New Idaho Law Bars Adverse Action Because of Religious Conduct in Adoption, Foster Care, Licensing and State Contracting

On Monday, Idaho Governor Brad Little signed House Bill 578 (full text) which prohibits state and local governments from treating adversely any adoption or foster care agency that declines to provide services because of a sincerely held religious belief. The new law also provides:

The state government shall not take any discriminatory action against a person who the state grants custody of a foster or adoptive child wholly or partially on the basis that the person guides, instructs, or raises a child, or intends to guide, instruct, or raise a child, based on or in a manner consistent with a sincerely held religious belief. The state government may consider whether a person shares the same religious or faith tradition as a foster or adoptive child when considering placement of the child in order to prioritize placement with a person of the same religious or faith tradition.

The new law goes on to provide that the state cannot deny licensing or the award of a contract to a person because the person believes, maintains policies and procedures, or acts in accordance with a sincerely held religious belief. ADF issued a press release announcing the governor's signing of the bill.

Faith-Based Foster Care Agency May Limit Clients to Those with Compatible Religious Beliefs

 In two decisions issued last week, a South Carolina federal district court rejected Establishment Clause challenges to waivers from federal anti-discrimination requirements granted faith-based child placement agencies.  In Rogers v. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, (D SC, Sept. 29, 2023), plaintiff challenged an Executive Order issued by the governor of South Carolina allowing licensing of religious child placement agencies that worked only with clients who shared their religious beliefs. At issue in the case was the rejection by Miracle Hill Ministries of a foster-parent application submitted by a same-sex couple who belonged to the local Unitarian-Universalist Church. The court rejected plaintiffs' Equal Protection claim because plaintiffs had not identified any state action involved.  It rejected their Establishment Clause claim, saying in part:

Plaintiffs’ legal premise is based on the now abandoned framework of the “Lemon Test” by focusing their argument on the third factor in Lemon regarding an “excessive government entanglement with religion.” ... Instead, based on historical practices and understandings which Kennedy requires, Establishment Clause protections are more likely triggered “when the government use[s] the established church to carry out certain civil functions, often by giving ‘the established church a monopoly over a specific function.’” ...

Plaintiffs identify but misstate three “hallmarks” of “founding-era religious establishments” that “reflect[] ‘forms of coerc[ion]’ regarding ‘religion or its exercise.’”... Stated in full, they are: 1) “the government punished dissenting churches and individuals for their religious exercise,” 2) “the government provided financial support for the established church, often in a way that preferred the established denomination over other churches,” and 3) “the government used the established church to carry out certain civil functions, often by giving the established church a monopoly over a specific function[.]” ...

Plaintiffs fail to meet their burden to show that these “hallmarks” exist here...

In Madonna v. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, (D SC, Sept. 29, 2023), plaintiff was rejected by Miracle Hill because she did not share its evangelical-Christian beliefs and could not affirm its statement of faith. Rejecting plaintiff's Establishment Clause claims, the court said in part:

Defendants did not compel Maddonna to sign Miracle Hill’s statement or leave her without an adequate alternative to signing it. To the contrary, Maddonna could foster the same children at any of twenty-six other private agencies in the State... or with the State itself....  Accordingly, Maddonna has not shown “a historically disfavored establishmentarian practice” based on a claim of “subtle and indirect pressure.”...

Maddonna’s attempt to implicate an impermissible religious accommodation is foreclosed by Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, an analogous case in which the Supreme Court found the denial of a similar religious accommodation for foster care agencies burdened the Free Exercise Clause.

Becket issued a press release announcing the decisions.

Jewish Couple Denied Child Placement Services by United Methodist Agency Have Standing to Sue

In Rutan-Ram v. Tennessee Department of Children's Services, (Aug. 24, 2023), a Tennessee state appellate court reversed a decision of a special 3-judge trial court (see prior posting) and held that a Jewish couple who allege religious discrimination by a state-subsidized United Methodist child-placement agency have standing to sue.  The agency refused to provide the couple with foster care training and a home study because the couple did not share the agency's religious beliefs. A Tennessee statute protects faith-based agencies that refuse to participate in placing a child because of the agency's religious or moral convictions. Subsequently the Department of Children's Services provided the couple directly with the training required. The court said in part:

In the present case, the allegations of the complaint assert that the Couple has been denied and are being denied equal access to stated-funded foster and adoption services because of their Jewish faith. In finding that the Couple lacked standing, the three-judge panel again emphasized that the State was providing the Couple with child placement services. However, when the state makes it more difficult for members of one group than for members of another group to obtain services, the injury in fact “is the denial of equal treatment resulting from the imposition of the barrier, not the ultimate inability to obtain the benefit.” ...

When a statute subjects a group of people to unequal treatment based upon their religious beliefs, the fact that the statute may allow discrimination against other religious groups does not negate a disfavored group’s standing to challenge the statute....

The court also concluded that six other Tennessee taxpayers who were co-plaintiffs have taxpayer standing to sue. AP reports on the decision. [Thanks to Thomas Rutledge for the lead.]

Catholic Couple Sues Foster Care Agency For Religious Discrimination [Revised]

 A Catholic couple has filed suit in a Massachusetts federal district court against the Massachusetts Department of Children and Families claiming free exercise and free speech violations. Plaintiffs were denied a foster care license because they would not be affirming to a child who identified as LGBTQIA.  The complaint (full text) in Burke v. Walsh, (D MA, filed 8/8/2023), alleges in part:

As faithful Catholics, the Burkes believe that all children should be loved and supported, and they would never reject a child placed in their home. They also believe that children should not undergo procedures that attempt to change their God-given sex, and they uphold Catholic beliefs about marriage and sexuality....

In effect, DCF has interpreted its regulations, which require foster families to “support[] and respect[] a child’s sexual orientation or gender identity,” 110 CMR 7.104(1)(d), as an absolute bar for Catholics who agree with the Church’s teaching on sex, marriage, and gender.

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

[Note-- this post was erroneously published previously with a title but no text.]

Rejection of Foster Parent Applicants Over Their Views on Homosexuality Violates Australian Equal Opportunity Law

In Hordyk v. Wanslea Family Services, Inc., (WA SAT, Dec. 23, 2022), the State Administrative Tribunal of Western Australia held that a non-profit family services agency that contracts with the state to arrange foster care for children placed in custody of the state violated Section 62 of the Western Australia Equal Opportunity Act 1984 when it rejected a couple who are members of the Free Reformed Church of Australia as foster parents. According to the court:

4, During the assessment process, the Hordyks revealed, in answer to specific questions asked of them, that they held the view that the Seventh Commandment in the Old Testament of the Bible requires sexual relationships to take place only between a man and woman who are married and that other expressions of human sexuality are sinful. The Hordyks believe that same-sex relationships are sinful and that people who feel same-sex attraction must fight the sin in order to live in conformity with the Commandments. They informed Wanslea that, as a result of their beliefs, in the event that a foster child who had been placed in their care was found kissing a child of the same sex at school, they would tell the child that they were loved but that the behaviour was sinful and needed to be resisted. The Hordyks said they would have to end the placement of a foster child who continued to behave in that way. They qualified that statement by saying that they would not terminate the placement immediately but could not foster that child in the long term.

5.  Following the Hordyks' expression of those views, Wanslea's staff decided not to proceed to a final assessment of the Hordyks' application and instead terminated the assessment process....

Law and Religion Australia reports at greater length on the decision.

Texas Sues HHS To Invalidate Rule on LGBTQ Discrimination by Adoption Agencies

Suit was filed yesterday in a Texas federal district court challenging a rule adopted by the Department of Health and Human Services that prohibits adoption and foster care agencies receiving federal funds from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.  It also requires them to recognize same-sex marriages.  In 2019, amidst other litigation, the government previously issued a Notice of Nonenforcement of this rule. (See prior posting.) However, that Notice is being challenged in other litigation.  The complaint (full text) in State of Texas v. Becerra, (SD TX, filed 12/12/22), contends that the rule by its terms does not apply to child placing agencies that contract with state agencies that initially receive federal grants, and that the rule, for numerous reasons, is an invalid exercise of agency authority. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Religious Children's Home Lacks Standing To Challenge Now-Defunct HHS Non-Discrimination Rule

 In Holston United Methodist Home for Children, Inc. v. Becerra, (ED TN, Nov. 18, 2022), a Tennessee federal district court held that a religiously affiliated children's home that places children for foster care or adoption lacks standing to challenge a 2016 anti-discrimination rule promulgated by the Department of Health and Human Services. According to the court:

Holston Home requires prospective foster and adoptive parents to affirm a Christian statement of faith and beliefs before they can engage in child-placement activities.... Further, Holston Home does not place children with foster or adoptive parents who are in same-sex relationships or unmarried couples of any biological sex who are romantically cohabitating....

While the challenged rule, promulgated at the end of the Obama Administration, barred such restrictions, HHS policy had undergone successive changes in the Trump and Biden Administrations. These are traced at length in the court's 22-page opinion. In particular the court noted:

Although HHS had not enforced the 2016 Grants Rule since it became effective, on November 19, 2019, HHS published a formal notification in the Federal Register to inform the public that it would not enforce the 2016 Grants Rule after determining that the rulemaking raised “significant concerns about compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act [‘RFA’].”...

Because the 2016 Grants Rule is, for all intents and purposes, defunct pursuant to the Notification of Nonenforcement, Holston Home faces no credible threat of prosecution.... Having also failed to show any history of past enforcement of the 2016 Grants Rule, enforcement warning letters, or a feature of the regulation making it easier or more likely to be enforced, Holston Home lacks standing to bring this lawsuit.

Claims Against Social Worker Who Questioned Foster Parents' Religion Is Dismissed

 In Sarmiento v. Marquez, (ND CA, Nov. 10, 2022), a California federal district court dismissed religious discrimination and retaliation claims against county social work personnel who attempted, ultimately unsuccessfully, to remove a foster child from plaintiffs' care. The court explained:

Plaintiffs contend that, as they were proceeding toward adoption of the child in their care, County social worker Luz Sanclemente asked Sarmiento whether she “[believed] in God,” and whether she “[believed] in Jesus Christ.” ... Plaintiffs allege that defendants thereafter sought to remove the child from their care in “retaliation for not appearing to be Christians.”

However, the court concluded:

Sanclemente’s query into plaintiffs’ beliefs ... did not at all “coerce [them] into acting contrary to their religious beliefs or exert substantial pressure on [plaintiffs] to modify [their] behavior and to violate [their] beliefs.” ... Plaintiffs do not identify any action they took differently based on Sanclemente’s questioning. Plaintiffs do not represent that Sanclemente offered a quid pro quo, such as continued custody of the child in exchange for plaintiffs’ conversion to Christianity....

A First Amendment claim for retaliation requires a “substantial causal relationship” between a plaintiff’s “constitutionally protected activity” and “adverse [government] action . . . that would chill a person of ordinary firmness from continuing to engage in the protected activity.”,,,

Here, the [complaint] only speculates that there was a relationship between (1) plaintiffs’ response to Sanclemente that they are not Christians and (2) defendants’ actions to remove the child from plaintiffs’ care....

European Court: Human Rights Convention Violated When French Authorities Failed to Assure Respect for Foster Child's Birth Religion

In Loste v. France, (ECHR, Nov. 3, 2022) (full text in French) (Press Release summary in English), the European Court of Human Rights in a Chamber judgment held that France's child welfare service violated Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights when it failed to assure that a Jehovah's Witness foster family was respecting the Muslim beliefs of its foster child's birth family. The Court's decision also dealt with a separate issue--French authorities' failure to protect the foster child from sexual abuse by her foster father. Law & Religion UK has more on the decision.

Religious Discrimination Claims Against Child Protective Services Meet Procedural Hurdles

In Gautreaux v. Masters, (WD TX, Aug. 29, 2022), a Texas federal magistrate judge recommended that the court dismiss some or all of the free exercise and due process claims brought by foster parents who were accused by the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (DFPS) of child abuse. The opinion describes plaintiffs' allegations:

[DFPS] asked the couple to identify their religion during the application process, and they identified themselves as practicing members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latterday Saints.... Gautreaux alleges that DFPS demonstrated "hostility toward the Gautreauxes' religion" at their initial interview, while their follow-up interview "exclusively concerned the Gautreauxes' religious practices and beliefs."...

... DFPS informed Gautreaux that the department had found there was "reason to believe" she had committed the alleged abuse, resulting in Gautreaux being placed on the DFPS central registry "as a child abuser." ... Gautreaux alleges that DFPS's decision was motivated by religious "animus" and that there was no evidence of abuse to support the finding....

Gautreaux alleges that she is unable to practice her religion as a result of her placement on the DFPS central registry. Specifically, Gautreaux alleges that she cannot participate in her "calling" - an assignment made by Church leaders - which is to "teach singing to children in her local church."

In a lengthy opinion, the Magistrate Judge recommended either that all the claims be dismissed under the Younger abstention doctrine, or alternatively that most of plaintiffs' free exercise claims be dismissed because of 11th Amendment sovereign immunity. Under the alternative recommendation, the court could move ahead on  claims challenging DFPS's policies of considering religious beliefs and practices as a concern in abuse investigations and its disregarding of inconsistent court rulings.

Jewish Couple Lacks Standing To Challenge Tennessee Law Allowing Christian Foster Care Agency To Deny Services

In Rutan-Ram v. Tennessee Department of Children's Services, (TN Chanc., June 27, 2022), a Tennessee state 3-judge panel sitting under a special provision of Tennessee law that applies to constitutional challenges, held 2-1 that a Jewish couple who were denied foster-parent training by a state-funded Christian child placement agency lack standing to challenge a Tennessee law permitting faith-based adoption and foster care agencies to refuse to provide services that violate their religious convictions. The standing decision was based on the fact that the state Department of Children's Services ultimately provided training directly to the couple, rather than the couple obtaining it through a private agency. (See prior related posting.) Americans United issued a press release on the case.

Arizona Legislature Passes Bill To Protect Practices Of Faith-Based Adoption Agencies

On Monday, the Arizona legislature sent to the governor for his signature Senate Bill 1399 (full text) which protects adoption and foster care agencies from adverse action when they provide or decline services on the basis of their religious beliefs. It also provides that the state may consider whether a potential foster or adoptive family shares the same religious beliefs or practices as the child being placed. AZ Mirror has extensive reporting on the views of proponents and opponents of the legislation.

In Settlement, Michigan Allows Catholic Charities To Refuse Child Placements With Same-Sex Or Unmarried Couples

In Catholic Charities West Michigan v. Michigan Department of Health and Human Services, (ED MI, March 21, 2022), a Michigan federal district court approved a settlement agreement under which the state of Michigan will allow Catholic Charities, operating under contracts with the state, to refuse to place children for adoption or foster care with same-sex or unmarried couples and refuse to conduct home evaluations for same-sex or unmarried couples. The parties' Agreement says in part:

[A]s a result of the Supreme Court’s decision in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, 593 U.S. ___ (2021), the Parties agree that Plaintiff would likely prevail on Count V (Free Exercise) of the Complaint.

The state also agreed to pay plaintiffs' attorneys' fees in the amount of $250,000. ADF issued a press release announcing the settlement.

Michigan Settles Suit Over Placement Policy Of Catholic Adoption Agency

 A Michigan federal district court this week in Buck v. Hertel,(WD MI, Jan. 26, 2022), issued an Order implementing a settlement agreement between the state of Michigan and St. Vincent Catholic Charities which is a licensed child placement agency placing children for foster care and adoption. The Order provides in part:

MDHHS shall not take any action against St. Vincent’s CPA license or terminate or not renew the Contracts because St. Vincent does not: i. certify or approve a same-sex or unmarried couple as a foster parent or adoptive parent, or ii. conduct a home evaluation for a same-sex or unmarried couple, or iii. place a foster child with a same-sex or unmarried couple for foster care or adoption.

Under the settlement, the state also agreed to pay St. Vincent's attorneys' fees of $550,000. As reported by Fox 47 News, the state agreed to the settlement after the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia

Jewish Couple Challenge Denial Of Services By Christian Foster Care Placement Agency

Suit was filed yesterday in a Tennessee state trial court challenging the state's contracting with a Christian child placement agency that refuses to provide foster parent training to those who do not share its Christian beliefs.  A Jewish couple who were denied services sued, along with several other plaintiffs.  A Tennessee statute enacted in 2020 specifically allows faith-based adoption and foster care agencies to refuse to provide services that violate their religious convictions. The complaint (full text) in Rutan-Ram v. Tennessee Department of Children's Services, (TN Chanc. Ct., filed 1/19/2022), alleges that this religious discrimination violates several provisions of the Tennessee state constitution.  Americans United issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Religious Child Placement Agency Challenges HHS Non-Discrimination Regulations

Suit was filed yesterday against the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services in a Tennessee federal district court by a religious child welfare agency that offers residential and foster care services for abused and neglected children. The suit challenges an HHS regulation that prohibits foster care and adoption programs receiving federal funds from discriminating on the basis of religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or same-sex marriage status. The regulation expands upon the statutory prohibition on discrimination in such programs on the basis of race, color or national origin. The complaint (full text) in Holston United Methodist Home for Children v. Becerra,(ED TN. filed 12/2/2021), alleges that the regulation exceeds the federal agency's authority and that it violates RFRA and various 1st Amendment rights. The complaint alleges in part:

28. It would substantially burden Holston Home’s exercise of its religious beliefs to knowingly engage in child placing activities in connection with persons that do not agree with its Christian statement of faith and beliefs....

30. It would substantially burden Holston Home’s exercise of its religious beliefs to knowingly engage in child placing activities in connection with couples who may be romantically cohabitating but not married, or who are couples of the same biological sex.

The Trump Administration had issued waivers of the rule for faith-based agencies, but those waivers were rescinded by the Biden Administration last month. (See prior posting). ADF issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

HHS Rescinds Trump Era Religious Exemptions For Child Welfare Agencies In Three States

Yesterday, the Department of Health and Human Services announced that it is rescinding waivers of non-discrimination requirements issued during the Trump Administration to South Carolina, Texas and Michigan, along with certain child welfare agencies in those states. The waivers allowed faith-based foster care placement agencies to receive federal funds even though they select foster parents on the basis of religion. (See prior posting.) In its release yesterday, HHS summarized the background for its action:

Through these waivers, States and child welfare agencies – including States and organizations that did not make such requests - were granted exemptions from program nondiscrimination requirements in a rule that was not in effect. In taking today's actions, HHS is reestablishing its long-standing Department practice of evaluation of religious exemptions and modifications of program requirements on a case-by-case basis, as needed, and as is required by law—which was unprecedently changed in 2017 by the previous Administration. Today, HHS reaffirms its important commitment to core American values:  HHS will not condone the blanket use of religious exemptions against any person or blank checks to allow discrimination against any persons, importantly including LGBTQ+ persons in taxpayer-funded programs.

Britain's Court of Appeal Rejects Christian Agency's Ban On Same-Sex Couples Becoming Foster Parents

In The Queen (On the Application of Cornerstone (Northeast) Adoption and Fostering Services, Ltd. v. Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Education, Children's Services and Skills (OFSTED), (EWCA, Sept. 24, 2021), England's Court of Appeal held that Cornerstone, a Christian foster care agency, violated the Equality Act 2010 and the Human Rights Act 1998 when it required clients with which it placed children to:

Set a high standard in personal morality which recognises that God's gift of sexual intercourse is to be enjoyed exclusively within Christian marriage; abstain from all sexual sins including immodesty, the viewing of pornography, fornication, adultery, cohabitation, homosexual behaviour and wilful violation of your birth sex.

The court said in part:

The detrimental impact on society and on individuals of discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation has led the law to set a demanding standard of justification.... [W]e should be slow to accept that prohibiting fostering agencies from discriminating against homosexuals is a disproportionate limitation on their right to manifest their religion....

... [T]here can be no doubting the value of its work or the sincerity of [Cornerstone's] motives. However, in order to justify a policy of this nature, it needed to provide credible evidence that there would otherwise be a seriously detrimental impact on carers and children. The evidence it actually advanced did not go beyond the level of general assertion.... [W]hile I would not rule out the possibility of an organisation in this position putting up a substantial evidence-based case on justification, Cornerstone simply did not do that....

[Thanks to Law & Religion UK for the lead.]

After 20 Years Of Litigation, Suit On Religion In Child Placement Is Settled And Dismissed

This week, a Kentucky federal district court dismissed the remaining Establishment Clause claim in Pedreira v. Sunrise Children's Services, Inc., (WD KY, Sept. 8, 2021), after both plaintiffs and defendants filed a joint motion for voluntary dismissal with prejudice. The case, which involves a challenge to Kentucky's funding of treatment for abused and neglected children in facilities operated by Sunrise Children's Services, a Baptist organization, has been in litigation for 20 years. On Sept. 9, Americans United announced that in January the parties had entered an 18-page, single-spaced Settlement Agreement (full text) which sets out in detail provisions to prevent children in child care facilities and foster home placements from having unwanted religious activities imposed and assures respect for a child's religious preference.  It also requires respect for a child's sexual orientation and gender identity. Parts of the settlement were required to be incorporated into state regulations. A previous settlement agreement had been held unenforceable. (See prior posting.)

Supreme Court Sides With Catholic Social Services In Its Refusal To Certify Same-Sex Couples As Foster Parents

The U.S. Supreme Court today in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia,  (Sup. Ct., June 17, 2021), held unanimously that Philadelphia has violated the free exercise rights of Catholic Social Services by refusing to contract with CSS to provide foster care services unless it agrees to certify same-sex couples as foster parents.  Chief Justice Roberts wrote the opinion of the court which was joined by five other justices, avoiding the question of whether to overrule Employment Division v. Smith. The Court said in part:

Smith held that laws incidentally burdening religion are ordinarily not subject to strict scrutiny under the Free Exercise Clause so long as they are neutral and generally applicable.... CSS urges us to overrule Smith, and the concurrences in the judgment argue in favor of doing so.... But we need not revisit that decision here. This case falls outside Smith because the City has burdened the religious exercise of CSS through policies that do not meet the requirement of being neutral and generally applicable....

Government fails to act neutrally when it proceeds in a manner intolerant of religious beliefs or restricts practices because of their religious nature....

[S]ection 3.21 incorporates a system of individual exemptions, made available in this case at the “sole discretion” of the Commissioner. The City has made clear that the Commissioner “has no intention of granting an exception” to CSS.... But the City “may not refuse to extend that [exemption] system to cases of ‘religious hardship’ without compelling reason.” Smith, 494 U. S., at 884....

The question, then, is not whether the City has a compelling interest in enforcing its non-discrimination policies generally, but whether it has such an interest in denying an exception to CSS. 

Once properly narrowed, the City’s asserted interests are insufficient.

Justice Barrett filed a concurring opinion, joined by Justice Kavanaugh and (except for one paragraph) by Justice Breyer, saying in part:

In my view, the textual and structural arguments against Smith are more compelling. As a matter of text and structure, it is difficult to see why the Free Exercise Clause—lone among the First Amendment freedoms—offers nothing more than protection from discrimination.

Yet what should replace Smith? The prevailing assumption seems to be that strict scrutiny would apply whenever a neutral and generally applicable law burdens religious exercise. But I am skeptical about swapping Smith’s categorical antidiscrimination approach for an equally categorical strict scrutiny regime, particularly when this Court’s resolution of conflicts between generally applicable laws and other First Amendment rights—like speech and assembly—has been much more nuanced.

Justice Alito, joined by Justices Thomas and Gorsuch filed a 77-page opinion concurring in the judgment, arguing that the Smith case should be overruled. Justice Gorsuch, joined by Justices Thomas and Alito also filed an opinion concurring in the judgment and contending that Smith should be overruled.

CNBC reports on the decision.