HHS Issues Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Conscience Protections For Healthcare Providers

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services released yesterday a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (full text) titled Safeguarding the Rights of Conscience as Protected by Federal Statutes. In 2019, the Trump Administration HHS adopted final rules on protecting the conscience rights of health care providers. The rules were criticized as possibly imperiling care for persons seeking reproductive health care, weakening childhood vaccination efforts and potentially leading to discrimination against gay and transgender patients. (See prior posting.) Several courts enjoined enforcement of the 2019 rules. (See prior posting.) Yesterday's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking says in part:

The Department also proposes to retain, with some modifications, certain provisions of the 2019 Final Rule regarding federal conscience protections but eliminate others because they are redundant or confusing, because they undermine the balance Congress struck between safeguarding conscience rights and protecting access to health care access, or because significant questions have been raised as to their legal authorization. Further, the Department seeks to determine what additional regulations, if any, are necessary to implement certain conscience protection laws. The Department is seeking public comment on the proposal to retain certain provisions of the 2019 Final Rule, including on any alternative approaches for ensuring compliance with the conscience protection laws....

The ACLU issued a press release calling the HHS Notice "an important first step toward repealing the most harmful aspects of this dangerous rule."

Court Approves Bankruptcy Reorganization Plan for Santa Fe Archdiocese

The Catholic Archdiocese of Santa Fe, New Mexico announced yesterday that a U.S. Bankruptcy Court has confirmed a Plan of Reorganization that has been agreed to by the Committee representing victims of clergy abuse and by the Archdiocese. According to an Open Letter from the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors recommending that abuse victims vote to accept the plan:

Under the Plan, the Debtor, its affiliates and their insurers will create a settlement fund of approximately $121.5 million (the “Settlement Amount”) upon the effective date of the Plan. The Plan also includes measures to enhance child protection, including the first-ever publication of abuse related documents through an archive administered by the University of New Mexico.

All the Chapter 11 Plan Documents are available on the Archdiocese's website. In announcing the court's confirmation of the plan, Archbishop Wester said in part:

While I hope and pray that the bankruptcy outcome will bring a measure of justice and relief to the victims of clergy sexual abuse, I realize that nothing can ever compensate them for the criminal and horrendous abuse they endured. I pledge that the Archdiocese of Santa Fe will remain vigilant in protecting children and young people from clergy sexual abuse, doing all we can to assure them of a safe and protective environment in the Catholic Church. We will continue to monitor the safeguards we have put in place and implement the non-monetary agreements....

Once again, I express my most profound sorrow and contrition for those who have endured clergy sexual abuse. This is a sin that cries to heaven for vengeance and which has no place in the Catholic Church: not now, not ever.

AP reports on the court's action and has additional background on the proceedings. 

Christian School Teacher Fired for Acceptance of LGBT Students Files Suit

Suit was filed this week in an Arizona federal district court by Adam McDorman, an English teacher who was fired by Valley Christian School for urging the school's principal, Josh LeSage, to show acceptance and understanding of a student who identifies as pansexual.  The complaint (full text) in McDorman v. Valley Christian Schools, (D AZ, filed 12/27/2022), alleges in part:

15. McDorman’s Christian faith and beliefs include acceptance and equality for all LGBT persons and do not tolerate discrimination or hostility against them....

19.  On November 1, 2021, during a staff meeting at which McDorman was present, LeSage said that all of VCS staff should have the same religious belief in the sinfulness of LGBT sexual orientation, and that anyone who did not agree was like a cancer that needed to be removed from the (VCS) organization....

The complaint alleges that McDorman's firing amounted to religious discrimination and retaliation for opposing discriminatory practices in violation of provisions of Title VII and Title IX. AZFamily News reports on the lawsuit.

6th Circuit: Healthcare Buffer Zone Law Violates Pro-Lifer's Free Speech Rights

In Sisters for Life, Inc. v. Louisville-Jefferson County, KY Metro Government, (6th Cir., Dec. 21, 2022), the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals held that an ordinance imposing a 10-foot buffer zone around the entrance of any healthcare facility abridges the free speech rights of pro-life groups and individuals who wish to hand out leaflets and speak with women entering abortion clinics. The court said in part:

Even though caselaw permits a city to enact access laws focused on abortion facilities, ... the County sought to advance its interests by imposing a buffer zone on all medical facilities in Louisville. And why? The record does not reveal access problems beyond EMW.... Yet the ordinance covers every single hospital, clinic, and dentist’s office in the area.... Because the County may not “burden substantially more speech than is necessary” to further the County’s order and access interests,..., and because the County has not made any showing that all medical facilities need this kind of regulation, the ordinance lacks any tailoring, to say nothing of narrow tailoring.... 

The second problem is that the County has not shown that it “seriously undertook to address” its concerns “with less intrusive tools.”... [T]he County offers no tenable... explanation why the first prohibition in the law—that no one shall “knowingly obstruct, detain, hinder, impede, or block another person’s entry to or exit from a healthcare facility,”... will not work.

Rejection of Foster Parent Applicants Over Their Views on Homosexuality Violates Australian Equal Opportunity Law

In Hordyk v. Wanslea Family Services, Inc., (WA SAT, Dec. 23, 2022), the State Administrative Tribunal of Western Australia held that a non-profit family services agency that contracts with the state to arrange foster care for children placed in custody of the state violated Section 62 of the Western Australia Equal Opportunity Act 1984 when it rejected a couple who are members of the Free Reformed Church of Australia as foster parents. According to the court:

4, During the assessment process, the Hordyks revealed, in answer to specific questions asked of them, that they held the view that the Seventh Commandment in the Old Testament of the Bible requires sexual relationships to take place only between a man and woman who are married and that other expressions of human sexuality are sinful. The Hordyks believe that same-sex relationships are sinful and that people who feel same-sex attraction must fight the sin in order to live in conformity with the Commandments. They informed Wanslea that, as a result of their beliefs, in the event that a foster child who had been placed in their care was found kissing a child of the same sex at school, they would tell the child that they were loved but that the behaviour was sinful and needed to be resisted. The Hordyks said they would have to end the placement of a foster child who continued to behave in that way. They qualified that statement by saying that they would not terminate the placement immediately but could not foster that child in the long term.

5.  Following the Hordyks' expression of those views, Wanslea's staff decided not to proceed to a final assessment of the Hordyks' application and instead terminated the assessment process....

Law and Religion Australia reports at greater length on the decision.

6th Circuit: Temporary Shortening of Prison Worship Time Upheld

In Dykes-Bey v. Schroeder, (6th Cir., Dec. 27, 2022), the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of a suit brought under the 1st Amendment and RLUIPA by a Michigan inmate, concluding that the Michigan prison system had not imposed a "substantial burden" on the inmate's free exercise of religion. According to the court:

[D]efendants reduced the worship time for all religious groups from one hour to 30 minutes. As a result of this reduction in worship time, Dykes-Bey, a Moorish American Moslem, was unable to read the proclamation or conduct the closing prayer at four weekly meetings of the Moorish Science Temple of America....

Finding no 1st Amendment violation, the court said in part: 

Dykes-Bey sufficiently alleged a sincerely held religious belief or practice—reading the proclamation and conducting the closing prayer at meetings of the Moorish Science Temple of America. But the defendants' conduct did not rise to the level of a substantial burden on his religious exercise....

Focusing on plaintiff's RLUIPA claim, the court said in part:

Dykes-Bey sought only monetary relief from the defendants, which is not authorized by RLUIPA.

State Department Gets Broader Authority to Pay Rewards in War Crimes, Crimes Against Humanity and Genocide Cases

Yesterday President Biden signed into law H.R.4250 (full text) which expands the Department of State War Crimes Rewards Program that allows the State Department to pay rewards to persons who furnish information leading to the arrest or conviction in any country, or by an international criminal tribunal, of any foreign national accused of war crimes, crimes against humanity, or genocide. Previously 22 USC §2708(b)(10) had a seemingly artificial limitation on when a reward could be paid.  It was authorized only when the defendant was convicted of these crimes as defined by the statute setting up the international criminal tribunal involved.  The new law expands this to allow rewards when the defendant is convicted in another country or by an international tribunal of war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide as defined by "(A) the statute of such country or tribunal, as the case may be; or (B) United States law".

EEOC Sues For Rastafarian Who Was Denied Grocery Manager Position

The EEOC has announced that yesterday it filed a Title VII religious discrimination suit against a Williamsburg, Kentucky IGA grocery store.  The suit, filed in a Kentucky federal district court, alleges that the grocery refused to hire Spiritualist Rastafarian Matthew Barnett as an assistant manager after he refused to cut his dreadlocks which he wears for religious reasons. The EEOC says that employers must consider reasonable accommodations for religious beliefs.

New Ohio Law Focuses on Zoom-Bombing and Other Disruptions of Religious Services

As reported by JTA, the Ohio legislature in its final session earlier this month gave final passage to H.B. 504 (full text) amending the ban on disturbing a lawful meeting to increase penalties and to focus specifically on disturbing religious services.  The Act now provides in part:

Disturbing a lawful meeting is a misdemeanor of the first degree if either of the following applies:

(1) The violation is committed with the intent to disturb or disquiet any assemblage of people met for religious worship at a tax-exempt place of worship, regardless of whether the conduct is within the place at which the assemblage is held or is on the property on which that place is located and disturbs the order and solemnity of the assemblage.

(2) The violation is committed with the intent to prevent, disrupt, or interfere with a virtual meeting or gathering of people for religious worship, through use of a computer, computer system, telecommunications device, or other electronic device or system, or in any other manner.

Clause (2) of this section is particularly aimed at the practice of Zoom-bombing religious services that are being held online. Zoom-bombing has especially been used during the COVID pandemic to create antisemitic disruptions of online synagogue services.  In Ohio, a first-degree misdemeanor is punishable by up to 6 months in jail and a fine of up to $1000.

Utah Supreme Court Says Order in Divorce Proceeding on Children's Religious Teaching Is Too Broad

Kingston v. Kingston, (UT Sup. Ct., Dec. 22, 2022), is a challenge by Ryan Kingston to a trial court's order in a divorce proceeding that barred him from encouraging his children to adopt the teachings of any religion without the consent of his former wife, Jessica. According to the Court:

At the time of their marriage, Ryan and Jessica were both members of the Order, also known as the Kingston Group, a polygamous religious community. Ryan remains a member of the Order today, but Jessica left the Order before the divorce.

During the divorce proceedings, the teachings and practices of the Order became a key issue as both Ryan and Jessica sought custody of their four children.

In a 3-2 decision, the Court remanded the case to the trial court for it to "craft a more narrowly tailored remedy." The majority said in part:

 [W]e agree with Jessica that the State has a compelling interest in shielding the children from psychological harm. The district court found that "[t]he Order's religious teachings jeopardize the health or safety of the children, and will cause harm to the children's welfare." Specifically, the court identified two potentially substantial harms to the children associated with Ryan's religious beliefs: (1) grooming of the children for early marriage; and (2) exposure to Order teachings that ostracize outsiders and demonize those who have left the group, including Jessica. Protecting the children from these harms is a compelling state interest....

The district court's prohibition is broader than necessary to prevent the identified potential harms to the children. The court prohibited Ryan from "encourag[ing] [the children] to adopt the teachings of any religion" without Jessica's consent. This prohibition applies broadly to "the teachings of any religion," but the court only identified specific harms associated with the Order. As written, the prohibition would prevent Ryan from teaching the children the Lord's Prayer or encouraging them to adopt the teachings of Islam. Based on a plain language reading of the prohibition, Ryan would have to seek Jessica's consent before engaging in either of these activities. The prohibition cannot be described as "narrowly tailored" when it reaches far beyond the compelling interest it is meant to address....

 Associate Chief Justice Pearce filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justice Peterson.  They said in part:

[S]trict scrutiny is the wrong test to apply.... I would follow the Utah Code and analyze whether the district court found, by a preponderance of the evidence, real or substantiated potential harm to the child if the parent is allowed to participate in the child's religious upbringing.....

There is absolutely no evidence in the record that Ryan's objection to the district court's order is fueled by a desire to read the Quran to his children or to lead them in the Lord's Prayer....

... I respectfully dissent and would affirm the district court's order.

Top 10 Religious Liberty and Church-State Developments of 2022

Each year in December, I attempt to pick the most important church-state and religious liberty developments of the past year.  My choices are based on the importance of the pick to law or policy, regardless of whether the development has garnered significant media attention. The selection of top stories obviously involves a good deal of subjective judgment. Here is a somewhat different list of top stories and newsmakers from the Religion News Association, the professional association of religion journalists. I welcome e-mail comment at religionclause@gmail.com on my choices. Here are my Top Ten picks:

1. In the Dobbs decision, the Supreme Court overrules Roe v. Wade after premature leak of Court's opinion. Newly imposed abortion restrictions are challenged on Free Exercise grounds by clergy and religious organizations with pro-choice beliefs. Some states act to ensure abortion rights.

2. In Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, Supreme Court repudiates the Lemon test for Establishment Clause violations.

3. In Carson v. Makin, Supreme Court says exclusion of sectarian schools from tuition reimbursement program violates Free Exercise clause.

4. Antisemitic incidents in the U.S. increase. White House creates inter-agency group to counter antisemitism.

5. Numerous lawsuits seek religious exemptions from COVID vaccine mandates. Congress in National Defense Authorization Act orders military to rescind its mandate.

6. Congress enacts Respect for Marriage Act, codifying recognition of same-sex and interracial marriages.

7. Accommodation of transgender students and treatment of minors with gender dysphoria remain highly charged political and legal issues.

8. Battles continue over whether anti-discrimination provisions of Title IX, the Affordable Care Act, and some state laws cover discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, and scope of exemptions from those provisions for religious institutions.

9. In Ramirez v. Collier, Supreme Court recognizes rights of pastor to lay hands on the prisoner and audibly pray with him during his execution.

10. In Shurtleff v. City of Boston, Supreme Court holds that group's free speech rights were violated by refusing to allow it to briefly fly its Christian flag from City Hall flagpole which is open to other groups for their ceremonies.

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Christopher C. Lund, Second-Best Free Exercise, (Fordham Law Review, Vol. 91, p. 843 (2022)).
• Mohammad Omar Farooq, Future of Islamic Finance as an Islam-Compliant and not just a Sharia-Compliant Phenomenon, (Global Islamic Finance Report: GIFR 2022 - Futurism in Islamic Finance, Cambridge Institute of Islamic Finance, London, UK, 68-79).
• Assaf Likhovski, Top-Hatted Halakhah: Discussion of The Invention of Jewish Theocracy,  (Jerusalem Review of Legal Studies 25 (2022): 159–72).
• John Banister, On Performativity and Compelled Commercial Speech: Toward a Workable Standard,,  (Communication Law Review 2022).
• Derek W. Black, Religion, Discrimination, and the Future of Public Education, (UC Irvine Law Review, Forthcoming).
• Husnu Al Suood, An Overview of the Development of Maldivian Contract Law and its Sources, (December 13, 2022).
• Tarun Jain, Tax Exemptions for Charities: Indian Supreme Court Expounds the Law, (November 3, 2022).
• A. K. M. Raquibul Hasan, Prospects and Challenges of Issuance of Sukuk in Bangladesh: Lessons from Malaysia for Developing a Comprehensive Legal Framework for Bangladesh, (Dhaka University Law Journal, Vol: 33, Issue:1, June 2022, pp.163-184).

From SmartCILP:

• Ronit Levine-Schnur, Political Divide, Weak Property Rights, and Infrastructure Provision: An Empirical Examination of Takings Decisions in Jerusalem, 47 Law & Social Inquiry 821-856 (2022).
• Mark Fathi Massoud, Book Review. The Search for Universal Laws. The Universal Enemy: Jihad, Empire, and the Challenge of Solidarity, by Darryl Li, 47 Law & Social Inquiry 1069-1074 (2022).
• Nafay Choudhury, Book Review. Shari'a, Inshallah: Finding God in Somali Legal Politics, by Mark F. Massoud, 56 Law & Society Review 500-501 (2022).
• Anthony Paul Farley, Critical Race Theory & the Gospels, 66 St. Louis University Law Journal 721-738 (2022).

FDA Approves Label Change for Plan B Emergency Contraceptive: Not an Abortifacient

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration announced on Friday that it has approved a labeling change for the emergency contraceptive Plan B One-Step, sometimes known as the morning-after pill.  The labeling change states clearly that the medication is not an abortifacient.  The FDA says in part:

Plan B One-Step will not work if a person is already pregnant, meaning it will not affect an existing pregnancy. Plan B One-Step prevents pregnancy by acting on ovulation, which occurs well before implantation. Evidence does not support that the drug affects implantation or maintenance of a pregnancy after implantation, therefore it does not terminate a pregnancy.

The original label had been required to say in part: "this product works mainly by preventing ovulation (egg release). It may also prevent fertilization of a released egg (joining of sperm and egg) or attachment of a fertilized egg to the uterus (implantation)."

The FDA supports its conclusion that it does not affect implantation with a detailed Decisional Memorandum discussing more recent studies of the drug.

In the extensive litigation challenging rules under the Affordable Care Act that mandated health insurance policies cover contraceptive methods for women, religious objectors had pointed to Plan B as one of the medications that they considered an abortifacient because it could prevent implantation of a fertilized egg.  Also, since the Supreme Court's Dobbs case, abortion bans in some states might possibly be broad enough to cover medication that prevents implantation.

In a 2015 Memorandum, relying on research available at that time, the Catholic Medical Association rejected the use of Plan B even after a rape. AP reports on the FDA's approval of the labeling change.

DC Circuit: Marines Must Accommodate Sikh Recruits in Boot Camp

In Singh v. Berger, (DC Cir., Dec. 23, 2022), the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals granted a preliminary injunction to two Sikh Marine Corps recruits who seek an accommodation to wear unshorn hair, beards and certain articles of faith during boot camp training. The court, relying on RFRA, said in part:

So the Plaintiffs’ likelihood of success comes down to whether the Marine Corps has demonstrated a compelling interest accomplished by the least restrictive means in refusing to accommodate their faith for the thirteen weeks of boot camp. The Marine Corps has failed to meet its burden on both fronts....

[T]he Marine Corps argues that excepting the Plaintiffs from the repeated ritual of shaving their faces and heads alongside fellow recruits, and permitting them to wear a head covering, will impede its compelling interest in forging unit cohesion and a uniform mindset during boot camp....

... Colonel Jeppe’s claimed compelling need for inflexible grooming uniformity does not stand up against the “system of exceptions” to boot camp grooming rules that the Corps has already created and that seriously “undermine[]” the Corps’ contention that it “can brook no departures” for Plaintiffs....

To sum up, Plaintiffs have demonstrated not just a likely, but an overwhelming, prospect of success on the merits of their RFRA claim. At a general level, the Government has certainly articulated a compelling national security interest in training Marine Corps recruits to strip away their individuality and adopt a team-oriented mindset committed to the military mission and defense of the Nation. But RFRA requires more than pointing to interests at such a broad level.... The Marine Corps has to show that its substantial burdening of these Plaintiffs’ religion furthers that compelling interest by the least restrictive means. That is where the Marine Corps has come up very short.... 

Becket issued a press release announcing the decision.

Court Dismisses Hindu Organization's Defamation Suit

In Hindu American Foundation v. Viswanath, (D DC, Dec. 20, 2022), the D.C. federal district court dismissed a defamation suit brought by a Hindu advocacy organization against five individuals who are critics of the current Indian government's alleged treatment of Muslims and other religious minorities. In the case, Hindu American Foundation alleged that its reputation was damaged, and it lost donations, after the publication of articles in Al Jazeera in which defendants described HAF as being sympathetic to Hindu supremacist ideology.  Defendants also criticized HAF's receipt of federal COVID relief funds. The court held that it lacks jurisdiction over four of the defendants because they failed to have sufficient connections to meet the jurisdictional requirements of the D.C. long-arm statute. As to the fifth defendant, the court held that as a limited purpose public figure, HAF needed to plead actual malice. It failed to do so.  It also concluded that defendant's statements were expressions of opinion or rhetorical hyperbole, not verifiably false statements of fact. American Bazaar reports on the decision.

President Biden Delivers Christmas Address

Yesterday President Biden delivered his Christmas Address to the Nation (full text). He said in part:

And we look to the sky, to a lone star, shining brighter than all the rest, guiding us to the birth of a child — a child Christians believe to be the son of God; miraculously now, here among us on Earth, bringing hope, love and peace and joy to the world....

The Christmas story is at the heart of the Christmas — Christian faith.  But the message of hope, love, peace, and joy, they’re also universal.

It speaks to all of us, whether we’re Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist, or any other faith, or no faith at all.  It speaks to all of us as human beings who are here on this Earth to care for one another, to look out for one another, to love one another....

I sincerely hope ... this holiday season will drain the poison that has infected our politics and set us against one another.

I hope this Christmas season marks a fresh start for our nation, because there is so much that unites us as Americans, so much more that unites us than divides us.

Court Remands Question of Accommodating Religious Objection to COVID Testing

In In re Whitehead, (NJ App,, Dec. 22, 2022), a New Jersey state appellate court remanded to the state Civil Service Commission for further findings an appeal by a city zoning officer whose employment was terminated after she refused to be tested for COVID in order to return to work.  Plaintiff's refusal of testing was based on her religious beliefs which the court described:

She explained her refusal to undergo the test is founded on her belief the testing is required because of a fear she may be infected with COVID-19, and that fear is inconsistent with her religious belief that "God has not given us the spirit of fear." Thus, according to Whitehead, she could not, based on her religious beliefs, succumb to the fear she had COVID-19 upon which the City based its testing requirement.

The court explained its remand decision:

The ALJ determined the termination of Whitehead's employment did not violate the City's obligation under Title VII to reasonably accommodate Whitehead's religious belief because returning Whitehead to work without COVID-19 testing created an undue hardship — the risk of infecting the City's other on-site employees with COVID-19. That determination, which Whitehead does not challenge on appeal, applies solely to an accommodation — returning Whitehead to on-site work without testing — she no longer claims is reasonable, required, or appropriate...  

Whitehead, however, correctly argues the ALJ did not decide her claim the City should have allowed her to work from home as a reasonable accommodation based on her asserted religious belief.

Army Enjoined from Disciplining Plaintiffs Who Refuse COVID Vaccine on Religious Grounds

A Texas federal district court this week issued a preliminary injunction preventing the military from taking disciplinary action against ten members of the Army who object on religious grounds to complying with the Army's COVID vaccine mandate.  However, the injunction does not prevent the military from taking their vaccination status into account in making deployment, assignment and other operational decisions.  In the case, Schelske v. Austin, (ND TX, Dec. 21, 2022), the court said in part:

The Army has a valid interest in vaccinating its soldiers, and it has made the COVID-19 vaccine mandatory. But its soldiers have a right to religious freedom, which in this case includes a sincere religious objection to the COVID-19 vaccine. Which side must yield? The answer lies in the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which applies to the military: The Army must accommodate religious freedom unless it can prove that the vaccine mandate furthers a compelling interest in the least restrictive means. The Army attempts to meet that burden by pointing to the need for military readiness and the health of its force. But ... these generalized interests are insufficient. Rather, the Army must justify denying these particular plaintiffs’ religious exemptions under current conditions. Here, with 97% of active forces vaccinated and operating successfully in a post-pandemic world, the Army falls short of its burden....

The parties’ dispute centers on whether the Army can prove that application of the vaccine mandate to these plaintiffs furthers a compelling government interest through the least restrictive means possible. At every turn, however, the evidence before the Court weighs against the Army and in favor of the plaintiffs....

Finally, the Court recognizes that much of this litigation may soon be moot. Congress recently passed the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2023.... If signed by the President into law, the NDAA would require the Secretary of Defense to “rescind the mandate that members of the Armed Forces be vaccinated against COVID-19” within 30 days of enactment.... Despite these developments, the Army has refused to commit to halting separation proceedings against the plaintiffs by way of any agreement that this Court can enforce.

Another Catholic Parish Sues Michigan Over Expanded Interpretation of State's Anti-Discrimination Laws

 As previously reported, in August the Michigan Supreme Court interpreted the state's civil rights law which bans sex discrimination to cover discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. Yesterday, a Catholic parish, including its school, as well as several parents of students in the school filed suit in a Michigan federal district court alleging that, interpreted in this manner, the employment, education and public accommodation provisions of the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act violate plaintiffs' First and 14th Amendment rights.  The complaint (full text) in Sacred Heart of Jesus Parish v. Nessel, (WD MI, filed 12/22/22), alleges in part:

To comply with Michigan’s re-understood laws, Sacred Heart Parish and its school, Sacred Heart Academy, would be forced to hire faculty and staff who lead lives in direct opposition to the Catholic faith, speak messages that violate Church doctrine, and refrain from articulating Catholic beliefs in teaching its students and when advertising the school to prospective students or job applicants. All of this violates Sacred Heart’s free speech and free exercise rights. Rather than defy Catholic doctrine in these ways, Sacred Heart would shut down. 

But if Sacred Heart cannot operate consistent with its Catholic faith, the parental and free exercise rights of its families are also implicated. Parents have explicitly opted out of public schools in favor of sending their children to Sacred Heart for an authentic Catholic education where their children would never be exposed to harmful ideas and ideologies that contradict the Catholic faith. When Michigan prevents Sacred Heart from operating its school consistent with its Catholic beliefs, it also necessarily violates the fundamental parental and free exercise rights of Sacred Heart families.

ADF issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.  Earlier this month, a different Catholic parish filed a similar lawsuit.

President Speaks at White House Hanukkah Reception

On Monday, President Biden and First Lady Jill Biden hosted a Hanukkah Holiday Reception at the White House. The White House released a transcript of remarks at the reception by the Bidens and by Rabbi Charlie Cytron-Walker who last January was held as a hostage by a gunman in his Temple in Colleyville, Texas. President Biden said in part:

Tonight, we’re honored to mark another new tradition we’re establishing tonight. And that is the lighting of what will be the first-ever permanent White House menorah. (Applause.) It will also be the first Jewish artifact in the entire White House collection. (Applause.)...

This year’s Hanukkah ... arrives in the midst of rising emboldenment of antisemitism at home and, quite frankly, around the world.

I recognize your fear, your hurt, your worry that this vile and venom is becoming too normal.

As your President, I want to make this clear — as my dad would say, and many of you have said: Silence is complicity. We must not remain silent. (Applause.)

And I made no bones about it from the very beginning: I will not be silent. America will not be silent. (Applause.) I mean it....

Like this White House menorah, our commitment to the safety of the Jewish people and to the vibrancy of Jewish life that’s tightly woven into every fabric of America, it’s permanent. Permanent.

The menorah was made from historic wood beams rescued during a White House renovation by President Truman.