Suit Challenges High School-College Dual Enrollment Plan Exclusion of Some Religious Colleges

Suit was filed yesterday in a Minnesota federal district court challenging a Minnesota statute that excludes certain religious colleges from participating in the state's Postsecondary Enrollment Options (PSEO) program. The program allows students to earn college credits free of charge at public or private colleges while still in high school. An amendment to the PSEO law which will take effect on July 1 bars colleges from participating in the program if the school requires a faith statement from high schoolers or if any part of the admission decision is based on a high schooler's religious beliefs or affiliations.  The complaint (full text) in Loe v. Walz, (D MN, filed 5/24/2023), alleges that the new law variously violates the free exercise, free speech, Establishment Clause and equal protection rights of religious families and religious colleges. The complaint alleges in part:

172. The amendment requires Plaintiffs Crown [College] and [University of] Northwestern to choose between maintaining their religious identities and receiving an otherwise available benefit for which they have been eligible for decades. 

173. It likewise forces the Loe family and the Erickson family to either forgo receipt of an otherwise-available benefit or forgo their right to seek an education in accordance with their religious beliefs.

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

Suit Challenges Tennessee's Ban On Gender Transition Treatment For Minors

Suit was filed yesterday in a Tennessee federal district court challenging Tennessee's recently enacted law banning medical or surgical treatment of gender dysphoria in minors. The complaint (full text) in L.W. v. Skrmetti, (MD TN, filed 4/20/2023), alleges that the ban violates plaintiffs' Equal Protection rights and their rights to parental autonomy, as well as violating provisions of the Affordable Care Act. ACLU issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Suit Challenges Connecticut's Elimination of Religious Exemption from School Vaccination Requirement

Suit was filed last week in a Connecticut federal district court by a Christian preschool and the church that sponsors it challenging Connecticut's removal of religious exemptions from its statute requiring various vaccinations for preschool children. The complaint (full text) in Milford Christian Church v. Russell-Tucker, (D CT, filed 3/6/2023) alleges that the requirement violates plaintiffs' free exercise, free speech, freedom of association, equal protection, and child rearing rights. It alleges in part:

63. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 10-204a denies a generally available benefit – education– to children if their parents do not abandon their religious beliefs while affording the same benefit to parents and children who assert a medical exemption.

64. Adding insult to injury, Conn. Gen. Stat. § 10-204a prevents parents from seeking alternative education options for their children by applying the same mandate to private schools, daycares, and pre-schools, including those operated by churches and religious organizations.

65. In other words, Conn. Gen. Stat. § 10-204a forces parents to either renounce their religious beliefs and vaccinate their children or homeschool their children– something that many parents cannot do – thus depriving them any educational opportunities.

Christian Post reports on the lawsuit.

Good News Clubs Sue to Get Access for After School Programs

Suit was filed last week in a Rhode Island federal district court by the Good News Clubs contending that their 1st and 14th Amendment rights were violated when Providence, RI school officials blocked approval of their use of school facilities for after-school programs. The complaint (full text) in Child Evangelism Fellowship of Rhode Island, Inc. v. Providence Public School District, (D RI, filed 3/10/2023) alleges in part:

CEF Rhode Island and its proposed Good News Clubs are similarly situated to the other organizations the District allows to host their afterschool programs in District elementary schools because all the organizations provide teaching and activities to develop things like confidence, character, leadership, and life skills in their participants. CEF Rhode Island, however, offers its programming from a Christian religious viewpoint, while the other organizations offer their similar programming from a nonreligious viewpoint....

The increasingly burdensome requirements the District has imposed on CEF Rhode Island as conditions to access for its Good News Clubs are discriminatory and pretextual disguises for the District’s hostility towards CEF Rhode Island’s Christian identity, message, and viewpoint.

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

COVID Order Violated Priest's Free Exercise Rights

 In Urso v. Mohammad, (D CT, March 10, 2023), a Catholic priest sued a town's health director over COVID orders that cancelled religious gatherings and congregational prayers. The court concluded that the health Directive violated plaintiff's free exercise rights, but left for trial the question of whether plaintiff suffered an injury, saying in part:

[N]ot all secular businesses in the Town of Orange were closed, and the Directive itself is unquestionably stricter than the Governor’s Executive Orders, which imposed capacity limits on religious institutions in line with those imposed on other secular businesses, and never cancelled all religious services completely.... In Agudath Israel, the Second Circuit applied strict scrutiny when businesses such as retail stores, news media, financial services, and construction were not as restricted as houses of religious worship.... Thus, the Second Circuit has already made the determination there is no meaningful difference between a retail store and a house of worship in terms of COVID-19 risk.... Regardless of how well intentioned it might have been and the difficult circumstances under which it was issued, the Directive “expressly singles out religion for less favored treatment” by subjecting religious services to complete cancellation while not imposing such strict measures on other businesses regardless of their size or the length of time people were gathering there ... and is thus subject to strict scrutiny....

The Court determines therefore as a matter of law both that the Directive is subject to strict scrutiny, and that it fails that scrutiny, thus violating the First Amendment....

The court concluded that plaintiff's equal protection claim is tied to the free exercise claim.  The court found that claims for injunctive and declaratory relief were now moot. It rejected plaintiff's Establishment Clause claim saying that the health directive did not "establish religion or espouse a religious message." It rejected plaintiff's free speech and freedom of assembly claims, relying on the Supreme Court's 1905 decision in Jacobson v. Massachusetts.

6th Circuit: Muslim-Owned Company Adequately Alleged Religious and National Origin Discrimination

In Speed Way Transportation, LLC v. City of Gahanna, Ohio, (6th Cir., March 1, 2023), the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals held 2-1 that a towing company adequately alleged an equal protection claim. Plaintiffs claimed religious and national origin discrimination in the city's rejection of their bid for a three-year towing contract.  The court said in part:

Plaintiffs allege that no other business—let alone any other towing business—in the City of Gahanna, including the comparator firms Broad & James and Cal’s Towing, is owned, and operated by individuals of Egyptian national origin and Muslim faith.

Plaintiffs also sufficiently allege that they were treated differently than the two comparator firms.

Judge Suhrheinrich filed a dissenting opinion.

All 3 judges on the panel agreed that plaintiffs' other 1st and 14th Amendment claims were properly dismissed by the district court. The majority opinion said in part:

Plaintiffs have failed to allege that they engaged in “conduct”—a specific exercise of their religion—that the Free Exercise Clause protects. Lacking an allegation of “protected conduct,” the Plaintiffs cannot state a First Amendment retaliation claim based on the exercise of rights protected by the Free Exercise clause... The district court did not err in dismissing this count.

Church Can Move Ahead Against County in Suit on Covid Restrictions

 In Abiding Place Ministries v. Newsom, (SD CA, Feb. 14, 2023), a California federal district court allowed a church to move ahead with certain of its claims against San Diego County for enforcing Covid restrictions against public gatherings. The court held that the county's public health officer had qualified immunity against the damage claims because "there was no clear precedent in March or April 2020 that would have put every reasonable official on notice that promulgating orders restricting in person religious gatherings to slow the spread of the COVID-19 virus was clearly and definitively unconstitutional."

The court however allowed plaintiff to move ahead with Free Exercise, Freedom of Assembly, Establishment Clause, Free Speech and Equal Protection claims against the County. The court said in part:

The County threatened enforcement, penalties, and fines if Plaintiff did not comply with the County Order.... Plaintiff alleges this action by the County “forced the Church’s members to remain away from church against their will, under threat of punishment,,,,”  [T]he allegations of the FAC regarding the County’s alleged unconstitutional policy is sufficient overcome the County Defendants’ argument that it cannot be liable under Monell. Accordingly, the County Defendants’ motion to dismiss is DENIED on this ground.....

[The FAC] alleges the County’s Orders and Defendants’ enforcement “had the primary effect of inhibiting religious activity” and caused “excessive government entanglement with religion.” ... Plaintiff contends its religious services exempted from gatherings were treated differently than other public gatherings.... At this stage of the pleadings, the County Defendants’ motion to dismiss the second cause of action is DENIED....

Whatever level of scrutiny is applied, Plaintiff has alleged they were prohibited from engaging in protected speech and assembling in person for the purpose of worship while other gatherings promoting non-religious speech were permissible.... Taking those allegations as true, Plaintiff has plausibly alleged claims for violations of the First Amendment’s freedom of speech and freedom of assembly clauses....

Plaintiff contends Defendants “intentionally and arbitrarily categorized individuals and conduct as either ‘essential’ or ‘non-essential.’”... At the pleading stage, Plaintiff has alleged sufficient facts to state a claim for violation of the Equal Protection clause....

Catholic School Students Sue Air & Space Museum for Barring Pro-Life Apparel

Suit was filed this week in the D.C. federal district court by or on behalf of eleven South Carolina Catholic high school students against the National Air and Space Museum and seven members of its staff alleging that the students were required to remove their hats which carried a pro-life message during their visit to the Museum. The students visited the Museum after participating in the D.C. March for Life event. The complaint (full text) in Kristi L. v. National Air and Space Museum, (D DC, filed 2/6/2023), alleging violations of the 1st and 5th Amendments and RFRA, states in part:

Plaintiffs were subjected to a pattern of ongoing misconduct ... which included targeting, harassment, discrimination and, ultimately, eviction from NASM simply because they wore blue hats with the inscription, “Rosary Pro-Life.”...

Defendants’ restriction on Plaintiffs’ speech is content and viewpoint-based and demonstrates a concerted effort to single out, embarrass, intimidate, exclude, and ultimately silence the message expressed by Plaintiffs in wearing their “Rosary Pro-Life” hat....

The disparate treatment of Plaintiffs based on their viewpoints was a result of a discriminatory purpose on the part of Defendants...

Defendants’ restriction on Plaintiffs’ expressive religious activity as set forth in this Complaint imposes a substantial burden on Plaintiffs’ religious exercise in violation of RFRA....

American Center for Law & Justice issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

4th Circuit: Church Loses Challenges to Zoning Restrictions

In Alive Church of the Nazarene, Inc. v. Prince William County, Virginia, (4th Cir., Jan. 31, 2023), the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected a church's challenges to zoning restrictions that prevented it from using property it purchased for religious services. The church purchased 17 acres of land zoned for agricultural use.  The church originally planned to comply with the agricultural use requirements by making non-alcoholic cider from fruit trees on the property. It would then be classified as a farm winery or limited-license brewery, could build any buildings it wished on the property and could hold events in them. However, the church discovered that in order to qualify, it also was required to obtain a license from the state Alcoholic Beverage Control Board. It concluded that doing this would violate its religious beliefs against the promotion of alcohol. Its only other route was to comply with provisions of a Special Use Permit which required construction that it could not afford. The court rejected the church's equal terms, non-discrimination and substantial burden challenges under RLUIPA, as well as its constitutional Equal Protection, Free Exercise and Peaceable Assembly challenges to the restrictions imposed on it. Courthouse News Service reports on the decision.

Title IX Religious Exemption Survives Constitutional Challenge

In Hunter v. United States Department of Education, (D OR, Jan. 12, 2023), an Oregon federal district court dismissed a suit brought by students who have attended a religious college or university challenging the application of the religious exemption in Title IX in a manner that allows religious colleges and universities to discriminate against LGBTQ students. Rejecting plaintiffs' equal protection claim, the court said in part:

Plaintiffs have not alleged how the religious exemption fails intermediate scrutiny. Defendants point out that the Ninth Circuit has recognized “that free exercise of religion and conscience is undoubtedly, fundamentally important.”... Exempting religiously controlled educational institutions from Title IX—and only to the extent that a particular application of Title IX would not be consistent with a specific tenet of the controlling religious organization, see 20 U.S.C. § 1681(a)(3)—is substantially related to the government’s objective of accommodating religious exercise.

The court rejected plaintiffs' Establishment Clause challenge applying the Lemon test. The court also rejected various other constitutional challenges to the exemption.

11th Circuit En Banc Upholds School Policy Assigning Restrooms on Basis of Biological Sex

In Adams v. School Board of St. Johns County, Florida, (11th Cir., Dec. 30, 2022), the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals sitting en banc in a 7-4 decision held that separating use of male and female bathrooms in public schools based on students' biological sex does not violate either the Equal Protection Clause or Title IX. The six opinions filed in the case span 150 pages.  A 3-judge panel in a 2-1 decision had previously ruled to the contrary. The majority opinion on en banc review said in part:

The School Board’s bathroom policy is clearly related to—indeed, is almost a mirror of—its objective of protecting the privacy interests of students to use the bathroom away from the opposite sex and to shield their bodies from the opposite sex in the bathroom, which, like a locker room or shower facility, is one of the spaces in a school where such bodily exposure is most likely to occur. Therefore, the School Board’s bathroom policy satisfies intermediate scrutiny.

The district court avoided this conclusion only by misconstruing the privacy interests at issue and the bathroom policy employed.... [T]he bathroom policy does not unlawfully discriminate on the basis of biological sex....

The policy impacts approximately 0.04 percent of the students within the School District—i.e., sixteen transgender students out of 40,000 total students—in a manner unforeseen when the bathroom policy was implemented. And to accommodate that small percentage, while at the same time taking into account the privacy interests of the other students in the School District, the School Board authorized the use of sex-neutral bathrooms as part of its Best Practices Guidelines for LGBTQ issues....

Contrary to the dissent’s claim, the School Board, through the Best Practices Guidelines, did not discriminatorily “single[] out transgender students.” ... The School Board sought to accommodate transgender students by providing them with an alternative—i.e., sex-neutral bathrooms—and not requiring them to use the bathrooms that match their biological sex— i.e., the bathroom policy Adams challenges.... Ultimately, there is no evidence of purposeful discrimination against transgender students by the School Board, and any disparate impact that the bathroom policy has on those students does not violate the Constitution.

Judge Lagoa filed an opinion Specially Concurring, saying in part:

 I write separately to discuss the effect that a departure from a biological understanding of “sex” under Title IX—i.e., equating “sex” to “gender identity” or “transgender status”—would have on girls’ and women’s rights and sports.

Judge Wilson dissented, saying in part:

Underlying this sex-assigned-at-matriculation bathroom policy ... is the presumption that biological sex is accurately determinable at birth and that it is a static or permanent biological determination. In other words, the policy presumes it does not need to accept amended documentation because a student’s sex does not change. This presumption is both medically and scientifically flawed....

The case of intersex students therefore proves that a privacy concern rooted in a thin conception of biological sex is untenable.

Judge Jordan filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Judges Wilson and Rosenbaum, saying in part:

[T]he School Board’s policy allows a transgender student just like Drew to use the boys’ bathroom if he enrolls after transition with documents listing him as male. Because such a student poses the same claimed safety and privacy concerns as Drew, the School Board’s bathroom policy can only be justified by administrative convenience.

Judge Rosenbaum filed a dissenting opinion, saying in part:

I join Judge Jordan’s dissent in its entirety and Judge Jill Pryor’s dissent’s equal-protection analysis. I write separately only to emphasize one point ...: the Majority Opinion’s misplaced suggestions that affirming the district court’s order on equal-protection grounds would require courts in this Circuit to find that all challenges involving restrooms, locker rooms, and changing facilities must necessarily be upheld are wrong.

Judge Jill Pryor filed a dissenting opinion (which Judge Rosenbaum joined as to her equal protection analysis) saying said in part:

In contrast to transgender students, all cisgender students are permitted to use the restroom matching their gender identity. The policy, therefore, facially discriminates against transgender students by depriving them of a benefit that is provided to all cisgender students. It places all transgender students on one side of a line, and all cisgender students on the other side. The School District cannot hide beyond facially neutral-sounding terms like “biological sex.” As the Supreme Court has observed, “neutral terms can mask discrimination that is unlawful.”...

[T]he bathroom policy’s assignment of Adams to the girls’ restrooms would actually undermine the abstract privacy interest the School District wished to promote. While he attended Nease and was excluded from the boys’ bathrooms, Adams had “facial hair,” “typical male muscle development,” a deep voice, and a short haircut.... He had no visible breast tissue; his chest appeared flat. He wore masculine clothing. Any occupant of the girls’ restroom would have seen a boy entering the restroom when Adams walked in. Thus, the district court found, “permitting him to use the girls’ restroom would be unsettling for all the same reasons the School District does not want any other boy in the girls’ restroom.”...

The School District’s policy categorically assigned transgender students, including Adams, to bathrooms based on only one biological marker: their sex assigned at birth. Adams’s claim that the School District’s notion of what “sex” means is discriminatory is not foreclosed by the Title IX carveouts....

Law & Crime reports on the decision. 

British Columbia's COVID Restrictions on Worship Services Upheld

In Beaudoin v. Attorney General of British Columbia, (BC Ct. App., Dec. 16, 2022), the highest court in the Canadian province of British Columbia upheld 2020 and 2021 COVID orders of BC's Provincial Health Officer that prohibited in-person worship services.  The court concluded that the Gathering and Events Order did not violate §15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms that protects the equality rights of the churches that were plaintiffs in the suit, saying in part:

[T]he G&E orders did not create any distinction based on the religious or non-religious nature of the setting in question. Any distinction between settings permitted to remain open and those required to close was based on epidemiological data and the PHO’s assessment—supported by provincial, national and international data and experience—that the level of risk of viral transmission was unacceptably high in certain types of settings or gatherings involving certain types of activities. The risks associated with retail and other permitted activities—typically involving more transient contact between individuals of a transactional nature—were determined to be different than the risks associated with the activities that form an essential component of in-person religious worship and the celebration of faith.

The court also concluded that plaintiffs' religious freedom rights under §2 of the Charter were not infringed, saying in part:

In my view, the limitation on the religious freedom of the appellants stemming from the G&E orders has been shown to be a proportionate one in light of the unprecedented risk to public health that arose during the second wave of the virus, the need to take precautions to stop preventable deaths from occurring, and the need to protect the capacity of the healthcare system....

[T]here was an ample evidentiary basis upon which the PHO could reasonably conclude that, when faith-based communities gathered for worship, the risk of transmission was unacceptably high.... [O]bservance of the liturgy requires a spiritual communion of faith that involves participation of the congregation in physically intimate acts—sharing communion, prayer, and song. These activities were known to be associated with a heightened risk of transmission.... [T]here is no proper basis upon which a reviewing court could interfere with the scientific determinations underlying the PHO’s orders....

CBC News reports on the decision.

Suit Charges Selective Granting of Religious Exemptions From COVID Vaccine Mandate

A class action lawsuit was filed in a Virginia federal district court this week alleging that the University of Virgina Health System violated free exercise and establishment clause provisions of the federal and state constitutions as well as equal protection rights in the manner in which it administered applications from employees for religious exemptions from its COVID vaccine mandate. The complaint (full text) (memo in support of motion for preliminary injunction) in Phillips v. Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia, (WD VA, filed 12/14/2022), alleges in part:

2. When UVA Health mandated that employees receive a COVID-19 vaccine, it knew that it was required to accommodate religious beliefs. But it wanted to minimize accommodations, and it believed that most objections were false political beliefs from members of the political right. 

3. So UVA Health drew up a list of churches that its human-resources personnel believed had official doctrines prohibiting vaccination. It then automatically exempted members of these religions from receiving the vaccine. As to employees who were members of other faiths, UVA Health automatically dismissed their religious objections to the COVID-19 vaccine as insincere, as non-religious in nature, as based on “misinformation,” or as a misinterpretation of the objector’s own religious beliefs....

5. The result was blatant—and blatantly unconstitutional—religious discrimination....

The complaint goes on to allege that UVA categorically dismissed as misinformation objections based on the relation of fetal cell lines to the vaccines. [Thanks to Samuel Diehl for the lead.]

Suit Challenges New York Ban on Firearms in Houses of Worship

Suit was filed this week in a New York federal district court challenging the constitutionality of New York's ban on carrying firearms in houses of worship. The complaint (full text) in His Tabernacle Family Church, Inc. v. Nigrelli, (WD NY, filed 11/3/2022) alleges that the ban violates the free exercise, Establishment Clause, Second Amendment, and equal protection rights of a church and its pastor.  The complaint says in part:

S51001 forbids Pastor Spencer and the Church’s members, under threat of criminal penalties, from exercising their religious conviction to carry firearms into the Church to protect themselves and other congregants.....

[S51101]  subjects houses of worship to disfavored treatment while treating comparable secular organizations, such as retail stores or restaurants, more favorably than those offering religious exercise....

A church’s authority over who may enter the sanctuary and under what circumstances lies at the very heart of “the general principle of church autonomy” protected by the Establishment Clause.....

First Liberty issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit. Last month, in another case, the same court issued a temporary restraining order barring enforcement of this statutory provision. (See prior posting.)

Challenges To School COVID Mitigation Requirements Are Dismissed

 In Tracy v. Stephens, (D UT, Nov. 1, 2022), a Utah federal district court dismissed claims that plaintiffs' rights were violated by school district COVID orders requiring the wearing of masks and social distancing.  The court said in part:

Plaintiffs have not identified what speech or type of speech was suppressed, meaning the court cannot apply the correct test to determine whether a regulation of it was permissible.... Plaintiffs have also not pleaded facts allowing for a plausible inference that by declining to wear masks or face coverings, or to participate in social distancing or isolation measures, they were engaged in inherently expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment....

Plaintiffs assert the Free Exercise Clause is implicated because they “hold a deeply held religious belief against the covering of their faces as this would violate their religious conscience,” and that they have a “God-given right to refuse unwanted medical treatment.”... But the Amended Complaint does not contain sufficient facts for the court to engage in the required analysis. Plaintiffs neither sufficiently identify the religious practices targeted and suppressed by Defendants, nor the provision(s) of the regulation(s) used by Defendants to target these practices. But Plaintiffs do identify an exemption process that would seemingly have allowed them to avoid the regulations’ requirements....

The court also dismissed plaintiffs' freedom of association, due process, equal protection, 4th, 9th and 13th Amendment, Civil Rights Act, conspiracy and state constitutional claims. 

Profs Sue University for Including Caste in Antidiscrimination Policy

Suit was filed on Monday in a California federal district court by two California State University professors challenging the University's inclusion of discrimination on the basis of caste in its Interim Antidiscrimination Policy adopted in January. The complaint (full text) in Kumar v. Koester, (CD CA, filed 10/17/2022) alleges in part:

[T]he Interim Policy seeks to define the Hindu religion as including “caste” and an alleged oppressive and discriminatory caste system as foundational religious tenets. That not only is an inaccurate depiction of the Hindu religion, but the First Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits California and CSU from defining the contours of Hinduism (or any religion)....

The Interim Policy also singles out only CSU’s Hindu employees, professors and students, as well as those of Indian/South Asian origin. No other Protected Status in the Interim Policy addresses any specific ethnicity, ancestry, religion or alleged religious practice,,,

Plaintiffs seek a determination that the term “caste” as used in the Interim Policy is unconstitutionally vague, and the Interim Policy as drafted violates the rights of Plaintiffs (and similarly situated individuals) under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, as well as their rights under the California Constitution.

The Hindu American Foundation issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Religious Questioning Of Muslim Travelers By Border Officers Upheld

In Kariye v. Mayorkas, (CD CA, Oct. 12, 2022), three Muslim plaintiffs sued the Department of Homeland Security alleging that border officers routinely and intentionally single out Muslim-American travelers to demand they answer religious questions. The court, in a 71-page opinion in its official format, first dismissed plaintiffs' Establishment Clause challenge. Applying the Supreme Court's test articulated in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, the court said in part:

The court finds substantial legal authority supporting the government's historically broad authority to implement security measures at the border.... Additionally, the court finds substantial authority holding that maintaining border security is a compelling government interest.

The court rejected plaintiffs' free exercise claim, finding that plaintiffs had not sufficiently alleged a substantial burden on their religious exercise. It additionally concluded that even if there was a substantial burden, officers' questioning was narrowly tailored to advance a compelling governmental interest in protecting borders and preventing potential terrorism.

The court also rejected freedom of association, retaliation, equal protection and RFRA challenges to practices of border officers.

Certiorari Denied In Fetal Personhood Case

The U.S. Supreme Court today denied review in Doe v. McKee,  (Docket No. 22-201, certiorari denied 10/11/2022) (Order List). The certiorari petition  asked the Supreme Court to review a decision of the Rhode Island Supreme Court that held unborn fetuses do not have due process and equal protection rights under the U.S. Constitution and do not have standing to challenge Rhode Island's Reproductive Privacy Act which granted the right to abortions consistent with Roe v. Wade. CNN reports on the Court's action. [Thanks to Thomas Rutledge for the lead.]

Alternatives For Employees With Religious Exemptions From Vaccination Are Not Discriminatory

In Dollar v. Goleta Water District, (CD CA, Oct. 3, 2022), a California federal district court held that the COVID vaccination policy for employees of the Goleta Water District did not discriminate on the basis of religion against employees who obtained a religious exemption. Plaintiffs contended that the District's policy is discriminatory because it imposes special mask and testing requirements and requires authorization to enter certain buildings for plaintiffs because they have a religious exemption. The court said in part:

[P]laintiffs have not alleged that employees who receive exemptions on religious grounds are treated any differently from employees who receive exemptions on non-religious grounds. Instead, plaintiffs have only alleged that the policy treats them differently from other employees because of their vaccination status, not because of their religion.

Michigan Ban On Use Of State Funds For Private And Religious Schools Upheld

In Hile v. State of Michigan, (WD MI, Sept. 30, 2022), a Michigan federal district court dismissed free exercise and equal protection challenges to a provision in the Michigan Constitution that prohibits the use of state funds, tax benefits or vouchers to aid "any private, denominational or other nonpublic, pre-elementary, elementary, or secondary school" or student attendance at such schools. Plaintiffs contend that the provision reflects an anti-religious and anti-Catholic sentiment. Plaintiffs base their challenge on the unavailability of Michigan's Section 529 savings plan for them to use to send their children to private religious schools. The state, however, argues that its Plan is not available for any private high school tuition. Plaintiffs argue that the state is misinterpreting its own legislation.  The court said in part:

The court is satisfied that principles of comity preclude merits consideration of plaintiffs’ First Amendment Challenges because they would require this court to disregard the State’s own interpretation and consistent application of its own tax law, neither of which raises First Amendment concerns. Plaintiffs can take the issue up with Michigan tax authorities in the ordinary administration of the Michigan income tax collection process. But unless and until Michigan changes the interpretation and application of its own tax law, and replaces it with the version Plaintiffs say it should have, there is no First Amendment issue.

The court also rejected plaintiffs' equal protection challenge, saying that it is unwilling to expand the "political process" doctrine. Plaintiffs had argued that by placing the limits on use of state funds in the state Constitution, the state had burdened their ability to seek changes in the law. Bridge Michigan reports on the decision.