A petition for certiorari (full text) was filed last month with the U.S. Supreme Court in Roman Catholic Bishop of Oakland v. Superior Court of the State of California,, (Docket No. 21-1377, filed 4/15/2022). In the case, 9 dioceses and archdioceses challenge California legislation that extended the limitation period for suits alleging childhood sexual assault to plaintiff’s 40th birthday or 5 years after discovery; created a 3-year window to bring previously time-barred civil actions for for childhood sexual assault; and provided for treble damages in cover-up cases. National Catholic Register reports on the cert. petition.
Objective coverage of church-state and religious liberty developments, with extensive links to primary sources.
Thursday, May 05, 2022
Satanic Temple Wants Its Flag To Be Raised At Boston City Hall
In the wake of the Supreme Court's decision earlier this week in Shurtleff v. City of Boston holding that Boston should have allowed Camp Constitution to briefly fly a Christian flag on a flag pole outside city hall, The Satanic Temple has asked Boston for similar treatment. AP reports:
The Salem-based group tweeted a request filed Tuesday with the city property management department to raise a flag marking “Satanic Appreciation Week” from July 23-29....
Lucien Greaves, the organization’s co-founder, said in an email Wednesday that the group wants to show that religious liberty must mean respect for “all forms” of religious practice and religious opinion.
Adventist School Sues Over Refusal Of Tournament To Accommodate Its Sabbath Observance
Suit was filed this week in an Alabama federal district court against the Alabama High School Athletic Association (AHSAA) by the Seventh Day Adventist Oakwood Academy that was forced to forfeit its further participation in this year's high school basketball championship tournament because the AHSAA refused to move the time of its game three hours later to permit the school to play without violating its Sabbath. The complaint (full text) in South Central Conference of Seventh Day Adventists v. Alabama High School Athletic Association, (MD AL, filed 5/3/2022), contends that the refusal to accommodate its religious exercise violated the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses of the 1st Amendment. Al.com reports on the lawsuit.
Wednesday, May 04, 2022
European Court Says Belgium Can Protect Religion and Religious Beliefs Of Employees
In LF v. SCRL, (CJEU, April 28, 2022), the Advocate General of the Court of Justice of the European Union issued a recommended answer to a question referred to it by the Brussels (Belgium) Labor Court. At issue was whether a provision in Belgian law giving special protection to "religious or philosophical belief" of employees is consistent with European Council Directive 2000/78 on equal treatment in employment. The Directive allows countries to enact laws that are more protective than those set out in the Directive. The Advocate General concluded that Belgium could give special protection to "religion and religious beliefs" but not just to "religious or philosophical beliefs" since those are not separately protected categories. The question arose in a case in which a Muslim woman was not offered an internship for which she interviewed because she insisted on wearing a hijab or other head covering in violation of the employer's rule that employees not wear clothing that expresses their religious, philosophical or political beliefs. [Thanks to Law & Religion UK for the lead.]
Asatru Inmate Loses RLUIPA and Equal Protection Challenges
In Watkinson v. Alaska Department of Corrections, (9th Cir., May 2, 2022), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held that Alaska did not violate the rights of a prisoner who was a practitioner of Asatru when it prevented him from using firewood purchased through the Prison Welfare Fund (PWF) for religious purposes, and when it did not allow use of the Prison Welfare Fund for inmates to pool funds to purchase juice and honey in bulk. The court said in part:
RLUIPA does not require a state to facilitate or subsidize the exercise of religion or pay for devotional accessories.... ADOC policies do not deny Plaintiff access to any item necessary for his religious ceremonies, and Plaintiff may procure all necessary items without access to the PWF. Defendants’ policies thus did not substantially burden the exercise of Plaintiff’s religious practice...
The court also rejected plaintiff's 1st Amendment claim. In addition it rejected his Equal Protection claim, even though prison authorities allowed a Native American cultural group to use PWF-purchased firewood at the prison sweat lodge. According to the court:
The prison director testified that the groups are not similarly situated because the sweat lodge is a cultural rather than a religious activity.
Tuesday, May 03, 2022
Scientology Sued By Plaintiffs Alleging Years Of Abuse As Children
Suit was filed in a Florida federal district court last week under the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act against the Church of Scientology by three plaintiffs who allege that they were abused by Scientology as children. The 90-page complaint (full text) in Baxter v. Miscavige, (MD FL, filed 4/28/2022), alleges in part:
As children, all three Plaintiffs grew up in, and were raised by Scientology. This was not a peaceful or loving environment; instead, it was a world filled with abuse, violence, intimidation, and fear. Defendants considered Plaintiffs to be possessions, void of any rights, whose sole purpose was to serve Defendants. Plaintiffs were placed on a ship they could not leave and routinely punished by being humiliated, interrogated, and imprisoned, for the sole purpose of ensuring Plaintiffs would continue to perform back breaking free labor for the Defendants.
Wonkette reports on the lawsuit.
Suit Challenges Ohio's Health Care Conscience Law
Suit was filed last week in an Ohio state trial court challenging ORC §4743.10 which allows health care practitioners, hospitals and insurers to refuse to participate any health care service that violates teir conscience as informed by the moral, ethical, or religious beliefs or principles they hold. The suit was filed by a community health care system that provides services to the LGBTQ+ community. The complaint (full text) in Equitas Health v. State of Ohio, (OH Com. Pl., filed 4/29/2022) contends that the law violates the Ohio constitution in that it is void for vagueness and violates the single-subject rule for legislation. The provision was inserted into last year's 2400-page budget bill. News5Cleveland reports on the lawsuit.
Preliminary Injunction Denied To Navy SEAL With Religious Objection To COVID Vaccines
In Navy SEAL 1 v. Austin, (D DC, April 29, 2022), a DC federal district court refused to grant a preliminary injunction to bar discharge or other adverse action against a Navy SEAL who refuses for religious reasons to comply with the military's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The court said that plaintiff does not face imminent discharge because another federal district court has issued a class-wide injunction against that. As to other adverse action, the court said in part:
As currently pled, there are a plethora of weaknesses in Plaintiff’s claims that counsel against preliminary relief. First, there appears to be a serious question as to whether Plaintiff’s claims are justiciable, because they require the Court both to evaluate the merits of military expertise and to weigh technical issues of public health and immunology based on novel science that remains unfixed as the current COVID-19 pandemic turns endemic. Second, the Court is concerned that the record as it currently stands does not properly resolve whether mandatory vaccination is the least restrictive means as to Plaintiff to accomplish the Government’s interest in force readiness and national security more broadly. That fault permeates Plaintiff’s RFRA claim, Free Exercise claim, and Equal Protection claim. Taken together, the Court concludes these issues militate against preliminary relief at this early stage of the case.
Monday, May 02, 2022
Draft SCOTUS Opinion Overruling Roe v. Wade Is Leaked To The Press
Benefitting from an apparently unprecedented breach of Supreme Court confidentiality, Politico has obtained and published the first draft of a 67-page (plus Appendix) majority opinion written by Justice Alito in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization. The draft opinion (full text) overrules Roe v. Wade. It reads in part:
We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled. The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision, including the one on which the defenders of Roe and Casey now chiefly rely-- the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. That provision has been held to guarantee some rights that are not mentioned in the Constitution, but any such right must be "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition" and "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty."...
The right to abortion does not fall within this category.
The draft opinion goes on to discuss the standards that should apply to challenges of state laws limiting abortion, saying in part:
Under our precedents, rational basis review is the appropriate standard for such challenges.... It must be sustained if there is a rational basis on which the legislature could have thought that it would serve legitimate state interests.... These legitimate interests include respect for and preservation of prenatal life at all stages of development, ... the mitigation of fetal pain; and the prevention of discrimination on the basis of race, sex, or disability.
Unanimous Supreme Court Says Boston Violated Free Speech Clause In Barring Christian Flag Outside City Hall
In Shurtleff v. City of Boston, (Sup.Ct., May 2, 2022), the U.S. Supreme Court held unanimously that Boston violated the free speech rights of Camp Constitution when it refused to allow it to briefly fly a Christian flag on a third flagpole outside city hall which private groups have used to fly flags of their choice for ceremonies. In the past, the city had approved some 50 different flags and had never before refused a request. Boston contended that the flag was government speech and cited Establishment Clause concerns in barring the Christian flag. The Court rejected that contention, saying in part:
We conclude that, on balance, Boston did not make the raising and flying of private groups’ flags a form of government speech. That means, in turn, that Boston’s refusal to let Shurtleff and Camp Constitution raise their flag based on its religious viewpoint “abridg[ed]” their “freedom of speech.”
Justice Breyer wrote the majority opinion which was joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, Kavanaugh and Barrett. Justice Kavanaugh also filed a concurring opinion. Justice Alito, joined by Justices Thomas and Gorsuch filed an opinion concurring only in the judgment, saying in part:
...I cannot go along with the Court’s decision to analyze this case in terms of the triad of factors—history, the public’s perception of who is speaking, and the extent to which the government has exercised control over speech.... [T]reating those factors as a test obscures the real question in government-speech cases: whether the government is speaking instead of regulating private expression.
Justice Gorsuch, joined by Justice Thomas, filed a concurring opinion saying in part:
Not a single Member of the Court seeks to defend Boston’s view that a municipal policy allowing all groups to fly their flags, secular and religious alike, would offend the Establishment Clause.
How did the city get it so wrong? To be fair, at least some of the blame belongs here and traces back to Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U. S. 602 (1971)....
To justify a policy that discriminated against religion, Boston sought to drag Lemon once more from its grave. It was a strategy as risky as it was unsound. Lemon ignored the original meaning of the Establishment Clause, it disregarded mountains of precedent, and it substituted a serious constitutional inquiry with a guessing game. This Court long ago interred Lemon, and it is past time for local officials and lower courts to let it lie.
Bidens Extend Wishes for Eid Mubarak To Muslims Around The World
The Muslim festival of Eid al-Fitr began at sundown last night. President Biden and First Lady Jill Biden issued a Statement (full text) yesterday extending warmest wishes and Eid Mubarak to those celebrating the end of Ramadan. The Statement says in part:
This year, as we mark Eid al-Fitr, we hold in our hearts the millions of displaced persons and refugees around the globe who are spending this sacred holiday separated from their families and unsure of their future, but still hoping for a brighter tomorrow. As a nation we must always keep faith with those seeking a better life, and uphold our commitment to serving as a beacon of hope for oppressed people around the world. And, Muslims across the United States celebrate Eid, let us renew our dedication to our foundational commitment to respecting all faiths and beliefs.
The President and First Lady later today will host a reception in the East Room to celebrate Eid.
UPDATE: Here are the President's remarks at the White House Eid reception.
Recent Articles of Interest
From SSRN:
- Justin Collings & Stephanie H. Barclay, Taking Justification Seriously: Proportionality, Strict Scrutiny, and the Substance of Religious Liberty, 63 Boston College Law Review 453 (2022).
- Nicholas Aroney, Christianity and Constitutional Law, (Forthcoming, in John Witte and Rafael Domingo (eds), Oxford Handbook on Christianity and Law, Oxford University Press, 2022).
- Kelly Deere, Democratizing Emergencies: The Local Predicament, (101 N.C.L. Rev. F. ___ (Forthcoming, 2022)).
- Lael Daniel Weinberger, The Limits of Church Autonomy, (Notre Dame Law Review, Forthcoming).
- Maya McGrath, Teacher Prayer in Public Schools, (Fordham Law Review, Vol. 90, No. 5, 2022).
- Rosemary Teele Langford & Miranda Webster, Misuse of Power in the Australian Charities Sector, (University of New South Wales Law Journal, Vol. 45, No. 1, 2022).
- Bryan Thomas, et. al., Vaccine Ins and Outs: An Exploration of the Legal Issues Raised by Vaccine Passports, (C.D. Howe Institute working paper, 2021).
- Michael Conklin, Anti-Semitism and the Overlooked Benefits of Allowing 'Hate Speech', (April 2022).
- Julie C. Suk, A World Without Roe: The Constitutional Future of Unwanted Pregnancy, (William & Mary Law Review, Vol. 64, No. 2, 2022).
- Gregory Bigler, Foundations of Tribal Society: Art, Dreams, and the Last Old Woman, (UCLA School of Law, The Indigenous Peoples’ Journal of Law, Culture & Resistance, 7(1) (2022)).
- Jeffrey Pennell & Reid K. Weisbord, Trust Alteration and the Dead Hand Paradox, (ACTEC Law Journal, 2023 Forthcoming).
- Ayelet Hoffmann Libson & Adi Libson, Replacing God with Big Data: Personalizing Copyright Law, 39 Boston University International Law Journal 181-206 (2021).
- Kellen R. Funk, Book Review. Propertied Rites. Beyond Belief, Beyond Conscience: The Radical Significance of the Free Exercise of Religion, by Jack N. Rakove. Church State Corporation: Construing Religion in US Law, by Winnifred Fallers Sullivan, 36 Constitutional Commentary 175-212 (2021).
Sunday, May 01, 2022
Oklahoma Legislature Passes Fetal Heartbeat Abortion Law
The Oklahoma legislature on Thursday gave final approval to SB1503 (full text), a Fetal Heartbeat Abortion Law modeled after the Texas statute. The law bars abortions once a physician detects a fetal heartbeat (usually around 6 weeks in a pregnancy) except in cases of medical emergency. The ban is enforceable only through private civil actions for statutory damages of not less than $10,000 brought by any person other than a public official. An action may be brought against anyone who performs, induces, aids or abets an abortion (other than the woman on whom an abortion was performed). Once damages have been awarded in one action, a court may not award relief for the same abortion in subsequent actions. A court may not award attorney's fees to a defendant in actions under the law, and actions under the law are not subject to the Oklahoma Religious Freedom Act. Governor Kevin Stitt is expected to quickly sign the bill into law.
On Thursday, even though the law had not yet been signed by the governor, suit was filed in the Oklahoma Supreme Court challenging the law. The complaint (full text) in Oklahoma Call for Reproductive Justice v. State of Oklahoma, (OK Sup. Ct., filed 4/28/2022), which also names as defendants the clerk of courts in every Oklahoma county, alleges that the law violates ten separate provisions of the Oklahoma Constitution. Vox reports on developments.
Friday, April 29, 2022
President Declares May "Jewish American Heritage Month"
President Biden today issued a Proclamation (full text) declaring May 2022 as Jewish American Heritage Month. The Proclamation reads in part:
The Jewish American story, and the story of our Nation as a whole, is fueled by faith, resilience, and hope. It is a story defined by a firm belief in possibilities, the resolve to make real the promise of America for all Americans, and a commitment to perfecting our Union, heeding the timeless words of Rabbi Tarfon, the first-century scholar who taught “It is not your duty to finish the work, but neither are you at liberty to neglect it.”
An interesting sidelight: Typically Presidential Proclamations end with the date of the Proclamation. The year is routinely set out, for example, as: "in the year of our Lord two thousand twenty-two, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and forty-sixth." The Jewish American Heritage Month Proclamation omits the phrase "in the year of our Lord, recognizing the Christian nature of that reference.
Oklahoma Bans Nonbinary Designations On Birth Certificates
On Tuesday, Oklahoma Governor Kevin Stitt signed SB 1100 (full text) which provides:
... [T]he biological sex designation on a certificate of birth issued under this section shall be either male or female and shall not be nonbinary or any symbol representing a nonbinary designation including but not limited to the letter “X”.
Fatherly reports on the new law.
11th Circuit Hears Oral Arguments In City Prayer Vigil Case
Yesterday, the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments (audio of full arguments) in Rojas v. City of Ocala, Florida. In the case, , a Florida federal district court held that the City of Ocala, Florida and its police chief violated the Establishment Clause when they organized and promoted a prayer vigil in response to a shooting spree plaguing the city. (See prior posting.) Fox35 reports on the case ahead of the oral arguments.
Free Exercise Challenge To Washington Vaccine Mandate Is Dismissed
In Wise v. Inslee, (ED WA, April 27, 2022), a Washington federal district court dismissed various challenges to Washington state's vaccine mandate for certain state employees, including free exercise, Title VII religious discrimination, and Establishment Clause claims. The court said in part:
... [T]he State clearly has a legitimate government interest in preventing the spread of COVID-19, an interest that has been endorsed by the Ninth Circuit.... Additionally, the Proclamation is rationally related to that interest because it is based on overwhelming evidence that the vaccines are safe and effective, and increasing vaccination rates among those employees who come into regular contact with vulnerable populations is a rational action to reduce the spread of COVID-19. Accordingly, the Proclamation easily survives federal constitutional scrutiny....
More Context Needed In Student's Suit Over Right To Wear Shirt With Anti-Gay Bible Verse
In B.A.P. v. Overton County Board of Education, (MD TN, April 27, 2022), a Tennessee federal district court refused to dismiss a suit challenging on free exercise and free speech grounds a school's disciplining of a student who refused to take off a shirt that read: "homosexuality is a sin - 1 Corinthians 6:9-10." The court said in part:
"[T]o justify prohibition of a particular expression of opinion" under Tinker, a school must show that it acted out of '"more than a mere desire to avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that always accompany an unpopular viewpoint,' but rather, 'that the school authorities had reason to anticipate that the [student’s expression] would substantially interfere with the work of the school or would impinge upon the rights of other students.'"...
Here, an adequate analysis of B.A.P.’s First Amendment claims ... requires a more developed record than is available on a motion to dismiss. ....
Plaintiffs allege that Henson removed B.A.P. from class due to the message on her shirt, Melton did not allow her to return to class because of this message, and both Melton and Henson told B.A.P. she could not wear the shirt to school going forward. The Amended Complaint does not, however, supply specific facts and context about Livingston Academy and the surrounding community at the time Melton and Henson took these actions. Without this context, the Court cannot determine whether Melton and Henson reasonably forecasted that the message on B.A.P.’s shirt would cause substantial disruption or interference with the rights of other students. Accordingly, B.A.P.’s First Amendment claims against Melton and Henson will not be dismissed for failure to state a claim.
Thursday, April 28, 2022
Parents Sue Over School's Nondisclosure Of Children's Gender Identity Issues
Suit was filed in a Massachusetts federal district court earlier this month by four parents challenging a school policy to not notify parents of their child’s gender nonconformity or transgender status unless the child consents. The complaint in Foote v. Ludlow School Committee, (D MA, filed 4/12/2022), (full text) alleges that the policy violates parental rights of all the plaintiffs, as well as the free exercise rights of certain of the plaintiffs. It alleges in part:
158. Plaintiffs have sincerely held religious beliefs that all people are to be treated with respect and compassion, and that respect and compassion do not include misrepresenting an individual’s natural created identity as either a male or a female.
159. Plaintiffs have sincerely held religious beliefs that individuals are to speak the truth, including speaking the truth regarding matters of sexual identity as a male or female.
160. Defendants’ actions in excluding Plaintiffs Feliciano and Salmeron from decision making regarding their children’s sexual and gender identity target the Plaintiffs’ beliefs regarding the created order, human nature, sexuality, gender, ethics, and morality which constitute central components of their sincerely held religious beliefs.
Christian Post reports on the lawsuit.
Suit Challenges Maine's Ban On Sunday Hunting
Suit was filed yesterday in a Maine state trial court challenging Maine's ban on Sunday hunting. The complaint (full text) in Parker v. Camuso, (ME Super. Ct., filed 4/27/2022), contends that the Right To Food Amendment to Maine's constitution (Art. I, Sec. 25) adopted in 2021 invalidates the state's ban on Sunday hunting as applied to individuals who hunt on Sundays to harvest food for themselves and their families. The complaint calls the Sunday hunting ban "a historical and religious anachronism." Portland Press Herald reports on the lawsuit.