Court Continues Injunction Allowing Medical Abortion Drug To Be Dispensed In Pharmacy Or By Mail

 In American College of  Obstetricians and Gynecologists v. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, (D MD, Dec. 9, 2020), a Maryland federal district court refused to stay its earlier preliminary injunction against enforcement during the COVID emergency of an FDA rule that prevents mifepristone, an oral medication used to induce abortion, from being received by mail or through a pharmacy. The rule mandates it be dispensed only in person at a clinic or doctor's office. The court said in part:

As the parties continue their ongoing dispute over the validity of the Preliminary Injunction and whether it should presently remain in effect, the Court notes that it is not open-ended. The Preliminary Injunction is slated to end 30 days after the end of the public health emergency declared by the Secretary. With the positive news relating to vaccines, there is reason to hope that day will come soon. At this time, however, as the entire nation goes through what the Coordinator of the White House Coronavirus Task Force has deemed the "most deadly phase of the pandemic,"... the Court concludes that Defendants have not identified changed circumstances sufficient to warrant a stay or dissolution of the Preliminary Injunction, in whole or in part.

Washington Post reports on the decision.

Court Says Church Trustees Had Authority To Remove Pastor

In Vaughn v. Faith Bible Church of Sudlersville, (MD App., Nov. 19, 2020), a Maryland state appellate court held that under the state's Religious Corporation Act, trustees of the church had the authority to remove its pastor. The court said in part:

Churches in Maryland formally organize as religious corporations and thus, the trustees, not the congregation, constitute the corporation....

Appellant ... argues that Shore Haven trustees lacked authority to terminate him because the firing of a church pastor is an ecclesiastical matter reserved to the church, not the trustees....

However, here, there was simply no evidence that the Board’s decision was based on disputes regarding religious doctrine, biblical interpretations or other ecclesiastical matters. As stated by appellee, “appellant’s personal behaviors, organizational shortcomings, inability to manage a breakdown in civility, and over-heated remarks about [a Shore Haven trustee] drove” the decision.

4th Circuit Hears Oral Arguments In Conversion Therapy Ban Challenge

Yesterday the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments in Doyle v. Hogan. (Audio of full oral arguments.) In the case, a Maryland federal district court dismissed free speech and free exercise of religion challenges to Maryland's ban on mental health professionals engaging in conversion therapy with minors. (See prior posting.) Courthouse News Service reported on yesterday's proceedings, saying that questions of standing to sue dominated the arguments.

Denial of Church's Sewer Extension Application Did Not Violate RLUIPA or Constitution

 In Canaan Christian Church v. Montgomery County, Maryland, (D MD, Sept. 30, 2020), a Maryland federal district court, in a 54-page opinion, rejected challenges to the county's refusal to extend public sewer lines to a site on which plaintiffs wished to build a 2000-seat church. The court rejected plaintiff's "substantial burden" claim under RLUIPA, finding that the church had no reasonable expectation that the sewer extension would be approved.  The court also rejected RLUIPA "unreasonable limits" and "unequal terms" claims. It went on to reject equal protection and free exercise challenges.

No Fault Divorce Does Not Infringe Husband's Free Exercise Rights

 In Melki v. Melki,(MD App., Sept. 29, 2020), the Maryland Court of Special Appeals rejected a husband's claim that granting his wife a no-fault divorce violates his free exercise rights. In addition to rejecting jurisdictional and contract clause challenges, the court said in part:

Because the Orthodox faith does not permit divorces absent fault, Husband claims that the dissolution of the marriage on the grounds of a twelve-month separation would unconstitutionally force him to commit a mortal sin according to his religion.... Because a trial court granting a divorce merely dissolves a civil contract between the spouses, courts universally hold that no-fault divorce statutes do not infringe on the right to the free exercise of religion, even if a spouse’s religious beliefs prohibit no-fault divorces....

 Husband "still has [his] constitutional prerogative to believe that in the eyes of God, [he] and [his] estranged [wife] are ecclesiastically wedded as one...." ... In fact, it might well violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to compel Wife to remain married to Husband because of Husband’s religious beliefs, for the court would then be preferring one spouse’s beliefs over the other spouse’s.

4th Circuit Refuses To Stay Injunction Allowing Mifepristone By Mail

Last month, a Maryland federal district court issued a preliminary injunction against enforcement during the COVID-19 public health emergency of Maryland's in-person requirements that bar women seeking a medical abortion from obtaining mifepristone through a mail-order or retail pharmacy or to receive the medication by mail from their healthcare provider. (See prior posting.) Now in American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists v. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, (4th Cir., Aug. 13, 2020), the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals refused to grant a stay of the injunction pending appeal. Courthouse News Service reports on the court's order. [Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]

Transgender Man Sues Catholic Hospital For Refusing Hysterectomy

A suit filed in a Maryland federal district court last week raises the question of whether a corporation created by the Maryland legislature to operate the University of Maryland Medical Center is a state actor for purposes of the 1st and 14th Amendments.  The corporation acquired St. Joseph Hospital in 2012 and continued to operate it under Catholic Directives for healthcare.  This resulted in the hospital refusing to allow a scheduled hysterectomy on a transgender man undergoing treatment for gender dysphoria.  The complaint (full text) in Hammons v. University of Maryland Medical System Corporation, (D MD, filed 7/16/2020). alleges in part:

Defendants are instrumentalities of the State of Maryland and subject to the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. But, in violation of those constitutional obligations, Defendants operate University of Maryland St. Joseph Medical Center as a Catholic institution, guided by “Catholic health care values” and bound by the “Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services” established by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (the “Catholic Directives”)....

By purchasing the St. Joseph hospital and signing an agreement to operate the hospital as a Catholic institution and in accordance with the Catholic Directives, UMMS has violated the Establishment Clause by, among other things, (a) creating an impermissible fusion of governmental and religious functions; (b) impermissibly delegating government authority to be exercised in accordance with religious criteria; (c) impermissibly endorsing religion; (d) taking government action that has the primary purpose and effect of advancing religion; (e) creating unconstitutional governmental entanglement with religion; (e) favoring one set of religious beliefs over others; and (f) impermissibly coercing individuals to act in accordance with particular religious beliefs.

ACLU issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit. Washington Post reports on the lawsuit. [Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]

Abortion Rights Proponents Win In 4 Cases

A series of abortion rights rulings were handed down in the last few days:

In Sistersong Women of Color Reproductive Justice Collective v. Kemp, (ND GA, July 13, 2020), a Georgia federal district court permanently enjoined enforcement of Georgia's Living Infants Fairness and Equality (“LIFE”) Act which prohibits abortions after detection of a fetal heartbeat and recognizes unborn children as "natural persons."  Courthouse News Service reports on the decision.

In Memphis Center for Reproductive Health v. Slatery, (MD TN, July 13, 2020), a Tennessee federal district court issued a temporary restraining order barring enforcement of two bans on pre-viability abortions. One bans abortions when a fetal heartbeat is detectable. The other bans pre-viability abortions sought because of the race or sex of the fetus, or because of a Down syndrome diagnosis. ACLU issued a press release announcing the decision.

In American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists v. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, (D MD, July 13, 2020), a Maryland federal district court issued a preliminary injunction against enforcement during the COVID-19 public health emergency of in-person requirements that barred women seeking a medical abortion from obtaining mifepristone through a mail-order or retail pharmacy or to receive the medication by mail from their healthcare provider. The court concluded:

in light of the COVID-19 pandemic, the In-Person Requirements cause an undue burden in violation of the Constitution, imposing a substantial obstacle on a large fraction of the relevant women seeking a medication abortion.

AP reports on the decision.

In Planned Parenthood of Maryland, Inc. v. Azar, (D MD, July 10, 2020), a Maryland federal district court enjoined implementation of HHS' "separate billing rule" which would have complicated the billing for abortion coverage in health insurance policies offered through state exchanges. As explained by the court:

HHS proposed that issuers would need to send two separate bills to the policyholder to comply with § 1303 (one bill for the portion of the premium attributable to non-Hyde abortion coverage and one for the rest of the premium), and instruct the policyholder to pay the premium attributable to non-Hyde abortion coverage in a separate transaction.

Health Affairs reports on the decision.

Maryland Stay-At-Home Orders Upheld Over Free Exercise and Other Challenges

In Antietam Battlefield KOA v. Hogan, (D MD, May 20, 2020), a Maryland federal district court rejected several constitutional challenges to Maryland Governor Larry Hogan's COVID-19 stay-at-home orders. Among the plaintiffs were several pastors and a deacon who complain that the orders bar them from holding religious services with more than 10 people, and from attending weddings and funerals in person. Rejecting plaintiffs' free exercise claims, the court said in part:

This court agrees with the reasoning of the many courts that have found similar orders to be neutral and generally applicable.... The Governor’s order is neutral because it proscribes conduct (gatherings of more than 10 people) without regard to whether that conduct is religiously motivated or not. There is no indication that the order is meant to target conduct because of its religious motivation.

The order is also generally applicable. The plaintiffs argue that the order is underinclusive because it still allows some businesses to “accommodate large crowds and masses of persons,” such as Lowe’s and Walmart.... But plaintiffs have not shown that these activities are comparable to religious services. First, these businesses are part of the critical infrastructure, according to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s Cybersecurityand Infrastructure Security Agency.... and, unlike religious services, they cannot operate remotely...

Second, the plaintiffs have not shown that allowing essential businesses to remain open is “nonreligious conduct that endangers these interests in a similar or greater degree than” religious services....

Daily Record reports on the decision.

Pastors Challenge Maryland's COVID-19 Limits On Worship Services

As reported by the Baltimore Sun:

Maryland politicians, pastors and business owners banded together Saturday afternoon to file a sweeping federal lawsuit aimed at ending restrictions enacted by Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan in response to the coronavirus.

The lawsuit argues that the governor’s orders banning large gatherings and closing most businesses violate constitutional and federal laws protecting commerce, freedom of assembly, the right to protest and the right to practice their religion.

The 56-page complaint (full text) in Antietam Battlefield KOA v. Hogan, (D MD, filed 5/2/2020) includes nine pastors and a deacon among the 19 plaintiffs.It alleges in part that the Governor's ten-person limit on gatherings for religious worship violates plaintiffs free exercise rights and violates the Establishment Clause by dictating the manner in which Christians and churches must worship.

Court Upholds Maryland Hate Crime Statute

In Lipp v. State of Maryland, (MD Ct. Special Appeals, April 30, 2020), a Maryland state appellate court upheld the constitutionality of a Maryland statute which outlawed the destruction of property where there is evidence of animosity toward a group because of race, religious belief, sexual orientation, gender, disability, national origin or homelessness. Defendant had been convicted of spraying anti-Semitic, anti-Black and anti-gay graffiti on a school building.  Rejecting defendant's constitutional arguments, the court said in part:

Appellant may have had a First Amendment right to spray paint on his own property the offensive words and symbols used here. Once he combined that action with a criminal act, however, in this case defacing property of another, his criminal activity was not protected by the First Amendment.

Litigation Delay Refused In Suit Over Christian School's Compliance With Nondiscrimination Requirements

In Bethel Ministries, Inc. v. Salmon, (D MD, April 15, 2020), a Maryland federal district court refused to stay discover in a suit by a Christian school challenging its disqualification from Maryland's scholarship program for non-public schools.  Bethel Christian Academy was denied funds because of its failure to comply with non-discrimination requirements which include a ban on discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. Maryland school officials had sought a stay because of the U.S. Supreme Court's grant of certiorari in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia. In refusing a stay, the district court said in part:

[T]he Supreme Court’s decision in Fulton might provide useful guidance for this Court’s resolution of Bethel’s claims. Even so, this Court is disinclined to stay proceedings because of a theoretical possibility....

By the nature of the claims presented in this case, a delay of more than a year would have a significant effect on Bethel’s enrollment, and its ability to budget for the academic year. Irrespective of the ultimate result of this matter, Bethel and Defendants would be better served by entering the 2020-2021 school year with this litigation moving closer to a definitive conclusion.

Maryland Amends Hate Crime Law

The Maryland General Assembly this week gave final passage to an amended hate crime law, making it easier to convict. The bill-- SB606/ HB917 (full text)-- defines a hate crime as one "motivated  in whole or in substantial part" by a person's race, color, religious beliefs, sexual orientation, gender, disability, or national origin, or because another person or group is homeless. Previously the law required the crime be committed "because of" such characteristics. WTOP News reports on the legislature's action.                   

Zoning Requirement Violates RLUIPA

In Hunt Valley Baptist Church, Inc. v. Baltimore County, Maryland, (D MD, Feb. 10, 2020), a Maryland federal district court rejected federalism and Establishment Clause challenges to the constitutionality of RLUIPA against federalism and Establishment Clause challenges.The court went on to hold that the county's zoning ordinances that require a special exception process for churches to build in a conservation zone, but does not require this for schools, violate RLUIPA's equal terms provisions.

Christian School Denied Injunction Against Anti-Discrimination Provisions In Aid Programs

In Bethel Ministries, Inc. v. Salmon, (D MD, Jan. 21, 2020), a Maryland federal district court refused to issue a preliminary injunction requested by a Christian elementary school. Bethel Christian Academy sought to enjoin enforcement of a provision requiring non-discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity in order to participate in state-sponsored scholarship and school aid programs.  The court concluded that the school had not shown that the state targeted, was hostile to, or expressly discriminated against the school because of its religious beliefs. Nor had the school shown a likelihood of success on its claim that its free speech rights were infringed.

School's Challenge To Disqualification From Voucher Program Moves Ahead

In Bethel Ministries, Inc. v. Salmon, (D MD, Nov. 14, 2019), a Maryland federal district court refused to dismiss a suit brought by a Christian school against state authorities claiming that the school was discriminated against on religious grounds when its eligibility to participate in the state's school voucher program (known as "BOOST") was removed. In order to participate, a school has to have a non-discrimination policy that include bans on discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.  As explained by the court:

Bethel does not include sexual orientation or gender identity in its statement of nondiscrimination.... In the next paragraph, the handbook says, It should be noted, however, that Bethel Christian Academy supports the biblical view of marriage defined as a covenant between one man and one woman, and that God immutably bestows gender upon each person at birth as male or female to reflect his image … faculty, staff, and student conduct is expected to align with this view....

Irrespective of any language in the handbook, however, Bethel does not consider sexual orientation in the admissions process. The court reasoned:

If, as it alleges, Bethel has not discriminated on the basis of sexual orientation in admissions, then it has plausibly alleged that Defendants infringed upon several of its constitutional rights. Namely, Bethel has presented a plausible case that the Advisory Board’s determination of ineligibility was motivated by the school’s religious affiliation.

Chabad House's Suit Against Zoning Officials Is Dismissed

In Friends of Lubavitch v. Baltimore County, Maryland, (D MD, Sept. 30, 2019), a Maryland federal district court dismissed a suit in which a Chabad House serving students at Towson University and Goucher College challenged a state court order requiring it to raze the expansion of its building which was constructed in violation of zoning rules and a deed restriction.  Plaintiff claimed that implementation of the county's land use rules infringed its rights under RLUIPA and the 1st and 14th Amendments.

Maryland's Conversion Therapy Ban Upheld

In Doyle v. Hogan, (D MD, Sept. 20, 2019), a Maryland federal district court dismissed free speech and free exercise of religion challenges to Maryland's ban on mental health professionals engaging in conversion therapy with minors. The court said in part:

Although § 1-212.1 regulates speech by prohibiting the use of language employed in the process of conducting conversion therapy on minor clients, it “does not prevent licensed therapists from expressing their views about conversion therapy to the public and to their [clients].” ... Most importantly, § 1-212.1 does not prohibit practitioners from engaging in any form of personal expression; they remain free to discuss, endorse, criticize, or recommend conversion therapy to their minor clients.... 

The Baltimore Sun, reporting on the decision, says the decision will be appealed.

Juvenile Court Can Override Mother's Religious Objection To Vaccinations

In In re K. Y-B, (MD Ct. Special Appeals, Aug. 30, 2019), a Maryland appellate court upheld a Juvenile Court's order allowing the Baltimore City Department of Social Services to consent to the routine vaccinations of an infant in its custody, despite Muslim religious objections to vaccination expressed by the child's mother. The child, now seven moths old, was ordered into shelter care two days after his birth.  The parents had a long history of abuse and neglect of their other children. In a lengthy opinion, the court held:

[A]  parent is free to believe as she wishes, but she cannot act on her beliefs in such a way as to pose a serious danger to the child’s life or health or impair or endanger the child’s welfare....

[T]he juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the State’s compelling interest in protecting the health of the Child outweighs Mother’s belief that vaccination contravenes her faith.

Legal Newsline reports on the decision.

County Settles Suit Over Invocation Policy

According to yesterday's Carroll County Times, the Carroll County, Maryland, Board of Commissioners voted unanimously yesterday to settle a lawsuit, originally filed in 2013, challenging the Commissioners' policy on invocations.  Prayers that were often sectarian were delivered by members of the County Commission, on a rotating basis, rather than by invited clergy or a chaplain.  The Commissioners decided to settle the case after the 2017 decision by the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in Lund v. Rowan County, North Carolina finding a similar practice unconstitutional. (See prior posting.) At yesterday's Board meeting, a number of citizens objected to the settlement.