Free Exercise Challenge To St. Louis COVID-19 Order Dismissed On Standing Grounds

In Hawse v. Page, (ED MO, May 11, 2020), a Missouri federal district court held that plaintiffs lack standing to bring a free exercise challenge to the St. Louis County's COVID-19 order limiting religious gatherings to ten persons. The court said in part:

Here, Plaintiffs state that they are bringing a "facial challenge" to the constitutionality of the Order.... Plaintiffs allege that they are Christians and that Sunday church services are important to their worship.....Plaintiffs allege that their churches are large enough to allow social distancing and have hand sanitizer and other hygiene products to allow for safe gatherings.... Plaintiffs, however, do not identify their religious denominations, organizations, or specific places of worship in the Complaint. Plaintiffs do not allege when their respective churches closed or what caused them to close. Plaintiffs do not allege that their large church gatherings were suspended because they were unlawful under the Order, rather than in response to the general COVID-19 public health crisis....  Thus, based upon the Complaint, the Court is unable to discern the specific impetus for closure of Plaintiffs' churches and, likewise, what would enable their churches to reopen. 

The court however refused to dismiss plaintiffs' due process challenge at this time, asking for further briefing on the issue.

Missouri's Vaccination Exemption Form Not Motivated By Religious Hostility

In G.B. v. Crossroads Academy, (WD MO, March 2, 2020), a Missouri federal district court rejected the claim that the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services was motivated by religious hostility when it adopted the exemption Form that parents must complete in order to obtain a religious exemption for their children from the state's vaccination requirement.  The Form includes a message from the Department encouraging vaccination to protect school children.

8th Circuit Hears Arguments In Religion Clause Challenge To Missouri Abortion Restrictions

The U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday heard oral arguments (audio of full arguments) in Doe v. Parson (Docket No. 19-1578). In the case, a Missouri federal district court rejected both Establishment Clause and free exercise challenges to Missouri's abortion law.  The suit, filed by a member of the Satanic Temple, challenges the requirement that health care providers furnish women seeking an abortion in Missouri a state-prepared booklet that states, in part, that life begins at conception. (See prior posting.) Courthouse News Service reports on yesterday's arguments.

Challenge To Missouri Vaccination Exemption Form Is Dismissed

Reiterating his reasoning in a November preliminary injunction decision, a Missouri federal district judge in W.B. v. Crossroads Academy- Central Street, (WD MO, Jan. 10, 2020), dismissed a challenge to the form that Missouri requires to be completed in order to claim a religious exemption for a school child from vaccination requirements. The form contains language strongly encouraging parents to obtain vaccinations for their children. The court said in part:

I again conclude that if the State wishes to require vaccination of school children, there is an unbroken collection of cases confirming that it can do so. It can also advocate vaccination... Such advocacy (right or wrong) deals with public health issues. It is entirely secular in nature and motive, not “hostile to religion.” For instance, it would not be hostile to a religious objection to eating pork for an agency to certify that pork is safe to eat. The certification, like the DHSS language here, is religiously neutral.... There is also no case-law cited by plaintiffs tending to show that parents are subject to a compelled speech regime when the DHSS message appears at the top of the exemption form that they are required to fill out. The text is in no way ambiguous as to the source of the vaccination recommendation.

NPR reports on the decision.

Sex Abuse Suit Transferred to State Supreme Court

In Doe v. Marianist Province of the United States, (MO App., Dec. 31, 2019), a Missouri state appellate court said it would affirm the dismissal of portions of a lawsuit brought against the Marianist Province and a Catholic preparatory high school by a former student. However, according to the court, "due to the general interest and importance of the issues on appeal, we transfer the case to the Supreme Court of Missouri."  In the suit, plaintiff alleged abuse by a Marianist Brother who served as a guidance counselor at the school.  Judge Hoff, writing for herself and Judge Sullivan, said in part:

[B]ecause Appellant’s negligent supervision and negligent failure to supervise children claims would require interpretation of religion doctrine, policy, and administration amounting to an excessive entanglement between church and state, the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of Respondents....

... [T]he record contains no competent evidence that Respondents had knowledge of Bro. Woulfe’s history of abuse in 1971 when Appellant suffered his abuse. As a result, Appellant failed to establish the existence of a genuine issue related to Respondents’ knowledge. The trial court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of Respondents on Appellant’s claim of intentional failure to supervise clergy.

Judge Quigless dissenting in part said:

While I concur with the majority in affirming the grant of summary judgment in favor of the respondents regarding the appellant’s negligence claims, I believe the record is sufficient to defeat the respondents’ motion for summary judgment on the claim of intentional failure to supervise clergy because a genuine issue exists as to the material fact of the respondents’ knowledge.

Lighting Regulations Limiting Use of Catholic School's Baseball Field Do Not Violate RLUIPA

In Marianist Province of the United States v. City of Kirkwood, (8th Cir., Dec. 13, 2019), the U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected a claim by Vianney High School in Kirkwood, Missouri that the city's lighting and sound regulations which limit use of its baseball field at night violate its rights under RLUIPA and state law.  The court said in part:

Vianney asserts that various forms of religious exercise “motivate the school’s use” of its baseball field at night. The school emphasizes that athletics is part of the “formation of young men” in the Catholic Marianist tradition and that nighttime sports games allow it to reach out to the community and engage in religious fellowship.... Assuming Vianney’s uses of its baseball field at night ... constitute religious exercise, we examine its claim that the regulations substantially burden this exercise.

Vianney has not demonstrated that its religious exercise is substantially burdened, rather than merely inconvenienced, by its inability to use its baseball field at night.

The court also rejected the school's RLUIPA "equal terms" claim, and held that its state law claims should be dismissed as well.

Missouri AG Supports High School Football Coaches' Prayer Practices

Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt this week released a letter (full text) which he sent on Dec. 3 to the superintendent of the Cameron, Missouri School District supporting high school football coaches against charges in a letter (full text) from the Freedom From Religion Foundation . In its Oct. 28 letter, FFRF said in part:

It is our understanding the Cameron High School's head football coach, Jeff Wallace, and assistant football coach, David Stucky, have been holding religious "chapel" services for players before and after football games where coaches pray with players and read and discuss bible verses.  We understand that after games, Coach Wallace holds religious services with players on the fifty-yard line and leads players in prayer.  We understand that Coach Wallace often brings in outside preachers to proselytize to players as well.

It is illegal for public school athletic coaches to lead their teams in prayer or religious worship.

Responding to this, Attorney General Schmitt in his letter said in part:

FFRF is an extreme anti-religion organization that seeks to intimidate local governments into surrendering their citizens' religious freedom and to expunge any mention of religion from the public square....

Our understanding is that no coach or other Cameron official has forced any football player to participate in prayer or taken any action against any player who chose not to participate.   The prayer occurs outside of the football game.  The prayer is not broadcast over stadium loudspeakers, and fans evidently cannot hear any part of the prayer.  The school district reports that it received no complaints from anyone about the prayer, and FFRF does not reference any complainant in their letter.   Evidently, FFRF's threat does not reflect any discomfort with the prayers in the local community.  Rather, it reflects only FFRF's radical agenda. And without a complainant, FFRF lacks standing to sue the school district, no matter how strongly it objects to this voluntary prayer.

 Friendly Atheist blog reports on these developments.

Priest Sues Archdiocese Over Inclusion In List of Accused Clergy

A lawsuit was filed last month in a Missouri state trial court by a former priest who claims that the Archdiocese of St. Louis defamed him when it included his name on a widely circulated list of clergy for whom there are substantiated allegations of sexual abuse of a minor. The complaint (full text) in Toohey v. Archdiocese of Saint Louis, (MO Cir. Ct., filed 11/3/2019) contends that the allegations against plaintiff are false, that the Archdiocese never notified plaintiff of the allegations and never gave him an opportunity to rebut the charges. St. Louis Post Dispatch reports on the lawsuit.

Part of Missouri's New Abortion Law Is Preliminarily Enjoined

In Reproductive Health Services of Planned Parenthood of the St. Louis Region, Inc. v. Parson, (WD MO, Aug. 28, 2019), a Missouri federal district court granted a preliminary injunction against enforcement of provisions in Missouri law (full text) that wold have gone into effect today that would have banned all abortions (except in cases of medical emergencies) after 8, 14, 18 or 20 weeks of pregnancy. The court ultimately refused to enjoin another section of Missouri's law that bans any abortion if the provider knows that the woman is seeking the abortion because of the sex or race of the child or because of a prenatal diagnosis of Down Syndrome. The court held that while such provisions as they apply to non-viable fetuses are likely unconstitutional, plaintiffs have not shown that a preliminary injunction pending final resolution of the issue is necessary to prevent some demonstrable real-life harm. NPR reports on the decision.

Missouri Bill Would Bar Anonymous Plaintiffs In Church-State Cases

Friendly Atheist reports on an interesting bill that has been introduced in the Missouri legislature.  House Bill 728 (full text) provides:

Except if the party in interest is a minor, in any action involving the separation of church and state, such action shall be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest.

If enacted, the bill would prevent "John Doe" or "Jane Doe" plaintiffs in Establishment Clause challenges in state courts where the plaintiff is an adult. Suits are often filed under such pseudonyms when the plaintiff fears harassment from those who disagree with his or her position. A hearing has been held in the House on the bill, but it is not yet calendared for a vote.

Missouri Supreme Court Rules On Transgender and Sex Stereotyping Discrimination

In R.M.A. v. Blue Springs R-IV School District, (MO Sup. Ct., Feb. 26, 2019), the Missouri Supreme Court in a 4-2 decision held that a transgender male middle-school student stated a claim for sex discrimination under Missouri's Human Rights Act when he alleged that he was not permitted to use the boys' restrooms or locker room.

In Lampley v. Frost, (MO Sup. Ct., Feb. 26, 2019), a case involving complicated procedural issues, the Missouri Supreme Court reversed and remanded a lower court's dismissal of a case in which a gay man claims harassment and retaliation at work.  As summarized in a Court press release:

Five judges agree the circuit court’s judgment should be reversed and the case remanded. Five judges agree the employees sufficiently stated a claim for sex discrimination under the state’s human rights act. Three agree the claims here were based on sex stereotyping rather than sexual orientation; two believe the Court should not have considered whether sex discrimination can be proved by evidence of sex stereotyping. Six judges agree it is unnecessary to reach the issue of whether the state’s act covers claims of discrimination based on sexual orientation; one would hold the act does not extend to discrimination based on sexual orientation.

St. Louis Post Dispatch reports on the decision.

Federal District Court Rejects Satanic Temple Follower's Challenge to Missouri Abortion Restrictions

In Doe v. Parson, (ED MO, Feb. 21, 2019), a Missouri federal district court rejected both Establishment Clause and free exercise challenges to Missouri's abortion law.  The suit, filed by a member of the Satanic Temple, challenges the requirement that health care providers furnish women seeking an abortion in Missouri a state-prepared booklet that states, in part, that life begins at conception.  The woman must also be given an opportunity to view an active ultrasound, must sign a certification that she has received the booklet and ultrasound opportunity, and must wait 72 hours before the procedure can be performed.  The court held that

Even though [statements in the booklet] are harmonious with some religious beliefs, they are a permissible expression of the State’s secular interest in protecting the unborn.

The court went on to reject plaintiff's free exercise claim, holding that the Missouri requirements are neutral laws of general applicability.  Earlier this month, the Missouri Supreme Court rejected a similar challenge to Missouri's requirements. (See prior posting.)

Baptist College's Attempt To Exit Baptist Convention Control Involves Ecclesiastical Determinations

In Executive Board of the Missouri Baptist Convention v. Missouri Baptist University, (MO App., Feb. 19, 2019), a Missouri state appellate court rejected attempts by Missouri Baptist University and The Baptist Home to amend their Articles of Incorporation to eliminate the Missouri Baptist Convention's right to select members of their boards of trustees and its right to veto amendments to their Articles.  The attempts to extricate themselves from Convention control followed an ideological battle within the Convention that moved it to the right.  In part the court held that certain affirmative defenses raised by the University concern ecclesiastical matters which civil courts cannot decide, saying:

[T]he University alleges that the Convention demanded that it ... refrain from teaching material that contradicted certain ideas which are clearly religious doctrine, such as the belief that the Earth was created in seven days roughly 6,000 years ago, or the belief that every living thing on Earth is descended from animals rescued from a flood on a vessel roughly 4,300 years ago.... The University claims that these demands ... “anticipatorily breached” provisions of a document entitled “A Christian Higher Education: A Statement of Purpose” which states ... that “... Christian education proceeds without fear into whatever knowledge may come.” ... Considering this defense as it currently is presented requires a court to rule – at least implicitly - on the truth of the story of Noah’s ark or Christian beliefs in creationism. We cannot conceive of a judicial inquiry which would impose on ecclesiastical matters more than this, nor can we find fault in the circuit court’s unwillingness to even attempt to find neutral grounds upon which it could rule when the color and content of the University’s allegations are so nakedly religious.

Satanic Temple Adherent Loses Challenge To Missouri Abortion Restrictions

In Doe v. Parson, (MO Sup, Ct., Feb. 13, 2019), the Missouri Supreme Court rejected a challenge by a member of the Satanic Temple to the state's informed consent abortion law. Rejecting both an Establishment Clause and a religious freedom challenge, the court said in part:

Ms. Doe alleges by offering her a booklet containing what she refers to as legislative findings constituting the “Missouri tenet,” Missouri is violating her religious beliefs by forcing her to read the contrary religious belief contained in the booklet. But the informed consent law does not purport to make any sort of legislative findings. It simply requires the noted statements be included in a booklet offered to a woman seeking an abortion. § 188.027....

This Court need not determine whether requiring Ms. Doe to have an ultrasound, to listen to the fetal heartbeat, or to read the booklet offered by Planned Parenthood would have constituted a restriction on her religious freedom, for the statute imposes no such requirements. Nothing in the informed consent law requires a woman seeking an abortion to have an ultrasound, much less to pay for the ultrasound or to listen to the fetal heartbeat. The informed consent law solely requires an abortion provider or another qualified professional to present a woman seeking an abortion with the opportunity to have or to view an ultrasound and, if she chooses to have one, an opportunity to listen to the heartbeat. Ms. Doe and any other woman is free to decline both opportunities.

Two justices also joined in concurring opinion. St. Louis Public Radio reports on the decision.

Court Says Fair Housing Act Does Not Bar Sexual Orientation Discrimination

In Walsh v. Friendship Village of South County, (ED MO, Jan. 16. 2019), a Missouri federal district court, relying on a 1989 decision by the 8th Circuit under Title VII, held that sexual orientation discrimination is not covered by the federal Fair Housing Act. At issue was the refusal, on religious grounds, of a senior living community to rent an apartment to a married lesbian couple. Courthouse News Service reports on the decision.

Suit Challenges Restrictions On Sharing Food With the Hungry

A suit was filed yesterday in a Missouri federal district court claiming that St. Louis' Temporary Food Service Ordinance is unconstitutional as applied to restrict the non-commercial sharing of food with the hungry.  The complaint (full text) in Redlich v. City of  St. Louis, (ED MO, filed 1/8/2019) pits a pastor and another Christian man who believe they have a religious obligation to feed the hungry against city enforcement officials.  It alleges in part:

Plaintiffs contend that as applied to them and to others similarly situated the Temporary Food Service Ordinance unconstitutionally and unlawfully restricts their free exercise of religion, their freedom of expression, their freedom of association, their rights of conscience, and denies them equal protection of the laws.

St. Louis Public Radio reports on the lawsuit.

ACLU Settles Free Speech Suit Against Missouri City

ACLU of Missouri announced yesterday that it has settled a lawsuit which it filed earlier this year against the city of Wentzville after the city removed a woman from a Board of Alderman's meeting for criticizing a 16-foot "In God We Trust" sign that had been installed on the front of the meeting room dias. According to the ACLU:

Tonight, the Wentzville governing body passed and read aloud a resolution affirming its commitment to uphold First Amendment freedoms and acknowledging that members of the public of any or no religions tradition are welcome to participate in local government. The city also resolved to apply the updated city code evenhandedly, without censoring speech based on its content during the open forum portion of a Wentzville Board of Aldermen meeting.

The settlement also stipulates that Wentzville must advise law enforcement officers assigned to public meetings that they have an independent obligation to uphold the Constitution. Officers will now independently assess if probable cause exists before removing someone from a meeting.

Ban Against Reproductive Choice Discrimination Enjoined As To Defendants With Religious Objections

In Our Lady's Inn v. City of St. Louis, (ED MO, Sept. 30, 2018), a Missouri federal district court enjoined enforcement against plaintiffs of a St. Louis ordinance enacted last year that prohibits discrimination in housing and employment because of a person's reproductive health decisions or pregnancy.  Plaintiffs were a non-profit agency that provides housing to pregnant, low-income women who seek an alternative to abortion; a group of Catholic elementary schools; and a closely held company whose principal owner adheres to Catholic teachings on birth control.

Construing exemptive language of the ordinance narrowly, the court concluded that the ordinance would require businesses to provide health insurance for reproductive services, and that the ordinance would thus be invalid under Missouri's RFRA.  The court went on to invalidate the employment and housing discrimination provisions, finding that they violate the expressive association rights of the women's shelter and the Catholic schools.  The Thomas More Society issued a press release announcing the decision.

RLUIPA Challenge By Catholic High School To Stadium Lighting Rules Rejected

In Marianist Province of the United States v. City of Kirkwood, (ED MO, Sept. 7, 2018), a Missouri federal district court rejected a RLUIPA challenge to a Missouri city's zoning regulation of pole mounted lights in outdoor sports fields.  The challenge was brought by Vianney High School, a Catholic Marianist institution. The court held in part:

Vianney has not demonstrated that its ability to use the lights and sound system constitute a "religious exercise" or that its inability to use the lights and sound system constitutes a "substantial burden" on its religious beliefs.

The court also rejected the school's RLUIPA "equal terms" claim and various state law challenges.

8th Circuit: Satanic Temple Member Lacks Standing To Challenge Abortion Restrictions

In Satanic Temple v. Parson, (8th Cir., Aug. 28, 2018), the U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal (see prior posting) of a challenge to Missouri's abortion restrictions. The court said in part:

Mary Doe is a member of The Satanic Temple and a resident of the state of Missouri. After becoming pregnant, she sought an abortion in St. Louis, Missouri. She complied with certain state-mandated procedures, which the complaint alleges constituted direct and unwelcome personal contact with religion, in violation of the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses. After receiving the abortion, she filed this lawsuit....

Here, Mary Doe was not pregnant at the date the action was initiated and seeks only prospective relief.... Mary Doe therefore lacks constitutional standing. Additionally, although “[p]regnancy provides a classic justification for a conclusion of nonmootness,” the doctrine does not apply here because she did not first establish standing.

Courthouse News Service reports on the decision.