4th Circuit Upholds City Policy Requiring Civil Marriage Certificate To Get Spousal Health Care

In Abdus-Shahid v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, (4th Cir., Jan. 4, 2017), the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Baltimore's policy of requiring city employees to submit proof of their recorded civil marriage certificate to establish a spouse as eligible for health insurance coverage. Plaintiff, a civil engineer employed by the city's Department of Transportation married his wife in an Islamic religious ceremony. They did not obtain a civil marriage license, claiming that to do so would be contrary to their religious beliefs.  The court rejected plaintiff's 1st Amendment free exercise claim, as well as his state constitutional and Title VII claims.

4th Circuit Hears Oral Arguments In Two Religion Cases

Yesterday the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments in American Humanist Association v. Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission (audio of oral arguments). In the case, a Maryland federal district court rejected an Establishment Clause challenge to the 90-year old Peace Cross, a 40-foot tall Veteran's Memorial in the shape of a cross. (See prior posting.) Reporting on the oral arguments, the Washington Post said in part:

Two appeals court judges clearly stated that there is no way to view the Peace Cross in Bladensburg other than as a symbol of Christianity.

The third judge on the appeals panel just as strongly said that the marble-and-cement monument is a secular war memorial honoring the death and sacrifice of those lost in battle.

Yesterday the 4th Circuit also heard oral arguments in EEOC v. COMSO: Energy, Inc. (audio of oral arguments). In the case, a West Virginia federal district court awarded damages to an Evangelical Christian mine employee who who objected to biometric hand scanning to track time and attendance, believing that it involves the Mark of the Beast forbidden in the Book of Revelation. (See prior posting.)

Cert Denied In Ministerial Exception Case

The U.S. Supreme Court today denied certiorari in Melhorn v. Baltimore-Washington Conference of the United Methodist Church, (Docket No. 16-245, cert. denied 10/31/2016) (Order List.) In the case, the Maryland Court of Special Appeals in an unreported opinion (set out in Appendix 1 to the Petition for Certiorari), applied the ministerial exception doctrine to bar a wrongful discharge suit by a pastor who was fired after refusing to accept the $600,000-plus portion of a bequest for upkeep of a cemetery that the church no longer owned.

Disclaimer Requirement Violates Pregnancy Center's Free Speech Rights

In Greater Baltimore Center for Pregnancy Concerns, Inc. v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, (D MD, Oct. 4, 2016), a Maryland federal district court held that a Baltimore ordinance requiring limited purpose pregnancy centers to post specified disclaimers is unconstitutional as applied to the pregnancy center bringing the lawsuit.  The ordinance requires centers to post signs in their waiting rooms stating that they do not provide or make referrals for abortion or birth control services. The court, applying strict scrutiny, held that this compels the pregnancy center to speak, delivering information that it would not otherwise transmit. The court said in part:

The City identifies two interests to support the Ordinance: (1) to protect the public from deceptive business practices, and (2) to promote public health by “ensuring that individuals who seek reproductive health services have access to truthful information about the services available at Pregnancy Centers.”...

[H]ere, even if there had been bountiful evidence of misleading advertising, there is no evidence that women were coming to the Center under false pretenses and suffering harmful health consequences because of it. Thus, the City has not satisfied the “demanding standard” of showing that the Ordinance actually promotes a compelling interest in solving a specific problem.

ADF issued a press release announcing the decision and linking to other pleadings and court decisions in the long-running litigation.

Suit Over High School Assignment On Islam Moves Forward

In Wood v. Board of Education of Charles County, (D MD, Sept. 30, 2016), a Maryland federal district court refused to completely dismiss a suit by parents of an 11th grader who complained that their daughter's World History assignments "promot[ed] the Islamic religion over other faiths" and "required the students . . . to profess statements on the teachings and beliefs of Islam in written worksheets as graded homework assignments." The father warned the school against retaliating against his daughter for her adherence to her Christian faith. The court dismissed plaintiffs' claim for injunctive relief as moot since their daughter had now graduated.  However the court allowed the parents to move ahead with their Establishment Clause and compelled speech claim for damages against the school's principal and vice principal, saying in part:

Here, while discovery and trial may or may not prove otherwise, Plaintiffs allege in the Complaint that in addition to learning facts about the background and beliefs relevant to Islam, Defendants required C.W. to “confess” the Islamic Profession of Faith....

The court also allowed the father-- who was barred from school grounds after threatening media coverage and a lawsuit-- to move ahead with his claim of retaliation. The court dismissed due process, Title VI and Title IX claims. See prior related posting.)

Ministerial Exception Doctrine Bars ADA Claim By Adventist Music Teacher

In Curl v. Beltsville Adventist School, (D MD, Aug. 15, 2016), a Maryland federal district court held that the ministerial exception doctrine applies to prevent a music teacher at a Seventh Day Adventist school from pursuing federal claims under the Americans With Disabilities Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and the Family and Medical Leave Act.  The teacher sued when her contract was terminated because she was unable to return fully to work a number of months after being seriously injured in a fall at work. In finding that plaintiff 's position was ministerial in nature, the court said in part:

Although a portion of Plaintiff's responsibilities were secular in nature, Plaintiff acknowledges that she is personally a Seventh-day Adventist whose role at the School included teaching religious music and leading prayer services.... [S]he agreed to abide by the Education Code, which "requires that schools employ only those who live in complete harmony with the beliefs and practices of the Church" and therefore required that all School teachers be "baptized Adventists committed to the Church's program of ministry."... [A] portion of her salary was paid by tithe funds, which are intended to be used for ministry.... Moreover, Plaintiffs performance was evaluated in part based on her spiritual leadership.

Plaintiff Dismisses Suit Against Maryland Ten Commandments Monument

Plaintiff in Davis v. Allegany County Commissioners, has filed a motion (full text) voluntarily dismissing his lawsuit challenging a Ten Commandments monument located on the courthouse lawn in Cumberland, Maryland. (See prior posting.) The court approved the motion to dismiss on Monday.  Plaintiff offered no reason for his decision to dismiss the suit.  ADF issued a press release reporting on the motion.

Required Use of Social Security Number Not a Free Exercise Violation

In Earl of the Family Cox v. St. Mary's County Department of Social Services, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 74402 (D MD, June 7, 2016), a Maryland federal district court in a brief opinion rejected the argument by a pro se plaintiff that required use of  his Social Security number in the child support program violates his 1st Amendment free exercise rights.

Suit Challenges Maryland County Ten Commandments Monument

In March, a lawsuit was filed in federal district court in Maryland challenging a Ten Commandments monument located on the courthouse lawn in Cumberland, Maryland.  The complaint (full text) in Davis v. Allegany County Commissioners, (D MD, filed 3/8/2016), recounts plaintiff's efforts since 2004 to have the monument removed.  Apparently defendants were not actually served in the case until sometime between April 29 and May 6.  The Cumberland Times-News last week reported on the reaction of county officials to the lawsuit. They complain that plaintiff is not even a resident of the county and are obtaining free legal assistance in defending against the suit. One county commissioner added:

These items were manufactured and put out by (filmmaker) Cecil B. DeMille.  They sent these things out as promotional items for the [Ten Commandments] movie. It was never in a church. It is an historic monument in an historic area.

[Thanks to Bob Ritter for the lead.]

Suit Challenges High School History Unit On Islam

The parents of a high schooler filed suit in a Maryland federal district court this week alleging that a two-week unit on Islam in the La Plata High School 11th grade World History class unconstitutionally promoted Islam over Christianity and Judaism.  The complaint (full text) in Wood v. Charles County Public Schools, (D MD, filed 1/27/2016), contends that plaintiffs' daughter was removed from class and given failing grades on assignments when she refused to complete work sheets on Islam that would have caused her to deny and insult her Christian beliefs. The suit contends that this violated the 1st and 14th Amendments, federal civil rights laws and state constitutional provisions.  Thomas More Law Center issued a press release on the case.

Federal Disabilities Education Act Does Not Require Plan Tailored To Student's Religious Needs

In M.L. ex rel Leiman v. Starr, (D MD, Aug. 3, 2015), a Maryland federal district court held that the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA) does not require a public school system to take account of a student's religious and cultural needs in designing an individualized education program (IEP) for him. Under 20 USC 1412, federal assistance is available to states that make free appropriate public education available to all children with disabilities.  However, IDEA

does not require a local educational agency to pay for the cost of education ... of a child with a disability at a private school ... if that agency made a free appropriate public education available to the child and the parents elected to place the child in such private school....

In this case, the court rejected the claim by an Orthodox rabbi and his wife that a public school system did not make a free appropriate public education available to their Down syndrome son when his IEP was not geared to his religious and cultural identity as an Orthodox Jew.  According to the court, a student's program is to be individualized considering the student's cognitive and developmental capabilities and needs.  It does not need to be "specifically tailored to the religious and cultural enclave in which the student lives."

Suit Proceeds Claiming Admissions Denial Because of Religious Statements In Interview

In Buxton v. Kurtinitis, (D MD, June 25, 2015), plaintiff sued five employees of the Community College of Baltimore County (MD) alleging that he was unconstitutionally denied admission to the school's radiation therapy program.  Dustin Buxton claimed that he was denied admission because of his expression of religious belief during his admissions interview. A Maryland federal district court dismissed Buxton's free speech claim, concluding that the First Amendment does not protect speech expressed in an admissions interview from admissions consequences in a competitive process. However the court permitted Buxton to proceed with an Establishment Clause and and equal protection claim.

District Court Vacates Preliminary Injunction Against Maryland County After Town of Greece Decision; Plaintiffs Will Go On

Within hours after Monday's U.S. Supreme Court decision in Town of Greece permitting sectarian invocations at city council meetings, a Maryland federal district court vacated a preliminary injunction it had issued (see prior posting) barring a Maryland county from opening its Commission meetings with sectarian prayers.  The Order (full text) in Hake v. Carroll County, Maryland, (D MD, May 5, 2014), merely recites that its action is "consistent with" the Supreme Court's decision.  In Carroll County, invocations were delivered by members of the County Commission, on a rotating basis, rather than by invited clergy or a chaplain.  The Commission had guidelines urging non-sectarian language, but they were often ignored. The Baltimore Sun reports that plaintiffs, pointing to these differences, say they will continue to pursue the Carroll County challenge. The American Humanist Association, one of the plaintiffs, says: "Unlike in the town of Greece, where even an atheist could give an invocation, in this case you have a very exclusive policy."

Suit Charges Student Not Admitted To Community College Program Because of His Expression of Religious Beliefs

ACLJ announced yesterday that it has filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of student Brandon Jenkins against The Community College of Baltimore County Maryland for denying Jenkins admission to the school's radiation therapy program in part because of Jenkins' expression of his religious beliefs. The complaint (full text) in Jenkins v. Kurtinitis, (D MD, filed 4/21/2014) alleges that the program director explained Jenkins' rejection in part as follows:

I understand that religion is a major part of your life and that was evident in your recommendation letters, however, this field is not the place for religion. We have many patients who come to us for treatment from many different religions and some who believe in nothing at all. If you interview in the future, you may want to leave your thoughts and beliefs out of the interview process.

Maryland County Will Obey Injunction on Christian Prayer

Last Tuesday, a week after a contempt of court motion was filed against members of the Carroll County, Maryland Board of Commissioners for violating a court order barring them from using specific Christian references in Council invocations, the Board by a vote of 3-2 adopted a resolution to obey the court's order, at least while the case is in litigation.  Christian Post reports that unedr the resolution, only Board President Dave Roush will present the invocation. He may still refer to "God," "Heavenly Father," "God of Abraham," or similar phrases, but will not use the name "Jesus."  One of the two commissioners voting against the motion, Richard Rothschild, complained: "[T]his resolution asked me to refuse to acknowledge the Son of God. In my judgment, this resolution asked me to, in effect, disown him.... Censorship is not freedom."

Contempt Motion Filed Against County Commission For Christian Prayers

The American Humanist Association announced that yesterday it filed a contempt of court motion (full text) against members of the Carroll County, Maryland Board of Commissioners for violating a court order (see prior posting) barring them from using specific Christian references in Council invocations.  One day after the entry of the injunction, Council member Robin Frazier delivered an explicitly Christian invocation and expressed objections to the court order. Then on Tuesday, the Board invited Bruce Holstein (reportedly the campaign manager of one of the Commissioners) to speak. He read a statement and offered a prayer harshly critical of the judge's decision, saying in part:

The judge may have prevented you commissioners from praying to Jesus Christ, but I want you to know that we, the citizens of Carroll County, are not gonna stand for it.

We are overruling Judge Quarles’ objection by offering this prayer on your behalf: Heavenly father, I stand here this morning and ask your blessing on our five county commissioners.... They have received a court Order from a misguided judge who forbids them from praying in the name of your son, Jesus Christ. This Order discriminates against Christians and is a gross violation of our commissioners’ First Amendment Constitutional rights. Therefore I ask you to bless their proceedings today and bless the case about Christian prayer before the Supreme Court and I ask for these blessings in Jesus’ name. Amen.

While the court's injunction ran against the Board members, plaintiff in its Memorandum of Law (full text) argues that it also bars the prayer delivered by Holstein:

There is no question the Defendants had the authority to stop this person from delivering a prayer at their Board meeting. They also had the ability clarify to the public, after the prayer was delivered, that it was not endorsed or supported by the Board.

The full text of the statements and prayers by both Commr. Frazier and Mr. Holstein are included in the Memorandum of Law.

District Court Enjoins Sectarian Invocations At County Council Meetings

In Hake v. Carroll County Maryland, (D MD, March 26, 2014), a Maryland federal district court granted a preliminary injunction barring Carroll County, Maryland commissioners opening their commission sessions with sectarian prayer.  Currently sessions are opened with a prayer led by one of the commissioners, on a rotating basis. The Board's voluntary guidelines for commissioners calls for them to "refrain from using Jesus, Jesus Christ, Savior, Prince of Peace, Lamb of God and the like."  However, during 2011-2012, at least 40% of the invocations contained sectarian Christian references, while no prayers made non-Christian sectarian references.  In finding that plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their Establishment Clause claim, the court said in part:

Although the podium guidelines discourage sectarian references, the Board has made no effort to curb the frequent sectarian references made by its own Commissioners.... At this time, the record indicates that the prayers invoked by Commissioners before Board meetings advance one religion to the exclusion of others.

The court ruled that Commissioners can continue to deliver non-sectarian invocations, but are enjoined from invoking the name of a specific deity associated with any specific faith or belief in their opining prayers. The American Humanist Association in a press release calls the decision "a major victory for separation of church and state."  The Baltimore Sun reports on the decision.  The U.S. Supreme Court this term has heard oral arguments in a case raising similar issues, and will decide the case within the next few months. (See prior posting.)

UPDATE: A March 27 release from the American Humanist Association says that a Carroll County commissioner defied the preliminary injunction and delivered a sectarian prayer at a county council meeting one day after the preliminary injunction was ordered. The AHA sent a contempt warning letter (full text) to counsel stating in part: "As a courtesy, we are going to refrain from seeking contempt charges against the commissioner in this one instance, in the hopes that today’s behavior was simply an emotional outburst made without the benefit of serious consideration of the rights of plaintiffs and others. She should understand, however, that any continued defiance of the court order will leave us with no choice but to seek a contempt order."

Required Signs In Pregnancy Counseling Centers Held Unconstitutional

In Centro Tepeyac v. Montgomery County, (D MD, March 7, 2014), a Maryland federal district court enjoined the enforcement of a Montgomery County Maryland Resolution that requires each "limited service pregnancy center" to post to post a sign in its waiting room that reads:

(1) “the Center does not have a licensed medical professional on staff”; and (2) “the Montgomery County Health Officer encourages women who are or may be pregnant to consult with a licensed health care provider”.

The court held that the Resolution is a content-based regulation that compels non-commercial speech, and thus triggers strict scrutiny review. It concluded:

The record produced by Defendants is simply insufficient to sustain this regulation of Plaintiff’s First Amendment rights. Assuming arguendo that the County has a compelling interest in positive health outcomes for pregnant women, the critical flaw for the County is the lack of any evidence that the practices of LSPRCs are causing pregnant women to be misinformed which is negatively affecting their health. It does not necessarily follow that misinformation will lead to negative health outcomes.

Alliance Defending Freedom issued a press release announcing the decision.

Two Women Charged With Murder After Purported Exorcism

In Germantown, Maryland, two women have been charged with first degree murder and attempted murder in the fatal stabbing of two children (ages 1 and 2) and the serious wounding of two others (ages 5 and 8) while attempting to perform an exorcism Thursday night or Friday morning. According to yesterday's  Washington Post, one of the women charged is the children's mother (28 year old Zakieya Avery) and the other is a 21 year old woman (Monifa Sanford) who lived with the family. Police said that the women saw the enemy as the Devil and were trying to release something bad they believed was affecting the children.