Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Imran A. Nyazee, The Probable Islamic State of the Future, (October 21, 2023).
• Mark Satta, 303 Creative v. Elenis, Groff v. DeJoy and the Difference a Sentence Can Make, (The Canopy Forum, 2023).
• Rafal Mańko, Exceptio Popularis: Resisting Illiberal Legality, (forthcoming in "Law, Populism and the Political in Central and Eastern Europe", edited by Rafał Mańko et al., Birkbeck Law Press (Routledge), 2024).
• Andrew M. Koppelman, Essentially Contested Histories: On Recent Efforts to Cabin the Meanings of Slavery and Disestablishment, (Wayne Law Review, Forthcoming).
• Anne Marie Lofaso, Does Title VII Prohibit Discrimination in Employment-Transfer Decisions Only if They Cause Materially Significant Disadvantages for Employees?, ( PREVIEW of United States Supreme Court Cases, Vol. 52, Issue 3 (2023)).
• Erika Bachiochi & Rachel Morrison, Dobbs, Equality and the Contested Meaning of Women's Rights, (Texas Review of Law and Politics (Fall 2024), Forthcoming).
• Ben Charoenwong, Shariah-Compliant Investing in the Machine Age: Equity Classifications with Machine Learning, (September 2021).

From SmartCILP:

• Richard P. Hiskes, The Image of a Lesser God: Imago Dei and the Human Rights of Children, [Abstract], 45 Human Rights Quarterly 513-532 (2023).

Court Disqualifies Proposed Nevada Reproductive Freedom Amendment From 2024 Ballot

In Washington v. Aguilar, (NV Dist. Ct., Nov. 21, 2023), a Nevada state trial court held that an Initiative Petition proposing a Reproductive Freedom Constitutional Amendment could not be placed on the 2024 ballot. The court held that the initiative proposal violates the single subject rule, contains a misleading description of the Amendment's effect and contains an unfunded mandate.  The court said in part:

This Court agrees with Plaintiffs that the Petition embraces a multitude of subjects that amount to logrolling. Subsection 1, alone, embraces the following subjects: prenatal care, childbirth, postpartum care, birth control, vasectomy, tubal ligation, abortion, abortion care, management of a miscarriage, and infertility care. Subsection 1 purportedly creates a “fundamental right to reproductive freedom,” but there is no limiting language in that section to circumscribe that right such that the section embraces a single and articulable subject....

The court found the description of the Amendment misleading because "it fails to mention that the law will bar the State from prosecuting, fining, or regulating any miscarriage or stillbirth"; it fails to mention that a medical provider can order a late term abortion to protect the pregnant person's health.; and it fails to explain that it affects equality and equal protection.

Finally, the court found that the proposed Amendment creates an unfunded mandate because a Panel or Board would need to be created to determine whether a healthcare provider acted within the standard of care.

Nevada Independent reports on the decision.

Inclusion of "Caste" In Antidiscrimination Policy Does Not Violate Establishment Clause

In Kumar v. Koester, (CD CA, Nov. 21, 2023, a California federal district court rejected an Establishment Clause challenge to the inclusion of "caste" in California State University's Discrimination, Harassment and Retaliation Policy. The Policy includes in its anti-discrimination ban a prohibition on discrimination based on "Race or Ethnicity (including color, caste, or ancestry)". Plaintiffs-- two Hindu professors-- contend that the Policy defines Hinduism as including a caste system and amounts to government disapproval of Hinduism.  In rejecting these contentions, the court said in part:

Plaintiffs argue that the CFA [California Faculty Association] and CSSA [California State Student Association] Resolutions demonstrate anti-Hindu sentiments. And because Defendant considered its stakeholders' input when amending the Policy, Defendant, in turn, expressed disapproval of Hinduism when it included the word "caste" in the Policy.

Plaintiffs' argument fails for two reasons. First, Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that CFA or CSSA speak for Defendant.... Plaintiffs do not offer any evidence that the Workgroup inappropriately considered the two Resolutions amongst the large amount of feedback it received from a wide array of CSU stakeholders....

Second, Plaintiffs' argument fails because the resolutions do not express anti-Hindu sentiments. To be sine, the Resolutions clearly denounce caste discrimination that occurs in South Asian societies and CFA's resolution explicitly references the presence of caste discrimination in "the Hindu religion."... But CFA's resolution does not link caste discrimination to Hinduism exclusively.... [Its] description of "caste" recognizes caste discrimination as a social ill that permeates South Asian culture and society....

Just as Plaintiffs fail to show that the Policy disapproves of Hinduism, they also fail to demonstrate that the Policy defines Hindu doctrines.

The court also dismissed plaintiffs' due process challenges for lack of standing. 

President Biden Issues 2023 Thanksgiving Day Proclamation

Yesterday President Biden issued a Proclamation (full text) designating today as a National Day of Thanksgiving. The Proclamation reads in part:

We are truly a good Nation because we are a good people — the First Lady and I see it every time we travel the country because we meet so many incredible people doing the most extraordinary things.  We have met with service members, veterans, and their families, who have selflessly served and sacrificed for our country.  We have witnessed the resolve of firefighters, police officers, and first responders, who risk their lives every day to protect us.  We have seen the best of our character in the doctors, nurses, scientists, public servants, union workers, and teachers, who ensure everyone is taken care of and no one is left behind.  We have seen all the possibilities this Nation holds in the mothers, fathers, and caregivers, who work hard to build a future worthy of their children’s greatest dreams, and in young people across the country, who are the most talented, engaged, and educated generation in history.

This Thanksgiving we are grateful for our Nation and the incredible soul of America.  May we all remember that we are the United States of America — there is nothing beyond our capacity if we do it together.

Appeals Court Upholds Denial of Unemployment Benefits To Health Care Worker Who Was Denied Religious Exemption From Vaccine Mandate

In Cyriaque v. Director- Ohio Department of Job and Family Services, (OH App., Nov. 22, 2023), an Ohio state appellate court upheld the denial of unemployment benefits to a clinical trainer at a community health center who was denied a religious exemption from a federal Covid vaccine mandate.  Her employment was terminated when she continued to refuse the vaccine.  In upholding the denial of benefits, the appeals court said in part:

It was, of course, the hearing officer’s province to assess the credibility of Cyriaque’s assertion that the exemption request was based upon her sincere religious opposition to the COVID-19 vaccines. In coming to this decisive determination, the hearing officer was free to believe all, some, or none of Cyriaque’s testimony. As noted, Cyriaque’s exemption statement submitted to Community Health did not assert that her religious opposition to the COVID-19 vaccines was based upon the use of aborted fetal cells in the development of the vaccines. In contrast, Cyriaque’s hearing testimony and other evidence exclusively focused upon the use of aborted fetal cells being used in the development of the vaccines as the basis for the requested exemption. This contrast between Cyriaque’s statement provided to Community Health and her hearing testimony provided support for the hearing officer’s finding that Cyriaque’s exemption request was not premised upon her sincere religious opposition to the COVID-19 vaccines. Given this, we cannot conclude the commission’s decision was unlawful because it violated Cyriaque’s rights under the Free Exercise Clause, that the decision was unreasonable, or that the decision was against the manifest weight of the evidence.

Oklahoma Supreme Court Temporarily Enjoins 3 Laws Restricting Abortions

In Oklahoma Call for Reproductive Justice v. Drummond, (OK Sup. Ct, Nov. 14, 2023), the Oklahoma Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision directed the trial court to issue a temporary injunction preventing enforcement of three statutes that impose regulatory requirements on abortions while challenges to the laws proceed. The court's majority opinion says in part:

[In Oklahoma Call for Reproductive Justice v. Drummond I] we held that the Oklahoma Constitution protects a limited right to an abortion, i.e., one that creates an inherent right of the mother to terminate a pregnancy when necessary to preserve her life.... This ... was defined to mean: a woman has an inherent right to choose to terminate her pregnancy if, at any point in the pregnancy, the woman's physician has determined to a reasonable degree of medical certainty or probability that the continuation of the pregnancy will endanger the woman's life due to the pregnancy itself or due to a medical condition that the woman is either currently suffering from or likely to suffer from during the pregnancy.... We made no ruling on whether the Oklahoma Constitution provides a right to an elective termination of a pregnancy....

H.B. 1904 provides a new requirement that a physician who performs an abortion must be board-certified in obstetrics and gynecology. S.B. 779 requires a physician who is certified to provide an abortion-inducing drug either to have admitting privileges at a hospital in the county or contiguous to the county where the abortion-inducing drug was administered or to have a written agreement with an associated physician in such location. S.B. 778 requires an Ultrasound be performed at least 72 hours prior to providing an abortion-inducing drug, but it does make an exception if such requirement would pose a greater risk of death or impairment.....

The clear weight of the evidence presented showed the apparent effect of the three Acts would place unnecessary burdens on the lawful termination of a pregnancy....

Maintaining the status quo would further the public interest of protecting a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy in order to preserve her life....

A concurring opinion and four dissenting opinions were filed. A dissent by Chief Justice Kane, joined by Justice Kuehn, says in part:

The constitutional analysis undertaken by the majority continues to omit the weighing of the rights and interests of the unborn. Any analysis of an abortion statute that proceeds under the proposition that the life of the unborn is unworthy of consideration is defective. In a separate concurring writing, my colleague makes the identical point as to the life of the mother. I completely agree with my colleague on this. However, the interests of the mother were the only interests considered by the majority- the rights of the unborn remain unheard.

AP reports on the decision.

Christian School Sues Vermont Challenging Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Rules

Suit was filed yesterday in a Vermont federal district court by a Christian school seeking to participate in the state's Town Tuitioning and Dual Enrollment Programs as well as in Vermont Principals' Association athletic competitions. It has been precluded from doing so because of rules banning it from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity in order to participate. Two families whose children participate in athletics at the school are also plaintiffs. The complaint (full text) in Mid Vermont Christian School v. Bouchey, (D VT, filed 11/21.2023), alleges in part:

The State-through its Agency of Education ... and the Vermont Principal's Association ... requires religious schools like Mid Vermont Christian School ... to follow (and affirm compliance with) laws, rules, and policies that prevent those schools from operating consistently with their religious beliefs about sexuality and gender.

ADF issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

No Damages Under Illinois RFRA for Wedding Cancelled Over Covid Vaccine Mandate

In Schneider v. City of Chicago, (ND IL, Nov. 20, 2023), an Illinois federal district court dismissed a damage action brought under the Illinois Religious Freedom Restoration Act by a couple who cancelled their wedding at the Drake Hotel, losing their deposit, when the city of Chicago required proof of COVID vaccination for gatherings in large areas such as hotels and banquet halls. The couple had religious objections to receiving vaccines. The court held that because the city's Health Order included a religious exemption, plaintiffs had not alleged that the Order substantially burdened their religious practice or beliefs.  The couple contended that there was no ascertainable way for them to obtain a religious exemption from the city. The court responded:

[P]laintiffs point to nothing in their complaint or the health order itself to support a reasonable inference that the City of Chicago would not provide a religious exemption or that religious exemptions were impossible to receive. Their notion of impossibility amounts to an unreasonable interpretation of the Order—that the absence of more specific directions on how to obtain an exemption meant that no exemption was obtainable....

[A]fter two calls to the Corporation Counsel went unanswered, the plaintiffs summarily concluded that obtaining a religious exemption in time for their February 2022 wedding was “impossible.”... [T]his conclusion is not entitled to the assumption of truth....

Even if plaintiffs had been able to state a claim for violation of the Illinois Religious Freedom Restoration Act, their complaint only requests money damages and those damages are prohibited by the Illinois Tort Immunity Act.... . It is likely that the Illinois Supreme Court would hold that the ITIA protects local governments from damages claims under IRFRA.

Statutory Changes Allow Suit for Sex Abuse Against Jehovah's Witnesses Congregations

In C.P. v. Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses, (NJ App., Nov. 15, 2023), a New Jersey appellate court affirmed a trial court's denial of summary judgement to Jehovah's Witnesses congregations and governing bodies. Plaintiff C.P. was sexually abused by Charles, her grandfather.  During the years the abuse was occurring, Charles also served as an elder at two Jehovah's Witnesses congregations.  In a 1994 lawsuit, plaintiff was awarded over $2.2 million in damages from her grandfather. Subsequently New Jersey's Charitable Immunity Act and statute of limitations were amended so that plaintiff could now sue the congregations involved, and this suit followed.  The court explained:

According to plaintiff, defendants knew Charles had engaged in sexual conduct with at least three minors—including herself—but did not discipline him and negligently retained him as an elder—a spiritual leader and mentor. Plaintiff claims defendants knew incidents of sexual abuse by their agents was prevalent within their organizations but nevertheless protected Charles and other sexual abusers from criminal prosecution through "mandated secrecy" policies and practices. Plaintiff also alleges defendants owed a "special duty" to protect her from her grandfather's sexual criminal acts because they held themselves out as "being able to provide a safe environment" for children. Ultimately, plaintiff contends Charles was disfellowshipped—excommunicated as a result of reports about and his admission to sexual misconduct, and therefore, defendants engaged in willful, wanton, or grossly negligent conduct.

Defendants claimed that the "entire controversy doctrine" and judicial estoppel bar the present suit. The court disagreed, saying in part:

As the trial court found, the two litigations involve separate claims. The 1994 action sought damages for harm directly inflicted by Charles; the 2021 action seeks damages from defendants for claims of negligent hiring and retention, alleging defendants knew and allowed Charles—a known child abuser—to serve as an elder in their church, exposing children to sexual molestation.

2nd Circuit Remands Free Exercise Claim of Inmate Who Could Not Attend Religious Services

In Wiggins v. Griffin, (2d Cir., Nov. 20, 2023), the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals vacated and remanded a New York federal district court's dismissal of a suit against prison officials by a Baptist inmate who contends that his exercise of religion was burdened when there was a delay of over five months in updating the call-out list for Protestant religious services after plaintiff was moved to a new cellblock. Plaintiff was unable to attend religious services until the list was updated. Because one of the 3 judges on the appeals panel died after argument, the case was decided by a 2-judge panel. The court held that it did not need to decide whether plaintiff needed to show a "substantial burden" or just a "burden" on his free exercise rights since there was evidence from which a jury could find a substantial burden and defendants conceded that a substantial burden was present.  In a concurring opinion, Judge Menashi said in part:

In an appropriate case, we should hold that a prisoner alleging a violation of the Free Exercise Clause under § 1983 need only show a burden on sincerely held religious beliefs—not a “substantial” burden that involves showing that the beliefs are “central.” Three decades is too long for federal judges to be telling litigants which of their religious beliefs are “unimportant.”

The court remanded the case for a jury determination of whether defendants had qualified immunity, saying in part:

[A] jury may find that one or more Defendants purposefully ignored or delayed processing Wiggins’s requests, seeking to deny his participation in communal worship, or may have been deliberately indifferent to Wiggins’s requests. In such a scenario, they would have violated Wiggins’s clearly established right....  But, on the other hand, a Defendant may have simply missed Wiggins’s requests or failed to take extra steps to ensure they were processed. If so, qualified immunity may be appropriate.

The court went on to decide the state of mind necessary to show a violation of the 1st Amendment's free exercise clause: 

The First Amendment‘s command that government not “prohibit” the free exercise of religion... “connotes a conscious act, rather than a merely negligent one,”.... Given this understanding of the First Amendment, isolated acts of negligence cannot violate an individual’s free exercise of religion in this context....

Although mere negligence cannot support a First Amendment free exercise claim, we have previously held that deliberate indifference “clearly suffices.”...

With these principles to guide us, we affirm the district court’s dismissal of the claim against [prison Superintendent] Griffin. Wiggins sent Griffin two letters. Although Griffin left one letter unanswered, he quickly acted upon the second. ... [T]his evidence ... establishes (at most) that Griffin acted negligently in response to the first letter. Such a showing is insufficient. Whether the record suffices to permit a finding that any of the remaining [three] defendants were deliberately indifferent poses a closer question. Instead of single acts of negligence, the record contains sufficient evidence to allow a jury to conclude that one or more of the remaining defendants repeatedly failed to redress Wiggins’s exclusion from the call-out list....

President Issues Statement On Transgender Day of Remembrance

The White House today issued a Statement from President Joe Biden on Transgender Day of Remembrance (full text). The President said in part:

There is no place for hate in America and no one should be discriminated against simply for being themselves. Today, on Transgender Day of Remembrance we are reminded that there is more to do meet that promise, as we grieve the 26 transgender Americans whose lives were taken this year. While each one of these deaths is a tragedy – the true toll of those victimized is likely even higher, with the majority of those targeted being women of color.

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Caleb Acker, The Torcaso-Masterpiece Rule "As Such", (October 16, 2023).
• Anthony Michael Kreis, Patterns of Panic, (Saint Louis University Law Journal (forthcoming 2024) (Childress Lecture Symposium).
• Nausica Palazzo, Fedotova: Dawn of a New Era for European LGBTQ Families?. (Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law, Volume 30, Issue 2, April 2023, pp. 216-228).
• Maryam Jamshidi, The War on Terror and Vigilante Federalism, (Cornell Law Review, Vol. 108, No. 170, 2023).
• Paulo Roberto Arvate, Lisa Lenz & Sergio Mittlaender, Strategic Discrimination and the Emergence of Systematic Exclusion, (Empirical Economics, Forthcoming).
• Juan Carlos Riofrio Martinez-Villalba, Tom Angier’s Natural Law vs. the Natural Law Formula, (October 15, 2023).

From SmartCILP:

• Tamir Moustafa, Book Review. Islamic Law, Secularism, and the Modern State: Recasting a Scholarly Debate. Recasting Islamic Law: Religion and the Nation State in Egyptian Constitution Making, by Rachel M. Scott, 48 Law & Social Inquiry 713-717 (2023).
• Elise McLaren Villers, The Divine Right of Judges: How Christian Thought Shaped the American Judiciary, 54 St. Mary's Law Journal 609-628 (2023).

Michigan Agency Charges Hair Salon with Gender Identity Discrimination

The Michigan Department of Civil Rights this week filed a charge of sex (gender identity) discrimination on behalf of three claimants with the Michigan Civil Rights Commission. The complaint (full text) in Michigan Department of Civil Rights v. Studio 8 Hair Lab, LLC, (MI Civil Rts. Commn, filed 11/15/2023), says that a Traverse City hair salon posted the following on its business Facebook page:

If a human identifies as anything other than a man/woman please seek services at a local pet groomer. You are not welcome at this salon. Period. Should you request to have a particular pronoun used Please note we may simply refer to you as hey you,,,, This small business has a right to refuse services. We are not bound to any oaths as relators are regarding discrimination.

Follow-up postings included the statement: "There are 2 genders; anything more is a mental health issue." The complaint contends that this posting violates the public accommodation provisions of the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act. The Department of Civil Rights issued a press release announcing the filing of the discrimination charge.

Church Sues Challenging Fee for Water Connection

Suit was filed this week in a Texas state trial court by a church challenging a Houston-area utility district's insistence that the church pay a capital recovery fee of $83,780 rather than the actual cost of $24,900 to connect its new office building and auditorium to the district's water system. The district insists that the added fee "prevents taxpayers from bearing the burden of paying taxes on the bonds issued to construct water, sewer, and drainage facilities that also serve the Church." The complaint (full text) in Grace Community Church- The Woodlands, Inc. v. Southern Montgomery County Municipal Utility District, (TX Dist. Ct., filed 11/15/2023), alleges that the fee in excess of the actual cost of the connection amounts to an unlawful tax on a tax-exempt organization.  It also contends that the fee violates the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the First Amendment's free exercise clause. First Liberty issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Today Is 30th Anniversary of RFRA

Today is the 30th anniversary of President Bill Clinton's signing of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (Public Law 103-141). In his Remarks on Signing the Bill (full text), the President said in part:

It is interesting to note ... what a broad coalition of Americans came together to make this bill a reality; ... that coalition produced a 97-to-3 vote in the United States Senate and a bill that had such broad support it was adopted on a voice vote in the House. I’m told that, as many of the people in the coalition worked together across ideological and religious lines, some new friendships were formed and some new trust was established, which shows, I suppose, that the power of God is such that even in the legislative process miracles can happen. [Laughter]

We all have a shared desire here to protect perhaps the most precious of all American liberties, religious freedom. Usually the signing of legislation by a President is a ministerial act, often a quiet ending to a turbulent legislative process. Today this event assumes a more majestic quality because of our ability together to affirm the historic role that people of faith have played in the history of this country and the constitutional protections those who profess and express their faith have always demanded and cherished.

Biden Nominates First Muslim Federal Appeals Court Judge

The White House yesterday announced several nominations that President Biden intends to make to federal circuit and district courts. Among the nominations was that of Adeel A. Mangi to the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals.  As reported by NBC News, if confirmed by the Senate, Mangi will be the first Muslim American to serve on a federal appeals court.

Court Upholds Oregon's Rules for Approving Adoptive Parents Over Free Exercise and Free Speech Challenges

In Bates v. Pakseresht, (D OR, Nov. 14, 2023), an Oregon federal district court, in a 53-page opinion, rejected plaintiff's challenge to the state's denial of her application to be certified to adopt children through the Oregon Department of Human Services.  Plaintiff was denied certification because, consistent with her Christian religious beliefs, she would not agree to support an adoptive child's sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression. Rejecting plaintiff's free exercise claim, the court said in part:

A willingness to take in an LGBTQ+ child, but disavow their identity, cannot by analogy be compared to a business owner's willingness to provide some services, but not others, to LGBTQ+ individuals. To make such a claim demonstrates a lack of understanding of the importance of providing a child with the holistic support and care required to produce well-rounded and confident adults....

The court also rejected plaintiff's free speech claim, saying in part:

[T]he issue in this case is not that plaintiff is seeking to provide religious instruction to her child. She is seeking to provide religious instruction to a child in the care and custody of the state. She does not possess the same rights as a parent in this situation because the state is the de facto parent. Although plaintiff's ultimate goal is adoption, she is seeking a certification that grants her only the opportunity to house and care for a child under the state's umbrella of protection.

White House Summarizes Recent Initiatives to Combat Antisemitism and Islamophobia at Schools and Colleges

The White House yesterday issued a Fact Sheet: Biden-⁠Harris Administration Takes Action to Address Alarming Rise of Reported Antisemitic and Islamophobic Events at Schools and on College Campuses.  It announces recent initiatives and updated resources from the Department of Justice, the Department of Education, the Department of Agriculture, and the Department of Homeland Security to counter the increase in antisemitic and Islamophobic incidents at schools and colleges since the October 7 Hamas terrorist attacks in Israel.

New Jersey Will Allow Candidates To File With Secular Alternative To Oath of Allegiance

As previously reported, in early October a suit was filed in a New Jersey federal district court challenging the New Jersey requirement that candidates filing to run for public office sign an Oath of Allegiance that ends with the phrase "so help me God." In response to this lawsuit, on Oct. 24 the Acting Director of the New Jersey Division of Elections circulated a Memo (full text) to County Clerks stating that now candidates have the option of filing a solemn affirmation or declaration in lieu of an oath, and when that option is chosen, the words "so help me God" are to be omitted. This led the Freedom from Religion Foundation which is counsel for plaintiffs in the October lawsuit to file for voluntary dismissal of the suit.  New Jersey Monitor reports on these developments.

11th Circuit: No Bivens Remedy for Free Exercise Infringement by Government Contractor or Its Employees

 In Walker v. Dismas Charities, Inc., (11th Cir., Nov. 14,2023), the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected Free Exercise and 8th Amendment claims by an inmate serving part of his sentence for conspiracy to commit arson in home confinement. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Egbert v. Boule, the court concluded that there is no Bivens implied damages remedy under the Constitution in a suit against a corporate entity that has contracted with the government to supervise federal prisoners serving their federal criminal sentences in home detention....  The court also rejected the claim that a Bivens remedy lies against employees of the government contractor, saying in part:

Walker’s complaint seeks to extend the implied remedy against federal officials first recognized in Bivens to a new class of defendants: individual employees of government contractors. On top of that, he asks us to recognize an implied cause of action under the Constitution to claims brought by a person in home confinement as part of a federal criminal sentence alleging violations of his right to free exercise of religion under the First Amendment, his right to procedural due process under the Fifth Amendment, and his right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment. Because “a court is not undoubtedly better positioned than Congress to create” such a damages remedy, we conclude that Walker does not have an implied cause of action under the Constitution for his constitutional claims....