More Certiorari Denials From SCOTUS Yesterday

Yesterday the U.S. Supreme Court issued it usual long beginning-of-term list of cases in which it is denying review. (Order List). In addition to the already widely reported denial of certiorari in same-sex marriage cases from five states (see prior posting), the Court also denied certiorari in the following cases of interest:

• Mehanna v. United States, (Docket No. 13-1125). At issue was whether a citizen's political or religious speech may constitute provision of material support or resources to a Foreign Terrorist Organization. (1st Circuit's opinion in the case.)
• Freshwater v. Mount Vernon School District, (Docket No. 13-1311). In the case, the Ohio Supreme Court upheld the firing of a middle school science teacher for insubordination in failing to comply with orders to remove religious materials from his classroom. (See prior posting.)
• Pittman-Bey v. Celum, (Docket No. 13-10031). In the case, the 5th Circuit held that defendants had qualified immunity in a suit by a Muslim inmate who was not allowed to participate in Ramadan activities without first having participated in Jumu'ah services. (See prior posting.)

Ministerial Exception Requires Dismissal Of Title VII Claims By Catholic School Guidance Counselor

In Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Indianapolis, Indiana v. Roncalli High School, Inc., (SD IN, Aug. 11, 2021), an Indiana federal district court  held that the ministerial exception doctrine bars Title VII retaliation, discrimination and hostile work environment claims as well as state law claims of interference with contractual and employment relationships in a suit brought by the former Co-Director of Guidance at a private Catholic high school. The school refused to renew its contract with Lynn Starkey, who had been employed by the school for nearly forty years, after the school learned of Starkey's same-sex marriage. The court said in part:

To be sure, the court does not mean to say that divergent understandings of the religious nature of an employee's role should always be resolved in the religious employer's favor. For example, it would be difficult to credit a religious employer's claim that a custodian or school bus driver qualifies as a minister simply because the employer said so.... But this case concerns the Co-Director of Guidance ... [who] performed "vital religious duties" at Roncalli.... Employees in that position met with every student throughout the year and discussed some of the most sensitive issues in a young person's life.... Roncalli expressly entrusted Starkey with the responsibility of communicating the Catholic faith to students and fostering spiritual growth.

Becket issued a press release announcing the decision.

Huge Mass In Spain Opposes Government's Social Reforms

Reflecting its opposition to social reforms enacted and proposed by Spain's Socialist government, the Catholic Church yesterday held an open-air Mass in Madrid attended by hundreds of thousands. AFP reports that Pope Benedict XVI addressed the crowd from the Vatican on large screens set up in Plaza Colon. The Pope urged families not to allow distortion of family life, and the Archbishop of Madrid attacked the "cruelty"of abortion. Since 2004, the Spanish government has legalized same-sex marriage and created quicker divorce procedures. It is proposing a new law to offer greater protections to women who wish to obtain abortions and to their doctors.

British Court Upholds Removal of Christian Social Work Student Over Facebook Comments

As reported by The Guardian and by a press release from Christian Concern, a British trial court judge yesterday upheld a decision by Sheffield University to remove graduate student Felix Ngole from his 2-year MA program in Social Work because of comments he posted on Facebook.  In 2015, commenting on the widely publicized case of Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis, Ngole, a devout Christian, said: "same sex marriage is a sin whether we like it or not. It is God’s words and man’s sentiments would not change His words." Ngole argued that the University's action infringed his free expression rights.  High Court Judge Rowena Collins Rice ruled, however:

Public religious speech has to be looked at in a regulated context from the perspective of a public readership. Social workers have considerable power over the lives of vulnerable service users and trust is a precious professional commodity.

Supreme Court Denies California Prop 8 Backers Review of Contribution Disclosure Law

The U.S. Supreme Court today denied certiorari in ProtectMarriage.com v. Padilla, (Docket No. 14-434, cert. denied 3/2/2015) (Order List).  In the case, the 9th Circuit in a 2-1 decision (full text) rejected a challenge by backers of California's Proposition 8 to the state's campaign contribution disclosure requirements. Challengers had argued that contributors to the campaign against same-sex marriage had been harassed.

New Articles and Book On Religion and Law

From SSRN:
Jaynie R. Randall, Sundays Excepted: Originalism, the Blue Laws, and the Christian Nation, (Dec. 2006).

Nicholas Aroney, The Constitutional (In)Validity of Religious Vilification Laws: Implications for Their Interpretation, (Federal Law Review, Vol. 34, p. 287, 2006 ).

David Burnett, Atheism and the Courts, (May 2006).

From SmartCILP:
Decisions and Families: A Symposium on Polygamy, Same-Sex Marriage, and Medical Decision Making. Articles by Armand H. Matheny Antommaria, John E.B. Myers, Elizabeth B. Cooper, Christine Talbot and Irwin Altman. 8 Journal of Law & Family Studies 293-394 (2006).

New Book:
Michael J. Perry, Toward a Theory of Human Rights: Religion, Law, Courts, (Cambridge University Press, 2006) (Abstract).

Competing Guides Issued For Catholic Voters

The Catholic social justice group Catholics In Alliance for the Common Good last week published Voting for the Common Good: A Practical Guide for Conscientious Catholics. It is described as "an essential tool for Catholics who wish to vote their faith this November". The Washington Post on Saturday reported that the group hopes to distribute at least 1 million of the guides before the November elections. A competing voting guide issued this year by Catholic Answers, Voting Guide For Serious Catholics, says that there are "five issues involving non-negotiable moral values in current politics": abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, human cloning and same-sex marriage. In contrast, the guide issued by Catholics In Alliance says that Catholic voters should take into account a broader range of issues. It lists 18 issues that are important to Catholics, including poverty, immigration, the environment, global arms trade, workers' rights, nuclear disarmament and genocide.

Reacting to the new voter guide issued by Catholics In Alliance, Catholic League president Bill Donohue is quoted by LifeSite News as saying: "[It] is a slick attempt to get the abortion albatross off the necks of Catholic Democrats, but it's a failed effort-the noose is still there."

New Voter Registration Drive In Evangelical Churches

Today's Los Angeles Times reports that James Dobson's Focus on the Family is beginning a massive new voter registration drive through Christian evangelical churches. The program was announced in an e-mail to supporters last week. It is recruiting county and church coordinators in 8 states: Maryland, Montana, Tennessee, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Minnesota. In Ohio, 3 million copies of voter registration instructions will be distributed in bulletins by 15,000 churches. Focus on the Family will also distribute voter guides detaiing candidates' views on issues such as same-sex marriage, abortion, and stem cell research. Critic Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, says that Dobson is jeopardizing the tax exemption of churches that take part in this project. Organizers of the project, however, say that they are within the law so long as they merely register voters and discuss values, and do not endorse a specific candidate or party.

Catholic Bishops Considering How To Treat Dissenting Politicians

According to the Associated Press, a Roman Catholic bishops' special task force on Catholic politicians who disagree with the Church on issues like abortion, euthanasia and same-sex marriage will confer with Democratic and Republican lawmakers in Washington this week. During the 2004 Presidential campaign, the issue of whether dissenting Catholic candidates should be barred from receiving Holy Communion became an important issue. Last year the U.S. bishops agreed that officeholders who support abortion rights or euthanasia are "cooperating in evil", but only individual bishops would decide whether they should receive communion. The new task force may have revised guidelines ready for the U.S. bishops' next meeting in June, in advance of the upcoming congressional campaign. Washington's Cardinal Theodore McCarrick who chairs the task force said the bishops were discussing with college presidents the possibility of denying awards and speech invitations to such candidates. Some bishops want a ban on all appearances while others would only ban speeches on topics where there is disagreement with church teaching.

Alberta to Protect Officials With Religious Objections to Performing Gay Marriage

Now that Canada has recognized same-sex marriages, individual provinces are concerned about protecting marriage commissioners who have religious scruples against performing such ceremonies. (See earlier posting.) Alberta Justice Minister Ron Stevens has promised to introduce legislation to shield commissioners from human rights complaints in such cases, even if it means invoking the "notwithstanding clause" of Sec. 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that permits laws to override the Charter, subject to re-enactment every 5 years. Today's Globe and Mail reports on these developments and says that the Canadian federal government is unlikely to oppose such a law. In Alberta, use of the "notwithstanding clause" requires a province-wide referendum. A marriage minister in Manitoba has already been sued by a gay couple after he refused to perform a wedding ceremony for them.

Recent Articles of Interest

 From SSRN:

• Michael A. Helfand, Religious Liberty and Religious Discrimination: Where Is the Supreme Court Headed?, (2021 University of Illinois Law Review Online 98 (2021)).
• Edward J. Larson, 46 at 100: Live by Faith and Lead with Science, (2021 University of Illinois Law Review Online 184 (2021)).
• Barbara P. Billauer, The Devil and the Dice; Job and Justice: Understanding the Misfortunes of Job in light of Modern Science & Law, (May 18, 2021).
• Swargodeep Sarkar, Protection Rohingyas through International Adjudication-Decoding Provisional Measures of International Court of Justice in The Gambia vs Myanmar, (Musamus Law Review, Volume 3, Issue 1, October 2020).
• Dr. Rifai Sulaiman Lebbe, Teaching Pedagogies of the Prophet Muhammad. Part 1 (May 19, 2021).
• Carlo A. Pedrioli, Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, Same-Sex Marriage, and the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court as Critical Social Movement Ally. (54 Loyola Los Angeles Law Review(2021)).

From SmartCILP:

• Marc Spindelman, Masterpiece Cakeshop's Homiletics, 68 Cleveland State Law Review 347-420 (2020).

9th Circuit Hears Arguments In California Proposition 8 Case

AP reports that yesterday the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals heard two sets of arguments on different aspects of Perry v. Brown, the case challenging the constitutionality of California's Proposition 8 that barred same-sex marriage in the state. One set of arguments (audio of arguments) focused on whether now-retired Judge  Vaughn Walker who presided over the district court trial should have disclosed that he was in a long-term relationship with a male partner, arguably a fact bearing on his impartiality in deciding the case. The second set of arguments (audio of arguments) dealt with whether the court should unseal video recordings of the trial made by Judge Walker.

Court To Unseal Recording of Proposition 8 Trial

In Perry v. Schwarzenegger, (ND CA, Sept. 19, 2011), a California federal district court judge agreed to unseal the digital recording of last year's non-jury trial last on the constitutionality of California's Proposition 8-- the state constitutional amendment barring same-sex marriage.  Focusing on the importance of transparency of judicial proceedings, the court rejected as unsupported conjecture the argument that release of the recordings would have a chilling effect on expert witnesses' willingness to cooperate in future proceedings.The court, however, stayed the effectiveness of its order until Sept. 30 to give the parties time to file an appeal and seek a further stay. AP reports on the decision.

Lesbian Spouses Sue Senior Housing Community For Discrimination

A suit was filed in Missouri federal district court this week by a lesbian married couple against a senior housing community for refusing to rent to same-sex couples. The complaint (full text) in Walsh v. Friendship Village of South County, (ED MO, filed 7/25/2018), alleges that the senior housing community which is not religiously affiliated has a Cohabitation Policy that provides:

Friendship Village “will permit the cohabitation of residents within a single unit only if those residents, while residing in said unit, are related as spouses by marriage, as parent and child or as siblings,” defining “[t]he term ‘marriage’ as used in this policy means the union of one man and one woman, as marriage is understood in the Bible.”

The suit alleges violation of the Federal Fair Housing Act and Missouri's Human Rights Act. Friendly Atheist blog has more on the lawsuit.

Servicemembers Sue To Challenge DOMA and Obtain Equal Spousal Benefits

The Servicemembers Legal Defense Network announced last week that it had filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of a number of plaintiffs seeking the same benefits for same-sex spouses of current and former service members as is provided to opposite-sex spouses.  The complaint (full text) in McLaughlin v. United States, (D MA, filed 10/27/2011), asks the court to rule that the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional as applied to military spousal benefits, and that the definition of "spouse" in federal statutes relating to military benefits is likewise unconstitutional. The complaint invokes the equal protection clause,the 10th Amendment's  principles of federalism, the fundamental right to marry, and the bill of attainder clause. Thursday's Christian Post reported on the case. [Thanks to Alliance Alert for the lead.]

Colorado Legislature Approves Civil Unions; Governor Expected To Sign Bill

The Colorado legislature today gave final passage to SB 13-11, the Colorado Civil Union Act, authorizing both same-sex and opposite-sex civil unions and giving parties to a civil union the same rights and obligations as spouses. It provides that a civil union may be certified by a judge, a magistrate, the parties or "in accordance with any mode of recognition ... by any religious denomination."  AP reports that Governor John Hickenlooper has said he will sign the bill, Many Republicans have expressed concern about the absence in the bill of religious exemptions for those opposed to civil unions.  Supporters say this would invite discrimination.  In 2006, Colorado approved a state constitutional amendment barring gay marriage-- but not civil unions.

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.]

Supreme Court In Narrow Decision Reverses Order Against Wedding Cake Baker

Today, by a vote of 7-2, the U.S. Supreme Court in Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, (Sup. Ct., June 4, 2018), reversed on narrow grounds a Colorado appellate court's decision upholding the state Civil Rights Commission's cease and desist order against a baker who refused on religious grounds to create a wedding cake for a same-sex couple.  The Supreme Court's majority decision, written by Justice Kennedy, focused on what was seen as the unfairness of the hearing provided to the baker by the Commission, and the difference between this case and the approach in others decided by the Commission:

The Court’s precedents make clear that the baker, in his capacity as the owner of a business serving the public, might have his right to the free exercise of religion limited by generally applicable laws. Still, the delicate question of when the free exercise of his religion must yield to an otherwise valid exercise of state power needed to be determined in an adjudication in which religious hostility on the part of the State itself would not be a factor in the balance the State sought to reach. That requirement, however, was not met here. When the Colorado Civil Rights Commission considered this case, it did not do so with the religious neutrality that the Constitution requires.

In reaching that conclusion, the Court acknowledged the difficulties involved in deciding the broader issues posed by the case:

The free speech aspect of this case is difficult, for few persons who have seen a beautiful wedding cake might have thought of its creation as an exercise of protected speech. This is an instructive example, however, of the proposition that the application of constitutional freedoms in new contexts can deepen our understanding of their meaning.

One of the difficulties in this case is that the parties disagree as to the extent of the baker’s refusal to provide service. If a baker refused to design a special cake with words or images celebrating the marriage—for instance, a cake showing words with religious meaning—that might be different from a refusal to sell any cake at all.... 

The same difficulties arise in determining whether a baker has a valid free exercise claim. A baker’s refusal to attend the wedding to ensure that the cake is cut the right way, or a refusal to put certain religious words or decorations on the cake, or even a refusal to sell a cake that has been baked for the public generally but includes certain religious words or symbols on it are just three examples of  possibilities that seem all but endless.

Justice Kagan filed a concurring opinion joined by Justice Breyer.  Justice Gorsuch filed a concurring opinion joined by Justice Alito.  Justice Thomas filed a opinion concurring in part, joined by Justice Gorsuch.

Justice Ginsburg, joined by Justice Sotomayor, filed a dissenting opinion arguing that there was not sufficient evidence of unfair hostility by the Commission to the baker's religious beliefs.

Politico reports on the decision, as does SCOTUSblog.

Same-Sex Couple Sues NY Catholic Hospital Over Family Health Benefits

The Advocate reported Friday on a class action lawsuit filed last week in federal district court in New York by a married lesbian couple who claim that a Catholic hospital illegally discriminated against them by refusing them the same family health benefits offered to other employees. The suit was filed against St. Joseph Medical Center in Yonkers, NY, as well as against the insurance company that administers the hospital’s self-insurance plan.  In a statement on the case, the New York State Catholic Conference said in part:

In 2011, when Governor Andrew Cuomo made the redefinition of marriage his top legislative priority, we warned not only that such action would have negative consequences for society, but also that it would infringe on the religious liberty of Catholic employers..... As we stated when the law was passed, the so-called "religious exemption" language included in the bill was insufficient to protect religious institutions.

(See prior related posting.)

Tax Preparer Refuses To Prepare Joint Return For Same-Sex Couple

Washington Post reports on the latest clash between religious liberty assertions and non-discrimination principles:

For four years, Bailey Brazzel says, she had employed the same tax preparer, Nancy Fivecoate of Carter Tax Service in Russiaville, Ind. Fivecoate prepared the taxes without issue each time — until this year, when Brazzel brought her new wife, Samantha.

Fivecoate declined to serve the couple, citing her religious beliefs.

This was the first year the Brazzels, who wed in July, were filing jointly as a married couple. According to Samantha, Fivecoate explained that she believed marriage was between a man and a woman and that she would therefore not be able to prepare their taxes.

Indiana does not have a statewide law barring discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. (See prior related posting.) [Thanks to Nathan Walker for the lead.]