COVID Testing Requirement Survives Free Exercise Challenge

In Villareal v. Rocky Knoll Health Care Center, (ED WI, June 1, 2022), a Wisconsin federal district court refused to allow a nurse who objected on religious grounds to a COVID testing requirement of a county-run nursing center to file an amended complaint.  The nurse's employment had been terminated her for refusing to comply with the center's testing policy. The court said in part:

Rocky Knoll’s COVID-19 testing policy is neutral. It does not refer to a religious practice.... Nor is its purpose to suppress “religion or religious conduct.”...

It is also generally applicable: Rocky Knoll’s policy does not prohibit religious conduct while permitting other conduct that may undermine its interest in preventing the spread of COVID-19 in its facility and ensuring the safety of its residents and employees....

The court also held that plaintiff cannot recover damages or obtain injunctive relief in federal court for a claim under the right of conscience provisions of the Wisconsin constitution.

Parents Can Move Ahead With Challenge To School's Transgender Transition Policy

 In T.F. v. Kettle Moraine School District, (WI Cir. Ct., June 1, 2022), a Wisconsin state trial court held that parents could proceed with their action challenging a school district's policy to honor minor students’ requests to transition to a different gender identity at school without parental consent. One set of plaintiffs withdrew their child from the school after the school insisted on using the name and pronouns favored by the student. The court held that they could still proceed with a claim for nominal damages. As to other plaintiffs whose children were in the school but were not presently impacted by the policy, the court said in part:

[Parents] need not wait for potential harm from Kettle Moraine’s policy to occur for their children before they are entitled to seek declaratory relief on whether the policy violates their parental rights.

ADF issued a press release announcing the decision. 

2nd Circuit: Rabbinical College's Zoning Challenge Is Not Ripe For Review

In Congregation Rabbinical College of Tartikov, Inc. v. Village of Pomona, New York, (2d Cir., May 27, 2022), the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of a suit challenging two Village zoning laws that prevent plaintiffs from building a rabbinical college on its 100-acre property.  The court held that the challenge to the laws fails on ripeness grounds. It concluded that the Village Board of Trustees' refusal to consider plaintiffs' petition to repeal completely the two laws cannot be considered to be the Board's final decision on the particular building plans, since the petition did not set out any details of the plans. It also concluded that the U.S. Supreme Court's decision last year in Pakdel v. City and County of San Francisco did not change the ripeness rules for challenging a zoning denial. (See prior related posting.) Rockland/Westchester Journal News reports on the 2nd Circuit's decision.

Louisiana Legislature Clarifies Child Sex-Abuse Look-Back Window

The Louisiana legislature yesterday gave final passage to HB402 (full text). The law clarifies that the 3-year look-back window to bring child sex abuse claims that was enacted last year applies to sex abuse claims, no matter how long ago they arose.  As explained by Louisiana Illuminator:

[O]ver the past year, the Catholic Church has repeatedly argued in Louisiana courts that some of the claims being brought under the lookback window should be thrown out because the window only applies to abuse that has happened since 1993.  Attorneys for the church said last year’s law is restrictive because it references an old statute regarding child abuse that wasn’t enacted until that year....

HB402 eliminates that ambiguity. 

Suit Challenges California Group's Ethnic Studies Curriculum As Antisemitic

Last month, suit was filed in a California federal district court seeking to enjoin the Los Angeles public schools from using an ethnic studies curriculum which plaintiffs contend is antisemitic. The complaint (full text) in Concerned Jewish Parents and Teachers of Los Angeles v. Liberated Ethnic Studies Model Curriculum Consortium, (WD CA, filed 5/12/2022), alleges that defendants oppose the broad Ethnic Studies Curriculum approved by the state of California, and instead are attempting to convince schools to teach a curriculum that focuses only on Black Americans, Chicano/Latinos, Native Americans, and Asian American/Pacific Islanders. The complaint alleges in part:

This case is brought to compel public disclosure of, and to enjoin, Defendants’ efforts to insert into the Los Angeles public school curriculum, overtly racist as well as antisemitic teaching material which, as its authors intend, discriminates against a segment of California residents on the basis of their religious beliefs and their national origin—namely American and Middle Eastern-Americans Jews who embrace their religion’s foundational belief in Zionism....

The 55-page complaint alleges that use of the Liberated Ethnic Studies Model Curriculum violates plaintiffs' rights under the 1st and 14th Amendments, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the California Education Code. Among other relief, it seeks an injunction barring the Los Angeles Unified School district from:

including any language, in any teaching materials, asserting that Zionism is not a Jewish belief; denouncing the Jewish belief in the land of Israel as the land promised by God to the Jewish people, or the Jewish belief in Zionism, or asserting that the State of Israel, as the Nation-State of the Jewish people, is illegitimate, or asserting as a fact that the Jewish State is guilty of committing such horrific crimes against others as ethnic cleansing, land theft, apartheid or genocide, or that the Jewish people are not indigenous to the land of Israel or to the Middle East, or denying the State of Israel the right to self-defense; and/or denying the historical or religious connection between the Jewish people and the land of Israel....

The Deborah Project's website has more on the lawsuit.

7th Circuit Hears Oral Arguments On Reinstatement Of Doctor Who Refuses Vaccination On Religious Grounds

The U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday heard oral arguments (audio of full arguments) in Halczenko v. Ascension Health, Inc., (Docket No. 22-1040, 5/31/2022). In the case, an Indiana federal district court last December (full text of district court opinion) denied a preliminary injunction to a pediatric intensive care doctor who was denied a religious exemption from a hospital's COVID vaccination requirement and was placed on unpaid leave. The court held that plaintiff had not shown irreparable injury necessary to obtain an injunction.  Compensatory and other relief will be available if he ultimately prevails. Bloomberg Law reports on the oral arguments, saying in part:

One judge during oral argument ... homed in on the speculative nature of Paul Halczenko’s alleged irreparable harm from not getting rehired by Ascension St. Vincent Hospital right away—that not practicing medicine would cause his skills to atrophy and cost him his career.

Other members of the three-judge panel—all of whom were appointed by President Donald Trump—focused on apparent factual and legal shortcomings in the doctor’s bid for a preliminary injunction against Ascension Health Inc. and the hospital.

Certiorari Denied In Church's Challenge To Colorado COVID Restrictions

The U.S. Supreme Court today denied review in Community Baptist Church v. Polis, (Docket No. 21-1328, certiorari denied 5/31/2022). (Order List). In the case, the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a district court's denial of a preliminary injunction in a free exercise challenge by two churches and one of their pastors to COVID restrictions imposed by the state of Colorado.  It similarly affirmed the dismissal of a challenge to the federal government's award of COVID relief aid to the state. (See prior posting.)

Class Action Filed To Challenge Air Force Vaccine Mandate

Another lawsuit has been filed by religious objectors challenging the military's COVID vaccine mandate.  Brought in a Texas federal district court by nine members of the Air Force as a class action on behalf of all Air Force members with religious objections to the COVID vaccine, the complaint (full text) in Spence v. Austin, (ND TX, filed 5/27/2022), alleges violations of plaintiffs' rights under the 1st Amendment and RFRA.  It alleges in part:

Defendants  have  mandated  that  all  members  of  the  Air  Force  receive  a COVID-19  vaccine,  or  be involuntarily  separated.  In theory, Defendants  offer medical, administrative,  and  religious  accommodations  to  that  mandate.  But  in  practice, only servicemembers with medical or administrative reasons for an exemption from the mandate are accommodated. Religious accommodation requests (“RARs”) are universally denied unless the requester is already imminently leaving the Air Force. 

First Liberty issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit. 

President's Memorial Day Proclamation

Today is Memorial Day. Last week, President Biden issued a Proclamation titled Prayer for Peace, Memorial Day 2022 (full text) which reads in part:

In honor and recognition of all of our fallen service members, the Congress, by a joint resolution approved May 11, 1950, as amended (36 U.S.C. 116), has requested that the President issue a proclamation calling on the people of the United States to observe each Memorial Day as a day of prayer for permanent peace and designating a period on that day when the people of the United States might unite in prayer and reflection.  The Congress, by Public Law 106-579, has also designated 3:00 p.m. local time on that day as a time for all Americans to observe, in their own way, the National Moment of Remembrance.

Virginia Governor Signs Act Broadly Defining "Religion" In Civil Rights Laws

On Friday, Virginia Governor Glen Younkin signed House Bill 1063 (full text) which defines "religion" as used in the state's anti-discrimination laws as:

"Religion" means all aspects of religious observance, practice, or belief.

ADF issued a press release on the new law.

Washington's State Employee Vaccine Mandate Upheld

In Pilz v. Inslee, (WD WA, May 27, 2022), a Washington federal district court upheld a Proclamation by Washington's governor that requires health care, education, and state-agency workers to be vaccinated against COVID.  Among other challenges in a suit brought by 100 state employees, plaintiffs claim the Proclamation infringes on religious beliefs that conflict with vaccination in violation of the Free Exercise clause. The court said in part:

[T]he Proclamation is in no way directed at any religious exercise and, at most, has an incidental impact on some state employees with particular religious beliefs. Therefore, the Court finds that the Proclamation is neutral and generally applicable. The Proclamation is accordingly subject to rational basis review and must be upheld if it is “rationally related to a legitimate governmental purpose.”

Recent Articles of Interest

 From SSRN:

• Meghan J. Ryan, A Catholic Perspective on Prison Conditions and Human Dignity, (Catholicism and Criminal Law (2022/2023 Forthcoming)).
• Marina Bán & Uladzislau Belavusau, Memory Laws, (Bloomsbury History: Theory and Method (2022)).
• Kurt T. Lash, Roe and the Original Meaning of the Thirteenth Amendment, (May 20, 2022).
• Cass R. Sunstein, The Alito Draft, (May 23, 2022).
• Hayden Richard, Louisiana Senate Bill 156: Exclusion, or Fairness in Women’s Sports?, (Southern University Law Review Vol. 49 No. 2, Forthcoming).
• Dr. Sulaiman Lebbe Rifai, Politics and the Muslim World, (May 19, 2022).
• Christine Abely, The Uncertain Role of Reliance in the Enforcement of Charitable Subscriptions, (26 Lewis & Clark L. Rev. 113 (2022)).

From SmartCILP:

• Linda Przybyszewski, Religious Liberty Sacralized: The Persistence of Christian Dissenting Tradition and the Cincinnati Bible War, [Abstract], 39 Law & History Review 707-736 (2021).

6th Circuit: Suit Over Marriages By Clergy Ordained Online Can Move Ahead In Part

In Universal Life Church Monastery Storehouse v. Nabors, (6th Cir., May 27, 2022), the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals allowed claims against a portion of the original defendants to move ahead in the Universal Life Church's challenge to a Tennessee law that prohibits persons receiving online ordination from solemnizing marriages.  Various defendants asserted standing and sovereign immunity defenses. Summarizing its holding, the court said in part:

No plaintiff has standing to seek relief against Governor Lee, Attorney General Slatery, District Attorney General Helper, or County Clerks Crowell, Anderson, and Knowles.... As a result, those portions of the district court’s preliminary injunction that purport to bind [them] ... are VACATED. By contrast, however, we AFFIRM the district court’s determination that plaintiffs have standing to sue District Attorneys General Dunaway, Pinkston, and Jones, along with County Clerk Nabors. We also AFFIRM the district court’s denial of these officials’ sovereign immunity at the motion-to-dismiss stage, and so we do not disturb those portions of the preliminary injunction binding [them].... Last, we REMAND what remains of this suit to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine Does Not Apply To Dispute Over Church's Form Of Governance

In Bogle v. Sewell, (MI App., May 26, 2022), a Michigan state appellate court held that the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine did not preclude the trial court from deciding whether 2011 and 2019 amendments to the bylaws of Evangel Echos Church of the Air validly changed the church from a membership-based to a directorship-based governance. The court said in part:

Whether the Church was organized on a membership basis or a directorship basis was not an ecclesiastical question—it was a corporate law question. To answer this question, the trial court needed to look no further than the Church’s Articles of Association and the MNCA. Resolving the parties’ dispute did not require the trial court to interpret any of the Church’s religious doctrine or to pass judgment on what it believed to be the form of corporate governance most in line with the Church’s discipline or values. It simply required the trial court to apply Michigan statutory law against the language of the Articles of Association

Michigan City Revises Policy On Hijab In Booking Photos

CAIR-Michigan announced yesterday that a settlement has been reached with the city of Ferndale in a suit charging the Ferndale police department with forcibly removing a Muslim woman's hijab for a booking photo after her arrest:

... Ferndale and Bowe have reached a full and satisfactory settlement of this matter that involved the city instituting new policies allowing Muslim women to maintain their hijab when a booking photo is taken and prohibiting cross-gender searches in the absence of an emergency as well as a monetary settlement. 

3rd Circuit: Accommodation Of Sabbath Observer Would Create Undue Hardship For Postal Service

In Groff v. DeJoy, (3d Cir., May 25, 2022), the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision, held that accommodating a Sunday sabbath observer by allowing him not to report for work on Sunday would cause an "undue hardship" to the U.S. Postal Service.  Thus, failure to grant that accommodation did not violate Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. In reaching that conclusion, the court agreed with those circuits that interpret "reasonable accommodation" under Title VII to mean an accommodation that totally eliminates the conflict between job requirements and religious practice. Judge Hardiman, dissenting, said that USPS had not satisfied its burden at the summary judgment stage to prove undue hardship, though it might be able to do so with more facts at trial. Courthouse News Service reports on the decision. [Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]

6th Circuit En Banc Dismisses Mask Mandate Challenge As Moot

In Resurrection School v. Hertel, (6 Cir., May 25, 2022), an en banc panel of the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals held by a vote of 13-1-3 that a free exercise challenge to Michigan's COVID mask mandate for school children is moot. The mandate is no longer in effect. The suit was brought by a private religious school and two parents of school children. One judge concluded that the preliminary injunction appeal moot, but the proceedings for a declaratory judgment and permanent injunction are not. The majority said in part:

For all the reasons recited above—the changed circumstances since the State first imposed its mask mandate, the substantially developed caselaw, the lack of gamesmanship on the State’s part—we see no reasonable possibility that the State will impose a new mask mandate with roughly the same exceptions as the one originally at issue here. This claim is moot—indeed palpably so.

Judge Bush in a 31-page dissent joined by two other judges said in part:

[T]he majority’s decision to declare the entire case against MDHHS moot—rather than simply deciding the preliminary-injunction appeal—has stripped us of a valuable opportunity to clarify the law of our circuit. What the majority should have done, instead, is rule solely on the interlocutory order before us.

Fox2 Detroit reports on the decision.

Suit Challenging Bible In Schools Program Is Settled

An Order of Dismissal was entered last week in Freedom From Religion Foundation v. Mercer County Board of Education, (SD WV, May 16, 2022). According to Christian Post, in January 2019 the school board ended the Bible In The Schools program that was being challenged in the lawsuit. According to an FFRF press release:

The Mercer County Board of Education, through its insurance coverage, agreed to pay $225,000 to cover the costs and attorneys fees of the plaintiffs. Those payments will reimburse two private law firms and FFRF for hundreds of hours of time spent by attorneys litigating the case.

Certiorari Denied In Synagogue Picketers Case

On May 16, the U.S. Supreme Court denied review in Gerber v. Herskovitz, (Docket No, 21-1263, certiorari denied, 5/16/2022) (Order List). In the case, the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed a suit by synagogue members against anti-Israel pickets who have picketed services at the Beth Israel Synagogue in Ann Arbor, Michigan every week since 2003. (See prior posting).

Three Chabad Rabbis Are On Russia's List Of Those Banned From Travel To Russia

As reported by Axios, Russia last Saturday released a list of 963 Americans who are banned from traveling to Russia in retaliation for American sanctions against Russia for its invasion of Ukraine. JTA reports that included in the list are three rabbis who are leaders of Agudas Chassidei Chabad which has been attempting for years to force Russia to return to it in the U.S. two expropriated collections of valuable Jewish religious books and manuscripts:

Rabbi Avraham Shemtov, a founder of the Washington office of the movement, American Friends of Lubavitch (Chabad), that has led lobbying for U.S. pressure on Russia;

Rabbi Yehuda Krinsky, the umbrella group’s secretary, who heads the educational and social arms of Chabad-Lubavitch; and

Rabbi Shlomo Cunin, a West Coast leader of the movement who is prominent in the branch of the movement seeking the return of the texts.

It has been suggested recently that Chabad now has a better chance of getting at assets to satisfy fines imposed on Russia by an American court for Russia's refusal to return the books.