Religion Clause

Friday, June 14, 2024

DOE Enjoined from Applying New Title IX Rules Protecting Transgender Students In 4 States

In State of Louisiana v. U.S. Department of Education, (WD LA, June 13, 2024), a Louisiana federal district court enjoined the Department of Education from enforcing against four states new rules under Title IX which, among other things, bar discrimination by educational institutions against transgender students. (See prior posting). The new rules essentially apply the Supreme Court's interpretation of Title VII in the Bostock case to Title IX as well. The injunction applies to the states that were plaintiffs in the case-- Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana and Idaho. The court found that the new rules violate a number of statutory and constitutional provisions, saying in part:

In applying these statutory principles to Title IX, the Court finds that the term “sex discrimination” only included discrimination against biological males and females at the time of enactment. ,,,,

... [T]his Court finds that the application of Bostock and the Final Rule’s definition of “sex discrimination” contradict the purpose of Title IX.... Bostock does not apply because the purpose of Title VII to prohibit discrimination in hiring is different than Title IX’s purpose to protect biological women from discrimination in education. ...

Defendants thus seemingly use Bostock in an attempt to circumvent Congress and make major changes to the text, structure, and purpose of Title IX. Such changes are undoubtedly contrary to Title IX and contrary to the Law.....

Plaintiffs argue the Final Rule’s new broad “severe or pervasive” standard, which considers speech or other expressive conduct that “limits” a person’s ability to participate in a program to be discriminatory harassment, cannot be squared with Title IX....

While Title VII is vastly important, and the Court sees the merits in harassment standards set forth in those provisions, the Court cannot simply apply the same standard to federally funded educational institutions. The “harassment standard” created by the Final Rule is obviously contrary to Title IX, and Plaintiffs have made compelling arguments for how it can violate the free speech right of the First Amendment. ...

Because the Final Rule is a matter of both vast economic and political significance, the Court finds the enactment of this rule involves a major question pursuant to the major questions doctrine. Therefore, Congress must have given “clear statutory authorization” to the applicable agency. The Court finds that Congress did not give clear statutory authorization to this agency....

This Court finds the Final Rule violates the Spending Clause because it contains ambiguous conditions and because the Final Rule violates other constitutional provisions – free speech and free exercise. Because this Court has found the Final Rule violates the Spending Clause, there is no need to discuss the Plaintiffs’ argument that the Final Rule violates the non-delegation doctrine....

This Court further finds that the Final Rule is arbitrary and capricious because the DOE (1) failed to address relevant factors and (2) and failed to consider important aspects of the problem.

Court Upholds Firing of Nurse with Religious Objections to Flu Vaccine

In French v. Albany Medical Center, (ND NY, June 12, 2024), a New York federal district court upheld a hospital's firing of a nurse who refused for religious reasons to receive the flu vaccine. Plaintiff based her religious exemption claim on teachings of the "Israelite" religion which she adopted in 2018. Rejecting plaintiff's claim that the hospital violated Title VII by refusing to accommodate her religious beliefs, the court said in part:

[T]he Court concludes that Plaintiff's requested accommodation was not reasonable as it was a blanket exemption request which would have allowed her to continue interacting with staff and vulnerable patients while unvaccinated. This exemption would have caused an undue hardship on Defendant.

The court also rejected plaintiff's claims of disparate treatment and retaliation, saying in part:

Plaintiff has not presented any evidence that her religion was a motivating factor in Defendant's decision to suspend and terminate her.

Thursday, June 13, 2024

Florida Restrictions on Gender-Affirming Care Are Unconstitutional

In Doe v. Ladapo, (ND FL, June 11, 2024), a Florida federal district court in a 105-page opinion held unconstitutional many of the provisions in Florida law that ban gender-affirming care for minors and regulate it for adults. The court, analyzing equal protection and substantive due process challenges, said in part:

The elephant in the room should be noted at the outset. Gender identity is real. The record makes this clear….

For some, the denial that transgender identity is real—the opposition to transgender individuals and to their freedom to live their lives—is not different in kind or intensity from the animus that has attended racism and misogyny, less as time has passed but still today. And some transgender opponents invoke religion to support their position, just as some once invoked religion to support their racism or misogyny. Transgender opponents are of course free to hold their beliefs. But they are not free to discriminate against transgender individuals just for being transgender. In time, discrimination against transgender individuals will diminish, just as racism and misogyny have diminished. To paraphrase a civil-rights advocate from an earlier time, the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice…..

This record includes overwhelming evidence that the House sponsors and a significant number of other House members were motivated by anti-transgender animus. This is clear from their own animus-based statements and from the failure of other members to call them out…..

Banning gender-affirming care for minors across the board in all circumstances, rather than appropriately regulating such care, is not sufficiently related to the legitimate state interest in safeguarding health.

The ban on care for minors does not survive intermediate scrutiny….

[T]here are some, including the Governor and quite a few members of the Florida Legislature, who believe transgenderism—and thus gender-affirming care—is morally wrong. Enforcing this moral view is not, however, a legitimate state interest that can sustain this statute, even under rational-basis scrutiny….

[W]hether based on morals, religion, unmoored hatred, or anything else, prohibiting or impeding a person from conforming to the person’s gender identity rather than to the person’s natal sex is not a legitimate state interest…..

In addition to invalidating the ban on care for minors, the court also struck down various unnecessary limits placed on gender affirming care for adults.

The Hill reports on the decision and says that the state will appeal it.

Supreme Court Says Plaintiffs Lack Standing To Challenge FDA's Rules on Abortion Drugs

In Food and Drug Administration v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, (Sup. Ct., June 13, 2024), the U.S. Supreme court today held unanimously that plaintiffs who are challenging the FDA’s rules on prescribing and distributing the abortion drug mifepristone lack standing to bring the lawsuit. The Court said in part:

Here, the plaintiff doctors and medical associations are unregulated parties who seek to challenge FDA’s regulation of others. Specifically, FDA’s regulations apply to doctors prescribing mifepristone and to pregnant women taking mifepristone. But the plaintiff doctors and medical associations do not prescribe or use mifepristone. And FDA has not required the plaintiffs to do anything or to refrain from doing anything….

The plaintiffs have sincere legal, moral, ideological, and policy objections to elective abortion and to FDA’s relaxed regulation of mifepristone. But under Article III of the Constitution, those kinds of objections alone do not establish a justiciable case or controversy in federal court. Here, the plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that FDA’s relaxed regulatory requirements likely would cause them to suffer an injury in fact. For that reason, the federal courts are the wrong forum for addressing the plaintiffs’ concerns about FDA’s actions. The plaintiffs may present their concerns and objections to the President and FDA in the regulatory process, or to Congress and the President in the legislative process. And they may also express their views about abortion and mifepristone to fellow citizens, including in the political and electoral processes.

“No principle is more fundamental to the judiciary’s proper role in our system of government than the constitutional limitation of federal-court jurisdiction to actual cases or controversies.”

Justice Kavanaugh wrote the Court’s opinion, and Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion.

AP reports on the decision.

Tuesday, June 11, 2024

State Funding of Only Secular Home-School Materials Upheld

In Woolard v. Thurmond, (ED CA, June 10, 2024), a California federal district court rejected challenges by parents of children enrolled in home study programs through California public charter schools to the requirement that state funds be used only for secular instructional materials. Parents contended that refusing to fund faith-based curricular materials denied families equal access to state benefits solely because of their religious nature. The court disagreed, saying in part:

The state action of failing to provide requested religious curriculum is not an infringement on Plaintiffs’ freedom of exercise. As confirmed in Plaintiffs’ own cited case, Carson v. Makin, states are allowed to provide a strictly secular education in its public schools.... A strictly secular education does not substantially burden the Plaintiffs’ practice of religion....

This case involves California’s laws and regulations for state funded public schools, not private schools. There are no “public benefits” in the form of grants or otherwise that the state is excluding Plaintiffs from....

Catholic Bishops Sue EEOC Over Rules Implementing Pregnant Workers Fairness Act

Suit was filed last month in a Louisiana federal district court by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Catholic University of America and two Louisiana Catholic dioceses challenging rules adopted in April of this year by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission implementing the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act. The Act requires employers to provide reasonable accommodation for employees in connection with pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions. At issue in the recent lawsuit is the EEOC's inclusion of abortion as a related medical condition. The complaint (full text) in United States Conference of Catholic Bishops v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, (WD LA, filed 5/22/2024) alleges in part:

The PWFA is not an abortion accommodation mandate. Rather, it fills a gap in federal employment law by ensuring pregnant women receive workplace accommodations to protect their pregnancies and their preborn children. Plaintiff United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) enthusiastically supported the law’s bipartisan passage. That support reflected the PWFA’s uncontroversial and laudable purpose, which is fully consistent with the Catholic Church’s belief that all human life is imbued with innate dignity and its goal of ensuring a fairer workplace for women. But EEOC has now shoehorned a mandate that employers across the country knowingly support abortion into a statute explicitly designed to protect the health and safety of preborn babies and their mothers.

Worse, at the same time that it expands federal law into fraught areas, EEOC also insists on nullifying the explicit religious exemption that Congress wrote into the PWFA. In the PWFA, Congress imported Title VII’s religious exemption, which expressly allows employers to make employment decisions based on sincere religious beliefs. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000gg-5(b). Of course, since the PWFA concerns only pregnancy in the workplace, this makes clear that Congress meant to allow religious exemptions from pregnancy-accommodation claims. Yet now EEOC claims the exemption bars only religious discrimination claims—which aren’t authorized by the PWFA in the first place. That renders the exception a nullity, protecting employers from PWFA claims that don’t exist.

National Review yesterday reported on the lawsuit.

Texas Must Pay FFRF $346K Attorneys' Fees by August 5

Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc. v. Abbott, (WD TX, June 5, 2024), is an opinion and order requiring the state of Texas to pay Freedom From Religion Foundation an award of attorneys' fees and costs totaling $346,500 that had been entered against the state in January 2024. The award grew out of long-running litigation challenging the state's action in 2015 removing from the state Capitol building FFRF's Bill of Rights Nativity display. (See prior posting.) Texas contended that under state law, the judgment against it could only be paid through an appropriation from the state legislature which would come on September 1, 2025, at the earliest. The court said in part:

The Court finds that it is empowered to compel execution of the judgment. Given that Defendants maintain that they lack the ability to disburse these funds prior to the end of next year, it appears to the Court that “an order directing the responsible state official to satisfy the judgment out of state funds is the only reasonable way to ensure compliance with a valid federal judgment.”... While the Court acknowledges that execution of the judgment is a drastic step, the Court believes that this step is warranted to ensure that FFRF timely recovers for Defendants’ federal civil rights violation. Texas “may not successfully hide behind state procedural shields to avoid the consequences of a valid district court judgment effectuating an appropriate § 1988 award.”

The court ordered this payment to be made by August 5, 2024. It also allowed FFRF to recover for attorneys' fees and costs incurred in enforcing payment of the prior award.

Monday, June 10, 2024

Sunday, June 09, 2024

5th Circuit Stays Contempt Order Requiring 3 Attorneys Take Religious Liberty Training

In Carter v. Local 556, Transport Workers Union of America, (5th Cir., June 7, 2024), the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals granted a stay pending appeal of a controversial contempt sanction imposed by a Texas federal district court against three attorneys for Southwest Airlines. (See prior posting.) Southwest had failed to adequately comply with a remedial Order imposed on it for firing a flight attendant because of her social media posts and private messaging featuring aborted fetuses to illustrate her religious objections to abortion. The district court, among other things, ordered that the attorneys responsible for non-compliance with the prior Order attend at least 8 hours of religious liberty training conducted by the Christian legal non-profit Alliance Defending Freedom. In staying the contempt sanction, the Court of Appeals said in part:

[T]here is a strong likelihood that the contempt order exceeded the district court’s civil contempt authority....

Civil contempt sanctions are “remedial” and “designed to compel future compliance with a court order” by either “coerc[ing] the defendant into compliance with the court’s order” or “compensat[ing] the complainant for losses sustained” as a result of the noncompliance.... Criminal contempt sanctions, by contrast, are used to “punish defiance of the court and deter similar actions.”... Generally, “criminal [contempt] penalties may not be imposed on someone who has not been afforded the protections that the Constitution requires of such criminal proceedings.”...

At bottom, it appears that the district court sought, at least in part, to punish Southwest for what the district court viewed as conduct flouting its holding that Southwest had violated Title VII. But its punitive sanctions likely exceed the scope of the court’s civil-contempt authority.

Law dork reports on the decision.

Friday, June 07, 2024

New Report on Cultural Issues and the 2024 Election

The Pew Research Center yesterday published the results of an extensive survey on Cultural Issues and the 2024 Election. The 80-page report (full text) deals with attitudes on various topics, including religious values, sexual orientation and gender identity, and issues of family and reproductive rights. The Report says in part:

Voters who support Joe Biden and Donald Trump have starkly different views of the role religion should play in the U.S. government and politics.

Across several measures, Trump supporters are much more likely than Biden supporters to favor an expansive government role in support of religion. Biden and Trump supporters differ on government support for religion and the Bible’s influence on the nation’s laws.

At the same time, larger shares of Trump supporters than Biden supporters also say religion – and particularly the Bible – should have influence on government policy....

A majority of Trump supporters (56%) say religion should be kept separate from government policy, while 43% say government policies should support religious values. By more than six-to one (86% vs. 13%), Biden supporters say religion should be kept separate from government.

These views differ by race and ethnicity and – especially among Trump supporters – by religious affiliation.

Russian Court Places Pro-Putin Witch in Pre-Trial Detention

The English language Moscow Times reports on a hearing held in a Russian court this week, saying in part:

A Moscow court on Thursday remanded the self-proclaimed witch Alyona Polyn, known for casting spells in support of President Vladimir Putin, shortly after she collapsed in court, state media reported.

Polyn, whose real name is Yelena Sulikova, was detained in the Moscow region earlier this week on charges of disseminating “extremist” literature and “insulting believers’ religious feelings.”

She is accused of sharing reading materials that call for “violence against the Russian Orthodox Church clergy” and posting videos online that insult people of faith....

Polyn received medical attention but was not hospitalized. The court later ruled to place her in pre-trial detention, TASS reported....

Thursday, June 06, 2024

UCLA Students Sue University For Failing to Protect Jewish Students

Three Jewish students at UCLA yesterday filed a civil rights lawsuit in a California federal district court alleging that the University, by tolerating widespread antisemitic behavior, has violated a lengthy list of state and federal statutory and constitutional provisions. The complaint (full text) alleges in part:

1. The University of California, Los Angeles ..., has deteriorated into a hotbed of antisemitism. This rampant anti-Jewish environment burst into view on October 8, 2023, the day after Hamas terrorists attacked Israel....

2. In the wake of these horrifying events, UCLA should have taken steps to ensure that its Jewish students were safe and protected from harassment and undeterred in obtaining full access to campus facilities. Instead, UCLA officials routinely turned their backs on Jewish students, aiding and abetting a culture that has allowed calls for the annihilation of the Jewish people, Nazi symbolism, and religious slurs to go unchecked....

4. Starting on April 25, 2024, and continuing until May 2, 2024, UCLA allowed a group of activists to set up barricades in the center of campus and establish an encampment that blocked access to critical educational infrastructure on campus....

6. With the knowledge and acquiescence of UCLA officials, the activists enforced what was effectively a “Jew Exclusion Zone,” segregating Jewish students and preventing them from accessing the heart of campus, including classroom buildings and the main undergraduate library....

11. Yet even as the activists continued to enforce the Jew Exclusion Zone, Defendants not only failed to marshal resources to intervene— they adopted a policy facilitating the Jew Exclusion Zone.....

19. The administration’s cowardly abdication of its duty to ensure unfettered access to UCLA’s educational opportunities and to protect the Jewish community is not only immoral—it is illegal.

20. Specifically, it violates numerous federal and state constitutional guarantees, including the Equal Protection Clause, the Free Exercise Clause, and the freedom of speech.

21. And it contravenes the basic guarantee of equal access to educational facilities that receive federal funding, as well as numerous other statutory guarantees of equality and fair treatment.

Fox 11 reports on the lawsuit. Becket Fund issued a press release announcing the filing of the suit.

Catholic Preschools Must Be Able to Conditionally Participate in Colorado Universal Preschool Program

In St. Mary Catholic Parish in Littleton v. Roy, (D CO, June 4, 2024), a Colorado federal district court in a 101-page opinion, held that Colorado cannot exclude from its Universal Preschool Program two Catholic schools that will not enroll LGBTQ children or children from LGBTQ families so long as the state continues to improperly grant an exemption from religious anti-discrimination requirements to faith-based pre-schools that limit their enrollment to members of their own congregations. The court said in part:

Defendants have established a compelling interest in denying an exemption from the sexual-orientation and gender-identity aspects of the equal-opportunity requirement for Plaintiff Preschools specifically....

In sharp contrast to the evidence Defendants presented to establish a compelling interest with respect to the sexual-orientation and gender-identity aspects of the equal-opportunity requirement, Defendants did not offer any evidence relating to discrimination on the basis of religious affiliation....

Defendants enable faith-based providers to effectively discriminate on the basis of religious affiliation in their admission of preschoolers but, at the same time, deny Plaintiff Preschools an explicit exemption from the related aspect of the equal-opportunity requirement. Defendants have provided no compelling interest for their course of conduct....

The application by Defendants ... acting in their official capacities on behalf of the Colorado Department of Early Childhood, of the religious affiliation aspect of the equal-opportunity requirement...violates Plaintiffs’ rights secured by the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution....

The Court immediately and permanently enjoins Defendants ... from requiring, as a condition for participation in the Colorado Universal Preschool Program, that the preschools operated by Plaintiffs St. Mary Catholic Parish ... and St. Bernadette Catholic Parish... agree to provide or provide eligible children an equal opportunity to enroll and receive preschool services regardless of religious affiliation for as long as Defendants allow exceptions from the religious affiliation aspect of the equal-opportunity requirement set out in Colorado Revised Statute § 26.5-4-205(2)(b) and in the Colorado Universal Preschool Program Service Agreement.

Becket Fund issued a press release announcing the decision.

Louisiana Governor Signs Women's Safety and Protection Act, Rejecting Gender Identity Classifications

On June 3, Louisiana Governor Jeff Landry signed HB 608, the Women's Safety and Protection Act (full text) into law. The law states as part of its purpose:

To provide protections for women and girls against sexual assault, harassment, and violence in correctional facilities, juvenile detention facilities, domestic violence shelters, dormitories, and restrooms, or where women have been traditionally afforded safety and protection from acts of abuse committed by biological men.

Where there are multi-occupancy restrooms, changing rooms or sleeping quarters, the new law requires transgender men and transgender women to use only those facilities that conform to their biological sex. The limitation applies to public schools, domestic violence shelters, correctional facilities and juvenile detention facilities. The new law also provides a detailed biological definition of male and female that is to be applied to any state law or administrative rule that refers to an individual's sex. It additionally provides:

"Sex" means an individual's biological sex, either male or female, as observed or clinically verified at birth. Gender identity and other subjective terms shall not apply to this Part and shall not be used as synonyms or substitutes for sex.

The new law goes on to provide in part:

Notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, no governmental agency ... shall prohibit distinctions between the sexes with respect to athletics, correctional facilities, juvenile detention facilities, domestic violence shelters, or other accommodation where biology, safety, or privacy are implicated and that result in separate accommodations that are substantially related to the important government interest of protecting the health, safety, and privacy of individuals in such circumstances.

The law creates a cause of action for injunctive relief or damages to anyone who suffers direct or indirect harm from a violation of the Act. It provides:

It is a rebuttable presumption that requiring an individual to be housed with members of the opposite sex at a domestic violence shelter, juvenile detention center, corrections facility, or public school that is subject to the provisions of this Part is inherently discriminatory and is a cognizable harm to biological women under this Part.

Louisiana Illuminator has more details on the bill. ADF issued a press release announcing the governor's signing of the bill.

Wednesday, June 05, 2024

Ohio AG Sues to Prevent Reform Rabbinical College from Dismantling Its Valuable Library Collection

Ohio's Attorney General filed suit this week in an Ohio trial court seeking a temporary restraining order and an injunction to prevent Hebrew Union College in Cincinnati from selling off any of its valuable library collection of Judaica which the college was exploring the possibility of doing in order to deal with a crippling financial deficit. The complaint (full text) in State of Ohio ex rel. Yost v. Hebrew Union College- Jewish Institute of Religion, (OH Com. Pl., filed 6/3/2024) alleges in part that the college is violating Ohio law by soliciting contributions from donors without disclosing that it is exploring the sale of parts of the Klau Library collection. It also alleges breach of fiduciary duty in administering charitable assets according to the donors' intent and alleges in part:

By the acts, omissions, and imminent acts identified in this Complaint, Defendant has breached and/or is breaching its fiduciary duties to collect, preserve, and share the Cincinnati Library collection for the charitable benefit of the public, including the Greater Cincinnati community.

Attorney General Dave Yost issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit. According to the Cincinnati Enquirer:

Following Yost's move Tuesday, HUC spokeswoman Patricia Keim said the college has made no plans to sell books or close the library. "We have retained a rare books expert to assess our holdings," she said. "We remain committed to responsible management of the Klau Library and its critical role in the study of Judaism, Jewish history, and Jewish civilization."

Neo-Nazi Sentenced for Defacing Michigan Synagogue

In a press release, the Department of Justice announced yesterday:

A Michigan man was sentenced today to 26 months in prison followed by three years of supervised release for conspiring with other members of a white supremacist group, The Base, to victimize Black and Jewish people, and for defacing Temple Jacob, a Jewish synagogue in Hancock, Michigan, using swastikas and symbols associated with The Base....

The evidence at trial established that, in September 2019, Weeden, Tobin and Barasneh, all members of The Base, used an encrypted messaging platform to discuss vandalizing property associated with Black and Jewish Americans. Weeden and his co-conspirators dubbed their plan, "Operation Kristallnacht” — a term that means "Night of Broken Glass,” and refers to events that took place on Nov. 9 and 10, 1938, when Nazis murdered Jews and burned and destroyed their homes, synagogues, schools and places of business. Weeden carried out this plan on Sept. 21, 2019, when he spray-painted swastikas and symbols associated with The Base on the outside walls of Temple Jacob....

Suit Challenges Vermont Foster Care Rules on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity

Suit was filed yesterday in a Vermont federal district court by two couples challenging a policy adopted by the state foster care agency relating to sexual orientation, gender identity/ expression (SOGIE). Plaintiffs allege that the policy is inconsistent with their Christian religious beliefs. The complaint (full text) in Wuoti v. Winters, (D VT, filed 6/4/2024) alleges in part:

According to the Department, to meet the “needs of each foster child” under Rule 301 (emphasized), all parents must demonstrate that they can support any hypothetical child’s SOGIE....

All foster families must show that they will unconditionally support and affirm a child’s desire to dress, cut their hair, or wear accessories to express their stated gender identity,,,,

Plaintiffs allege that as applied the policy violates their 1st Amendment free speech rights:

... [T]he Department’s Mandate requires applicants to agree to speak certain words, like inaccurate pronouns, and to engage in certain expressive activities, like pride parades, that express the Department’s preferred views on human sexuality, as a condition for accessing child-welfare services.

... [T]he Department’s Mandate forbids applicants from expressing certain views, like the Plaintiffs’ religious views on human sexuality, and engaging in certain expressive activities, like attending church, as a condition for accessing child-welfare services....

They also allege that the policy violates their 1st Amendment religious free exercise rights:

... The Wuotis and the Gantts have certain sincerely held religious beliefs about the human body and human sexuality, and they are also religiously motivated to provide foster care and adoption.

... The Department’s SOGIE Mandate conditions Plaintiffs’ ability to obtain a foster-care license on their willingness to speak and act contrary to these religious beliefs.

The complaint also alleges due process and equal protection claims. ADF issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Tuesday, June 04, 2024

GAO Says DEA Should Improve Its Process for Granting Religious Exemptions for Psilocybin Use

Last Week, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released an 80-page Report to Congressional Committees (full text) titled DEA Should Improve its Religious Exemptions Petition Process for Psilocybin (Mushrooms) and Other Controlled Substances. The Report says in part:

Selected stakeholders reported several barriers to the legal access and use of psilocybin for religious practices under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. For example, DEA established a process for parties to petition for a religious exemption from the Controlled Substances Act to use controlled substances for religious purposes. However, DEA’s guidance does not inform petitioners on its timeframes to make determinations on completed petitions. DEA officials stated the agency is aware of public concerns on the need to better understand its policies and processes that impact the petitions for religious exemptions. In 2019, DEA initiated a draft notice of proposed rulemaking related to its process for petitioning for religious exemptions. Four years later, in February 2023, the final draft notice was submitted to DEA’s Office of the Administrator, according to DEA officials; but there is no timeframe for issuance of the notice or final regulations....

Including timeframes to make determinations about religious exemption petitions in DEA’s guidance will provide better transparency about the agency’s process.

Filter has additional details.

Oklahoma Legislature Enacts Bill Requiring Schools to Offer Released Time for Credit Courses in Religious or Moral Instruction

Last week the Oklahoma legislature passed and sent to Governor Kevin Stitt for his signature HB 1425 (full text) which requires every school district board to adopt a policy that allows students to attend a released-time course in religious or moral instruction for up to three class periods per week. The course is to be taught by an independent entity off of school property. The school district is to award students credit for the released-time course after the course is evaluated using secular criteria set out in the new law.

According to KRMG News, before the Governor announced whether or not he would sign the bill, The Satanic Temple issued a statement saying that if the bill becomes law, it will offer a released-time course through its Hellion Academy of Released Time Learning. The Satanic Temple said in part that it "believes that public schools should be free from religious influence, [but is] ... prepared to ensure our members’ children receive the same opportunities as those participating in other religion’s programs."

Alabama Supreme Court Refuses to Order United Methodist Conference to Allow Church Disaffiliations

In Aldersgate United Methodist Church of Montgomery v. Alabama- West Florida Conference of the United Methodist Church, Inc., (AL Sup. Ct., May 31, 2024), the Alabama Supreme Court, in a per curiam opinion, applied the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine and dismissed a challenge by 44 Methodist congregations to a refusal by their parent Conference to allow the congregations to disaffiliate and retain their property. A few months before the congregations sought to disaffiliate, the Conference had changed its rules to provide that a member church could disaffiliate only after the Conference approved an eligibility statement that set out the reasons of conscience that led to the congregation's request. Prior to that, under a policy that was to expire at the end of 2023, congregations could disaffiliate and retain their property merely if they disagreed with the Chruch's policy on same-sex marriage and homosexuality. In affirming the dismissal of the case, the court said in part:

In order to grant the churches the relief they seek -- the right to vote on disaffiliation -- the trial court would have to survey the Judicial Council's ecclesiastical decisions, interpret the doctrinal scope of ¶ 2553 of the Book of Discipline, and review Conference determinations about the religious adequacy of the churches' eligibility statements. That is, to decide any property questions, the trial court would have to adjudicate whether each of the churches had adequate "reasons of conscience...." Resolving those issues would "inherently entail inquiry … into the substantive criteria by which [courts] are supposedly to decide the ecclesiastical question" -- whether the churches' reasons of conscience were sufficient for disaffiliation under ¶ 2553.... "But [that] is exactly the inquiry that the First Amendment prohibits."

Justice Bryan filed an opinion concurring specially which Justice Mitchell joined. Justice Cook filed an opinion concurring specially which Chief Justice Parker joined. Both opinions expressed sympathy with the churches' claim that the last-minute change in rules was engineered to prevent them from disaffiliating. Justice Mundheim filed an opinion concurring in the result, but not in the reasoning of the main opinion. Justice Sellers concurred in the result without filing a separate opinion. Justices Shaw, White and Stewart recused themselves.