7th Circuit: Protestant Inmate's Prayer Oil Claim Dismissed In Part

In Greene v. Teslik,(7th Cir., March 2, 2023), the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed that a Protestant inmate's complaint under the Free Exercise clause about the denial of prayer oil should be dismissed, but remanded his Establishment Clause claim.  The court said in part:

Greene ... contends that, by denying his request ... for the same prayer oil allowed to Muslims and Pagans, the defendants violated his rights under the Free Exercise Clause.... [W]e need not answer whether Greene was substantially or unjustifiably burdened when the defendants denied him prayer oil because we agree with the district court that the doctrine of qualified immunity prevents liability on the Free Exercise Clause claim....

Greene cites no case (nor can we find one) clearly establishing that denying access to a prayer accessory akin to a scented oil makes the practice of religion effectively impracticable. Qualified immunity was therefore appropriate....

Greene also claims that the defendants violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment....

[D]efendants contend that in 2013 it was not clearly established that, by denying Greene prayer oil, they would substantially burden his religion.... But that is not the right inquiry under the Establishment Clause. It has long been clearly established that “the Establishment Clause may be violated even without a substantial burden on religious practice.”... It thus “could not reasonably be thought constitutional,”...for prison staff to treat prisoners differently based on their religion—unless they present evidence that Greene was insincere or a security threat....The defendants did not do so....

[A]ny potential recovery is limited to nominal damages only. Under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e), Greene may not recover compensatory damages for emotional or mental injuries from a constitutional violation unless a physical injury also occurred....

Break-Away Faction In Church of God Not Entitled To Property Ownership

In Blue v. Church of God Sanctified, Inc., (TN App., June 27, 2022), a Tennessee state appellate court held that in a property dispute between a break-away faction of a local Church of God and the National Body (as well as a faction loyal to the National Body, labeled the Mother Church), the National Body and its local adherents own church property.  The court said in part:

 We agree with the trial court’s determination that as a matter of ecclesiastical government, the procedure for separation of an affiliated member church from a hierarchical church organization is an issue over which civil courts do not have subject matter jurisdiction.... The trial court did not err in declining to exercise subject matter jurisdiction over Local Church’s initial request for a judgment declaring it to be a separate entity from the National Body....

The court went on to apply the "hybrid neutral principles" approach to affirm the trial court's conclusion that the local church property belongs to the National Body. It described the "hybrid neutral principles" approach:

 “[u]nder this approach, courts defer to and enforce trust language contained in the constitutions and governing documents of hierarchical religious organizations, even if this language of trust is not included in a civil legal document and does not satisfy the formalities that the civil law normally requires to create a trust.”

The court concluded:

 Although no ecclesiastical judgment is in the record, we conclude that the evidence presented at the summary judgment stage demonstrates that the National Body considered Mother Church to be the congregation entitled to possession and use of the Property.... Moreover, as the trial court found, Local Church had already sought disaffiliation from the National Body and had “appointed [its] own pastor, deacons, and trustees outside of the requirements of the [Manual].” We therefore defer to the National Body’s determination, acting through Bishop Hill, that Mother Church is the congregation entitled to possession and use of the Property and its associated personalty.

Navy Chaplain's Claim Dismissed On Res Judicata Grounds

In Lancaster v. Secretary of the Navy, (ED VA, Aug. 30, 2021), a Virginia federal district court dismissed on res judicata grounds a suit by a former Navy chaplain (now deceased) who claims that his failure to receive a promotion in rank resulted from retaliation, hostility and prejudice toward non-liturgical Protestant chaplains. The court concluded that plaintiff's claims were previously adjudicated in a 2018 decision in In re Navy Chaplaincy.

Another Chapter In Challenge To Navy Chaplain Selection Procedures

In In re Navy Chaplaincy, (DC Cir., Nov. 6, 2020), the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals issued the latest decision in a controversy that has been in litigation for over twenty years.  In the case, non-liturgical Protestant chaplains allege discrimination against them by selection boards that control promotions and early retirements of Navy chaplains. The court said:

the district court made no mistake in granting summary judgment for the Navy on the Plaintiffs’ various First Amendment challenges to its selection board policies. See Chaplaincy, 323 F. Supp. 3d at 35-36, 55-56. With regard to the claims that certain selection board policies violated the Establishment Clause, the Plaintiffs had to show each policy had an unconstitutional effect; that is, the Plaintiffs had to show “the selection policies appear[ed] to endorse religion in the eyes of a reasonable observer.”... To prove an endorsement with statistics, the Plaintiffs had to show a stark disparity in outcomes during the relevant period ..., but the statistics they offered came nowhere close to doing so.

However the court remanded for further proceedings a claim by a chaplain endorsing agency, Associated Gospel Churches, of injury because of the Navy's policy. The trial court had dismissed the claim for lack of standing. The Court of Appeals said in part:

On appeal, AGC argues it has standing in its own right to challenge the Navy’s faith-neutral accession goals. We agree. AGC alleged the Navy’s accession goals resulted in AGC’s chaplain candidates entering the Navy at a significantly lower rate than they otherwise would have. AGC further alleged, because it relies upon its chaplains for financial support, it loses money when its ability to find placements for its candidates is hindered. AGC also alleged its low rate of success placing candidates in the Navy tarnished its reputation. These allegations satisfy all three elements of standing. We express no opinion on the sufficiency of the allegations in any other respect.

The court also reversed and remanded claims that had been dismissed as untimely, ordering the trial court to consider whether equitable tolling applies. Finally, the court held:

Allowing chaplains to sit on chaplain selection boards does not create a de jure denominational preference and does not create excessive entanglement.

Navy Chaplains Given One More Chance To Refile Discrimination Claims

Arnold v. Secretary of the Navy, (D DC, April 21, 2020) is the latest installment in long-running litigation against the U.S. Navy by a group of non-liturgical Protestant chaplains who claim that the Navy discriminated against them.  In a 2018 opinion (which is currently on appeal to the D.C. Circuit), the chaplains' broad challenges to Navy chaplain selection board policies and procedures were rejected, but the court allowed plaintiffs to file a new complaints-- which are at issue here-- claiming discrete instances of individual discrimination, retaliation and constructive discharge. Many of these claims were dismissed under the doctrine of res judicata. The court reluctantly concluded that plaintiffs, with limitations, can file new complaints raising those individual claims. The court said in part:

As demonstrated by this very case, plaintiffs and their counsel persist in filing repetitive and duplicative complaints despite having received lengthy decisions outlining precisely why their systemic challenges fail....

Based on plaintiffs’ actions thus far and their insistence that repetitious filings and forum shopping are mandatory to vindicate their interests, the Court deems it surpassingly likely that absent a pre-filing injunction, the refiling of any surviving claims will almost certainly be broadened to include challenges to the Navy’s selection board policies and procedures that have already been resolved by this Court—in the 2018 opinion and again today.... Consequently, the Court concludes that a narrowly tailored prospective filing restriction is necessary.

The Court will sever the surviving retaliation, constructive discharge, and interference with religious free speech claims. And it will permit plaintiffs to refile those ad hoc claims in this Court or any other appropriate district Court, in individual complaints (not joined with any other plaintiff). However, any plaintiff who wishes to refile his or her claims in any federal court must first seek leave from this Court within thirty days, that is, by not later than May 21, 2020.