Suit Challenges City's Ban On Religious Christmas Displays On Public Property

The Knights of Columbus filed suit in a Delaware federal district court yesterday challenging Rehoboth Beach's policy adopted in 2018 of allowing only secular Christmas displays at the city's Bandstand Circle. The complaint (full text) in Knights of Columbus Star of the Sea Council 7297 v. City of Rehoboth Beach, Delaware, (D DE, filed 6/23/2020), alleges that since the 1930's a nativity scene had been displayed there during the Christmas season. It contends that the city, in allowing private groups to still erect secular displays, but insisting that the K of C display be placed on private property, violates plaintiff's free speech, free exercise and equal protection rights. First Liberty Institute issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Church Sues Virginia Governor Over 10-Person Gathering Limit

Suit was filed last week in a Virginia federal district court seeking to enjoin state officials from enforcing COVID-19 related limits on gatherings of more than ten people against Lighthouse Fellowship Church. The 50-page complaint (full text) in Lighthouse Fellowship Church v. Northam, (ED VA, filed 4/24/2020), asks in part:

That the Court issue a Temporary Restraining Order restraining ... Governor Northam [and] all Commonwealth officers ... from enforcing ... the GATHERING ORDERS ... to the extent any such order prohibits religious worship services at Lighthouse, or in-person church services at Lighthouse if Lighthouse meets the social distancing, enhanced sanitization, and personal hygiene guidelines pursuant to which the Commonwealth allows so-called “essential” commercial and non-religious entities (e.g., beer, wine, and liquor stores, warehouse clubs, ‘big box” and ‘supercenter’ stores) to accommodate gatherings of persons without numerical limit.... Lighthouse merely seeks a TRO preventing Lighthouse,its pastor, and its members from being subject to criminal sanctions for having more than 10 people at its worship service on Sunday....

Eastern Shore Post reports on the lawsuit.

Suit Challenges Student Government's Refusal To Fund Speech By Religious Figure

Suit was filed last week in a Georgia federal district court against officials at Georgia Tech after a Students for Life chapter was denied student activity fee funds to sponsor a talk by Dr. Martin Luther King's niece, Alveda King.  Student government denied funding because Ms. King has been involved in religious ministries and the religious aspects of her life could not be separated from the event which was to focus on civil rights and abortion. The complaint (full text) in Students for Life at Georgia Tech v. Regents of the University System of Georgia, (ND GA, filed 4/1/2020) alleges free speech violations (compelled speech and viewpoint discrimination), as well as due process and equal protection violations.  ADF issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Suit Challenges South Carolina's Anti-LGBTQ Curriculum Law

Three advocacy organizations filed suit yesterday in a South Carolina federal district court challenging the constitutionality of S.C. Code §59-32-30(A)(5) which prohibits public school sex education programs from discussing "alternate sexual lifestyles from heterosexual relationships including, but not limited to, homosexual relationships except in the context of ... sexually transmitted diseases." The complaint (full text) in Gender and Sexuality Alliance v. Spearman, (D SC, filed 2/26/2020)contends that the law violates the equal protection clause, saying in part:

The Anti-LGBTQ Curriculum Law harms LGBTQ students. It stigmatizes them by creating a state-sanctioned climate of discrimination in schools and denies LGBTQ students health education opportunities equal to those of their heterosexual peers.

WCSC reports on the lawsuit.

2nd Circuit: Rabbinical College Prevails In Part of Its Zoning Law Challenge

In Congregation Rabbinical College of Tartikov, Inc. v. Village of Pomona, (2d Cir., Dec. 29, 2019), the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in a 104-page opinion affirmed in part the judgment in favor of those supporting construction of a rabbinical school ("TRC") in a New York village.  The court found that plaintiffs had standing to bring their equal protection claim. It summarized its holding:

TRC and future students and faculty (collectively, “Tartikov”) filed this action against the Village and its board of trustees seeking to declare unconstitutional the two amendments enacted after its plans became known. In addition, it challenged two other amendments that had been passed earlier. After a bench trial, the district court found that all four zoning law amendments were tainted by religious animus, enjoined their enforcement, and entered a broad injunction sweeping away or modifying for these plaintiffs New York State and local laws that otherwise would apply. The Village challenges the decision below. Its central contention is that the findings of religious animus were clearly erroneous. Tartikov cross appeals from a number of pretrialrulings that limited the scope of its claims.

After careful consideration of the extensive record, we decline to overturn the district court’s findings that religious animus motivated the two zoning amendments passed after the plaintiffs’ wishes became known and thus affirm the injunction barring their enforcement. But we respectfully conclude that there was insufficient evidence to support such a finding as to either of the two earlier zoning amendments and therefore reverse that portion of the judgment. We conclude also that the injunctive relief went further than was appropriate and modify those aspects of the judgment as well. We affirm as to the cross-appeal.

Court Dismisses Challenges To NY Repeal of Religious Exemption From Vaccination Requirement

In F.F. on behalf of her minor children v. State of New York, (Albany Cty NY Sup. Ct., Dec. 3, 2019), a New York state trial court upheld New York's repeal of the religious exemption to the state's compulsory vaccination requirement for school children.  The court rejected Free Exercise, Free Speech and Equal Protection challenges to the repeal.  The suit was brought by some 55 families of school children. In rejecting free exercise claims by plaintiffs, the parents of school children, the court rejected their argument that the object of the law was to target religion rather than protect public health.  The court went on to say in part:

[P]lainitffs most strenuous argument for applying strict scrutiny is that the repeal of the legislation was infected by statements made by individual legislators whose comments, they say, demonstrate unconstitutional hostility toward plaintiffs' sincerely held religious beliefs.  For this argument, Plaintiffs cite Masterpiece Cakeshop Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Comm'n., (138 S Ct 1719 [2018]), where the Supreme Court relied on the comments of individual members of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, which sanctioned a baker for his refusal to make a wedding cake for a same sex couple....

This Court declines to extend that part of the Supreme Court's analysis in Masterpiece Cakeshop, which probed the comments of individual members of a decision-making body to the collective decision-making of New York State's Legislature and Executive.... [I]n Masterpiece Cakeshop, the Court considered the remarks of a seven-member administrative body, not a state legislature.

The trial court had previously denied a preliminary injunction against the exemption repeal (see prior posting), and the state appellate court summarily affirmed that decision. Albany Times-Union reports on the trial court's latest decision.

Suit Claiming Discriminatory Enforcement of Codes Against Orthodox Jews Moves Ahead

In Indig v. Village of Pomona, (SD NY, Nov. 18, 2019), a New York federal district court refused to dismiss equal protection and Fair Housing Act claims brought by plaintiffs who contend that the Village has enforced municipal codes in a discriminatory manner as part of a broader campaign against Orthodox Jews residing in the Village. Plaintiffs' free exercise and New York Civil rights Act claims, however, were dismissed.

Texas Limit On Marriage Officiants Upheld

In Center for Inquiry, Inc. v. Warren, (ND TX, Aug. 16, 2019), a Texas federal district court rejected a number of constitutional challenges to a Texas law that limits those who can officiate at marriage ceremonies to clergy and specified government official. It does not allow other secular celebrants. The court, applying the Lemon test held that the law does not violate the Establishment Clause, saying in part:

The Statute does not discriminate among religions nor does it have the primary objective of favoring religion over nonreligion. At most, the Statute provides a benefit to religion that is indirect or incidental in light of the historical context of this Statute; however, this does not make the Statute unconstitutional.... The Statute still provides for civil, nonreligious ceremonies performed by judges, while also allowing those who wish to be married in a religious ceremony to do so.

The court also rejected an equal protection challenge, saying in part:

The Statute in this case rationally serves that purpose by limiting secular officiants to current and retired judges and by leaving it up to the religious organization—any religious organization—to determine who is authorized in accordance with its belief system to solemnize marriages. The fact that the Statute does not allow every secular individual trained to solemnize marriages to legally solemnize marriages in Texas does not make this statute unconstitutional. Instead, there is a rational basis for the Statute’s limitation based on both the historical practice of allowing judicial and religious officials to solemnize marriages, and because these individuals and their respective organizations can reasonably be expected to ensure the prerequisites to marriage are met and that the ceremony contains the necessary level of respect and solemnity without the need for significant involvement and oversight by the state.

Court Rejects School's Transgender Bathroom Restrictions

In Grimm v. Gloucester County School Board, (ED VA, Aug. 9, 2019). a Virginia federal district court held that a school system violated Title IX and the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment when it prevented a transgender male student from using rest rooms that correspond with his gender identity. The court rejected the school's argument that its policy is substantially related to protection of student privacy.  The court also issued a permanent injunction requiring the school to update the student's school records to reflect the male gender listed on the student's updated birth certificate. Washington Post reports on the decision.

County Sued Over Zoning Denial To Faith-Based Recovery Program

Suit was filed in a Georgia federal district court last week by a ministry offering a faith-based residential program for men recovering from addiction alleging discriminatory action by a county zoning board. the complaint (full text) in Vision Warriors Church, Inc. v. Cherokee County Board of Commissioners, (ND GA, filed 7/15/2019) alleges that the county's denial of zoning approval for operation of plaintiff's recovery program violates the federal Fair Housing Act, the ADA, RLUIPA and the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection clause. ACLJ issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

German Court Rejects City's Ban On"Burkini"

Breibart News today reports:

The ban on the sharia-compliant swimwear known as the “burkini” has been overturned by the higher administrative court in the German federal state of Rhineland-Palatinate after a judge decided the ban violated the constitution.

The ban originated in the city of Koblenz and began on the 1st of January but was challenged by a Syrian asylum seeker who claimed that she required the swimwear for religious reasons and also needed to use the swimming pool because she suffers from back problems...

 According to the Higher Administrative Court, the ban violated the German constitution’s requirement for equal treatment. The city had argued that the burkini made it impossible to know whether or not those wearing them suffered from any hygienic issues or diseases....

Court Refuses To Dismiss Suit To Allow Christian Flag Outside Boston City Hall

In Shurtleff v. City of Boston, (D MA, May 3, 2019), a Massachusetts federal district court refused to dismiss a suit brought to enjoin the City from denying permission to a religious organization to display a Christian flag on a flagpole outside City Hall for an event marking Constitution Day and Citizenship Day event. The flag pole flies the city's flag except when it is used by outside groups for a flag to mark a special event. The court held that there are factual issues to be determined on plaintiffs' free speech claims-- whether this involves "government speech," and whether the city has imposed a reasonable, viewpoint neutral regulation in a limited public forum. Also factual issues remain on plaintiffs' Establishment Clause and Equal Protection claims.

Firefighter Not Entitled To Religious Exemption From Grooming Policy

In Smith v. City of Atlantic City, (D NJ, March 22, 2019), a New Jersey federal district court upheld the refusal by the Atlantic City Fire Department to grant a long-time employee a religious exemption from the Department's grooming policy.  Plaintiff is an African American male and a Christian who has recently decided to grow a 3-inch beard as an expression of his religious faith. Rejecting plaintiff's application for a temporary restraining order, the court concluded that he was unlikely to succeed on the merits of his free exercise, equal protection or Title VII claim.

Suit Challenges Washington State's Required Abortion Coverage

Last week, a church in Washington state filed suit in federal district court challenging the constitutionality of Washington Senate Bill 6219 signed into law last March which requires all health care plans in the state to cover contraceptives and sterilization, and to cover abortion to the same extent as they cover maternity care.  The complaint (full text) in Cedar Park Assembly of God of Kirkland, Washington v. Kreidler, (WD WA, filed 3/8/2019), alleges in part:

52. ... [T]his law targets organizations that have religious and moral beliefs against abortion. Washington State has a history of targeting religious and moral pro-life organizations and individuals.

53. The strong statutory language, lack of any church exception, and anticipated evidence that pro-abortion groups assisted in drafting and enacting SB 6219, indicates that Washington and its officials deliberately targeted religious organizations and intentionally violated those organizations’ religious beliefs.

The suit alleges violations of the Free Exercise, Equal Protection and Establishment Clauses. ADF issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Churches' Challenge To Required Abortion Health Care Coverage Rejected

In Foothill Church v. Rouillard, (ED CA, March 7, 2019). a California federal district court dismissed a suit brought by three churches challenging a ruling by the California Department of Managed Health Care that requires health insurance companies to include coverage for abortion services in all health insurance policies.  Rejecting the churches' Free Exercise claim, the court held that the churches have not alleged sufficient facts to call into question the defense that the ruling is a neutral law of general applicability. It also rejected the churches' equal protection claim saying that there was no showing that the state acted with the intent to adversely affect plaintiffs' religious beliefs.

Suit Challenges Religious Requirements Permitted In South Carolina Faith-Based Foster-Care Agencies

A lawsuit was filed Friday by Americans United for Separation of Church and State on behalf of a Catholic woman challenging actions by the federal government and the state of South Carolina that permit foster-care placement agencies to use religious criteria for approval of foster care families.  The complaint (full text) in Maddonna v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, (D SC, filed 2/15/2019) challenges the waiver from the religious discrimination ban in federally funded foster-care programs that the Department of Health and Human Services granted to the state of South Carolina last month. (See prior posting.) It also challenges a March 13, 2018 executive order by the Governor of South Carolina (Executive Order 2018-12) permitting licensed faith-based foster-care child-placement agencies to limit recruitment and training of foster parents to those who share the same faith as the agency. Plaintiff in the case, Aimee Maddonna, was refused participation in a foster care volunteer program by Miracle Hill Ministries because Miracle Hill required participants to be born-again Christians who belong to a Protestant church. The suit alleges Establishment Clause, equal protection and due process violations. AP reports on the lawsuit.

Suit Challenges Vermont's Exclusion of Parochial High Schools From College Enrollment Program

Suit was filed this week in a Vermont federal district court challenging on free exercise and equal protection grounds Vermont's exclusion of students attending private religious high schools from the state's Dual Enrollment Program.  The complaint (full text) in A.M. v. French, (D VT, filed 1/20/2019), focuses on the state's program that allows high school students at public and private secular schools, but not religious schools, to take college courses at public expense. ADF issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Suit Challenges School District's Anti-Bias Training

The Santa Barbara Independent today reports on a federal lawsuit filed by a group calling itself Fair Education Santa Barbara challenging the Santa Barbara schools anti-bias training for teachers and administrators.  It seeks cancellation of a contract with Just Communities Central Coast that provides the training.  Among other things, the lawsuit contends in part:

Under the guise of promoting so-called ‘unconscious bias’ and ‘inclusivity’ instruction, (Just Communities’) actual curriculum and practices are overtly and intentionally anti-Caucasian, anti-male, and anti-Christian.

The suit claims that the curriculum violates the Equal Protection clause and other civil rights protections by discriminating against white people.

Challenge Filed To Texas' Limits On Marriage Celebrants

A suit was filed last week in a Texas federal district court challenging the constitutionality of Texas Family Code Section 2.202 which limits those who can officiate at marriage ceremonies to members of the clergy and various judges.  The complaint (full text) in Center for Inquiry, Inc. v. Warren, (ND TX, filed 11/5/2018) contends that the failure to allow secular celebrants to perform marriage ceremonies violates the Establishment Clause, the Equal Protection clause and Art. VI's ban on religious tests. Center for Inquiry issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Suit Challenges Denial of Zoning Approval For Mosque

A suit was filed in a Michigan federal district court yesterday against the city of Troy, Michigan challenging the denial of a zoning variance for property acquired for use as a mosque and community center.  The complaint (full text) in Adam Community Center v. City of Troy, (ED MI, filed 11/9/2018), alleges RLUIPA and constitutional violations, saying in part:

31. The City of Troy currently has seventy-three (73) approved places of worship for various religions including Christian Churches and Hindu Temples. However, the city of Troy does not have a single approved Muslim Mosque or other Muslim religious institution within the city.

32. The city of Troy, through its Zoning Board of Appeals as well as planning commission employees, has on several occasions since 2013 recommended that Adam look to other cities as a better place to build their mosque and has stated that there are no places left in Troy where a mosque would be possible. This is despite the fact that there have been new Christian churches built and approved in the city of Troy between 2013 and 2018.

CAIR issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit. Detroit News reports on the lawsuit.