Preacher Can Move Ahead With Selective Enforcement Challenge To U.S. Capitol Demonstration Limits

In Mahoney v. United States Capitol Police Board, (D DC, Feb. 22, 2022), a clergyman challenged traffic regulations that barred demonstrations by 20 or more people at various locations near the U.S. Capitol. Plaintiff claimed he felt "called by God" to hold a prayer vigil near the Capitol to mark the 20th anniversary of the 9-11 attacks. The court rejected plaintiff's facial free speech challenge to the regulation. However it permitted plaintiff to move ahead with his selective enforcement and free-association claims, saying in part:

Plaintiff has therefore alleged that the Board declined to enforce the Traffic Regulations against several large demonstrations that did not involve religious speech, while it enforced them against him because of the religious content of his speech. It is thus at least plausible that Defendants’ decision was based on the content of Mahoney’s speech, even if that is not the only plausible explanation.

The court rejected plaintiff's Free Exercise and RFRA challenges. It observed: "nowhere does he allege that having a large group present was essential to carrying out his sincerely held religious belief."

Court Says South Carolina's Ban On Aid To Private And Religious Schools Was Not Discriminatory

In Bishop of Charleston v. Adams, (D SC, Feb. 10, 2022), a South Carolina federal district court rejected federal Constitutional free exercise and equal protection challenges to Art. XI, Sec. 4 of the South Carolina Constitution which bars the use of public funds to directly benefit religious or other private educational institutions. The court held that plaintiffs failed to prove that the provision was motivated by either religious or racial discriminatory intent, saying in part:

[A]ccording to Plaintiffs, the 1895 provision was a so-called “Blaine Amendment” motivated by anti-Catholic animus....

Plaintiffs’ own expert, conceded that the national Blaine Amendment movement was not a significant factor in South Carolina.... The similarity in language between South Carolina’s 1895 provision and Blaine Amendments in other States is not enough to make up for Plaintiffs’ failure to demonstrate the existence of pervasive anti-Catholic animus in South Carolina, much less Plaintiffs’ failure to establish any corresponding discriminatory intent.....

Even assuming the 1895 provision was connected in some way to racial or religious prejudice, Plaintiffs’ claim still cannot succeed. The original 1895 provision no longer governs. Instead, the relevant provision was incorporated into the South Carolina Constitution by a vote of the people in 1972....

Plaintiffs mainly argue that racial and religious prejudice from the 1895 provision tainted Section 4, while also arguing that “[t]he ‘historical backdrop’ of the 1972 Amendment really started in 1619, when the first slaves came to America’s shores.”...

But Plaintiffs’ reliance on these other racist or anti-religious views or policies is unavailing because Plaintiffs do not connect them with Section 4’s adoption.

Ohio Law On Disposal Of Tissue After Abortion Is Enjoined

In Planned Parenthood Southwest Ohio Region v. Ohio Department of Health, (OH Com. Pl, Jan. 31, 2022), an Ohio state trial court issued a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of an Ohio law (SB27) that was to take effect next week which requires embryonic and fetal tissue after a surgical abortion to be cremated or interred. The court held that reproductive autonomy and freedom of choice in health care are fundamental rights under the Ohio Constitution. It also pointed out that the effect of the law is to prevent surgical abortions before 13 weeks of pregnancy. Before that time, embryonic and fetal tissue cannot be separated from other pregnancy tissue which is required to be disposed of as infectious waste and cannot be interred or cremated. The court concluded that there is a substantial likelihood that plaintiffs will succeed on their claims that the law violates the due process and equal protection provisions of the state Constitution, and that it is unconstitutionally vague. Christian Post reports on the decision.

School District Sued For Favoring Christian Cultural and Speech Activities

Suit was filed this week in a California federal district court alleging that a California school district has given preference to Christian cultural and speech activities over those of other religions, including Judaism. The complaint (full text) in Lyons v. Carmel Unified School District, (ND CA, filed 12/7/2021), particularly focuses on the refusal by Carmel River School to allow the display of an inflatable menorah at a widely-promoted after-school holiday celebration which will include the decoration and lighting of a Christmas tree and Christmas-themed holiday songs. The complaint alleges that the school has violated the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses as well as free speech and equal protection provisions. Courthouse News Service reports on the lawsuit.

Conditions Of Special Use Permit For Church Upheld

In Alive Church of the Nazarene, Inc. v. Prince William County, Virginia, (ED VA, Nov. 10, 2021), a Virginia federal district court dismissed a suit brought by a church that sought to use its property for religious gatherings even though it could not yet afford to comply with conditions of its special use permit. The church was presently using space elsewhere in a farm winery/ brewery for religious services. It attempted to circumvent the special use permit requirements by obtaining approval to grow fruit trees and make non-alcoholic apple cider on its own property. However zoning authorities said that structures not associated with that agricultural use were not permitted, and that use of present structures for events such as wedding receptions would be allowed only if the church obtained a liquor license-- which the church refused to do because of its opposition to alcohol. The court rejected the church's RLUIPA, Free Exercise, Freedom of Assembly and Equal Protection challenges.

Transgender Students Sue Their High School For Gender Recognition

Suit was filed in an Indiana federal district court this week by two transgender male high school students against their school. The complaint (full text) in B.E. and S.E. v. Vigo County School Corp., (SD IN, filed 11/8/2021) alleges in part:

Defendants’ failure to recognize the plaintiffs as male and to allow them to use male restrooms and the male locker room and to require that they be addressed by the names and pronouns consistent with their male gender violates both the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972....

Los Angeles Blade reports on the lawsuit.

Christian Student Group Challenges University's Non-Discrimination Policy

Suit was filed this week in a Texas federal district court by a Christian student organization at the University of Houston challenging the University's non-discrimination policy that led to a denial of recognition of the group as a Registered Student Organization. The complaint (full text) in Ratio Christi at the University of Houston- Clear Lake v. Khator, (SD TX, filed 10/25/2021), contends that the University violated the 1st and 14th Amendments by:

a. Denying Ratio Christi registered status because it requires that its officers, who have religious responsibilities, share the organization’s religious beliefs and support its purposes;

b. Conditioning a student organization’s access to campus resources and student services fee funding on a system where UHCL officials have unbridled discretion... [and [c]] must consider multiple content- and viewpoint-based factors; and

d. Compelling Plaintiffs to pay student service fees into a system that is viewpoint discriminatory.

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

UPDATE: ADF announced on Oct. 29 that the University has now recognized Ratio Christi as a Registered Student Organization.

Suit Uniquely Brings Together Issues of Abortion and Vaccines

Suit was filed this week in a California federal district court challenging California's recently enacted SB 742 which creates a 30-foot floating buffer zone to prevent harassment or interference with any person who is entering or exiting a vaccination site. The buffer zone applies to anyone within 100 feet from the vaccination site entrance. The complaint (full text) in Right To Life of Central California v. Bonta, (ED CA, filed 10/13/2021), raises the challenge in a unique factual context. Right to Life is an organization that attempts to dissuade women from having abortions and which provides support to pregnant women and those who have had abortions. Its Outreach Center is located next door to a Planned Parenthood clinic and its staff regularly approaches women who are entering Planned Parenthood. The new law prevents this-- even when outreach staff is on its own property-- because the contiguous Planned Parenthood Center offers HPV vaccine. The complaint alleges that the new law violates plaintiff's 1st and 14th Amendment rights. ADF issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Suit Challenges Connecticut Regulation Of Limited Services Pregnancy Centers

Suit was filed this week in a Connecticut federal district court challenging a Connecticut Public Act 21-17 that prohibits deceptive advertising practices by limited services pregnancy centers which are facilities that do not provide or refer for abortions or emergency contraception. The complaint (full text) in Pregnancy Support Center, Inc. v. Tong, (D CT, filed 10/12/2021), alleges that the law violates plaintiff's free speech, expressive association, free exercise, equal protection and due process rights. It contends in part:

The Act ... is informed by hostility toward pregnancy services centers’ religious beliefs and pro-life viewpoint, and it targets pregnancy service centers’ disfavored religious beliefs for punishment.

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

Police Officer Who Prayed Outside Abortion Clinic Sues Over Suspension From Duty

An officer in the Louisville, Kentucky police department this week filed suit in a Kentucky federal district court seeking damages for the Department's four-month suspension of him. The suspension was in effect during an extended investigation of the officer's praying outside an abortion clinic while in uniform, but before he went on duty for the day. He was ultimately cleared of any violation of rules.  The complaint (full text) in Schrenger v. Shields, (WD KY, filed 10/4/2021) alleges violations of the 1st and 14th amendments as well as of Title VII, and state civil rights laws. It also alleges a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. WDRB News, reporting on the lawsuit, says:

EMW staff said the officer intimidated patients and medical staff while wearing his uniform and gun.

Surveillance video from the clinic showed Schrenger in a marked police cruiser. He marched outside of the clinic for approximately 45 minutes, at one point holding a sign that read "pray to end abortion."

Limited Religious Exemptions From Vaccine Mandate Challenged

Suit was filed this week in a Colorado federal district court challenging provisions limiting religious exemptions from the University of Colorado Medical School's vaccine mandate.  The school offers a religious exemption only to those whose objections are based on a religious belief whose teachings are opposed to all immunizations. The complaint (full text) in Jane Doe, M.D. v. University of Colorado,(D CO, filed 9/29/2021), says in part:

[The policy] imposes two necessary conditions to ... any religious accommodation, namely:

a. ... [A] sincere religious belief that opposes acceptance of “all immunizations” and vaccines; and

b. That the person requesting a religious accommodation be a member of an organized religion whose tenets include a hierarchically promulgated, authoritative position on the moral liceity of “all immunizations” and vaccines....

Both conditions are clearly forbidden by the Establishment, Free Exercise, and Equal Protection clauses of the United States constitution and the Religious Freedom provisions of the Colorado constitution.... [They] privileg[e] hierarchically prescribed religious belief over autonomously prescribed (yet sincerely held) religious belief.

Thomas More Society issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Universal Life Church Can Move Ahead With Suit Over Nevada Marriage Solemnization Law

In Universal Life Church Monastery v. Clark County Nevada, (D NV, Sept. 19, 2021), a Nevada federal district court allowed the Universal Life Church (ULC) which ordains ministers online to move ahead with its equal protection challenge to the refusal of the county to allow its ministers to solemnize marriages. A law—which was in effect only during 2016-2017—required a religious organization to be incorporated, organized or established in the state in order for it to be able to certify its ministers to perform weddings. The court rejected the Church’s free exercise claims, saying in part:

[A]n entity, organization, or person has no First Amendment free exercise right to perform civil marriages….. The Court thus finds that Plaintiff ULC does not have standing to bring a First Amendment Free Exercise claim.

Similarly it rejected ULC’s free exercise claim under the state constitution, and its due process claim, saying in part:

The plain language of ... [the Nevada Constitution] is directed to the “religious profession and worship” and makes no mention of the civil law process of solemnizing marriages. Because this language does not explicitly or implicitly create a claim, there is no standing for a religious organization to bring a free exercise claim for not being included in a civil legal process.

The court also rejected ULC’s procedural due process argument. However it refused to dismiss ULC’s equal protection claim, saying in part:

ULC presented evidence that another similarly situated non-traditional church ... was able to satisfy requirements solely because its listing on the Nevada Secretary of State website contained a checkbox showing it was registered as a religious organization. Therefore, Plaintiff asserts that Defendants implemented its approval process in a discriminatory manner.... [W]hether ULC provided the requested documents ... is a genuine dispute of material fact. The Court therefore denies summary judgment as to both parties.

Court Sorts Out Standing Issues And Substantive Challenges To Vermont Town Tuition Program

In Valente v. French, (D VT, Aug. 16, 2021), students and their parents sued various school agencies and districts challenging their policy of refusing to pay tuition to religious schools under Vermont's Town Tuition Program. Under that program, school districts that do not operate their own high schools pay tuition for students to attend other schools. However, sectarian schools are excluded unless there are adequate safeguards against the use of the tuition funds for religious worship. The court held that plaintiffs have standing to sue various state agencies, having alleged that they have not taken appropriate steps to prevent school districts from discriminating against religion in the Town Tuition Program. However the court found no standing to sue supervisory unions made up of local school boards which have no responsibility for the tuition payments.

The court went on to hold that plaintiffs have adequately alleged an equal protection claim and (except for one plaintiff) a free exercise claim against the state defendants, but have not adequately alleged an Establishment Clause or substantive due process claim. Eleventh Amendment defenses were also rejected.

In a companion case, A.H. v. French, (D VT, Aug. 16, 2021), students, parents and the Catholic Diocese sue challenging the refusal to allow Rice Memorial High School, a Catholic high school, to participate in the Town Tuition Program. The court held that the parents have standing to sue the state Agency of Education and its secretary, saying that plaintiffs allege these defendants set policy and directed school districts to exclude religious schools and their students. It also rejected 11th Amendment defenses by the head of the Agency. However the court held that the Diocese of Burlington lacks standing to assert the interests of parents who wish to send their children to Rice.

Court Allows Equal Protection Challenge To Zoning Law To Proceed

In Orthodox Jewish Coalition of Chestnut Ridge v. Village of Chestnut Ridge New York, (SD NY, Aug. 13, 2021), a New York federal district court granted plaintiff's motion to reconsider its March 31, 2021 decision that dismissed an equal protection challenge to the Village's former zoning law. The court now held that Equal Protection and state law claims by three Orthodox synagogues and three individual plaintiffs may proceed, saying in part:

Plaintiffs argue that “the Court erred in holding that [Plaintiffs] were required to allege that . . . facially discriminatory laws were enacted with a discriminatory purpose.” ... They are correct.

10th Circuit: Muslim Inmate Can Move Ahead On Claim That He Was Forced To Shave Beard

In Ashaheed v. Currington, (10th Cir., Aug. 10, 2021), the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a Colorado federal district court's dismissal of a Muslim inmate's free exercise and equal protection claims. The Colorado corrections center requires inmates to shave their beards at intake but provides an exemption for inmates who wear beards for religious reasons. Plaintiff says he repeatedly asserted this exemption, but that Defendant-- motivated by anti-Muslim animus-- forced him to shave.

The court rejected Defendant's qualified immunity defense, saying: "The constitutional violation alleged here was clear beyond debate." The court concluded in part:

Sergeant Currington’s refusal to follow the Center’s beard-shaving policy and grant Mr. Ashaheed a religious exemption, when he previously accommodated the religious needs of non-Muslims under the Center’s personal-effects policy, shows that he burdened Mr. Ashaheed’s religion in a discriminatory and nonneutral manner.

Transgender Students Sue Over Tennessee Public School Bathroom Law

Suit was filed this week in a Tennessee federal district court challenging the Tennessee Accommodations for All Children Act. The suit was brought on behalf of two transgender students. The complaint (full text) in A.S. v. Lee, (MD TN, filed 8/3/2021) alleges that the effect of the law is to force transgender students in public schools to either use a multi-occupancy bathroom inconsistent with their gender identity or ask for a "reasonable accommodation" such as use of a single-occupancy or a teacher's restroom or changing room. Use of a multi-occupancy restroom or changing room consistent with their gender identity is not an option. The complaint charges that the law violates the equal protection clause and Title IX. CNN reports on the lawsuit.

Food Ordinance Does Not Violate Rights Of Christians Distributing Sandwiches

In Redlich v. City of St. Louis, (ED MO, July 22, 2021), a Missouri federal magistrate judge dismissed a suit by two officers of the New Life Evangelical Center who, as part of their religious obligation, conduct outreach to the homeless.  They seek an injunction to prevent enforcement of a city ordinance that bans the distribution of “potentially hazardous foods” to the public without a temporary food permit. Plaintiffs were cited for distributing bologna sandwiches without a permit. The court rejected free exercise, free speech, freedom of association, equal protection and other challenges by plaintiffs, saying in part:

Plaintiffs have not established that the Ordinance constitutes a substantial burden on their free exercise rights. Assuming that food sharing is a central tenet of Plaintiffs’ religious beliefs, the evidence does not show that enforcement of the Ordinance prohibits Plaintiffs’ meaningful ability to adhere to their faith or denies Plaintiffs reasonable opportunities to engage in fundamental religious activities....

Plaintiffs show that the Ordinance certainly limits their ability to express their message in distributing sandwiches, but admit there is nothing about bologna sandwiches specifically that inherently expresses their religion. The facts show that in the alternative to obtaining a charitable feeding permit, Plaintiffs can and have distributed other types of food, bottled water, clothes, literature, and offered community and prayer without providing food subject to the Ordinance...

The record supports that the City enacted the Ordinance to adopt the National Food Code for public health and safety reasons, not to curtail a religious message. Thus, the Ordinance and its Amendment are content neutral and generally applicable....

Court Enjoins Enforcement of West Virginia's Ban On Transgender Girls Being On Girl's Sports Teams

In B.P.J. v. West Virginia State Board of Education, (D WV, July 21, 2021), a West Virginia federal district court granted a preliminary injunction to an 11-year old transgender girl who was kept off the girl's cross country and track teams under a West Virginia statute that bars students whose biological sex is male from girls' teams. The court found a likelihood of success on plaintiff's equal protection and Title IX claims, saying in part:

B.P.J. has not undergone endogenous puberty and will not so long as she remains on her prescribed puberty blocking drugs. At this preliminary stage, B.P.J. has shown that she will not have any inherent physical advantage over the girls she would compete against on the girls’ cross country and track teams....

As applied to B.P.J., Section 18-2-25d is not substantially related to protecting girls’ opportunities in athletics or their physical safety when participating in athletics. I find that B.P.J. is likely to succeed on the merits of her equal protection claim.

Courthouse News Service reports on the decision.

California Law Barring Misgendering Of Long Term Care Residents Violates 1st Amendment

In Taking Offense v. State of California, (CA App., July 16, 2021), a California state appellate court held that a provision in California's Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) Long-Term Care Facility Residents’ Bill of Rights violates free speech rights.  At issue is a provision that prohibits staff members of long-term care facilities from willfully and repeatedly referring to a resident by anything except the person's preferred name or pronoun. The court said in part:

[W]e conclude the pronoun provision ... is overinclusive in that it restricts more speech than is necessary to achieve the government’s compelling interest in eliminating discrimination, including harassment, on the basis of sex.... [T]he law criminalizes even occasional, isolated, off-hand instances of willful misgendering-- provided there has been at least one prior instance--without requiring that such occasional instances of misgendering amount to harassing or discriminatory conduct.

The court however rejected an equal protection challenge to a different provision of the law that requires room assignments in long term care facilities to be made on the basis of a resident's gender identity, unless a transgender resident requests otherwise.

Judge Hull filed a concurring opinion discussing the right of intimate association. Judge Robie also filed a concurring opinion.

Social Work Applicant Moves Ahead On Religious Discrimination Claim

In Weiss v. City University of New York, (SD NY, filed 7/2/2021), a New York federal district court refused to dismiss certain of plaintiff's equal protection and Establishment Clause claims. Plaintiff alleged that she was denied admission to the University's social work program because officials weeded out Jews from a religious background, believing they are too conservative to be social workers.