District Court Again Enjoins Enforcement of Alabama's Same-Sex Marriage Ban

In Strawser v. Strange, (SD AL, June 7, 2016), an Alabama federal district court, noting actions by the Alabama judiciary seeking to defy the U.S. Supreme Court's Obergefell decision, issued a permanent injunction barring the enforcement of Alabama’s laws that bar same-sex marriage.  Rejecting defendants' assertion that the claim against them is moot, the court said:

Although Attorney General Strange is already subject to a permanent injunction from another case in this Court, Searcy v. Strange, ... the other Defendants in this case are not subject to that injunction and the Plaintiffs in this case lack standing to enforce the Searcy injunction. It is also apparent that certain Alabama state courts do not view this Court’s ruling in Searcy as binding precedent....

The Court notes that the Supreme Court of Alabama denied the pending mandamus petitions and entered judgment in Ex parte State of Alabama ex rel. Alabama Policy Institute.... However, the Alabama Supreme Court did not vacate or set aside its earlier writ of mandamus directing Alabama’s probate judges to comply with the Alabama laws that were held unconstitutional by this Court.... Chief Justice Moore also stated that the Eleventh Circuit’s finding that the Alabama Supreme Court's order was abrogated by the Supreme Court's decision in Obergefell “is plainly wrong.”...

This Court is aware that Chief Justice Moore is currently suspended from his position and is facing charges before the Alabama Court of the Judiciary. However, even if Chief Justice Moore is not reinstated to his position as Chief Justice, the concurring opinions of several other Alabama Supreme Court Justices also expressed disagreement with Obergefell.... It is clear that the decision by the United States Supreme Court in Obergefell does not provide certainty that the alleged violations will not recur.

A press release from Americans United has more on the decision.

Another Challenge Filed To Mississippi's Freedom of Conscience Law

As reported by AP, on Friday a third lawsuit was filed challenging Mississippi's House Bill 1523, the Protecting Freedom of Conscience From Government Discrimination Act. Mississippi Center for Justice announced the filing of the federal lawsuit which was brought by a group of clergy, community leaders, activists and a Hattiesburg church.  The complaint (full text) contends:

With the passage and approval of that bill, the Legislature and the Governor breached the separation of church and state, and specifically endorsed certain narrow religious beliefs that condemn same-sex couples who get married, condemn unmarried people who have sexual relations, and condemn transgender people.

Last month the ACLU filed a lawsuit challenging the new law (see prior posting) and plaintiffs in a suit that helped bring down the barriers to same-sex marriage in Mississippi have moved to challenge the law by reopening their lawsuit.

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Courtney Miller, 'Spiritual But Not Religious': Rethinking the Legal Definition of Religion, (Virginia Law Review, Vol. 102, No. 3, 2016).
• Zachary D. Smith, Of Commandments, Crosses, & Prayers: The Roberts Court's Approach to Public Religion, (Brigham Young University Law Review, Vol. 2015, No. 845, 2015).
• Elizabeth Sepper, Contracting Religion, (Law, Religion, and Health in the United States, Holly Fernandez Lynch, I. Glenn Cohen, & Elizabeth Sepper eds., Cambridge Univ., 2017, Forthcoming).
• Kaari E. Hong, From Footnote to Footprint: Obergefell's Call to Reconsider Immigration Law as Family Law, (Forthcoming in Family Law in Britain and America, Brill Publishers, 2016).
• Kari E. Hong, After Obergefell: Finding a Contemporary State Interest in Marriage, (Forthcoming in The Contested Place of Religion in Family Law, Cambridge University Press, 2016).

From SSRN (Non-U.S. Law):

• Surabhi Chopra, Massacres, Majorities and Money: Reparation after Sectarian Violence in India, (Asian Journal of Law and Society, Forthcoming).
• Ketan Modh, Controlling Hate Speech on the Internet: The Indian Perspective, (October 12, 2015).
• Neliana Rodean, Adoption and Same-Sex Couples: New Rights in European Constitutional Space after the Ruling X and Others v. Austria, Direitos Fundamentais & Justica no.29/2014, Oct. 2015).
• Oonagh B. Breen, European Non-Profit Oversight: The Case for Regulating from the Outside In, (Chicago-Kent Law Review, Vol. 91, No. 3, 2016, Forthcoming).

Alabama Commission Hires Law Prof To Prosecute Charges Against Chief Justice

As previously reported, earlier this month the Alabama Judicial Inquiry Commission filed ethics charges against Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore over his administrative order to all probate judges telling them that they had a duty under Alabama law to continue to refuse to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples despite federal court orders to the contrary. Now, as reported by AL.com, the Judicial Inquiry Commission has hired John Carroll,   professor and former dean of the Cumberland School of Law and former interim director of the Alabama Ethics Commission to prosecute the case against Moore.  In a strongly worded press release yesterday, Moore's attorneys, Liberty Counsel, objected to Carroll because of his service 32 years ago as Legal Director of the Southern Poverty Law Center. SPLC includes Liberty Counsel on its list of Extremist Groups.

Same-Sex Couple's Newest Battle Is With Catholic Cemetery

NewNowNext and Advocate reported yesterday that Greg Bourke and Michael De Leon, a same-sex couple who were among the plaintiffs in one of the same-sex marriage cases decided by the Supreme Court along with Obergefell v. Hodges, are now at odds with a Catholic cemetery in Louisville, Kentucky. The couple, who have been together for 34 years and members of Our Lady of Lourdes Parish for 28 years purchased a joint burial plot in Saint Michael Cemetery. However the cemetery has refused to approve the headstone design which the couple submitted.  It features their names, interlocking wedding bands, a cross and a depiction of the U.S. Supreme Court building.  A letter from the cemetery informed the couple that it could not approve depictions of wedding rings and the Supreme Court on the headstone because this conflicts with teachings of the Church. In 2015, National Catholic Reporter named Bourke and De Leon "persons of the year" for "their historic roles as plaintiffs in Obergefell v. Hodges and for their faithful public witness as gay Catholics."

Lawsuit Challenges Mississippi's New Freedom of Conscience Law

ACLU of Mississippi announced yesterday that it has filed suit against the state's Registrar of Vital Records on its own behalf and on behalf of a same-sex couple challenging recently enacted Mississippi H.B. 1523, the Freedom of Conscience From Government Discrimination Act.  While the Act broadly protects various actions of government and private businesses based on religious or moral beliefs that marriage is a union of one man and one woman, that sexual relations should be reserved to heterosexual marriage, or that gender is an immutable characteristic determined at birth (see prior posting), the lawsuit largely focuses on provisions allowing county clerks to recuse themselves from issuing marriage licences. The complaint (full text) in Alford v. Moulder, (SD MS, filed 5/9/2016) seeks declaratory and injunctive relief that the law violates the equal protection and due process clauses of the 14th Amendment.  It argues that the requirement for the Registrar of Vital Records to keep a list of those who have opted out of performing same-sex marriages amounts to creation of a "no-same-sex couples allowed" list.  Alluding to the other provisions of the law, the complaint adds:

HB 1325 subjects same-sex married couples in Mississippi to a lifetime of potentially humiliating denials of ordinary assistance and places a badge of inferiority upon their marriages each time they celebrate one of the ordinary incidents of family life.

Judicial Inquiry Commission Files Complaint Against Alabama CJ

As reported by AP, the Alabama Judicial Inquiry Commission yesterday filed a Complaint (full text) against Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore contending that Moore abused his authority and acted in violation of the Code of Judicial Ethics when in January he issued an administrative order to all probate judges telling them that they had a duty under Alabama law to continue to refuse to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. (See prior posting.)  Moore's action ignored federal court orders to the contrary.

Church Sues Over Misrepresentation of Its Views On Same-Sex Marriage

A Hudsonville, Michigan church this week filed a false-light invasion of privacy lawsuit in Michigan state court against a gay rights activist whom it accuses of falsely representing that the church supports same-sex marriage. The complaint (full text) in Jenison Bible Church, Inc. v. VanderLey, (MI Cir. Ct., filed 5/3/2016), contends that when Bradlee Dean, a controversial Christian speaker opposed to same-sex marriage, was scheduled speak in the area, defendant Daniel VanderLey arranged a demonstration against him and sought to have local churches join it.  VanderLey sent demand letters to local churches, including Jenison Bible Church, telling them that unless they affirmatively opted out, VanderLey would arrange to have a sign saying that the church "stands for love not hate" displayed at the anti-Bradlee Dean rally.  The complaint contends that this public distortion of Jenison Bible Church's views on same-sex marriage and sexual immorality negatively impacts its ability to share the Gospel and damages its reputation in the eyes of other churches, it neighbors, and those potentially interested in joining the church. The suit seeks an injunction, a published retraction and a public apology. [Thanks to Brian D Wassom for the lead.]

6th Circuit Dismisses County Clerk's Suit As Moot

In Miller v. Davis, (6th Cir., April 19, 2016), the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed as moot the appeal by Rowan County, Kentucky, Clerk Kim Davis seeking a preliminary injunction against a requirement that she issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples in violation of her religious beliefs.  The court said:

On December 22, 2015, the newly-elected Governor of Kentucky issued an executive order revising Kentucky's marriage license form to eliminate the need for the name and signature of the county clerk. Davis's counsel issued a press release stating that the revised form will permit Davis and the other county clerks "to do their jobs without compromising religious values and beliefs."

The Louisville Courier-Journal reports on the decision.

Texas Supreme Court Dismisses Attempt To Void Early Same-Sex Marriage

As reported by the Austin Statesman, the Texas Supreme Court today unanimously dismissed as moot a petition for mandamus filed by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton seeking to invalidate a same-sex marriage performed in the state four months before the U.S. Supreme Court decided the Obergefell case creating marriage equality throughout the United States.  However in the Texas case, In re State of Texas, (April 15, 2016), Justice Willett in a concurring opinion joined by Justice Devine (full text) took the lower court to task for ignoring a procedural statute in Texas that requires Texas courts to notify the attorney general of state constitutional challenges and give the state 45 days to weigh in before the case is decided. Justice Brown in a concurring opinion joined by Justice Devine (full text) argued that the trial court procedurally should not have used the device of a temporary restraining order to allow the same-sex marriage to go forward, after which plaintiffs dismissed their lawsuit. [Thanks to How Appealing for the lead.]

Chinese Court In First Ruling of Its Kind Rejects Same-Sex Marriage

A court in China yesterday ruled that same-sex marriages are not legal.  As reported by the New York Times, this is the first case of its kind adjudicated in China.  In a decision handed down a few hours after the hearing, the court upheld a decision by the civil affairs bureau in Changsha, Hunan Province, to deny Sun Wenlin and Hu Mingliang a marriage license.  The two men plan an appeal.

Norway's State Church Approves Same-Sex Marriage

According to Fox News, Norway's state church-- the Evangelical Lutheran Church-- voted on Monday to approve same-sex marriages.  It will adopt procedures to implement the decision at next year's church synod. While 88 of the synod's 115 members voted in favor of the proposal, the resolution also allows objecting clergy to refrain from performing same-sex ceremonies.

Mississippi Legislature Sends Governor Broad "Freedom of Conscience" Bill

The Mississippi Legislature today gave final passage to H.B. 1523 (full text) and (adopted amendment). Titled Protecting Freedom of Conscience From Government Discrimination Act, the bill passed the Senate by a vote of 32-17 House by a vote of 69-44.

The statute, one of the broadest to date enacted by states, protects three separate beliefs if held on religious or moral grounds: (1) marriage is a union of one man and one woman; (2) sexual relations should be reserved to heterosexual marriage; and (3) gender is an immutable characteristic determined by anatomy and genetics at the time of birth.

The statute protects from any kind of adverse state action a religious organization that on one of these bases refuses to solemnize a marriage or refuses to provide services, accommodations, goods or facilities for a marriage.  It also allows religious organizations to use these beliefs in making employment decisions or decisions regarding the sale, rental or occupancy of housing facilities, or in providing adoption or foster care services.

The statute protects from adverse government action any adoptive or foster parents who guide or raise a child consistent with these beliefs.  It protects any person who refuses provide counseling or fertility services or treatment because of these beliefs (except for emergency medical treatment).

The statute goes on to protect anyone who refuses to provide specific kinds of wedding-related services because of these beliefs, including photography, wedding planning, printing, floral arrangements, dress making, hall or limousine rental or jewelry sales and services.  It also protects any person who imposes sex-specific policies based on these beliefs on students or employees or regarding access to rest rooms, locker rooms and showers.

The statute goes on to protect state employees who speak out on these issues in their private capacity or in the workplace to the extent other political, moral or religious beliefs can be expressed. It allows county clerks to recuse themselves from issuing marriage licences consistent with these beliefs, and allows judges and others to refuse to perform same-sex marriages.

According to CBS News, Republican Gov. Phil Bryant so far refuses to say whether or not he will sign the bill into law.

Court Strikes Down Mississippi's Ban On Adoption By Same-Sex Couples

In Campaign for Southern Equality v. Mississippi Department of Human Services, (SD MS, March 31, 2016), a Mississippi federal district court issued a preliminary injunction barring Mississippi from enforcing its statutory ban on adoption by same-sex couples. After devoting much of the opinion to issues of standing and 11th Amendment immunity, the court held that the Supreme Court's Obergefell decision requires striking down of the Mississippi adoption ban:

... [T]he majority opinion [in Obergefell] foreclosed litigation over laws interfering with the right to marry and “rights and responsibilities intertwined with marriage.”... It also seems highly unlikely that the same court that held a state cannot ban gay marriage because it would deny benefits—expressly including the right to adopt—would then conclude that married gay couples can be denied that very same benefit.

MS News Now reporting on the decision notes that Mississippi was the last state in the country to have a statutory ban on same-sex adoption.

Virginia Governor Vetoes "Religious Freedom" Bill As Discriminatory

As he had promised, Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe, a Democrat, yesterday vetoed Senate Bill 41 that protected clergy, religious and religiously affiliated organizations and their employees and volunteers acting in the scope of their employment from being required to participate in the solemnization of any marriage or from receiving adverse treatment of any kind by the state because the person acted on the basis of a sincere religious or moral belief that marriage should be only the union of one man and one woman. (See prior posting.) In his veto message (full text), McAuliffe described the bill as one that shields "those who actively discriminate against same-sex couples" from civil liability.  McAuliffe said in part:

Although couched as a “religious freedom” bill, this legislation is nothing more than an attempt to stigmatize.  Any legitimate protections  ... are duplicative of the First Amendment ...; Article I, Section 11 of the Constitution of Virginia; and the Virginia Religious Freedom Restoration Act.  Any additional protections are styled in a manner that prefers one religious viewpoint—that marriage can only validly exist between a man and a woman—over all other viewpoints.  Such a dynamic is not only unconstitutional, it equates to discrimination under the guise of religious freedom.

This legislation is also bad for business and creates roadblocks as we try to build the new Virginia economy.

Washington Times reports on the governor's action.

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Avishalom Westreich, An International Perspective on Same-Sex Marriage Post Obergefell (and Some Thoughts on Legal Positivism as a Means of Reconciliation): The Israeli Case, (Brigham Young University Journal of Public Law, Forthcoming).
• Sahar F. Aziz, Security and Technology: Rethinking National Security, (2 Tex. A&M L. Rev. 791 (2015)).
• Pok Yin Stephenson Chow, Has Intersectionality Reached its Limits? Intersectionality in the UN Human Rights Treaty-Body Practice and the Issue of Ambivalence, (Human Rights Law Review, 2016 (Forthcoming)).
• Candace B. Ford, Marriage, Religion, and the Art of Judging in Post-Obergefell Louisiana, (43 S.U. L. REV. ___ (2016)).
• Casey E. Faucon, Polygamy after Windsor: What's Religion Got to Do with It?, (Harvard Law & Policy Review, Vol. 9, p. 471, 2015).
• Ruth Colker, Freedom to Choose to Marry, (Columbia Journal of Gender and Law, Vol. 30, No. 2, 2016).
• Uladzislau Belavusau & Dimitry Kochenov, On the 'Entry Options' for the 'Right to Love' : Federalizing Legal Opportunities for LGBT Movements in the EU, (EUI Department of Law Research Paper No. 2016/09 (2016)).

From SSRN (Islamic Law):

• Yusuf Sani Abubakar, Anowar Zahid & Ruzian Markom, Insurable Interest Under Life Insurance And Family Takaful, (Shariah Journal, Vol. 23, No. 2 (2015) 343-364).
• Anowar Zahid, et. al., Qarinah: Admissibility of Circumstantial Evidence in Hudud and Qisas Cases, (Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, Vol. 6, No. 2, March 2015).

Recent Articles and Books of Interest

From SSRN:

• Frederick Mark Gedicks, The Religious-Question Doctrine: Free-Exercise Right or Anti-Establishment Immunity?, (Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies Research Paper No. RSCAS 2016/10, March 2016).
• Nathan B. Oman, Doux Commerce, Religion, and The Limits of Antidiscrimination Law, (Indiana Law Journal, Forthcoming).
• Shannon Gilreath & Arley Ward, Same-Sex Marriage, Religious Accommodation, and the Race Analogy, (Wake Forest Univ. Legal Studies Paper March 2016).
• Stuart Chinn, Finding Common Ground Across Race and Religion: Judicial Conceptions of Political Community in Public Schools, (Utah Law Review, Forthcoming).
• Richard Moon, The Accreditation of Trinity Western University's Law Program, (Law Matters (CBA - Alberta), Summer 2015).
• Jeremiah A. Ho, Once We're Done Honeymooning: Obergefell v. Hodges, Incrementalism, and Advances for Sexual Orientation Anti-Discrimination, (Kentucky Law Journal, Vol. 104, 2016).
• Anshul Kumar Pandey & Nilotpal Bansal, Mutilating the Past -- The Islamic State and the Last Song of History, (Februrary 19, 2016).

From SmartCILP:

• Henry L.Chambers, Jr., Telescoping and Collectivizing Religious Free Exercise Rights, 75 Maryland Law Review 392-414 (2015).
• John W. Compton, Evangelical Reform and the Paradoxical Origins of the Right to Privacy, 75 Maryland Law Review 362-382 (2015).
• Hon. Kermit V. Lipez, George Washington, Elena Kagan, and the Town of Greece, New York: The First Amendment and Religious Minorities, [Abstract], 16 Journal of Appellate Practice and Process 1-14 (2015).
• Loren F. Selznick, Running Mom and Pop Businesses By the Good Book: The Scope of Religious Rights of Business Owners, 78 Albany Law Review 1353-1392 (2014/2015).
• Symposium: Victoria Saker Woeste's Henry Ford's War on Jews and the Legal Battle Against Hate Speech. Introduction by Donna C. Schuele; essays by Aviam Soifer, Carroll Seron, Clyde Spillenger and Victoria Saker Woeste. 40 Law & Social Inquiry 1032-1079 (2015).

Recent Books:

• Daniel O. Conkle. Religion, Law, and the Constitution (Concepts and Insights Series), (Foundation Press, March 2016).
• Shanruo Ning Zhang, Confucianism in Contemporary Chinese Politics: An Actionable Account of Authoritarian Political Culture, (Lexington Books, March 2016).

Virginia Legislature Passes Bill To Protect Clergy and Religious Groups That Object To Same-Sex Marriage; Governor Threatens Veto

Yesterday the Virginia General Assembly gave final passage to S.41 (full text) that protects clergy, religious and religiously affiliated organizations and their employees and volunteers acting in the scope of their employment from being required to participate in the solemnization of any marriage or from receiving adverse treatment of any kind by the state because the person acted on the basis of a sincere religious or moral belief that marriage should be only the union of one man and one woman. As reported by the Washington Blaze, Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe has said he would veto the bill.  It should be noted that the language of the bill requires careful reading to avoid misinterpreting it as being broader than it is.  Section B. of the bill applies its protection to any "person," but that is limited by the narrow definition of "person" in Section A. The president of the Family Foundation of Virginia accurately, albeit not totally objectively, described the scope of the bill:

This legislation balances the recently discovered right to whatever definition of marriage you want with our nation’s longstanding principle of religious free exercise by ensuring that the heavy hand of government cannot penalize clergy or religious charities simply because of beliefs about marriage.

Federal District Judge Says Obergefell Does Not Bind Puerto Rico

In Vidal v. Garcia-Padilla, (D PR, March 8, 2016), a Puerto Rico federal district court held that the recognition of same-sex marriage in Obergefell v. Hodges  does not bind Puerto Rico until further action by the Supreme Court or Congress.  Relying on the so-called Insular Cases decided by the Supreme Court in the early 20th century, the court said "jurisprudence, tradition and logic teach us that Puerto Rico is not treated as the functional equivalent of a State for purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment...."  The court concluded:

It is in light of the particular condition of Puerto Rico in relation to the Federal Constitution, with due consideration of the underlying cultural, social and political currents that have shaped over five centuries of Puerto Rican history, that the court examines the effect of Obergefell in the instant case. The court’s analysis, therefore, does not end with the incorporation of the fundamental right to same-sex marriage in the States. Generally, the question of whether a constitutional guarantee applies to Puerto Rico is subject to determination by Supreme Court of the United States.

Lyle Denniston at SCOTUSblog has more on the decision.

Alabama Supreme Court Narrowly Avoids Confrontation With SCOTUS On Same-Sex Marriage

The Alabama Supreme Court yesterday in Ex parte State of Alabama ex rel. Alabama Policy Institute, (AL Sup. Ct., March 4, 2016), issued a per curiam order dismissing all pending motions and petitions in a suit that sought to require Alabama probate judges to refuse to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.  However the Order also generated six separate opinions from the 9 justices spanning 170 pages. Three of the opinions were particularly defiant of the U.S. Supreme Court's authority to hand down its Obergefell decision.

Chief Justice Roy Moore who has been in the lead in resisting same-sex marriage in Alabama (see prior posting) wrote the longest and most defiant opinion.  He actually submitted two opinions totaling 106 pages-- one an opinion on why he now decided not to recuse himself, even though he had done so at earlier stages of the case, and the second longer opinion attacking the U.S. Supreme Court's same-sex marriage decision. Explaining why he was willing to concur in the dismissal of the suit, Moore said:

Today this Court by order dismisses all pending motions and petitions and issues the certificate of judgment in this case. That action does not disturb the existing March orders in this case or the Court's holding therein that the Sanctity of Marriage Amendment, art. I, § 36.03, Ala. Const. 1901, and the Alabama Marriage Protection Act, § 30-1-9, Ala. Code 1975, are constitutional.

In perhaps his most radical attack, Moore said (at pp. 87-88):

The general principle of blind adherence to United States Supreme Court opinions as "the law of the land" is a dangerous fallacy that is inconsistent with the United States Constitution. Labeling such opinions as "the rule of law" confuses the law itself -- the Constitution -- with an opinion that purports to interpret that document.

Article VI, by its plain terms, binds "the judges in every state" to obedience to the Constitution itself, not to unconstitutional and illegitimate opinions of the United States Supreme Court. Just as the little boy in Hans Christian Andersen's tale pointed out that the Emperor, contrary to the assertions of his courtiers, was actually stark naked, so also the "judges in every state" are entitled to examine Supreme Court opinions to see if they are clothed in the majesty of the law of the Constitution itself rather than in naked propositions of men with no cognizable covering from that document.

Moore also emphasized religious liberty in his attack on the Obergefell majority, saying in part (at pg. 58):

The Obergefell majority, conspicuously overlooking the "essential and historic significance" of the connection between religious liberty and "supreme allegiance to the will of God," failed to appreciate the seriousness of imposing a new sexual-revolution mandate that requires Alabama public officials to disobey the will of God.

Justices Parker and Murdock also wrote defiant concurring opinions, while Justice Shaw's concurring opinion was highly critical of Chief Justice Moore's approach.

Justice Bolin's somewhat temperate concurrence is of particular interest. He said in part:

Although I have many times not agreed with a decision of the United States Supreme Court, or a decision of the Alabama Supreme Court for that matter, I have never criticized an opinion from any court in the manner in which I regrettably do so today. I am, however, able to count to five--and I know that five votes trump four; and, although that does not make it right, it does make it a majority opinion....

The foregoing being said, I am further compelled to concur specially to express my concern, which remains to be determined in future cases, that the Obergefell decision may have emasculated this State's entire statutory licensing scheme governing "marriage" to the point of rendering it incapable of being enforced prospectively.

Al.com reports at length on the decision.