Preliminary Injunction Denied In Challenge To Conscience Provisions In Insurance Law

In Cedar Park Assembly of God of Kirkland, Washington v. Kreidler, (WD WA, Aug. 2, 2019), a Washington federal district court denied a preliminary injunction against a group of Washington state provisions that plaintiff claims requires it to pay for abortifacient contraceptive coverage for individuals in its health insurance plan. At issue is an Attorney General's Opinion that says the insurance commissioner may require insurance companies to to include the cost of prescription contraceptives in the rate setting actuarial analysis where an employer raises a conscientious objection to paying these costs directly as a part of it benefit package. The court found that plaintiff lacks standing to assert the claim at this point because:

Cedar Park has not provided evidence that insurance costs are in fact calculated or charged in a manner to which it has a religious objection...

The court also dismissed on ripeness grounds, saying that plaintiff "cites no communications from or statements of the State which could form the basis of Cedar Park’s belief that it will be subject to enforcement..." The court however allowed plaintiff to file an amended complaint contending that it is treated less favorably than religious organizations which are health care providers, carriers, and facilities.

Washington Supreme Court OK's Anti-Discrimination Law Enforcement Against Florist Opposed To Gay Marriage

In an important and wide-ranging 76-page opinion yesterday, the Washington state Supreme Court held that a florist shop's refusal to provide flowers for a same-sex wedding constitutes sexual orientation discrimination under the Washington Law Against Discrimination, and that enforcement of the law does not violate the constitutional rights of the floral shop owner.  This is the second time the case has been before the Washington Supreme Court.  After the first decision, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari, vacated the state court's judgment and  remanded for further consideration in light of the U.S. Supreme Court's Masterpiece Cakeshop decision. (See prior posting.) Yesterday in State of Washington v. Arlene's Flowers , Inc., (WA Sup. Ct., June 6, 2019), in a unanimous decision, the court concluded that the state adjudicatory bodies involved acted with religious neutrality. It refused to allow the challengers to expand their claims to allege selective enforcement based on religion by the Washington attorney general.

The Washington Supreme Court went on to hold that challengers cited no authority to support their argument that the state's public accommodation law protects proprietors of public accommodations to the same extent as it protects their patrons, and that a balancing test should be used. The court then rejected the florist's free speech claims, saying:

The decision to either provide or refuse to provide flowers for a wedding does not inherently express a message about that wedding. 

The Court also rejected challengers' religious free exercise claims under the U.S. and Washington state constitutions. It concluded that even if the state constitution requires strict scrutiny, that test is met:

[P]ublic accommodations laws do not simply guarantee access to goods or services. Instead, they serve a broader societal purpose: eradicating barriers to the equal treatment of all citizens in the commercial marketplace. Were we to carve out a patchwork of exceptions for ostensibly justified discrimination, that purpose would be fatally undermined.

Seattle Times reports on the decision. A press release by ADF says the floral shop owners will again ask for review by the U.S. Supreme Court. [Thanks to Tom Rutledge for the lead.]

Washington Catholic Hospitals Settle Suit Charging Them With Failure To Provide Charity Care

Washington state's attorney general yesterday announced the filing of a consent decree (full text) in State of Washington v. Franciscan Health System, (WA Super. Ct., April 29, 2019).  The settlement grows out of a lawsuit filed in 2017 against eight CHI Franciscan hospitals alleging that they violated the state's Consumer Protection Act by failing to make charity care available to tens of thousands of patients who were entitled to it under state law. As summarized by the AG's press release, the hospitals "will forgive as much as $20 million in debt, pay $2.22 million in refunds, pay the Attorney General’s Office $2.46 million, and rehabilitate the credit of thousands of patients who qualified for charity care between 2012 and 2017 but did not receive it."  The Consent Decree also requires detailed changes in the hospitals' procedures for providing financial assistance to patients.

Suit Challenges Washington State's Required Abortion Coverage

Last week, a church in Washington state filed suit in federal district court challenging the constitutionality of Washington Senate Bill 6219 signed into law last March which requires all health care plans in the state to cover contraceptives and sterilization, and to cover abortion to the same extent as they cover maternity care.  The complaint (full text) in Cedar Park Assembly of God of Kirkland, Washington v. Kreidler, (WD WA, filed 3/8/2019), alleges in part:

52. ... [T]his law targets organizations that have religious and moral beliefs against abortion. Washington State has a history of targeting religious and moral pro-life organizations and individuals.

53. The strong statutory language, lack of any church exception, and anticipated evidence that pro-abortion groups assisted in drafting and enacting SB 6219, indicates that Washington and its officials deliberately targeted religious organizations and intentionally violated those organizations’ religious beliefs.

The suit alleges violations of the Free Exercise, Equal Protection and Establishment Clauses. ADF issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Cert. Denied In Football Coach's Firing For On-Field Prayer

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, (Docket No. 18-12, cert. denied 1/22/19).  In the case, the 9th Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of a preliminary injunction sought by a Washington-state high school football coach who in a challenge to his school district was suspended for kneeling and praying on the football field 50-yard line immediately after games. (See prior posting.)  In today's action, Justice Alito, joined by Justices Thomas, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, filed a 6-page concurring statement (scroll to end of Order List), saying in part:

In this case, important unresolved factual questions would make it very difficult if not impossible at this stage to decide the free speech question that the petition asks us to review....

While I thus concur in the denial of the present petition, the Ninth Circuit’s understanding of the free speech rights of public school teachers is troubling and may justify review in the future....

What is perhaps most troubling about the Ninth Circuit’s opinion is language that can be understood to mean that a coach’s duty to serve as a good role model requires the coach to refrain from any manifestation of religious faith—even when the coach is plainly not on duty.....

While the petition now before us is based solely on the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment, petitioner still has live claims under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.... Petitioner’s decision to rely primarily on his free speech claims as opposed to these alternative claims may be due to certain decisions of this Court.

In Employment Div., Dept. of Human Resources of Ore. v. Smith ... the Court drastically cut back on the protection provided by the Free Exercise Clause, and in Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison ... the Court opined that Title VII’s prohibition of discrimination on the basis of religion does not require an employer to make any accommodation that imposes more than a de minimis burden. In this case, however, we have not been asked to revisit those decisions.

MyNorthwest reports on the decision.

Pastor Sues To Access Homeless Encampment

The Episcopal Diocese of Olympia reports on a lawsuit filed in a Washington federal district court on Monday against the city of Aberdeen, Washington by an Episcopal priest and two others over access to a homeless encampment. The city has purchased the land and intends to clear it, but in the meantime is requiring anyone entering the site to obtain a permit. Rev. Sarah Monroe, who was denied a permit, explains the lawsuit:

My permit to visit this encampment was denied by the city on the grounds that I did not provide enough detail, or a schedule, or a clear list of what I intend to do during my visits. I am a priest. I have been pastoring the people in this camp for five years. I do everything from drive people to the hospital, to prayer, to taking people to social service appointments, to performing last rites when people die here. These essential pastoral duties do not happen on a schedule, as any member of the clergy can attest. I have continued to visit people, even though I have been denied a permit, and am petitioning the court to prevent the city from arresting me.

Homeless people have a constitutionally protected right to freedom of religious expression. I have a constitutionally protected right to my freedom of religious expression, which includes serving the poor and the sick and the hungry.

Washington's Work-Study Program Challenged Over Non-Sectarian Employer Requirement

A suit was filed last week in federal district court in the state of Washington challenging Washington's structuring of its Work-Study program.  The Program provides financial aid to college students by paying part of a student's salary when the student is working for a participating employer, usually in a field related to the student's studies. Eligible employers, and jobs themselves, must be non-sectarian.  The complaint (full text) in Summit Christian Academy v. Meotti, (WD WA, filed 8/14/2018) contends that excluding religious employers and sectarian work violates the free exercise clause, the equal protection clause and the Establishment Clause. Institute for Justice issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

State Supreme Court Victory For Fired Christian Fire Fighter

In Sprague v. Spokane Valley Fire Department, (WA Sup. Ct., Jan. 25, 2018), the Washington state Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision gave an initial victory to fire captain Jonathan Sprague who had been fired for using the fire department's e-mail and electronic bulletin board systems to disseminate information on the Spokane County Christian Firefighter Fellowship that he had formed. The court refused to find that a decision by the Spokane County Civil Service Commission acted as collateral estoppel against Sprague.  On the merits of the claim, the majority found that while the fire department's policy limiting the use of its e-mail system to official business is reasonable, it enforced the policy against Sprague in a way that was not viewpoint neutral. It found that the restrictions on Sprague's use of the bulletin board system were unreasonable. The majority concluded:

On remand, the burden will shift to SVFD to show by a preponderance of the evidence that it would have terminated Sprague even in the absence of his protected conduct. ... SVFD must additionally show that Sprague's termination was justified under ROW 41.08.080, which permits the termination of civil service employees like Sprague only upon certain conditions. Assuming that the trier of fact determines that Sprague's termination was not otherwise justifiable, the trier of fact should then determine the applicable amount of damages that Sprague suffered from SVFD's viewpoint discrimination.

The four dissenters argued that the case should be remanded for the trial court to determine whether the fire department in fact had an unwritten policy that was specifically hostile to religious viewpoints.

Another Suit Challenges Expanded Contraceptive Mandate Religious Exemptions

As previously reported, last week the Trump Administration issued interim final rules expanding religious and conscience exemptions from the Affordable Care Act contraceptive coverage mandate. The ACLU immediately filed suit challenging the new rules.  Now the state of Washington has also filed suit challenging the expanded exemptions.  The complaint (full text) in State of Washington v. Trump, (WD WA, filed 10/9/2017), contends in part that the rules violate the Establishment Clause:

The Religious IFRs [Interim Final Rules] and the corresponding portion of the 2017 Updated Guidelines are intended to and have the effect of advancing, imposing, and endorsing certain religious interests. For example, they permit a for-profit business to impose the costs of its owners’ anti-contraception beliefs on employees (and their dependents). Based on the religious beliefs of an employer or institution of higher education, the Religious IFRs deny women access to contraceptive coverage that the ACA would otherwise secure.

The suit also alleges that the rules violate the equal protection component of the 5th Amendment and violate the Administrative Procedure Act. Washington AG Bob Ferguson issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

No RLUIPA Violations In Denial of Variance For Personal Chapel

In Milosavlejevic v. City of Brier, (WD Wash., Sept. 7, 2017), a Washington federal district court held that the city of Brier, Washington did not violate RLUIPA when it denied petitioner a height variance so he could build a personal Serbian Orthodox chapel with a 40-foot dome on his property.  The court held that the city had not substantially burdened petitioner's free exercise, saying that he has "ready alternative places of worship at his disposal." It also rejected his RLUIPA equal terms and his Sec. 1983 discrimination claims.

Coach Loses Bid To Pray On 50-Yard Line

In Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, (9th Cir., Aug. 23, 2017),  the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's denial of a preliminary injunction sought by a Washington-state high school football coach who in a widely publicized challenge to his school district was suspended for kneeling and praying on the football field 50-yard line immediately after games.  The appeals court concluded that Coach Joseph Kennedy was not likely to succeed on the merits of his free speech claim  It held that in kneeling and praying on the 50-yard line, Kennedy was speaking as part of his public employment.  His employer had the right to order him not to speak in his official capacity in the manner which he did.  The court added:

On Friday nights, many cities and towns across America temporarily shut down while communities gather to watch high school football games. Students and families from all walks of life join “to root for a common cause” and admire the young people who step proudly onto the field.... While we “recognize the important role that public worship plays in many communities, as well as the sincere desire to include public prayer as a part of [these] occasions,” such activity can promote disunity along religious lines, and risks alienating valued community members from an environment that must be open and welcoming to all.... That is why the “preservation and transmission of religious beliefs and worship is a responsibility and a choice committed to the private sphere, which itself is promised freedom to pursue that mission.”

Judge Smith filed a concurring opinion to express his view that the school district's actions actions were also justified to avoid violating the Establishment Clause. The majority held that it need not reach the Establishment Clause issue.  Kitsap Sun reports on the decision.

SCOTUS Review Sought In Florist's Refusal To Sell For Same-Sex Wedding

A petition for certiorari (full text) has been filed with the U.S. Supreme Court in Arlene's Flowers, Inc. v. State of Washington, (cert. filed, 7/14/2017).  In the case, the state of Washington's Supreme Court held that a florist's religiously-motivated refusal to sell arranged flowers for a same-sex wedding violates the Washington Law Against Discrimination. (See prior posting.) The petition for review asks the U.S. Supreme Court to combine this case with the Masterpiece Cake Shop case in which it has already granted review (see prior posting), or to at least hold this case until it decides Masterpiece Cake Shop. Tri-City Herald reports on the cert. petition.

9th Circuit Hears Oral Arguments In Coach's Suspension For On-Field Prayer

The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday heard oral arguments (video of full arguments) in  Kennedy v. Bremerton School District.  In the case a Washington federal district court refused to enjoin the suspension of high school football coach Joe Kennedy.  The school took action against the coach because he insisted on praying at mid-field at the end of games. (See prior posting.) The Daily Caller yesterday reported on the case as the oral arguments approached.

Washington Supreme Court Says Florist's Refusal To Sell For Same-Sex Wedding Violated State Law

In a widely followed case, the state of Washington's Supreme Court yesterday unanimously upheld a trial court's decision that a florist's religiously-motivated refusal to sell arranged flowers for a same-sex wedding violates the Washington Law Against Discrimination.  In State of Washington v. Arlene's Flowers, Inc.,WA Sup. Ct., Feb. 16, 2017), the court, summarizing its 59-page decision, said:

Discrimination based on same-sex marriage constitutes discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. We therefore hold that the conduct for which Stutzman [the florist shop owner] was cited and fined in this case-refusing her commercially marketed wedding floral services to Ingersoll and Freed because theirs would be a same-sex wedding-constitutes sexual orientation discrimination under the WLAD. We also hold that the WLAD may be enforced against Stutzman because it does not infringe any constitutional protection. As applied in this case, the WLAD does not compel speech or association. And assuming that it substantially burdens Stutzman's religious free exercise, the WLAD does not violate her right to religious free exercise under either the First Amendment or article I, section 11 [of the state constitution] because it is a neutral, generally applicable law that serves our state government's compelling interest in eradicating discrimination in public accommodations.

A press release from ADF says that florist Barronelle Stutzman will seek U.S. Supreme Court review in the case. Links to pleadings and court rulings in the case can also be found on ADF's case page. (See prior related posting.) Tri-City Herald reports on the decision.

Fire Department Can Exclude Employee's Religious Messages From E-Mail System

In Sprague v. Spokane Valley Fire Department, (WA App., Sept. 21, 2016), the Washington state Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision, upheld a fire department's termination of a firefighter who insisted on using the department's internal e-mail system to distribute religious messages.  Jonathan Sprague, founder of the Spokane Christian Firefighters Fellowship, was found to have violated departmental policies limiting use of the e-mail system to official communications. He sent out messages, including scriptural passages, on meetings of his group. Judge Korsmo's majority opinion concluded:

It should go without saying that a fire department's business is firefighting, not discussion of religion. Pointing out that Mr. Sprague violated the prohibition against public use in that specific manner did not thereby convert the policy to one of opposition to religious speech any more than challenging use of e-mails to promote chess tournaments or a political candidate could be interpreted as anti-chess or anti-political speech. The policy was anti-private use, not anti-religion.

Judge Lawrence-Berrey filed a concurring opinion.  Chief Judge Fearing dissented in an opinion that begins with a quotation from the Biblical Book of Matthew. He said in part:

The majority holds that the fire department held the prerogative to preclude the use of its e-mail for the voicing of religious messages. I note that a government entity, as a general proposition, enjoys this prerogative. Nevertheless, the Spokane Valley Fire Department opened its email system to employee messages of solving personal problems and societal ills through the grace of God when the fire department delivered employee assistance programs newsletters, through the department e-mail, addressing those same problems and ills. The Spokane Valley Fire Department's discipline of Sprague for addressing a topic from Sprague's spiritual perspective constituted viewpoint discrimination in violation of Sprague's free speech rights. The government may not prefer secular chatter over religious oration.

Court Denies Preliminary Injunction To Football Coach Seeking To Pray On Field

According to AP, a Washington federal district court judge on Monday denied a preliminary injunction to high school football coach Joe Kennedy.  The coach, who says he was acting in accordance with his Christian beliefs, was suspended with pay by the Bremerton, Washington school district after he insisted on praying at mid-field at the end of games. He sued, claiming the school's directive barring him from doing so is unconstitutional. (See prior posting.) The denial of preliminary relief means that the school does not have to immediately reinstate Kennedy.

Native American Cannot Claim Religious LiIberty Defense In Prosecution for Unlawful Hunting

In State of Washington v. McMeans, (WA App., Aug. 9, 2016), a Washington state appeals court upheld a trial court's refusal to give the jury an instruction on a free exercise defense asserted by a Yakima Tribe designated hunter in a prosecution of him for unlawful hunting.  Defendant Ricky Watlamet killed 4 elk to provide meat for the funeral of a tribal elder.  The elk harvesting took place outside of elk hunting season on land of co-defendant who sought help to get rid of elk damaging her property.  Under an 1855 treaty, the Yakima tribe is allowed to hunt on "open and unclaimed lands," but not private property.  The court said in part:

The defense presented substantial evidence that Mr. Watlamet had sincere religious beliefs and that he used the elk meat for religious purposes. However, he did not provide any evidence that the McMeans property was the only available location to obtain the elk meat. In fact, the record shows that Mr. Watlamet could lawfully hunt elk on State land, Federal land, tribal land, or any open and unclaimed land. The record also indicates that at the time in question there were numerous elk on the reservation as well as elk on state land adjacent to the McMeans property. Mr. Watlamet could have hunted these elk without running afoul of any regulation. He presented no evidence that either these particular elk or this particular place were necessary, preferable, or even convenient, nor has he presented any evidence that hunting the lawfully available elk was in any way burdensome. 

Court Rejects As Applied Challenge To California Reparative Therapy Ban; Seattle Adopts Its Own Ban

In Pickup v. Brown, (ED CA, Aug. 9, 2016), a California federal district court dismissed plaintiffs' amended complaint raising an "as applied" challenge to California's ban on health professionals providing conversion therapy (sexual orientation change efforts) to minors. The courts had previously rejected facial attacks on the law. (See prior posting.) Now the court held that plaintiffs had not pointed to any action by defendants involving differential application of the law to them.

Meanwhile, last week the Seattle, Washington City Council unanimously adopted an ordinance (full text) banning licensed medical or mental health professionals from providing conversion therapy or reparative therapy to a minor. (Background and White Paper.) Capitol Hill Seattle Blog reports on the Council's action.

Football Coach Sues Seeking Right To Pray At 50-Yard Line

Yesterday Bremerton, Washington, High School assistant football coach Joe Kennedy who was placed on paid leave for insisting on praying at mid-field at the end of games (see prior posting) filed suit against the Bremerton school district alleging free exercise, free speech and Title VII violations.  The complaint (full text) in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, (WD WA, filed 8/9/2016), contends that Kennedy is compelled by his sincerely held Christian religious beliefs to engage in brief private religious expression at the conclusion of school football games. He offers a prayer of thanksgiving as part of a covenant he made with God.  The complaint argues that the school district's directive which bans any "demonstrative religious activity" that is "readily observable" to students or members of the public is unconstitutional. The suit seeks declaratory relief as well as an order reinstating Kennedy and granting him a religious accommodation that allows him to pray at the 50-yard line at the conclusion of games.  Seattle Times reports on the lawsuit.  First Liberty has also created a website with details of the case.

Supreme Court Denies Review In Washington State Pharmacy Case

The U.S. Supreme Court today denied review in Storman's Inc. v. Wiesman,  (Docket No. 15-682, cert. denied 6/28/2016), but over a 15-page dissent to the denial of certiorari written by Justice Alito and joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Thomas. (Order List, scroll to pg. 7). In the case, the 9th Circuit upheld rules of the Washington Pharmacy Quality Assurance Commission that provide only limited accommodation to pharmacists and pharmacies that object on religious grounds to filling prescriptions for emergency contraception. The rules require pharmacies to deliver all prescriptions, even if the owner has a religious objection. An individual pharmacist with religious objections may refuse to fill a prescription only if another pharmacist working for the pharmacy does so. (See prior posting.)  In his dissent, Justice Alito argued in part:

there is much evidence that the impetus for the adoption of the regulations was hostility to pharmacists whose religious beliefs regarding abortion and contraception are out of step with prevailing opinion in the State.

Washington Post reports on today's action by the Supreme Court. [Thanks to Marty Lederman via Religionlaw for the lead.]