Imam Lacks Standing To Challenge Alabama Execution Exclusion

In Maisonet v. Dunn, (SD AL, Nov. 17, 2021), an Alabama federal magistrate judge recommended dismissing for lack of standing a suit by an imam who has previously ministered to inmates on Alabama's death row. Plaintiff challenges Alabama's new execution protocol which bars all religious advisors from the execution chamber. The magistrate judge said in part:

The allegation that "ADOC will continue to enforce a policy of excluding religious advisors—including Imam Maisonet—from the execution chamber" ... is insufficient because the Court has already held that Maisonet does not have a constitutionally protected right to be present in the execution chamber and because there is no allegation, for example, that Maisonet plans to attend a specific execution or that any inmate desires to have Maisonet attend an execution. Although Maisonet alleges that he "remains committed to providing religious support and guidance to the Muslims on Alabama's death row" ..., a commitment to religious support and guidance does not establish a certainly impending injury....

[T]he third-party inmates on Alabama's death row could assert their own rights and, in fact, have done so in appeals all the way to the United States Supreme Court. "It is the inmates, not [Maisonet], who have standing to pursue the primary claim he articulated."

Magistrate Says Texas Pension Participant Lacks Standing To Challenge Israel Boycott Law

In Abdullah v. Paxton, (WD TX, Nov. 8, 2021), a Texas federal magistrate judge recommended dismissing on standing and sovereign immunity grounds a suit by a participant in the Texas Employee Retirement System (ERS) challenging a Texas law that requires ERS to divest fund assets from companies that boycott Israel if divestment can be carried out without harming the value of fund. Plaintiff claims that the divestment requirement violates his free speech, Establishment Clause and due process rights. He also asserts a dormant commerce clause claim. The court said in part:

[A] Declaratory Judgment that Section 808 is unconstitutional and enjoinment of its use would have no effect on Abdullah’s financial interests or his ultimate annuity payments. Abdullah has failed to allege a harm to him that would be redressed by a finding that Section 808 violated his rights. He therefore does not have standing to bring this claim.

6th Circuit Dismisses Suit Against Anti-Israel Picketers of Synagogue

In Gerber v. Herskovitz, (6th Cir., Sept. 15, 2021), the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed a suit by synagogue members against anti-Israel pickets who have picketed services at the Beth Israel Synagogue in Ann Arbor, Michigan every week since 2003.  The district court had dismissed the suit on standing grounds. (See prior posting.) On appeal, the majority said in part:

The district court granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss for lack of standing. We disagree on that point, as the plaintiffs have alleged a concrete and particularized harm to a legally protected interest. But the reality that they have standing to bring these claims does not entitle them to relief. The key obstacle is the robust protections that the First Amendment affords to nonviolent protests on matters of public concern. We affirm the district court’s dismissal on that basis.

Judge Clay filed a concurring opinion stating that he would have affirmed the district court's dismissal on standing grounds, saying in part:

Plaintiffs’ allegations of extreme emotional distress fail to establish standing in this case because there is no legally protected interest in not being offended by the speech of others.

Courthouse News Service reports on the decision.

Court Sorts Out Standing Issues And Substantive Challenges To Vermont Town Tuition Program

In Valente v. French, (D VT, Aug. 16, 2021), students and their parents sued various school agencies and districts challenging their policy of refusing to pay tuition to religious schools under Vermont's Town Tuition Program. Under that program, school districts that do not operate their own high schools pay tuition for students to attend other schools. However, sectarian schools are excluded unless there are adequate safeguards against the use of the tuition funds for religious worship. The court held that plaintiffs have standing to sue various state agencies, having alleged that they have not taken appropriate steps to prevent school districts from discriminating against religion in the Town Tuition Program. However the court found no standing to sue supervisory unions made up of local school boards which have no responsibility for the tuition payments.

The court went on to hold that plaintiffs have adequately alleged an equal protection claim and (except for one plaintiff) a free exercise claim against the state defendants, but have not adequately alleged an Establishment Clause or substantive due process claim. Eleventh Amendment defenses were also rejected.

In a companion case, A.H. v. French, (D VT, Aug. 16, 2021), students, parents and the Catholic Diocese sue challenging the refusal to allow Rice Memorial High School, a Catholic high school, to participate in the Town Tuition Program. The court held that the parents have standing to sue the state Agency of Education and its secretary, saying that plaintiffs allege these defendants set policy and directed school districts to exclude religious schools and their students. It also rejected 11th Amendment defenses by the head of the Agency. However the court held that the Diocese of Burlington lacks standing to assert the interests of parents who wish to send their children to Rice.

8th Circuit: Challenge To Church Capacity Limits Dismissed On Mootness and Standing Grounds

 In Hawse v. Page, (8th Cir., July 30, 2021), the U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision, dismissed on standing and mootness grounds challenges to St. Louis County, Missouri's now-superseded COVID-related limit on the number of persons who could attend church services. The majority said in part:

Whether or not the churches were formally closed in April 2020, the complaint is bereft of an allegation that but for the Order, the churches attended  by the appellants would have allowed groups of ten or more persons to gather in the early weeks of the pandemic.

Judge Stras filed a dissenting opinion. 

9th Circuit: Church Has Standing To Challenge Washington Abortion Coverage Mandate

In Cedar Park Assembly of God of Kirkland, Washington v. Kreidler, (9th Cir., July 22, 2021), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a Washington federal district court's dismissal for lack of standing of a challenge to a Washington statute that requires health insurance plans that cover maternity care to also cover abortions. The court said in part:

The state’s argument that Cedar Park did not suffer an injury because SB 6219 did not prevent Kaiser Permanente from continuing to offer a plan that restricted abortion coverage fails because Kaiser Permanente reasonably understood the plain language of SB 6219 as precluding such restrictions, and it acted accordingly when it removed the restrictions from Cedar Park’s health plan.

The court affirmed the dismissal of the church's equal protection claim. ADF issued a press release announcing the decision.

Plaintiffs Lack Standing To Challenge "Black Lives Matter" Mural As Establishment Clause Violation

In Penkoski v. Bowser, (D DC, July 12, 2021), the D.C. federal district court held that a Black Lives Matter mural painted on DC streets was government speech, rejecting plaintiffs' claim of content discrimination in a public forum.  The court also dismissed on standing grounds plaintiffs' claim that the mural violates the Establishment Clause by promoting the religion of Secular Humanism.

9th Circuit Hears Oral Arguments In Washington Insurance Coverage Mandate Challenge

On Friday, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments in Cedar Park Assembly of God v. Kreidler. (Video of full oral arguments.) In the case, a Washington federal district court refused to grant a preliminary injunction to a church that objects to Washington's SB 6219 which requires health insurance plans that cover maternity care to also cover abortions. A Washington federal district court had dismissed the suit on standing grounds. (See prior posting.) Washington Examiner reports on the oral arguments.

5th Circuit Hears Arguments From Judge Who Refuses To Officiate At Same-Sex Weddings

 Yesterday, the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments in Umphress v. Hall. (Audio of full oral arguments.) In the case, a Texas federal district court dismissed on standing and ripeness grounds (Umphress v. Hall,(ND TX, Nov. 10, 2020), a suit by a Texas judge who was seeking to prevent future action by the State Commission on Judicial Conduct against judges who refuse to officiatae at same-sex weddings. Bloomberg Law reports on the case.

Challenge To "Sanctuary City for Unborn" Dismissed On Standing And Abstention Grounds

In Planned Parenthood of Greater Texas Surgical Health Services v. City of Lubbock, (ND TX, June 1, 2021), a Texas federal district court dismissed on standing and Pullman abstention grounds a pre-enforcement challenge to a Lubbock, Texas ordinance declaring the city a "sanctuary city for the unborn." The ordinance includes a private enforcement provision that comes into effect only upon certain future events, such as the overruling of Roe v. Wade. The court said in part:

 Although the Court assumes that plaintiffs can show injury that stems from the city's passage of the ordinance's private-enforcement provision, they fail to show that an order from the Court would redress the injury. Plaintiffs admit that this Court cannot force the city to revoke or amend its ordinance.... They also concede that any order from this Court regarding the ordinance's constitutionality or validity would not bind the state courts that would hear the private-enforcement suits.... Instead, plaintiffs claim that a declaration of invalidity from the Court may deter lawsuits and may help convince state courts of plaintiffs' arguments.... But this potential relief is too speculative to show, as they must, that the Court's order would likely redress their injury....

"[U]nder the Pullman doctrine, a federal court should abstain from exercising its jurisdiction 'when difficult and unsettled questions of state law must be resolved before a substantial federal constitutional question can be decided.'"...

Therefore, even if the Court had jurisdiction, the Court would dismiss the case without prejudice so that the state courts could resolve whether Texas law prohibits cities from enacting private rights of action or whether state law preempts any component of the ordinance.

Street Preacher Lacks Standing To Challenge COVID Restrictions

 In Gibson v. City of Vancouver, (WD WA, June 7, 2021), a Washington federal district court dismissed for lack of standing a suit by a street preacher who claims that Washington state's COVID-19 restrictions unconstitutionally target religious activities. He also contended that the City of Vancouver selectively targets religious protesters for arrest for violating COVID-19 restrictions. The court said in part:

The Defendants accurately describe this matter as a case in search of a controversy. There has been no specific or credible threat of enforcement, and there is no history of enforcement. Gibson’s claims were never ripe, and he did not and does not have standing to assert them....

In Campus Religious Speech Case, Supreme Court Says Nominal Damage Claim Can Support Standing

The U.S. Supreme Court today decided Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski, (Sup. Ct., March 8, 2021), potentially opening the courts to a larger number of civil rights complaints.  The case involves a challenge to Georgia Gwinnett College's speech policies that led to a student being stopped from distributing religious literature and proselytizing on campus. Subsequently, the school changed its policies, but that did not moot the students' claim for nominal damages. At issue in the case as it reached the Supreme Court is whether a claim for nominal damages satisfies the requirement that for standing a plaintiff must show, among other things, that the remedy will redress the constitutional violation alleged. In an 8-1 decision, through an opinion written by Justice Thomas, the Court said in part:

Because nominal damages were available at common law in analogous circumstances, we conclude that a request for nominal damages satisfies the redressability element of standing where a plaintiff’s claim is based on a completed violation of a legal right.

The dissent worries that after today the Judiciary will be required to weigh in on legal questions “whenever a plaintiff asks for a dollar.” ... But petitioners still would have satisfied redressability if instead of one dollar in nominal damages they sought one dollar in compensation for a wasted bus fare to travel to the free speech zone....

This is not to say that a request for nominal damages guarantees entry to court. Our holding concerns only redressability. It remains for the plaintiff to establish the other elements of standing (such as a particularized injury)....

Justice Kavanaugh filed a concurring opinion. 

Chief Justice Roberts dissented, saying in part:

Today’s decision risks a major expansion of the judicial role. Until now, we have said that federal courts can review the legality of policies and actions only as a necessary incident to resolving real disputes. Going forward, the Judiciary will be required to perform this function whenever a plaintiff asks for a dollar. For those who want to know if their rights have been violated, the least dangerous branch will become the least expensive source of legal advice....

The best that can be said for the Court’s sweeping exception to the case-or-controversy requirement is that it may itself admit of a sweeping exception: Where a plaintiff asks only for a dollar, the defendant should be able to end the case by giving him a dollar, without the court needing to pass on the merits of the plaintiff ’s claims.

ABC News reports on the decision.

Humanist Organization Lacks Standing To Challenge Texas Ban On Secular Marriage Celebrants

 In Center for Inquiry, Inc. v. Warren, (5th Cir., Feb. 10, 2021), the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed for lack of standing a suit by a secular humanist organization challenging as an Establishment Clause violation Texas law that refuses to allow secular celebrants to conduct marriage ceremonies. The court held that plaintiffs are asking for relief that does not remedy their injury in full, explaining:

The appellants are seeking relief that would essentially compel ... [the] Dallas County Clerk, to record marriages conducted by secular celebrants such as themselves. However, even if such relief were hypothetically granted, it would not fully redress the injuries for which the appellants bring suit. Here, the appellants’ injuries relate to the barrier to legally solemnize marriages. But even if they prevail in this litigation, relief would be incomplete because the appellants would still be subject to criminal prosecution. In other words, the barrier to legally solemnizing marriages would nevertheless remain.

Universal Life Church Can Move Ahead In Challenge To Tennessee Ban On Marriages By Those Ordained Online

 In Universal Life Church Monastery Storehouse v. Nabors, (MD TN, Dec. 22. 2020), a Tennessee federal district court held that the Universal Life Church and two of its ministers have standing to challenge Tennessee's ban on solemnization of marriages by clergy who received online ordination. It also held that the state Attorney General, District Attorney Generals and County Clerks (but not the Governor) are proper defendants.

Street Preacher Planning Protest Lacks Standing In TRO Proceeding

In Gibson v. City of Vancouver, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 232408 (WD WA, Dec. 3, 2020), a Washington federal district court refused to issue a temporary restraining order to protect a street preacher who planned to hold a 20-person outdoor prayer protest at a public park to oppose the governor's COVID-19 orders. The court held that plaintiff lacks standing to sue, saying in part that plaintiff:

has not demonstrated that any of the Defendants he sued have communicated a specific warning or threat to initiate any proceedings against him if he carries out his plan...

Supreme Court Denies Review In RLUIPA Standing Case

The U.S. Supreme Court today denied review in Rabbinical College v. Pomona, NY, (Docket No. 20-14, certiorari denied 11/23/2020). (Order List.) In the case, the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in a 104-page opinion affirmed in part the judgment in favor of those supporting construction of a rabbinical school in a New York village, but held that the College lacks standing to pursue some of its claims. (See prior posting.)  The College sought Supreme Court review on the issue of when a property owner has standing to assert a RLUIPA challenge to a zoning law that prohibits a particular land use.

Suit Against Trump For Misleading Christians Is Dismissed For Lack of Standing

In Kelly v. Trump, (Del. Chancery, Nov. 2, 2020), a Delaware Chancery Court Master recommended dismissing as legally frivolous a suit against President Donald Trump alleging that he violated plaintiff's free exercise and Establishment Clause rights. The court said that plaintiff "has not shown an actual or concrete injury to her caused by Trump’s conduct....  Her contentions are too remote and vague to be actionable."  The court described plaintiff's allegations in part as follows:

Kelly’s main theory of her case is that Trump creates the illusion of being a devout Christian, while engaging in acts that Kelly contends are against the main tenets of Christianity. She claims that his actions substantially burden and injure her “free exercise of religion”... by [his] increased threat of government sponsored religious persecution.... Kelly alleges that ... he is misleading people, deceiving them to sin, and dooming them to hell. The primary harm Kelly claims is that, because Trump is leading people to hell, Kelly will not be able to love them for eternity. She also alleges that she is persecuted ... because of Trump’s support for one religious belief, and suppression of others....

10th Circuit: Plaintiff Lacks Standing To Challenge Kansas Vaccination Requriement

 In Baker v. USD 229 Blue Valley, (10th Cir., Nov. 3, 2020), the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed for lack of standing a mother's lawsuit challenging Kansas' vaccination law which requires school children to be vaccinated, but allows religious exemptions. Plaintiff's son, S.F.B., was granted a religious exemption. The court rejected plaintiff's claim that nevertheless she suffered injury. The court said in part:

Ms. Baker’s unusual standing theory falls outside any recognized notion of injury based on the potential enforcement of a law. She argues the District misapplied Kansas law in granting the religious exemption to S.F.B. in response to the Bakers’ statement. She asserts that if the District would apply the law correctly, it would revoke the religious exemption, injuring her and S.F.B. From this she contends there is a credible injury in fact....

First, we evaluate Ms. Baker’s injury argument that the District may revoke S.F.B.’s religious exemption because Kansas law compels that result. We find that Ms. Baker has not shown a concrete, imminent, and non-speculative injury in fact.

Second, we consider Ms. Baker’s contention that Kansas law inhibits her from exercising certain “options” for S.F.B. including home schooling and child care. We reject this theory because Ms. Baker alleges only a “some day” intention to exercise these options that is insufficient to demonstrate an injury in fact.

Parents' Challenge To School's LGBT Non-Discrimination Rules Dismissed For Lack of Standing

 In Reynolds v. Talberg, (WD MI, Oct 30, 2020), a Michigan federal district court dismissed, primarily for lack of standing, parents' challenge to a school district's policies that prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression. The court said in part:

Citing their Christian faith, Plaintiffs contend the Challenged Policies force their children to disregard their sincerely held religious beliefs and to “affirm[] . . . alternative sexual lifestyles” or else face punishment.... The crux of Plaintiffs’ claim is that the Challenged Policies “promote and force the approval of alternate sexual lifestyles and behavior” in a “manner that infringes upon Plaintiffs’ personal identity, autonomy, and their sincerely held religious beliefs and convictions and constitutional right to oppose such policies and freely speak out on such issues in accordance with their sincerely held religious beliefs.” ... Though Plaintiffs claim that the Challenged Policies permit Williamston public schools to punish students who refuse to “affirm[] . . . alternative sexual lifestyles”..., and would permit students to use bathroom and shower facilities in accordance with their gender identity..., the complaint does not allege that any student represented by Plaintiffs has been disciplined or otherwise restrained under the Challenged Policies, nor do they allege that any transgender student has used facilities in accordance with their gender identity.

The court also rejected a vagueness challenge to the regulations. 

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.