Namibia Court Strikes Down Bans on Male Homosexual Conduct

In Dausab v. Minister of Justice, (NA HC MD, June 21, 2024), a 3-judge panel of the High Court of Namibia held that the common law and statutory provisions that ban "sodomy" and "unnatural sexual offenses" unconstitutionally discriminate against gay men. The court said in part:

What emerges from the definition of sodomy is that the offense clearly and undoubtedly criminalises such sexual conduct between males.... What furthermore emerges is that various forms of sexual conduct, which have been held to constitute an offense, if committed by a male person with another male person are not regarded as criminal, if committed by a male person with a female person....

...[T]he impugned laws differentiate ... between male and female and between gay men and heterosexual men.... [T]he differentiation ... in so far as it criminalises anal sex between men and men but not between men and women, [is] based on one of the enumerated grounds set out in Article 10(2).... [I]n so far as the impugned laws differentiate between heterosexual men and gay men, it is not based on one of the enumerated grounds in Article 10(2)....

We have no qualms with counsel's argument that Article 10 does not make express reference to 'sexual orientation' as a ground of discrimination.... We, however, hold the view that the matter is not as simple as counsel portrays it to be, because the fact that a ground is not listed in Article 10(2) is not a license for the law to discriminate on that ground....

A press release by Human Dignity Trust has further background on the decision. [Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]

Florida Restrictions on Gender-Affirming Care Are Unconstitutional

In Doe v. Ladapo, (ND FL, June 11, 2024), a Florida federal district court in a 105-page opinion held unconstitutional many of the provisions in Florida law that ban gender-affirming care for minors and regulate it for adults. The court, analyzing equal protection and substantive due process challenges, said in part:

The elephant in the room should be noted at the outset. Gender identity is real. The record makes this clear….

For some, the denial that transgender identity is real—the opposition to transgender individuals and to their freedom to live their lives—is not different in kind or intensity from the animus that has attended racism and misogyny, less as time has passed but still today. And some transgender opponents invoke religion to support their position, just as some once invoked religion to support their racism or misogyny. Transgender opponents are of course free to hold their beliefs. But they are not free to discriminate against transgender individuals just for being transgender. In time, discrimination against transgender individuals will diminish, just as racism and misogyny have diminished. To paraphrase a civil-rights advocate from an earlier time, the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice…..

This record includes overwhelming evidence that the House sponsors and a significant number of other House members were motivated by anti-transgender animus. This is clear from their own animus-based statements and from the failure of other members to call them out…..

Banning gender-affirming care for minors across the board in all circumstances, rather than appropriately regulating such care, is not sufficiently related to the legitimate state interest in safeguarding health.  

The ban on care for minors does not survive intermediate scrutiny….

[T]here are some, including the Governor and quite a few members of the Florida Legislature, who believe transgenderism—and thus gender-affirming care—is morally wrong. Enforcing this moral view is not, however, a legitimate state interest that can sustain this statute, even under rational-basis scrutiny….

[W]hether based on morals, religion, unmoored hatred, or anything else, prohibiting or impeding a person from conforming to the person’s gender identity rather than to the person’s natal sex is not a legitimate state interest…..

In addition to invalidating the ban on care for minors, the court also struck down various unnecessary limits placed on gender affirming care for adults.

The Hill reports on the decision and says that the state will appeal it.

UCLA Students Sue University For Failing to Protect Jewish Students

Three Jewish students at UCLA yesterday filed a civil rights lawsuit in a California federal district court alleging that the University, by tolerating widespread antisemitic behavior, has violated a lengthy list of state and federal statutory and constitutional provisions.  The complaint (full text) alleges in part:

1.  The University of California, Los Angeles ..., has deteriorated into a hotbed of antisemitism. This rampant anti-Jewish environment burst into view on October 8, 2023, the day after Hamas terrorists attacked Israel....

2. In the wake of these horrifying events, UCLA should have taken steps to ensure that its Jewish students were safe and protected from harassment and undeterred in obtaining full access to campus facilities. Instead, UCLA officials routinely turned their backs on Jewish students, aiding and abetting a culture that has allowed calls for the annihilation of the Jewish people, Nazi symbolism, and religious slurs to go unchecked....

4. Starting on April 25, 2024, and continuing until May 2, 2024, UCLA allowed a group of activists to set up barricades in the center of campus and establish an encampment that blocked access to critical educational infrastructure on campus....

6. With the knowledge and acquiescence of UCLA officials, the activists enforced what was effectively a “Jew Exclusion Zone,” segregating Jewish students and preventing them from accessing the heart of campus, including classroom buildings and the main undergraduate library....

11. Yet even as the activists continued to enforce the Jew Exclusion Zone, Defendants not only failed to marshal resources to intervene— they adopted a policy facilitating the Jew Exclusion Zone.....

19. The administration’s cowardly abdication of its duty to ensure unfettered access to UCLA’s educational opportunities and to protect the Jewish community is not only immoral—it is illegal.  

20. Specifically, it violates numerous federal and state constitutional guarantees, including the Equal Protection Clause, the Free Exercise Clause, and the freedom of speech.  

21. And it contravenes the basic guarantee of equal access to educational facilities that receive federal funding, as well as numerous other statutory guarantees of equality and fair treatment.

Fox 11 reports on the lawsuit. Becket Fund issued a press release announcing the filing of the suit.

 

Longer Bus Routes for Parochial School Students Upheld

In Swiech v. Board of Education of the Sylvania City School District, (OH Com. Pl., March 19, 2024), an Ohio trial court dismissed a suit brought by parents of students attending a Catholic school. Plaintiffs complained that bus transportation furnished by the District to and from non-public schools involved much longer transportation times than bus service for public school students. While public school students were taken directly to school, non-public students were taken to a central transfer point and then transferred to other busses to get to their schools.  Among the court's holdings was that no Equal Protection violation was involved because the District only needed a rational basis for the differential treatment. Conservation of limited financial resources meets that test.  The court also rejected plaintiffs' Free Exercise challenge

Plaintiffs have offered no evidence of any coercive effects on their religious practice: there is no evidence that the transportation plan has compelled Plaintiffs to do anything forbidden by their religion or that it has caused them to refrain from doing something required by their religion. Plaintiffs have also not offered any evidence that the transportation plan has compelled them to affirm or disavow a belief forbidden or required by their religion.

Court Says NY Proposed Amendment on Abortion, Sexual Orientation and Gender May Not Go on Ballot

In Byrnes v. Senate of the State of New York, (Livingston County NY Sup. Ct., May 7, 2024), a New York state trial court held that the proposed state Equal Protection constitutional amendment must be removed from the November 2024 ballot because the state legislature did not follow the proper procedures in approving the amendment for placement on the ballot.  The proposed amendment (full text) would expand the state constitution's Equal Protection clause by adding ethnicity, national origin, age, disability, sex (including sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, pregnancy, pregnancy outcomes and reproductive healthcare and autonomy) to race, color, creed and religion that are already protected against discrimination by the clause. The clause covers discrimination by private individuals and firms as well as by the state and the proposed amendment provides that no characteristic listed in the section shall be interpreted to interfere with the civil rights of any other person based on any of the other characteristics listed. The court held that the state legislature's failure to wait 20 days for an Attorney General's opinion on the proposed amendment before taking the initial vote on it invalidated the Resolution proposing the amendment. The City reports on the decision.

Excluding Gender-Affirming Care from Governmental Insurance Coverage Violates Equal Protection

In Kadel v. Folwell, (4th Cir., April 29, 2024), the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals sitting en banc, in an 8-6 decision, held that an exclusion in North Carolina's state employee healthcare plan for treatment "in connection with sex changes or modifications" violates the equal protection clause. The majority held that "the coverage exclusions facially discriminate on the basis of sex and gender identity, and are not substantially related to an important government interest...." The majority held that the exclusion for "transexual surgery" in West Virginia's Medicaid program similarly violates the equal protection clause as well as the Medicaid Act. The majority in its 58-page opinion said in part:

[D]iscriminating on the basis of diagnosis is discriminating on the basis of gender identity and sex.  The coverage exclusions are therefore subject to intermediate scrutiny.  They cannot meet that heightened standard.

Judge Richardson, joined by Judges Wilkinson, Niemeyer, and Quattlebaum, and joined in part by Judges Agee and Rushing, said in part:

The Equal Protection Clause does not license judges to strike down any policy we disagree with.  It instead grants the states leeway to tailor policies to local circumstances, while providing a carefully calibrated remedy for truly illicit discrimination.  No such discrimination appears in these cases.  North Carolina and West Virginia do not target members of either sex or transgender individuals by excluding coverage for certain services from their policies.  They instead condition coverage on whether a patient has a qualifying diagnosis....

Judge Wilkinson filed a dissenting opinion, saying in part:

In the era of Roe, it was substantive due process. Now it is substantive equal protection. Make no mistake. The fundamental rights prong of equal protection is what is at play here, and while constitutionally mandating state-funded transgender rights will please some, it will politicize the courts in the eyes of all as assuredly as its substantive due process predecessor did....

Some States are reluctant to fund emerging treatments until the science can tell us more. Not only is the medical data conflicting, but there is a moral caution in this case as well. Self-righteous folly has long run through us all. The Tower of Babel toppled of its own hubristic weight. Yet still we moderns strive to bend nature to desire.

Judge Quattlebaum, joined by Judges Agee, Richardson and Rushing, filed a dissenting opinion, saying in part:

In order to conclude that no legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons support denying coverage for certain treatments of gender dysphoria, the majority abandons settled evidentiary principles. Properly accounting for the record, questions about the medical necessity and efficacy of such treatments linger. And those lingering questions support the states’ coverage decisions.

NPR reports on the decision.

Ban on Caste Discrimination Is Constitutional

In Bagal v. Sawant, (WD WA, March 8, 2024), a Washington federal district court rejected First and 14th Amendment challenges to the City of Seattle's adding of "caste" as a protected class under its anti-discrimination Ordinance. The court said in part:

First, Plaintiff argues that incorporating “caste” into existing anti-discrimination laws ipso facto creates a stigma, levelled towards a specific and insular minority group, namely members of the Hindu religion....

Plaintiff simply does not allege they are burdened, in any manner, from practicing their faith.... [H]aving failed to allege a cognizable injury, Plaintiff de facto lacks standing to assert a Free Exercise challenge to the Ordinance. Plaintiff’s Establishment Clause claim is similarly unavailing.... Fundamentally, Plaintiff’s reasoning is that the City of Seattle’s involvement on an issue of equal importance to practitioners of a certain religion becomes, as a consequence, activity in favor or opposition to that religion. And that, because the City of Seattle opted to disfavor caste-based forms of discrimination, a fortiori it condemned all notions of caste as it was understood by any religion. But that logic proves too much. And even assuming, arguendo, that the Ordinance does condemn notions of caste as is believed by a certain religion, that does not constitute activity in support or disparagement of that religion. For instance, birth control is a topic that involves both religious beliefs and general welfare concerns. And yet, no court has ever held that government approval of birth control violates the Establishment Clause....

It is not enough, in other words, that the anti-caste legislation strikes members of a religion as reflecting poorly on their religious beliefs.... In this case, the Ordinance’s principal effect is not to endorse a religion, but simply to bolster local anti-discrimination laws.  Any coincidental reference to a shared phenomenon (such as caste) is secondary, if not wholly, immaterial....

Second, Plaintiff contends that the Ordinance violates the Equal Protection Clause....

Nowhere does the text of the Ordinance make use of prohibited classifications.  Rather, the Ordinance is facially neutral and of general applicability.  Moreover, wholly absent from Plaintiff’s complaint are any facts suggesting that the legislative drafters were actually motivated by racial or ethnic animus.... Further to the point, Plaintiff’s complaint does not plausibly allege that the City of Seattle has applied the Ordinance in a discriminatory manner.

Certiorari Denied in Case of Jurors Disqualified Because of Religious Beliefs

Today the Supreme Court denied review in Missouri Department of Corrections v. Finney, (certiorari denied, 2/20/2024). In the case a Missouri state appellate court (full text of state court opinion) upheld a trial court's striking of three potential jurors for cause. The suit involved claims against the Department of Corrections by a lesbian employee alleging sex discrimination and hostile work environment. The potential jurors were disqualified because of their strongly-held religious views that homosexuality is a sin. Homosexuality was an important issue in the case. Justice Alito filed a Statement respecting the denial of certiorari indicating that were it not for a complicating state law issue in the case, he would have voted to grant review, saying in part:

Before us, the Department of Corrections argues that these for-cause dismissals were unconstitutional, and I agree that the Court of Appeals’ reasoning raises a very serious and important question that we should address in an appropriate case. The judiciary, no less than the other branches of State and Federal Government, must respect people’s fundamental rights, and among these are the right to the free exercise of religion and the right to the equal protection of the laws. When a court, a quintessential state actor, finds that a person is ineligible to serve on a jury because of his or her religious beliefs, that decision implicates fundamental rights.

Satanic Temple Loses Challenge to Idaho Abortion Bans

In The Satanic Temple v. Labrador, (D ID, Jan. 31, 2024), an Idaho federal district court dismissed several challenges to Idaho's statutes criminalizing abortion filed by The Satanic Temple which has created its own Abortion Ritual.  The court describes plaintiff's claims:

The Satanic Temple (“TST”) filed the instant case arguing Defendants actions have: (1) effected a regulatory taking of the economic value of a pregnant woman’s womb in violation of the Fifth Amendment; (2) effectively made pregnant women into slaves in violation of the Thirteenth Amendment; (3) given unconstitutional preferences to rape victims in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment; and (4) violated Idaho’s religious freedom statutes.

After finding that TST lacks standing to bring the suit, the court goes on to also reject TST's first three claims on the merits and concludes that TST, which asked to file an amended complaint to substitute a free exercise claim for its claim under Idaho's Exercise of Religious Freedom Act, should do this by fining a new lawsuit rather than an amended complaint.

Idaho Attorney General Labrador issued a press release announcing the decision which he titled "Attorney General Labrador Defeats Satan." LifeNews reporting on the decision said that lawyers for TST plan an appeal to the 9th Circuit.

Good News Clubs Sue for Access to Hawaii Schools

Suit was filed two weeks ago in a Hawaii federal district court against the Hawaii Department of Education and four school districts in which schools have denied permission for Good News Clubs to use various school facilities for after-school programs. The complaint (full text) in Child Evangelism Fellowship of Hawaii, Inc. v. Hawaii State Department of Education, (D HI, filed 1/23/2024), alleges that the denials violate plaintiff's free speech, free exercise, Establishment Clause and equal protection rights. Plaintiff has also filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction accompanied by a Memorandum of Law supporting the Motion (full text). Liberty Counsel issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Casts Doubt on Abortion Exclusion From State Medicaid Coverage

In Allegheny Reproductive Health Center v. Pennsylvania Department of Human Services, (PA Sup. Ct., Jan. 29, 2024) [Majority Opinion], the Pennsylvania Supreme Court remanded to the trial court for strict scrutiny review a challenge to the constitutionality of Pennsylvania's ban on the use of state Medicaid funds for abortion services (except in the case of rape, incest or threat to the life of the mother). Six of the Court's 7 Justices participated in the case.  Justice Donohue's opinion (joined by Justice Wecht) sets out the conclusions of a majority of the Justices in a 219-page opinion. The majority overruled its 1985 decision in Fischer v. Department of Public Welfare that had upheld the ban.  The majority concluded that that pregnancy-related distinctions may violate the state Constitution's Equal Rights Amendment (Art. I, Sec. 28), saying in part:

... [T]he Fischer Court ignored that reproductive functions, by definition, have historically been the primary basis for the distinction between men and women, i.e., physical characteristics that make one a member of the sex. The text of Section 28 does not support the exception created by Fischer that equality of rights can be denied or abridged based on a physical characteristic that makes a person a member of the male or female sex....

 ... [W]e overrule Fischer’s interpretation of the Equal Rights Amendment. We further conclude that when a statute is challenged as violative of Section 28, a sex-based distinction is presumptively unconstitutional, and it is the government’s burden to rebut the presumption with evidence of a compelling state interest in creating the classification and that no less intrusive methods are available to support the expressed policy.

The majority also overruled Fischer's holding that the state Constitution's equal protection provision (Art. I, Sec. 26) does not prevent the state from conferring a benefit unequally.  The majority said in part:

... [A] court, presented with a challenge to a legislative classification that touches on the exercise of a civil right on the basis that it violates Article I, Section 26, must determine whether the classification operates neutrally with regard to the exercise of that right. If it does not, the court shall then conduct a commensurate means-end review.

Writing only for himself and Justice Wecht, Justice Donohue also contended that that the state Constitution substantively protects a woman's right to make reproductive decisions, including abortion.

Justice Wecht also filed a 71-page concurring opinion discussing additional issues. Chief Justice Todd filed a 17-page opinion dissenting in part, concluding that the Fischer decision is binding precedent. Justice Dougherty filed a brief opinion concurring in part, agreeing with the majority's overruling of Fischer. Justice Mundy filed a 24-page opinion dissenting in part, concluding that the funding ban should be upheld on the basis of the Fischer case and strongly criticizing the majority's holding that Art. I, Section 26 requires funding neutrality.

Philadelphia Inquirer reports on the decision.

Certiorari Denied In Transgender Bathroom Case

Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court denied review in Metropolitan School District v. A.C., (Docket No. 23-392, certiorari denied 1/16/2024) (Order List). In the case (A.C. v. Metropolitan School District, (7th Cir., Aug. 1, 2023)) the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals-- invoking Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause-- affirmed an injunction issued by an Indiana federal district court ordering a school to grant a transgender boy access to boys' rest rooms. ACLU issued a press release on the Supreme Court's action.

School Board Not Liable for Teacher's Proselytization of Muslim Student

In Chaudhry v. Community Unit School District 300 Board of Education, (ND IL, Dec. 29, 2023), an Illinois federal district court dismissed Establishment Clause, Due Process and Equal Protection claims by Muslim parents against an Illinois school board that employed teacher Pierre Thorsen who convinced their daughter to convert to Christianity.  The court said in part:

[T]he complaint continues to state an implausible theory of Monell liability because it does not plead enough factual matter to raise the inference that any assertedly unconstitutional practice had become so widespread that the Board was bound to have noticed it. It likewise continues to fail to plausibly allege that anyone other than Thorsen was the moving force behind any of the Parents’ asserted injuries.... At best, the Parents have alleged facts consistent only with the “isolated wrongdoing of one . . . rogue employee[].”... Because Monell does not allow for respondeat superior liability, these claims are not plausibly pleaded, and they therefore fail.

Court Finds Idaho's Ban on Gender Affirming Care for Minors Unconstitutional

In Poe v. Labrador, (D ID, Dec. 26, 2023), an Idaho federal district court issued a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of Idaho's recently enacted Vulnerable Child Protection Act which prohibits medical providers from surgically or chemically treating gender dysphoria in minors. The court held that because the statute discriminates on the basis of sex and transgender status, it is subject to heightened scrutiny under the equal protection clause, and found that the statute likely fails that test, saying in part:

Generally, the State Defendants say the legislature’s purpose in passing HB 71 was to protect vulnerable children from the dangers of unproven medical and surgical treatments. At a general level, safeguarding the physical wellbeing of children is of course important.... But in this case, the Court finds that the asserted objective is pretextual, given that HB 71 allows the same treatments for cisgender minors that are deemed unsafe and thus banned for transgender minors. That is, the medications and procedures that are used in gender-affirming medical care (such as puberty blockers, hormones, and surgeries) are used to treat cisgender adolescents for other purposes. But rather than targeting the treatments themselves, HB 71 allows children to have these treatments—but only so long as they are used for any reason other than as gender-affirming medical care....

The court also found the likelihood of success on plaintiffs' due process claims, saying in part:

[T]his Court easily concludes that the parent plaintiffs enjoy a fundamental right to seek a specific form of medical treatment for their children, which would include the gender-affirming medical care banned by HB 71.

The court however did dismiss plaintiffs' unusual claim against the publisher of Idaho's annotated statutes. Plaintiffs had argued that by failing to include annotations to federal cases that would indicate that Idaho's statute is unconstitutional, the publishers violated plaintiffs' due process rights.

Los Angeles Blade reports on the decision.

Florida Transgender Teachers Challenge Law That Bars Them from Using Their Preferred Pronouns

Suit was filed this week in a Florida federal district court by three current and former Florida public-school teachers who identify as transgender or non-binary. They challenge a provision of Florida law that bars K-12 teachers from providing students with the teacher's preferred title or pronouns if they do not reflect the teacher's biological sex. The 61-page complaint (full text) in Wood v. Florida Department of Education, (ND FL, filed 12/13/2023) alleges in part:

[The statute] unlawfully discriminates against Plaintiffs on the basis of sex in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 because whether Plaintiffs may provide to students a particular title or pronoun depends entirely on Plaintiffs’ sex, and Florida has only an invidious basis—not an exceedingly persuasive or even a rational one—for discriminating in this harmful way. It also unconstitutionally restrains Plaintiffs’ speech in violation of the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution because it prohibits Plaintiffs from using the titles and pronouns that express who they are, the same way that their colleagues do.

The Hill reports on the lawsuit.

Jewish Groups Sue Over Berkeley Law Student Organizations' Antisemitic Policies

Suit was filed yesterday in a California federal district court against the University of California at Berkely and Berkeley Law School challenging growing antisemitic discrimination and harassment on campus. The complaint (full text) in Louis D. Brandeis Center, Inc. v. Regents of the University of California, (ND CA, filed 11/28/2023), alleges that policies of law student organizations violate the Equal Protection and Free Exercise Clauses, violates the §1981 right to contract and violates Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The complaint alleges in part:

4. In spite of the recognition of anti-Zionism as a form of anti-Semitism, no fewer than 23 Berkeley Law student organizations have enacted policies to discriminate against and exclude Jewish students, faculty, and scholars. For example: 

• To be a member of Women of Berkeley Law, the Queer Caucus at Berkeley, or the Asian Pacific American Law Students Association, Jewish students must accede to the groups' support of the Boycott Divestment and Sanctions movement, which seeks to dismantle the modern State of Israel; 

• In order to volunteer to provide pro bono legal services through a number of Berkeley Law Legal Services organizations, Jewish students must undergo a "Palestine 101" training program that emphasizes the illegitimacy of the State of Israel; 

• And to speak to any of these student organizations, invited speakers must first repudiate Zionism under a bylaw that prohibits speakers who hold Zionist views (the "Exclusionary Bylaw"). In fact, the Berkeley Journal of Gender, Law, and Justice, goes one step further, prohibiting Zionists not only from speaking to its members but from publishing in its pages. 

5. Under these policies, Jewish students, faculty, and guest speakers must deny a central part of their cultural, ancestral heritage and a fundamental tenet of their faith in order to be eligible for the same opportunities Berkeley accords to others....

118.  Specifically, Defendants have selectively chosen not to enforce Berkeley's all-comers policy and Policy on Nondiscrimination against student organizations in the Law School and the undergraduate campus that have discriminated against or excluded Jewish members of the school community from participating in organizations, programs, and activities. For similar reasons, Defendants' decision not to enforce the Policy on Nondiscrimination against these groups where they refuse to accept Jewish speakers is unlawful.,,,

Politico reports on the lawsuit.

Suit Challenges Michigan's Reproductive Freedom Amendment on Federal Constitutional Grounds

In November 2022, Michigan voters passed a state constitutional amendment providing a right to reproductive freedom. Yesterday a group of plaintiffs filed suit in a Michigan federal district court contending that the state constitutional amendment violates the 1st and 14th Amendments to the federal Constitution, as well as the Constitution's Guarantee Clause. Among the 16 plaintiffs is "Jane Roe, a fictitious name on behalf of preborn babies." The complaint (full text) in Right to Life of Michigan v. Whitmer, (WD MI, filed 11/8/2023), alleges in part:

By reason of Article I, § 28 of the Michigan Constitution ..., Defendants have deprived Plaintiffs, specifically including women, and in particular pregnant women; preborn human beings, including Jane Roe and similarly situated individuals; preborn human beings with disabilities; partially born human beings; and human beings born following a failed abortion of the equal protection of the law guaranteed under the Fourteenth Amendment....

 Article I, § 28 permits individuals, including public school officials, medical professionals, and others, to aid or assist a minor child with procuring an abortion, obtaining contraception, obtaining “gender reassignment” medication or procedures, and becoming sterilized without parental knowledge or consent and with impunity in violation of Plaintiffs’ parental rights protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.

... Article I, § 28 permits adults to engage in sexual acts with minors so long as the minor consents, thereby undermining the right of parents to direct the upbringing of their children in violation of Plaintiffs’ parental rights protected by the Fourteenth Amendment....

Article I, § 28 nullifies all statutory protection provided to physicians and other medical professionals ... who object to abortion, contraception, “gender reassignment” medication/procedures, sterilization, puberty blockers, and other harmful medical procedures related to “reproduction” on moral and religious grounds in violation of their sincerely held religious beliefs....

Article I, § 28 deprives preborn human beings, including Jane Roe and similarly situated individuals, preborn human beings with disabilities, partially born human beings, and human beings born following a failed abortion of the right to life and liberty without due process of law....

Article I, § 28, which was passed pursuant to the process of amending the Michigan Constitution, nullifies the legitimate authority of a coordinate branch of government, the Legislative Branch, by prohibiting it from regulating or governing in a broad area of the law (“reproduction”) that has historically been within its legitimate domain in violation of the Guarantee Clause of the United States Constitution....

Right To Life Michigan issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit. Detroit News reports on the lawsuit.  [Thanks to Scott Mange and Thomas Rutledge for the lead.]

6th Circuit Rejects Equal Protection Challenge To Michigan Ban On Public Funds for Private and Religious Schools

In Hile v. State of Michigan, (6th Cir., Nov. 6, 2023), the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals held that an amendment placed in the Michigan Constitution in 1970 that prohibits public funds from being used to aid private or religious schools does not violate the equal protection rights of parents who cannot use Michigan Educational Savings Program to send their children to religious schools. Plaintiffs contended that the state constitutional provision was motivated by anti-Catholic bias and based their equal protection claim on the political process doctrine. As articulated by the court:

They claim that because of the amendment, religious persons and schools cannot lobby their state representatives for governmental aid or tuition help without first amending the state constitution, which they argue disadvantages them in the political process.

The court first expressed doubt about the continued viability of the political process doctrine, and particularly whether a political process claim can be based on religious discrimination.  The court went on to hold that regardless of that, a 2000 election in which voters reauthorized the 1970 Amendment purged the provision of any religious bias that was present in the 1970 vote.

Justice Murphy dissented, contending that plaintiffs' clam should be dismissed without prejudice for lack of plaintiffs' standing.

Supreme Court Review Sought in Tennessee's Ban on Medical Treatment of Minors for Gender Dysphoria

 A petition for certiorari (full text) was filed with the U.S. Supreme Court this week in L.W. v. Skrmetti, (Sup. Ct., filed 11/1/2023). In the case, the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 decision, reversed a preliminary injunction issued by a district court in a challenge to Tennessee's ban on chemical, hormonal or surgical treatment of minors for gender dysphoria. The majority rejected due process and equal protection challenges to the state law. (See prior posting.) ACLU issued a press release  announcing its filing of the petition seeking review of the 6th Circuit's decision.

2 North Carolina Abortion Restrictions Enjoined

 In Planned Parenthood South Atlantic v. Stein, (MD NC, Sept. 30, 2023), a North Carolina federal district court issued a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of two provisions of North Carolina's law regulating abortions.  The court said in part:

The plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their vagueness challenge to the requirement that providers determine and document the probably intrauterine location of a pregnancy before administering medication intended to terminate a pregnancy. The Act does not provide a clear standard by which providers can make this determination....

The plaintiffs are also likely to succeed on the merits of their equal protection challenge to the Act's requirement that surgical abortions after 12 weeks of pregnancy must be performed in a hospital.  The plaintiffs have offered uncontradicted evidence that the same medical procedures used for surgical abortions are used for miscarriage management and that the risks of those identical procedures are the same whatever their purpose... The plaintiffs have shown the absence of any rational medical basis for distinguishing between these two classes of patients....

CNN reports on the decision.