AP reports that the parties have reached an agreement leading to a New Hampshire federal district court's dismissal of a suit against the Manchester VA Medical Center. The suit, filed in 2019, challenged a lobby "missing man" display that includes a Bible. (See prior posting.) Under the settlement agreement, the Military Religious Freedom Foundation will apply for permission to set up a second table that will feature an American flag and a published, generic Book of Faith, along with a granite stone engraved with "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
Objective coverage of church-state and religious liberty developments, with extensive links to primary sources.
Thursday, February 24, 2022
Thursday, August 12, 2021
New Hampshire Enacts Law To Protect Churches In Future Emergencies
On Tuesday, New Hampshire Governor Chris Sununu signed HB542, the New Hampshire Religious Liberty Act (full text). The law provides in part:
[D]uring a state of emergency, the state government shall permit a religious organization to continue operating and to engage in religious services to the same or greater extent that other organizations or businesses that provide essential services that are necessary and vital to the health and welfare of the public are permitted to operate.
Under the statute, the state may still require religious organizations to comply with neutral health, safety, or occupancy requirements, but must meet a strict scrutiny test if the requirement imposes a substantial burden on a religious service.
AP reports on the new law, which takes effect in 60 days.
Wednesday, December 23, 2020
New Hampshire Supreme Court Says State Constitution Requires Strict Scrutiny of Free Exercise Infringements
In State of New Hampshire v. Mack, (NH Sup. Ct., Dec. 22, 2020), the New Hampshire Supreme Court held that the state Constitution's elaborate guarantee of free exercise of religion so long as one does not "disturb the public peace" should be read to require strict scrutiny. The court vacated a trial court's refusal to dismiss a drug prosecution brought against defendant who was a member of the Oklevueha Native American Church. Defendant was convicted of possession of psilocyn and psilocybin for use in religious rituals. The court concluded that the state constitution gives greater free exercise protection against burdens from neutral generally applicable laws than does the U.S. Constitution under the Smith case. The court said in part:
We ... conclude that when religious practices violate a generally applicable law, our State Constitution ... demands that “there . . . be a balancing of [the] competing interests.” ... [W]e choose to adhere to our traditional formulation of strict judicial scrutiny — requiring the State to demonstrate that its action is “necessary to achieve a compelling governmental interest and narrowly tailored to meet that end.” ... Accordingly, under Part I, Article 5, once an individual establishes that the government action substantially burdens his or her sincere religious practice, ... the burden shifts to the State to show both that the government action is necessary to achieve a compelling government interest, and is narrowly tailored to meet that end....
The Union Leader reports on the decision.
Friday, March 20, 2020
New Hampshire Governor Sued Over Ban On Large Gatherings
Friday, November 29, 2019
State Insurance Regulators Target Trinity Health-Care Sharing Ministry
Trinity represents itself as a health care sharing ministry, which would be exempt from state insurance regulation. A legal health care sharing ministry is a nonprofit organization in existence since December 31, 1999, whose members share a common set of ethical or religious beliefs and share medical expenses among members. [Trinity was not formed until 2018 and did not show it is faith based and limited its membership to those with common beliefs.]
The Department’s Consumer Services Division received dozens of complaints and concerns from consumers. Some people believed they were buying health insurance and did not know they had joined a health care sharing ministry. Many people discovered this when their claims were denied because their medical conditions were considered pre-existing under the plan, or were not covered because they were deemed inappropriate for a “Christian lifestyle.”[Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]
Tuesday, June 18, 2019
Church That Is Potential Trust Beneficiary Lacks Standing To Seek Independent Trustee
Wednesday, May 08, 2019
Suit Challenges Bible Display At VA Hospital
The Bible was carried by a prisoner of war in World War II and became part of the Missing Man Table honoring missing veterans and POWs at the entranceway of the Manchester VA Medical Center. The Department of Veterans Affairs said Tuesday the table was sponsored by a veterans group called the Northeast POW/MIA Network.The complaint (full text) in Chamberlain v. Montoya, (D NH, filed 5/7/2019), contends that the display violates the Establishment Clause, saying in part:
Here, the placement of the Christian Bible in a locked case on the POW/MIA table puts forth the Christian beliefs of some, at the expense of the beliefs of non-Christians.Plaintiffs in the lawsuit are represented by the Military Religious Freedom Foundation. while the Northeast POW/MIA Network is represented by First Liberty Institute.
Monday, February 05, 2018
Court Stays Removal Of 50 Indonesian Christians Living In New Hampshire
Sunday, January 29, 2017
Church Loses Its Challenge To Town's Sign Ordinance
First, the Town’s decision to deny the Church’s request for an electronic sign had nothing to do with either religion or the content of the Church’s speech. Second, the decision served the Town’s important governmental interests in aesthetics and traffic safety in a manner that was narrowly tailored to serve those interests. Third, the decision does not unreasonably burden the Church’s right to practice its religious beliefs, to practice free speech, or to use its property. Finally, the Town has not treated the Church differently from any other similarly situated landowner. In light of these conclusions, the Church’s contention that it should be free from the effect of the Town’s electronic sign ordinance amounts to a demand, not for a level playing field, but instead for a right to be treated differently from all other private landowners. Neither the state and federal constitutions nor RLUIPA requires this result.