Utah Legislature Passses Religious Freedom Bill

The Utah legislature yesterday gave final passage to S.B. 150: Exercise of Religion Amendments (full text). The bill is similar, though not identical to, Religious Freedom Restoration Acts passed in 35 other states. It prohibits governmental imposition of a substantial burden on the free exercise of religion unless the government demonstrates a compelling interest and uses the least restrictive means to further that interest. In a compromise with LGBTQ advocates, the sponsor of the bill added language in the introductory "Whereas" clauses to preserve existing protections against discrimination in employment and housing based on sexual orientation or gender identity. (Background). Those clauses read:

(d) WHEREAS, Utah has enacted a number of laws that balance religious freedom with other important civil rights; and

(e) WHEREAS, this part complements, rather than disrupts, the balance described in Subsection (1)(d).

The bill now goes to Governor Spencer Cox for his signature. States Newsroom reports on passage of the bill.

State Constitutional Challenge to Abortion Restrictions Filed in Wisconsin Supreme Court

Last year in Kaul v. Urmanski, (WI Cir. Ct., Dec. 5, 2023), a Wisconsin state trial court held that Wisconsin Statute §940.04 which prohibits destroying the life of an unborn child applies only to feticide, and not to consensual abortions. That case is now on appeal to the Wisconsin Supreme Court. Yesterday, Planned Parenthood filed a petition with the Wisconsin Supreme Court asking it to take original jurisdiction over a state constitutional challenge to §940.04. It contends that the Court should decide the constitutional question before it engages in the statutory interpretation issue presented in the Kaul case. The petition (full text) in Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin v. Linton, (WI Sup.Ct., filed 2/22/2024), contends that Wisconsin Statute §940.04, if interpreted to ban abortions in all cases except to save the life of the mother, violates Art. I, Sec. 1 of the Wisconsin Constitution. The Petition asserts that the abortion ban (enacted in the mid 19th century) violates the right to bodily integrity, autonomy and self-determination; the physician's and the patient's right to equal protection, and the physician's right to practice his or her profession. Courthouse News Service reports on Planned Parenthood's petition.

Tennessee Governor Signs Law Allowing Potential Officiants to Refuse to Solemnize a Marriage

Yesterday, Tennessee Governor Bill Lee signed into law HB 878 (full text) which adds to the Tennessee Code section which lists who may solemnize marriages (clergy as well as various current and former public officials) language that provides:

 A person shall not be required to solemnize a marriage.

As originally introduced, the bill would have allowed refusals only by those who had objections based on conscience or religious belief.  CNN reporting on the bill notes that LGBTQ advocates criticized the bill for allowing public officials to discriminate based on their personal beliefs.

Texas AG Seeks to Liquidate Catholic Agency Providing Services to Migrants

 A legal battle is underway between Annunciation House, a Catholic agency serving migrants and refugees in El Paso, and Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton who accuses the agency of sheltering migrants who have entered the country illegally. On Feb. 7, Paxton demanded that Annunciation House turn over various records within one day. The next day, Annunciation House filed suit in a Texas state trial court seeking a declaratory judgment and temporary restraining order. The complaint (full text- Scroll to Exhibit 6) in Annunciation House, Inc. v. Paxton, (TX Dist. Ct., filed 2/8/2024), in part asks the court to determine:

whether Defendants’ unexplained demand for sensitive information infringes on AHI’s constitutional rights, including religious liberty, association, and equal protection, and the privacy rights of third parties, including their sensitive medical, legal, and personal information.

The same day, the court issued a TRO (full text, scroll to Exhibit 7) temporarily barring the Attorney General's office from enforcing its Request to Examine Annunciation House's records. On Feb. 20, the Attorney General filed a counter claim (full text), seeking, as a sanction for failing to produce the requested documents, to bar Annunciation House from transacting business in Texas and asking for appointment of a receiver to wind up Annunciation House's affairs. In a press release announcing the filling, the Attorney General's office said in part:

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has sued Annunciation House, a nongovernmental organization (“NGO”), to revoke their registration to operate in Texas. The Office of the Attorney General (“OAG”) reviewed significant public record information strongly suggesting Annunciation House is engaged in legal violations such as facilitating illegal entry to the United States, alien harboring, human smuggling, and operating a stash house....

The chaos at the southern border has created an environment where NGOs, funded with taxpayer money from the Biden Administration, facilitate astonishing horrors including human smuggling....

In a Feb. 21 press release, Annunciation House responded, saying in part:

The AG has now made explicit that its real goal is not records but to shut down the organization. It has stated that it considers it a crime for a Catholic organization to provide shelter to refugees.

The Attorney General’s illegal, immoral and anti-faith position to shut down Annunciation House is unfounded. Annunciation House has provided hospitality to hundreds of thousands of refugees for over forty-six years. It is a work recognized by the Catholic Church and is listed in the National Catholic Directory. Annunciation House has done this work of accompaniment out of the scriptural and Gospel mandate to welcome the stranger. Annunciation House’s response to the stranger is no different from that of the schools who enroll children of refugees, the clinics and hospitals who care for the needs of refugees, and the churches, synagogues, and mosques who welcome families to join in worship.

Texas Tribune reports on the litigation.

Certiorari Denied in Case of Jurors Disqualified Because of Religious Beliefs

Today the Supreme Court denied review in Missouri Department of Corrections v. Finney, (certiorari denied, 2/20/2024). In the case a Missouri state appellate court (full text of state court opinion) upheld a trial court's striking of three potential jurors for cause. The suit involved claims against the Department of Corrections by a lesbian employee alleging sex discrimination and hostile work environment. The potential jurors were disqualified because of their strongly-held religious views that homosexuality is a sin. Homosexuality was an important issue in the case. Justice Alito filed a Statement respecting the denial of certiorari indicating that were it not for a complicating state law issue in the case, he would have voted to grant review, saying in part:

Before us, the Department of Corrections argues that these for-cause dismissals were unconstitutional, and I agree that the Court of Appeals’ reasoning raises a very serious and important question that we should address in an appropriate case. The judiciary, no less than the other branches of State and Federal Government, must respect people’s fundamental rights, and among these are the right to the free exercise of religion and the right to the equal protection of the laws. When a court, a quintessential state actor, finds that a person is ineligible to serve on a jury because of his or her religious beliefs, that decision implicates fundamental rights.

New Report on Antisemitism in America Released

Last week, the American Jewish Committee released its report The State of Antisemitism in America 2023. The Report includes a Survey of American Jews, a Survey of the General Public, a Comparison of the Attitudes of the two groups, and a Methodology Report. AJC CEO Ted Deutch, commenting on the Report, said in part:

With nearly half of American Jews reporting they changed their behavior in the past year because of fear of antisemitism, we need to take action – now. AJC’s report also found that over the last year, 4 in 10 Jewish college students have felt the consequences of antisemitism, with one-in-five saying they have been excluded from a group or event because they are Jewish. This should alarm everyone especially with the dramatic increase of antisemitic activity on college campuses that has continued into 2024.

[Thanks to Burt Shifman for the lead.]

9th Circuit: On Supervised Release, Must Have Secular Alternative To 12-Step Program Requirement

 In United States v. Rourke, (9th Cir., Feb. 15, 2024), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held that it was "plain error" for a district court to impose as a condition of supervised release, without a non-religious alternative, that defendant live at and participate in a 12-step based halfway house if his probation officer requires it. The court said in part:

A twelve-step program is “a distinctive approach to overcoming addictive, compulsive, or behavioral problems,” which “asks each member to ... recognize a supreme spiritual power, which can give the member strength.” .... We have previously held that compelling a parolee to participate in an “Alcoholics Anonymous 12 step program” violated the Establishment Clause....

... [R]emand to the district court to modify the condition is required. So long as the revised condition explicitly notes Rourke’s right to object to the imposition of religious-based treatment and to be offered a secular alternative, no Establishment Clause violation will result.

Title VII Challenge to Denial of Vaccine Exemption Survives Motion to Dismiss

In Prodan v. Legacy Health, (D OR, Feb. 12, 2024), an Oregon federal district court refused to dismiss a Title VII religious discrimination claim brought by two former employees of Legacy Health who were denied religious exemptions from the Covid vaccine mandate for healthcare workers. The court said in part:

... [C]ourts appear to be in agreement that a general allegation of religious conflict without identifying a conflicting belief is insufficient to survive a motion to dismiss....

... [However] allegations of an allegedly religious belief coupled with an assertion that the COVID-19 vaccine conflicts with that belief is enough to plead a prima facie case of religious discrimination.

 In the case, one plaintiff alleged that her body is a temple of God and taking the Covid vaccine violates her conscience. The second defendant alleged that her body is a Temple of the Holy Spirit and refraining from injecting it with harmful chemicals and unknown substances honors the Temple.

Alabama Supreme Court: Wrongful Death Law Covers Destruction of Frozen Embryos

In LePage v. Center for Reproductive Medicine, P.C., (AL Sup. Ct., Feb. 16, 2024), the Alabama Supreme Court held, by a vote of 7-2, that Alabama's Wrongful Death of a Minor Act covers the negligent destruction of frozen embryos created during IVF treatment and kept in a clinic's cryogenic nursery. The destruction occurred when a patient wandered into the fertility clinic, removed several embryos and then dropped them when his hands were freeze burned.  Justice Mitchell's majority opinion said in part:

[Defendants] ask us to recognize an unwritten exception for extrauterine children in the wrongful-death context because, they say, our own precedents compel that outcome....

... [Defendants and Alabama Medical Association as amicus] assert that treating extrauterine children as "children" for purposes of wrongful-death liability will "substantially increase the cost of IVF in Alabama" and could make cryogenic preservation onerous.... 

While we appreciate the defendants' concerns, these types of policy-focused arguments belong before the Legislature, not this Court.... Here, the text of the Wrongful Death of a Minor Act is sweeping and unqualified.  It applies to all children, born and unborn, without limitation.  It is not the role of this Court to craft a new limitation based on our own view of what is or is not wise public policy.  That is especially true where, as here, the People of this State have adopted a Constitutional amendment directly aimed at stopping courts from excluding "unborn life" from legal protection.  Art. I, § 36.06, Ala. Const.

Chief Justice Parker filed a concurring opinion focusing on Art. I of the Alabama Constitution which provides that declares "it is the public policy of this state to recognize and support the sanctity of unborn life...." The Chief Justice said in part:

... [T]he theologically based view of the sanctity of life adopted by the People of Alabama encompasses the following: (1) God made every person in His image; (2) each person therefore has a value that far exceeds the ability of human beings to calculate; and (3) human life cannot be wrongfully destroyed without incurring the wrath of a holy God, who views the destruction of His image as an affront to Himself. Section 36.06 recognizes that this is true of unborn human life no less than it is of all other human life -- that even before birth, all human beings bear the image of God, and their lives cannot be destroyed without effacing his glory.

Justice Shaw, joined by Justice Stewart filed a concurring opinion. 

Justice Mendheim filed an opinion concurring in the result, saying in part:

In my judgment, the main opinion's view that the legal conclusion is "clear" and "black-letter law" is problematic because when the Wrongful Death of a Minor Act was first enacted in 1872, and for 100 years thereafter, IVF was not even a scientific possibility....

Ultimately ... we must be guided by the language provided in the Wrongful Death of a Minor Act and the manner in which our cases have interpreted it. Under those guideposts, today's result is correct. However, the decision undoubtedly will come as a shock in some quarters of the State. I urge the Legislature to provide more leadership in this area of the law given the numerous policy issues and serious ethical concerns at stake....

Justice Sellers filed an opinion dissenting in part, saying in part:

To equate an embryo stored in a specialized freezer with a fetus inside of a mother is engaging in an exercise of result-oriented, intellectual sophistry, which I am unwilling to entertain.

Justice Cook filed a 56-page dissenting opinion, saying in part:

...   I believe the main opinion overrules our recent Wrongful Death Act caselaw that requires "congruence" between the definition of "person" in Alabama's criminal-homicide statutes and the definition of "minor child" in the Wrongful Death Act.  Both the original public meaning and this recent caselaw indicate the same result here -- that the Wrongful Death Act does not address frozen embryos. 

Moreover, there are other significant reasons to be concerned about the main opinion's holding.  No court -- anywhere in the country -- has reached the conclusion the main opinion reaches. And, the main opinion's holding almost certainly ends the creation of frozen embryos through in vitro fertilization ("IVF") in Alabama....

1819 News reports on the decision.

[Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Kevin C. Walsh, Judicial Power and Potential Unconstitutionality: A Scholastic Perspective, (Catholic University Law Review, Forthcoming).
• Adrian Vermeule, Enriching Legal Theory: Response to the Symposium on Common Good Constitutionalism, (Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, Vol. 46, No. 3, 2023).
• Taiwo Hassan, Surrogacy Within Islamic Succession Law: Unraveling the Inheritance Rights of Involved Parties, (January 25, 2024).
• Rangita de Silva, Customs, Culture, Courts, and Constitutions: Negotiating the Balance on Gender Equality, (U of Penn Law School, Public Law Research Paper No. 24-07 (2024).
• Shaul Daniel Sharf, The Basic Law of Nationality - a Mechanism for Relieving Inter-Religious Tension in Israel, (January 31, 2023).
• Hans-Bernd Schaefer & Rok Spruk, Islamic Law, Western European Law and the Roots of Middle East’s Long Divergence: a Comparative Empirical Investigation (800-1600), (January 25, 2024).
• Abu Hayyan Saeed, The Objections of Atheists and Orientalists to the Holy Quran and Their Answers…,(January 18, 2024).

From SmartCILP:

• Ashton P. Jones-Doherty, Morally Regulatable Lives: Corporate Sovereignty, the Rise of Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, and the Ironic Demise of the Walt Disney Company's Reedy Creek Improvement District,55 Arizona State Law Journal 507-560 (2023).
• Alex McFarlin, Religious Freedom (for Most) Restoration Act: A Critical Review of the Ninth Circuit's Analysis in Apache Stronghold, 2023 Utah L. Rev. 1163-1188 (2023).

Greek Parliament Approves Same-Sex Marriage

The Guardian reports that Greece's Parliament on Thursday, by a vote of 176- 76, legalized same-sex marriage, making Greece the first Christian Orthodox country to do so. The bill has been strongly supported by Greece's Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis. However, in a provision criticized by LGBT advocacy organizations, the bill denies same-sex couples access to parenthood through surrogacy. The entire bill was strongly opposed by the Orthodox Church, According to The Guardian:

Orthodox bishops had threatened to excommunicate lawmakers who voted for the measure while the leader of the far-right Spartans party had said the law would “open the gates to hell and perversion”.

Recission of Covid Mandate Did Not Totally Moot Navy SEALs' RFRA Challenge

 In U.S. Navy SEALs 1-26 v. Austin, (ND TX, Feb. 14, 2024), a Texas federal district court held preliminarily that the rescission of the military's Covid vaccine mandate only partially mooted a suit under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act brought by Navy SEALs who were denied a religious accommodation. The court said in part:

Plaintiffs’ supplemental briefing satisfies the Court that, “[w]hile the Mandate may be gone, the effects of that Mandate and the discriminatory treatment the Class Members were subject to because of the Mandate still linger.” That is because Defendants have announced no changes to its overarching religious accommodations process. According to Plaintiffs, this allegedly “sham” process is what enabled the coercive and discriminatory treatment of the Class Members while their accommodation requests sat unadjudicated. The Mandate simply served as the catalyst that unveiled the problems with this broader process during the pandemic. These problems include: (1) indefinitely sitting on requests for religious accommodation; (2) foregoing the required individualized assessments, citing standardized policy memos (even if outdated) to satisfy the compelling interest requirement, and using boilerplate statements to suffice for demonstrating that the Navy’s action is the least restrictive means; (3) permitting discrimination and coercive tactics to pressure servicemembers to forego their religious beliefs; (4) authorizing Navy leadership to dictate denial of all requests without considering the individual circumstances of the requests and current conditions or facts; (5) permitting coercion and retaliation against commanding officers who recommend approval of religious accommodations despite the chain of command’s desire that requests be denied; and (6) prohibiting resubmission of denied requests and updates to pending requests due to a change of job, location, or other relevant circumstances.

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

House Members Protest Invited Guest Chaplain

Yesterday, 26 members of the U.S. House of Representatives Freethought Caucus sent a letter (full text) to House Speaker Mike Johnson and the House Chaplain questioning why California-based pastor Jack Hibbs was invited to deliver an opening prayer in the House of Representatives.  The letter reads in part:

The undersigned members write to express our concerns about Speaker Johnson’s sponsorship of Pastor Jack Hibbs as the Guest Chaplain of the House of Representatives. Pastor Hibbs is a radical Christian Nationalist who helped fuel the January 6th insurrection and has a long record of spewing hateful vitriol toward non-Christians, immigrants, and members of the LGBTQ community. He should never have been granted the right to deliver the House’s opening prayer on January 30, 2024.  

In the days leading up to the attack on the Capitol, Hibbs echoed Donald Trump’s election fraud lies and inflamed his followers by preaching that January 6th would go down in history alongside the War of Independence and the War of 1812. By preaching that God had anointed the Trump administration and could still intercede to save Trump’s presidency on January 6th, Hibbs advanced a religious permission structure that led to violence by those who believed any means were justified to carry out what they viewed as God’s plan....

Hawaii Chabad Rabbi Sues Over Zoning Law

Suit was filed this week in a Hawaii federal district court by a Chabad rabbi contending that Hawaii County's residential zoning Code violates the First Amendment, the Hawaii Constitution and RLUIPA. The complaint (full text) in Chabad Jewish Center of the Big Island v. County of Hawaii, (D HI, filed 2/13/2024), alleges in part:

 Hawai‘i County Code § 25-5-3(a)(9) allows “[m]eeting facilities” to operate “in [a] RS district” sans any restriction.  Conversely, Hawai‘i County Code § 25-2-61(b)(3) permits “[c]hurches, temples and synagogues” to operate in a RS district “only if a use permit is obtained for use.”  And, critically, use permits are required not only for “[c]hurches, temples and synagogues” themselves but also for the “meeting facilities for churches, temples, synagogues and other such institutions[] in RS . . . districts.” ...  In other words, in residential use districts in Hawai‘i County, meeting facilities are permissible so long as they’re secular....

It is the County’s policy and practice to prosecute supposed violations of Hawai‘i County Code § 25-2-61 only when the violating party hosts Jewish gatherings.  The County’s enforcement decisions are neither neutral nor generally applicable, as other religious and non-religious meetings of comparable size have occurred unmolested in the zoning district of Rabbi Gerlitzky’s home.  The County’s policy of selective enforcement against the Plaintiffs, if left unchecked, will effectively shutter one of the now only two orthodox Jewish gathering spaces on the Big Island.  This policy is enabled by the County’s practice of ratcheting up recurring fines against the Plaintiffs.

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

Wisconsin Legislature Passes Parental Bill of Rights; Governor Promises Veto

On Tuesday, the Wisconsin Senate gave final legislative passage to AB 510 (full text), known as the Parental Bill of Rights. The bill gives 16 different rights to parents and guardians of school children.  Among these are the right to determine a child's religion; the right to determine the names and pronouns used for the child at school; the right to notice when a controversial subject will be taught or discussed in the child's classroom; and the right to opt the child out of a class or instructional materials based on religion or personal conviction. The Wisconsin ACLU criticized the bill, saying in part:

This bill disguises classroom censorship as parental rights, enabling politicians to require the forced outing, misgendering, and deadnaming of trans and nonbinary students. It also inhibits educational instruction on race, gender, sexual orientation, and other important topics that impact all of us.

According to a report on the bill by The Center Square, Governor Tony Evers has said he will veto the bill.

Former Editor of Yiddish Children's Magazine Sues Rabbinical Courts and Others Under RICO and Sherman Act

Suit was filed last month in a New York federal bankruptcy court against several rabbinical courts, rabbis, and other defendants charging Sherman Act and RICO violations. Plaintiff was the co-owner of a Yiddish language children's magazine who claims his former partner conspired with others to destroy his business. (Full text of 93-page complaint in In re Paneth v. Reiner, (ED NY Bkrptcy, filed 1/17/2024)). Shtetl has published a lengthy summary of the complaint, saying in part:

... Paneth claims that investor David Reiner used money and influence to sway leading Haredi rabbinical courts to coerce Paneth into a rabbinic arbitration process over disputes relating to the operation and management of Kindlein magazine.

... Ultimately, the complaint says, the rabbinical courts and Reiner collectively violated the Sherman Antitrust Act by colluding to put Paneth out of business and thereby eliminate Reiner’s only competition. They also sought to deprive Paneth of any employment opportunities and to ostracize him from the Hasidic world, the complaint says.

European Court Says Ban on Halal and Kosher Slaughter Does Not Violate Human Rights Convention

 In Affaire Executife van de Moslims van Belgie et Autres c. Belgique, (ECHR, Feb. 13, 2024) [full opinion available only in French], the European Court of Human Rights, in a Chamber Judgment, held that Belgium had not violated Article 9 (freedom of religion) or Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the European Convention on Human Rights when two regions in the country eliminated the exemption permitting ritual slaughter of animals without stunning. The decrees had the effect of prohibiting Halal and kosher slaughter of animals in the two regions. An English language press release from the Court describes the Court's opinion, in part, as follows:

The Court found that there had been an interference with the applicants’ freedom of religion and that this was prescribed by legislation, namely the Flemish and Walloon decrees. 

As to whether the interference pursued a legitimate aim, the Court observed that this was the first time that it had had to rule on the question whether the protection of animal welfare could be linked to one of the aims referred to in Article 9 of the Convention.

Article 9 of the Convention did not contain an explicit reference to the protection of animal welfare in the exhaustive list of legitimate aims that might justify an interference with the freedom to manifest one’s religion.

However, the Court considered that the protection of public morals, to which Article 9 of the Convention referred, could not be understood as being intended solely to protect human dignity in the sphere of inter-personal relations. The Convention was not indifferent to the living environment of individuals covered by its protection and in particular to animals, whose protection had already been considered by the Court. Accordingly, the Convention could not be interpreted as promoting the absolute upholding of the rights and freedoms it enshrined without regard to animal suffering. 

Emphasising that the concept of “morals” was inherently evolutive, the Court did not see any reason to contradict the CJEU and the Constitutional Court, which had both found that the protection of animal welfare was an ethical value to which contemporary democratic societies attached growing importance....

The Court noted that both decrees were based on a scientific consensus that prior stunning was the optimum means of reducing the animal’s suffering at the time of slaughter. It saw no serious reason to call this finding into question.

The Court further observed that the Flemish and Walloon legislatures had sought a proportionate alternative to the obligation of prior stunning, as the decrees provided that, if the animals were slaughtered according to special methods required by religious rites, the stunning process used would be reversible, without causing the animal’s death....

Church of England Faces Controversy Over Insincere Conversions to Gain Asylum

 The Telegraph reports on the controversy in Britain over whether the Church of England has been misled into converting Muslim migrants whose only motivation is to claim asylum on the basis of a threat of persecution if they return to their home countries as Christians. The paper reported in part:

The Rt Revd Dr Guli Francis-Dehqani, the Bishop of Chelmsford, conceded it was “very difficult” to look into the hearts of converts and be 100 per cent certain that they were genuine.

She acknowledged there had been a “small number” of alleged abuses but said the clergy “do the best they can” and it was “ultimately” the job of immigration tribunals and the Home Office to assess and vet the validity of asylum claims.

Her comments come after robust denials by the Church of England of claims by senior MPs and whistleblowers that clergy have been routinely supporting “bogus” asylum claims and enabled a “conveyor belt” of thousands of asylum seekers to convert.

As reported by Law & Religion UK, questions about this issue were raised in Parliament last week, which in turn led the Archbishop of Canterbury last week to issue a statement (full text) in response, saying in part:

For refugees and those seeking asylum, we simply follow the teaching of the Bible which is to care for the stranger.

It is the job of the Government to protect our borders and of the courts to judge asylum cases. The Church is called to love mercy and do justice....

Recent Articles and Books of Interest

From SSRN:

• Andrew Coan, Dobbs v. Brown, (J. Am. Con. Hist., Forthcoming Vol. 2 (Winter 2024)).
• Kent Greenfield, Using the First Amendment to Save Race-Conscious College Admissions, (Forthcoming, 4 American Journal of Law and Equality __ (2024)).
• Chad G. Marzen, Insurance Law and Religious Belief, (February 5, 2024).
• Rabiat Akande, An Imperial History of Race-Religion in International Law, (American Journal of International Law. 2024;118(1):1-40).
• Clark D. Cunningham & Ute Römer-Barron, Four Reasons the Supreme Court Should Reconsider Its Article III Standing Doctrine, (Forthcoming, Ohio State Law Journal Online, v. 85, 2024).
• Elias Neibart, M.A. v. Rockland County Department of Health, 53 F.4th 29 (2d Cir. 2022), (Harvard Law Review, Vol. 137, No. 3, p. 1050, 2024).
• Liz Tobin-Tyler, The Past and Future of Parental Rights: Politics, Power, Pluralism, and Public Health, (Virginia Journal of Social Policy and the Law, Vol. 30, No. 3, 2023).
• Mihir Rajamane & Vibha Swaminathan, Navigating Reservations for Transgender Persons Under the Indian Constitution, (in TransForming Rights: How Law shapes Transgender Lives, Community and Identity in India (Forthcoming)).
• Toheeb Alimi, Islamic Finance: an Overview, (January 12, 2024).

From SmartCILP:

• Louis Lopez, The Supreme Court's 2021–22 Term in Review, 37 A.B.A. Journal of Labor & Employment Law 1-24 (2023).
• Kenji Yoshino, Rights of First Refusal, 137 Harvard Law Review 244-289 (2023).
• Ronna Greff Schneider, School Matters, 92 University of Cincinnati Law Review 1-11 (2023).
• Erwin Chemerinsky, Education, the First Amendment and the Constitution,92 University of Cincinnati Law Review 12-30 (2023).

Recent and Forthcoming Books:

• John Witte, Jr. & Rafael Domingo, The Oxford Handbook of Christianity and Law, (Oxford University Press, Dec. 2023).
• Maurice Samuels, Alfred Dreyfus: The Man at the Center of the Affair, (Yale University Press, Feb. 2024).
• Russell Sandberg, Rethinking Law and Religion, (Edward Elgar Publishing, June 2024).

Expressed Hostility to Religious Belief of Vaccine Exemption Applicant Did Not Violate 1st Amendment

 In Hancock v. Oregon Health and Science University, (D OR, Feb. 8, 2024), an Oregon federal district court dismissed without prejudice a claim by a lecturer at the University that her 1st Amendment rights were violated in the process of denying her claim of a religious exemption from the University's Covid vaccine mandate.  Plaintiff claimed that various of the defendants:

... expressed overt hostility to the religious beliefs of Plaintiff by declaring Plaintiff's religious beliefs 'personal moral choices and/or conscientious objection rather than a tenet of a religious faith,' merely her 'right to have religious freedom or conscientiously object to the vaccine' rather than a sincerely held religious belief and 'concerns over vaccine safety or content' not a sincerely held religious belief but rather a 'religious argument' and 'inconsistent with proven facts.'

The court held that mere expression of hostility toward plaintiff's religious beliefs does not create tangible harm that can be remedied, and so plaintiff lacks standing. It went on to hold that even if plaintiff had standing, she did not adequately allege that defendants substantially burdened her religious beliefs. The court said in part:

At best, the Court identifies only two allegations that could plausibly be related to coercion: (1) "Defendant OHSU's request for additional information was meant to belittle and shame Plaintiff for her religious beliefs and convince her she did not possess the religious beliefs she possessed"; and (2) "Board Defendant's [sic] placed pressure on Plaintiff to conform to the prevailing approved religion by proclaiming which religious beliefs were worthy of religious exceptions and which were not."...

... [N]either allegation addresses what effect this alleged pressure had on plaintiff.

Finally, the court concluded that defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.