses. ADF issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Colorado Window to Bring Expired Child Sex Abuse Claims Is Unconstitutional

In Aurora Public Schools v. A.S., (CO Sup.Ct., June 20, 2023), the Colorado Supreme Court held that the Child Sexual Abuse Accountability Act 

is unconstitutionally retrospective [under Art. II, Sec. 11 of the Colorado Constitution] to the extent that it permits a victim to bring a claim for sexual misconduct based on conduct that predates the Act and for which previously available causes of action were time-barred.

The Act created a 3-year window during which victims could bring claims for any child sexual abuse that occurred between 1960 and 2022. In the case, plaintiffs sued a former high school coach and his school district for sexual abuse that occurred between 2001 and 2005. The court said in part:

The legislature was careful with S.B. 21-088 not to directly revive time-barred claims, which would plainly impair vested rights.... Instead, it created a three-year window to bring a new cause of action to accomplish the same ends. But the retrospectivity clause prohibits the legislature from “accomplish[ing] that indirectly, which it could not do directly.”...

... Our holding does not affect claims brought under the CSAAA for which the previously applicable statute of limitations had not run as of January 1, 2022.

AP reports on the decision.

Lawsuit Challenges Laws Restricting Abortion Clinic Sidewalk Counselors

Suit was filed yesterday in a Colorado federal district court challenging on free speech grounds a Colorado statute and a Denver ordinance that prohibit approaching a person within 8 feet of an abortion clinic or other health care facility "for the purpose of passing a leaflet or handbill to ..., or engaging in oral protest, education, or counseling with such other person." According to the complaint (full text) in Faustin v. Polis, (D CO, filed 6/1/2023):

Defendants’ ban on approaching women outside of abortion clinics to speak with them unquestionably discriminates based on the content—and even the viewpoint—of speech. On its face, the ban applies only to speech with a particular purpose and message: speech “for the purpose . . . of engaging in oral protest, education, or counseling.”... And it targets only that speech on one side of the abortion debate: speech “protest[ing] or counsel[ing] against” what Colorado euphemistically terms “certain medical procedures.”... Defendants’ ban is also content- and viewpoint-based due to the nature of its justification: protecting the “unwilling listener’s interest in avoiding unwanted communication” from pro-life speakers when seeking “access to a medical facility.”...

First Liberty Institute issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Colorado Bars Abortion Pill Reversal; Suit Challenges New Law

Yesterday, Colorado Governor Jared Polis signed into law SB23-190 (full text). The new law makes it a deceptive trade practice to advertise that a clinic offers abortions, referrals for abortions or emergency contraceptives when it does not offer these services.  It also provides that it is unprofessional conduct for a healthcare provider to prescribe or administer medication abortion reversal, unless by Oct. 1 the state medical, pharmacy and nursing boards all have in effect rules finding that it is a generally accepted standard of practice to engage in medication abortion reversal.

On the same day the bill was signed, an anti-abortion Catholic healthcare clinic filed suit in a Colorado federal district court challenging the new law's provisions on medication abortion reversal as violating its 1st and 14th Amendment rights. The complaint (full text) in Bella Health and Wellness v. Weiser, (D CO, filed 4/14/2023), alleges that the law violates its Free Exercise rights because it is neither neutral nor generally applicable, saying in part:

[A]bortion pill reversal is nothing more than supplemental progesterone. And there are a multitude of off-label uses of progesterone, which has been widely prescribed to women—including pregnant women—for more than 50 years.

... Yet SB 23-190 makes no attempt to regulate—much less outright prohibit— the off-label use of progesterone in any other circumstance. That omission renders SB 23-190 not generally applicable.

The complaint also alleges that the law violates their free speech rights and patients' right to medical treatment.  According to Becket Law, the district court quickly granted Bella Health temporary emergency relief and set a hearing on a preliminary injunction while litigation proceeds for April 24. CPR News reports on the lawsuit.

Baker Cannot Refuse to Provide Non-expressive Cake to Transgender Customer

In Scardina v. Masterpiece Cakeshop, Inc., (CO Ct. App., Jan. 26, 2023), a Colorado state appellate court held that Masterpiece Cakeshop and its co-owner Jack Phillips violated the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act when they refused a transgender woman's order for a pink cake with blue frosting.  The woman sought the cake to celebrate her birthday and her gender transition. The court said in part:

[A] proprietor may not refuse to sell a nonexpressive product to a protected person based on that person’s intent to use the product as part of a celebration that the producer considers offensive....

We conclude that creating a pink cake with blue frosting is not inherently expressive and any message or symbolism it provides to an observer would not be attributed to the baker. Thus, CADA does not compel Masterpiece and Phillips to speak through the creation and sale of such a cake to Scardina....

Masterpiece and Phillips argue, requiring them to make a cake that they know will be used to celebrate an occasion that their faith informs them is an affront to God’s design violates their right to freely exercise their religion.

In the context of providing public accommodations, however, a proprietor’s actions based on their religious beliefs must be considered in light of a customer’s right to be free from discrimination based on their protected status. The Supreme Court has long held that the Free Exercise Clause does not relieve a person from the obligation to comply with a neutral law of general applicability.... CADA is a neutral law of general applicability.... 

The Supreme Court has consistently held that the state has a legitimate, indeed compelling, interest in eliminating discrimination from public accommodations.,,, Thus, CADA is rationally related to a legitimate governmental interest. Accordingly, CADA may be enforced against Masterpiece and Phillips without violating their right to the free exercise of religion.

In a press release, ADF said that it would appeal the decision.

Court Upholds Conversion Therapy Ban

In Chiles v. Salazar, (D CO, Dec. 19, 2022), a Colorado federal district court rejected constitutional challenges to Colorado's ban on mental health professionals engaging in conversion therapy for minors who identify as gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, or gender non-conforming. In a suit brought by a licensed counselor, the court found no violation of plaintiff's free speech rights because the Minor Therapy Conversion Law regulates professional conduct rather than speech. Any speech that is affected is incidental to the professional conduct. The court also found no violation of plaintiff's free exercise rights, saying in part:

According to Ms. Chiles, the Minor Therapy Conversion Law is not neutral because it was “well-known” at the time the Colorado General Assembly enacted the Minor Therapy Conversion Law that conversion therapy was primarily sought for religious reasons.... Therefore, Ms. Chiles’ argument goes, the Minor Therapy Conversion Law impermissibly burdens practitioners who hold particular religious beliefs.... The Court disagrees. The Minor Therapy Conversion Law does not “restrict [therapeutic] practices because of their religious nature.”... [T]he Minor Therapy Conversion Law targets specific “modes of therapy” due to their harmful nature— regardless of the practitioner’s personal religious beliefs or affiliations.... [T]he Minor Therapy Conversion law targets these therapeutic modalities because conversion therapy is ineffective and has the potential to “increase [minors’] isolation, self-hatred, internalized stigma, depression, anxiety, and suicidality”....

Supreme Court Hears Arguments Today on Wedding Website Designer Who Opposes Same-Sex Marriage

Today the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in 303 Creative v. Elenis. In the case, the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the application of Colorado's Anti-Discrimination Act to a wedding website design company whose owner for religious reasons refuses to create websites that celebrate same-sex marriages. The Court granted certiorari only on the question of "Whether applying a public-accommodation law to compel an artist to speak or stay silent violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment." Over 75 amicus briefs have been filed in the case.  The SCOTUSblog case page has links to them and to other filings in the case. The arguments will be broadcast live beginning at 10:00 AM at this link. SCOTUSblog has a preview of the arguments. I will update this post with links to the recording and transcript of the arguments when they become available later today.

UPDATE: Here are links to the transcript and audio of this morning's oral arguments.