Pastor's Defamation Suit Dismissed On Ecclesiastical Abstention Grounds

In Weems v. Celebration Church of Jacksonville, Inc., (FL Cir. Ct., Sept. 28, 2022), a Florida state trial court dismissed on ecclesiastical abstention grounds a defamation lawsuit by the former pastor of Celebration Church. At issue is a report growing out of an internal investigation of the pastor commissioned by church trustees.

Plaintiffs’ current pleading invites this Court’s entanglement into Celebration Church’s internal matters....

In order to determine whether Celebration Church defamed Pastor Weems as currently alleged, this Court would need look to the time Pastor Weems was employed by the Church to see whether he did or did not partake in the actions as alleged by the Church and whether those actions were forbidden by the Church's bylaws and other internal policies.

Florida Times-Union reports on the decision.

COVID Vaccine Mandate Without Religious Exemption Is Upheld

In Does v. Hochul, (ED NY, Sept. 30, 2022), a New York federal district court dismissed challenges to New York's COVID vaccine mandate for healthcare workers brought by five employees with religious objections to the vaccine. In evaluating plaintiffs' free exercise claims, the court concluded that the regulation, which contains no religious exemption, is subject only to rational basis review, saying in part:

The plaintiffs argue that the mandate is not neutral because it includes a medical exemption, and thus “treats religious exemptions less favorably than some nonreligious exemptions;” in the plaintiffs’ words, this “double standard is not a neutral standard.”... 

Section 2.61 is neutral on its face. It does not refer to religion at all, and applies to “all persons employed or affiliated with a covered entity” who could “potentially expose other covered personnel, patients or residents to” COVID-19; the only exception is for employees with medical conditions that qualify for a medical exemption...

The rule at issue in this case involves no “singling out” of religious employees. Indeed, Section 2.61 applies equally to all employees who can be vaccinated safely, regardless of their religious beliefs or practices, whether they have political objections to the vaccine, or question their efficacy or safety, or any of the many other reasons that people choose not to get vaccinated....

The court also rejected plaintiffs' Title VII challenge, saying in part:

The sole “accommodation” the plaintiffs seek—a religious exemption from the vaccine requirement— would impose an undue hardship on the Private Defendants because it would require them to violate state law.

Village Residents Lack Standing In Establishment Clause Challenge To Zoning Law

In Citizens United to Protect Our Neighborhoods v. Village of Chestnut Ridge, New York, (SD NY, Sept. 30, 2022), a New York federal district court dismissed for lack of standing a suit by a civic organization and Village residents alleging that the Village's new zoning code violated the Establishment Clause by favoring one religious group, Orthodox Jews.  The Code created new categories of religious uses and houses of worship, including "residential gathering places" so that single-family homes could be opened for religious activities, subject to additional parking requirements. This facilitated small-scale worship services often used by Orthodox Jews who for religious reasons cannot drive on the Sabbath and holidays. The court said in part:

Plaintiffs claim the new zoning amendments “target religious uses with special favorable treatment over secular uses.” (Id.) However, Plaintiffs have not identified any injury, nonetheless a particularized and concrete one. The law is clear that generalized grievance is insufficient to establish standing....

Individual Plaintiffs claim they have direct exposure standing because the New Zoning Law was rushed into law and gives preferential treatment to OJC and religious uses over secular uses, such that “the construction of an untold number of houses of worship” will serve as “constant reminders of the law and its endorsement of religion.” ... This is an insufficient basis ... for finding direct exposure standing....

11th Circuit: City Council Invocation Is Government Speech

In Gundy v. City of Jacksonville Florida, (11th Cir., Sept. 30, 2022), the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of appeals held that an invocation opening a city council meeting delivered by Reginald Gundy, a pastor invited by a member of Council, is government speech.  At issue is a suit by the pastor whose microphone was cut off in the middle of his invocation by the city council president who concluded that the invocation had crossed over into a political attack. The court concluded that the pastor's suit should be dismissed, saying in part:

Mr. Gundy's appeal centers on the fact that he brought counts against Mr. Bowman and the City based on alleged violations of his free speech and free exercise rights under the United States Constitution and the Florida Constitution.

As a threshold and dispositive matter, ... we hold that the district court erred in deeming the invocation private speech in a nonpublic forum instead of government speech. And since Mr. Gundy did not allege a violation of his rights under the Establishment Clause, which is the proper constitutional vehicle to attack the government speech at issue here, his appeal must fail.

Certiorari Denied In Scientology Arbitration Case and Falun Gong Leafleting Case

Today's 48-page Order List from the U.S. Supreme Court on its opening day of the term includes the denial of review in two cases of interest:

Church of Scientology v. Bixler (Docket No. 22-60, cert. denied 10/3/2022): In the case, a California state appellate court held that former Church of Scientology members were not bound by their agreement to submit all disputes with the Church to the Church's Religious Arbitration system when the dispute involves conduct that occurred after plaintiffs left the Church. (See prior posting.)

Zhang Jingrong v. Chinese Anti-Cult World Alliance, Inc. (Docket No. 21-1429, cert. denied 10/3/2022) and Chinese Anti-Cult World Alliance, Inc. v. Zhang Jinrong (Docket No. 21-1556, cert. denied 10/3/2022)- In the case the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals held that five tables on the sidewalk in Flushing, Queens, New York where Falun Gong adherents passed out flyers and displayed posters were not a "place of religious worship" under the Freedom of Access To Clinics Entrances Act that prohibits intentionally injuring, intimidating, or interfering with anyone who is exercising 1st Amendment religious freedom rights “at a place of religious worship.” In addition, the cross-petition for review raised the issue of the validity of the statute under the commerce clause. (See prior posting.)

Special Permit Requirement Only For Houses Of Worship Violates 1st Amendment

In Omar Islamic Center Inc. v. City of Meriden, (D CT, Sept. 30, 2022), a Connecticut federal district court held that a zoning regulation that required places of worship to obtain a special permit to operate in areas zoned M-4 (Planned Industrial District) violates plaintiffs' 1st Amendment free exercise rights. Plaintiff sought to use a vacant commercial building as a mosque. The court said in part:

Regulations allowed hotels, motels, and convention centers, as well as numerous shops and stores including bakeries, restaurants, and theaters, to operate as of right in the M-4 district, without needing to apply for a special permit.... Places of worship, however, were required to obtain a special permit before opening their doors. It is clear to the Court that, under the test set forth by the Supreme Court in Tandon, at least some comparable secular activities were therefore treated more favorably than religious activities under the Regulations. Thus, the law is not neutral and generally applicable under free exercise principles, and it must be examined with strict scrutiny.

Defendants have not defended the law under either a rational basis or strict scrutiny standard. In fact, they have proffered no rationale underlying the law whatsoever.

The court also found that the regulation violated plaintiff's equal protection rights. The court refused to pass on plaintiff's RLUIPA claims because it was unclear whether or not plaintiff had an actual property interest in the building.

Qualified Immunity Protects Defendants Who Denied Religious Exemptions From COVID Vaccine Mandate

In Jane Does 1-11 v. Board of Regents of the University of Colorado, (D CO, Sept. 29, 2022), a Colorado federal district court dismissed a number of claims by current and former students and employees of the University of Colorado who were denied religious exemptions from the University's COVID vaccine mandate. Some of the claims were dismissed on mootness and sovereign immunity grounds. Other claims were dismissed on qualified immunity grounds, with the court saying in part:

Given the unprecedented nature and global scope of the Covid-19 pandemic as well as its devastating impacts, the Court finds the allegations in the Complaint do not establish that these Defendants acted unreasonably in light of existing precedent and in the specific context of this case. Therefore, at a minimum, they did not violate Plaintiffs’ clearly established rights.

Supreme Court Opens Its October 2022 Term Today

The Supreme Court opens its new term this morning.  Washington Times reports that the traditional Red Mass that precedes the Court's new term was held yesterday at Washington's Cathedral of St. Matthew the Apostle.  Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Barret and retired Justice Breyer attended. Among the cases already on the Court's docket for this term is 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis (SCOTUS blog case page). The date for its oral argument has not yet been set. In the case, the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the application of Colorado's Anti-Discrimination Act to a wedding website design company whose owner for religious reasons refuses to create websites that celebrate same-sex marriages. (See prior posting.) The Court granted review only on the free speech issue in the case. The Court will continue to broadcast live audio feed of oral arguments at this link. We can also expect the traditional First Monday long Order List to be released this morning.

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• David Schorr, History, Theory, and Jewish Tort Law: Sinai and Shmueli's Maimonides and Contemporary Tort Theory, (Jewish Law Annual, Forthcoming).
• Nicholas McBride, The Nature of Evil, (September 10, 2022).
• Joshua Neoh, The Allah Case: What is the Name of God?, (Law and Religion in the Commonwealth (Hart, 2022)).
• Robert W. McGee, Serkan Benk & Bahadir Yuzbasi, Religious Attitudes Toward Bribery: A Comparative Study (Chapter 2, Chapter 3, Chapter 4, Chapter 5, Chapter 6, Chapter 7, Chapter 8, by McGee & Benk,  Chapter 38, Chapter 39, (in Robert W. McGee & Serkan Benk (Eds.), The Ethics of Bribery: Theoretical and Empirical Studies. Switzerland: Springer, Forthcoming).
• Wendy Bach & Nicolas P. Terry, HIPAA v. Dobbs, (September 15, 2022).
• Joseph Cyriac & Ashim Alex, An Outlook into Cultural Hypocrisy and Caste Transformation in India, (August 31, 2022).
• Mayowa Aroyewun, Challenges and Prospects of Cryptocurrency in Islamic Finance in Nigeria, (October 8, 2021).
• Nicholas McBride, The Nature of Evil, (September 10, 2022).
• Miranda Webster & Rosemary Teele Langford, An Analysis of the ACNC's Approach to Compliance and Enforcement, (September 13, 2022).

From SmartCILP:

• Russell K. Robinson, What Christianity Loses When Conservative Christians Win at the Supreme Court, [Abstract], 2021 Supreme Court Review 185-224 (2021).
• Lee Epstein & Eric A. Posner, The Roberts Court and the Transformation of Constitutional Protections for Religion: A Statistical Portrait, 2021 Sup. Ct. Rev. 315-348 (2021).

6th Circuit Affirms That County Clerk Kim Davis Had No Qualified Immunity Defense

In Ermold v. Davis, (6th Cir., Sept. 29, 2022), the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a Kentucky federal district court decision that Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis does not have qualified immunity in a suit against her for stopping the issuance of all marriage licenses to avoid issuing licenses to same-sex couples. The court said in part:

[P]laintiffs have not only “alleged” but also now “shown” that Davis violated their constitutional right to marry.... And, as we held three years ago, that right was “clearly established in Obergefell.”

The court held that insofar as Davis has raised a free exercise defense under the First Amendment, that issue should be resolved when the case goes to trial and not at the current motion-to-dismiss stage. [Thanks to Thomas Rutledge for the lead.]

Courtroom Invocations Did Not Violate Establishment Clause [UPDATED]

In Freedom From Religion Foundation v. Mack, (5th Cir., Sept. 29, 2022), the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals held that a program devised by a Justice of the Peace under which his court sessions are opened with a prayer from a volunteer chaplain does not violate the Establishment Clause. The court said in part:

The plaintiffs cry coercion because Texas Justice of the Peace Wayne Mack opens his court with a ceremony that includes a prayer. But Mack also takes great pains to convince attendees that they need not watch the ceremony—and that doing so will not affect their cases. Some attendees say they feel subjective pressure anyway. Yet the plaintiffs have no evidence suggesting that “coercion is a real and substantial likelihood.” Town of Greece v. Galloway, 572 U.S. 565, 590 (2014).

Want of evidence showing coercion dooms their case. In holding otherwise, the district court disregarded the Supreme Court’s most recent guidance.

First Liberty Institute issued a press release announcing the decision.  The 5th Circuit had previously granted a stay which allowed the invocations to go on while the case was on appeal.

UPDATE: This was a 2-1 decision. Judge Jolly filed an opinion dissenting in part.  He argued that the case needed to be sent back to the district court for additional fact finding.  He criticized the majority's opinion, saying in part:

Plaintiffs have produced considerable evidence showing that Judge Mack conducts his opening prayer and other religious ceremonies “in such a way as to oblige the participation of objectors.” ...  For the majority to find that there is no evidence of coercion, suggests, in my opinion, willful blindness and indisputable error....

[D]espite digging into the history books, the majority’s opinion comes up dry on historical precedent.... [And] the majority inaccurately presents recent Supreme Court precedent.

DC Circuit Hears Oral Arguments From Abortion Protesters

On Wednesday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit heard oral arguments (audio of full oral arguments) in Frederick Douglass Foundation, Inc. v. DC.  In the case, a D.C. federal district court dismissed claims that enforcing ordinances prohibiting the defacing property against anti-abortion protesters but not against racial-justice protesters violated free exercise and free speech protections.  The abortion protesters sought to paint or chalk D.C. streets with the slogan "Black Pre-Born Lives Matter." (See prior posting.) An ADF press release has more on the case.

Jewish Plaintiffs Challenge New York's Ban On Firearms In Places of Worship Or Religious Observation

Suit was filed yesterday in a New York federal district court challenging the constitutionality of recently enacted New York Penal Law §265.01-e which bans possession of a firearm, rifle or shotgun in "any place of worship or religious observation." The suit was brought by a modern Orthodox Jewish synagogue, its president and another Jewish individual. The complaint (full text) in Goldstein v. Hochul, (SD NY, filed 9/29/2022) details a number of recent incidents of violence against Jews and alleges in part:

91. Penal Law § 265.01-2(2)(c) discriminates against religious beliefs and regulates and prohibits conduct because it is undertaken for religious reasons.

92. The Statute makes it more dangerous to attend a “sensitive location” than it would be had that law not been enacted, because it strips away the ability for people in that sensitive location to defend themselves. The Statute singles out religious locations for this elevated, state-sanctioned, danger. This acts as a deterrent for law-abiding people to enter such “sensitive locations,” including places of worship....

94. By singling out places of worship and religious observation for reduced Second Amendment rights, the Statute constitutes a religious gerrymander....

The suit also alleges that the statute is unconstitutionally vague, saying in part:

111. As observant Jews, nearly every location is a place of religious observation for plaintiffs Goldstein and Ornstein....

It also contends that the law violates the Second Amendment, the Equal Protection Clause and various provisions of the New York State Constitution. Hamodia reports on the lawsuit.

City Employees Did Not Show Sincere Religious Objection To COVID Vaccine

In Keene v. City and County of San Francisco, (ND CA, Sept. 23, 2022), a California federal district court dismissed a suit by two city employees who objected on religious grounds to the city's COVID vaccine mandate. The court said in part:

Neither Plaintiff has demonstrated that their religious beliefs are sincere or that those beliefs conflict with receiving the COVID-19 vaccine. There are no grounds upon which to assert the mistaken conclusion that the FDA-approved vaccines contain fetal cells or are otherwise derived from murdered babies.... Feeling passionately about something or having a specific personal preference does not merit the status of a sincere religious belief....

The court denied a preliminary injunction under Title VII and California's Fair Employment and Housing Law, also concluding: 

It is well-settled law that loss of employment does not constitute irreparable harm for purposes of an injunction....

Suit By Mosque Over Zoning Denials Can Move Ahead

In Adam Community Center v. City of Troy, (ED MI, Sept. 28., 2022), a Michigan federal district court refused to dismiss RLUIPA and constitutional claims against the city of Troy, Michigan. Plaintiff alleged wrongful denial of necessary zoning variances so plaintiff could use its property for Muslim religious services and classes. The court said in part:

Plaintiff has identified pieces of circumstantial evidence that may lead a fact-finder to conclude Troy acted with discriminatory animus towards Muslims. Thus, a question of fact on this claim exists and summary judgment is denied....

[T]here exists a question of fact for trial as to whether ZO § 6.21 was actually applied in a neutral manner or whether it was applied for the purpose of excluding Muslim assemblies from Troy...

The record contains ample evidence to support Adam’s contention that Troy’s stated reasons for denying Adam’s variance application were pretextual and intended to prevent Adam from opening a mosque in the City. Thus, a factfinder could conclude that Adam’s constitutional rights were violated.

The court previously concluded that the city had violated the equal terms and substantial burden provisions of RLUIPA, and now ordered a hearing on damages for those violations. Detroit News reports on the decision.

Suit Challenges California's Linking Of Hinduism With Caste System

A Hindu advocacy organization has filed suit in a California federal district court challenging allegations in the California Civil Rights Department's enforcement actions against caste discrimination that link the caste system to Hinduism. The complaint (full text) in Hindu American Foundation, Inc. v. Kish, (ED CA, filed 9/20/2022), alleges in part:

[A] caste system or discrimination on its basis are in no way a legitimate part of Hindu beliefs, teachings, or practices. 

HAF vehemently opposes all types of discrimination; and takes great exception to the State of California defaming and demeaning all of Hinduism by attempting to conflate a discriminatory caste system with the Hindu religion. 

Worse, California defames Hinduism by doing what the U.S. Constitution says it cannot, assert a government right to resolve questions of religious doctrine....

As a result, the CRD’s violation of the First Amendment rights of all Hindu Americans ... would likely lead employers to actively  discriminate against Hindu and South Asian Americans in order to avoid the undefined maze of  legal uncertainty that would be California’s caste-discrimination bar....

Stopping caste-based discrimination is a worthy goal that directly furthers Hinduism’s belief in the equal and divine essence of all people. But wrongly tying Hindu beliefs and practices to the abhorrent practice of caste-discrimination undermines that goal, violates the First Amendment rights of all Hindu-Americans, and can only lead to a denial of due process and  equal protection to Americans based on their religious affiliation and national origin.

(See prior related posting.) Hindu American Foundation issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Texas Supreme Court: Enforceability Of Islamic Pre-Nup Must Be Decided Before Ordering Arbitration

In In re Ayad, (TX Sup. Ct., Sept. 23, 2022), the Texas Supreme Court held that the trial court should determine the validity and enforceability of an Islamic Pre-Nuptial Agreement before, rather than after, ordering the parties to arbitration by a Fiqh Panel pursuant to the agreement. In a divorce proceeding, the wife challenged the enforceability of the agreement on various grounds, including that the term "Islamic Law" is too indefinite and that the Agreement is void as violating public policy. Volokh Conspiracy discusses the decision. [Thanks to Steven H. Sholk for the lead.]

3rd Circuit Remands RLUIPA Challenge To Sex-Offender Treatment Program

In Robins v. Wetzel, (3d Cir., Sept. 28, 2022), the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the dismissal of a portion of a Pennsylvania federal district court opinion in a suit in which an inmate challenged the sex offender treatment program that was required for his release on parole.  The program required him to admit his guilt. According to the court:

Although he was willing to admit that he engaged in sexual relations with his wife, who was a minor child at the time, he was unwilling to admit that that conduct was illegal....

He contended that:

[M]arriage was a sacred tenet of his religion, and he could not admit the illegality of his sexual conduct, which he construed as denouncing his religious marital vows, without violating his religious beliefs.

The court held:

[T]his Court has not had occasion to consider an acceptance-of-responsibility component of a sex-offender treatment program in the context of RLUIPA or RFRA. Given the lack of controlling precedent, we ... remand for the District Court to address the RLUIPA and RFRA claims in the first instance.

California Governor Signs New Laws Protecting Abortion Rights

Yesterday California Governor Gavin Newsom signed a package of 13 additional bills to strengthen abortion rights in the state.  According to a press release from his office, these laws will:

further protect people from legal retaliation and prohibit law enforcement and corporations from cooperating with out-of-state entities regarding lawful abortions in California, while also expanding access to contraception and abortion providers in California.

The press release details each of the new laws.

Alabama High School Athletic Association Changes Rules To Accommodate Sabbath Observance

1819 News reports that yesterday the Alabama High School Athletic Association voted to amend its rules to accommodate religious requests for scheduling changes. The rule change comes in response to a lawsuit filed in May by Oakwood Adventist Academy after it was forced to forfeit a Saturday afternoon 1A high school playoff game that conflicted with its Sabbath observance. Becket issued a press release announcing the rule change.