Supreme Court Denies Cert. In Case Alleging Religious Belief Discrimination

The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday denied review in Pasadena Republican Club v. Western Justice Center, (Docket No. 20-1773, certiorari denied 10/12/2021). (Order List). In the case, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed a suit claiming viewpoint discrimination and religious belief discrimination by the Western Justice Center (WJC) that was leasing the historic Maxwell House from the city of Pasedena.  WJC refused to rent space to the Republican Club for a speech by the president of the National Organization for Marriage because NOM's position on same-sex marriage, gay adoption, and transgender rights are antithetical to the values of WJC.  The 9th Circuit (full text of opinion) held that WJC was not a state actor for purposes of the Republican Club’s constitutional claims, and that the the government did not become vicariously liable for the discretionary decisions of its lessee. (See prior related posting.) Pasedena Now reports on the Court's action.

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Sahar F. Aziz, Reflections on Security, Race, and Rights Twenty Years After 9/11, (12 J. Nat'l Sec. L. & Pol. 135 (2021)).
• Carl H. Esbeck, An Extended Essay on Church Autonomy, (22 Federalist Society Review 244 (2021)).
• Richard W. Garnett & Mitchell Koppinger, Tandon v. Newsome, South Bay Pentecostal, & Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn on Religious Liberty and the Pandemic, (Ch. 13, M. Marietta, ed., SCOTUS 2021: Major Decisions and Developments of the U.S. Supreme Court (Forthcoming 2021)).
• Nausica Palazzo, Marriage Apostates: Why Heterosexuals Seek Same-Sex Registered Partnerships, (Columbia Journal of Gender and Law, Forthcoming).
• Duncan Kennedy, Consciousness, Doctrine, and Politics in the History of American Family Law, (February 2, 2020).

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

• Robert C. Blitt, Russia’s 2020 Constitutional Amendments and the Entrenchment of the Moscow Patriarchate as a Lever of Foreign Policy Soft Power, (Peter Mandaville (ed.), The Geopolitics of Religious Soft Power: How States Use Religion in Foreign Policy, Oxford University Press, Forthcoming 2022).
• Thomas McMahon, Canada Needs the Every Child Matters Act: What Needs to Be in the Act, (September 30, 2021).
• Saud Alholiby & Zakaria A. Almulhim, From the Lack to the Requirement: The Public Consultation Reform in Saudi Arabia, (UCLA Journal of Islamic and Near Eastern Law, Forthcoming).
• Christian Bjørnskov, Stefan Voigt & Mahdi Khesali,   Unconstitutional States of Emergency, (August 30, 2021).

From SmartCILP:

• Fatemah AlBader, Cultural Oppression Disguised as Religious Obligation: A Fatal Misrepresentation to the Advancement of Muslim Women's Rights in the Context of the So-Called Honor Killings, 24 Asian Pacific American Law Journal 1-16 (2020).
• Stephanie Hennette-Vauchez, Religious Neutrality, Laicite and Colorblindness: A Comparative Analysis, 42 Cardozo Law Review 539-596 (2021).
• Mark Strasser, Conscience Clauses and the Placement of Children: Introduction, 15 Journal of Law & Family Studies 1-18 (2013).

Britain's Court of Appeal Rejects Christian Agency's Ban On Same-Sex Couples Becoming Foster Parents

In The Queen (On the Application of Cornerstone (Northeast) Adoption and Fostering Services, Ltd. v. Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Education, Children's Services and Skills (OFSTED), (EWCA, Sept. 24, 2021), England's Court of Appeal held that Cornerstone, a Christian foster care agency, violated the Equality Act 2010 and the Human Rights Act 1998 when it required clients with which it placed children to:

Set a high standard in personal morality which recognises that God's gift of sexual intercourse is to be enjoyed exclusively within Christian marriage; abstain from all sexual sins including immodesty, the viewing of pornography, fornication, adultery, cohabitation, homosexual behaviour and wilful violation of your birth sex.

The court said in part:

The detrimental impact on society and on individuals of discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation has led the law to set a demanding standard of justification.... [W]e should be slow to accept that prohibiting fostering agencies from discriminating against homosexuals is a disproportionate limitation on their right to manifest their religion....

... [T]here can be no doubting the value of its work or the sincerity of [Cornerstone's] motives. However, in order to justify a policy of this nature, it needed to provide credible evidence that there would otherwise be a seriously detrimental impact on carers and children. The evidence it actually advanced did not go beyond the level of general assertion.... [W]hile I would not rule out the possibility of an organisation in this position putting up a substantial evidence-based case on justification, Cornerstone simply did not do that....

[Thanks to Law & Religion UK for the lead.]

Ministerial Exception Requires Dismissal Of Title VII Claims By Catholic School Guidance Counselor

In Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Indianapolis, Indiana v. Roncalli High School, Inc., (SD IN, Aug. 11, 2021), an Indiana federal district court  held that the ministerial exception doctrine bars Title VII retaliation, discrimination and hostile work environment claims as well as state law claims of interference with contractual and employment relationships in a suit brought by the former Co-Director of Guidance at a private Catholic high school. The school refused to renew its contract with Lynn Starkey, who had been employed by the school for nearly forty years, after the school learned of Starkey's same-sex marriage. The court said in part:

To be sure, the court does not mean to say that divergent understandings of the religious nature of an employee's role should always be resolved in the religious employer's favor. For example, it would be difficult to credit a religious employer's claim that a custodian or school bus driver qualifies as a minister simply because the employer said so.... But this case concerns the Co-Director of Guidance ... [who] performed "vital religious duties" at Roncalli.... Employees in that position met with every student throughout the year and discussed some of the most sensitive issues in a young person's life.... Roncalli expressly entrusted Starkey with the responsibility of communicating the Catholic faith to students and fostering spiritual growth.

Becket issued a press release announcing the decision.

European Court Says Russia Violated Convention In Refusing To Register Same-Sex Unions

In Fedotova and Others v. Russia, (ECHR, July 13, 2021), the European Court of Human Rights in a Chamber Judgment held that Russia violated Article 8 (Respect For Private and Family Life) of the European Convention on Human Rights when it refused to register the marriage of same-sex couples. The Court said in part:

49.  ... Article 8 ... does not explicitly impose ... an obligation to formally acknowledge same-sex unions. However, it implies the need for striking a fair balance between the competing interests of same-sex couples and of the community as a whole....

54.  The Court notes that the protection of “traditional marriage” stipulated by the amendments to the Russian Constitution in 2020 ... is in principle weighty and legitimate interest, which may have positive effect in strengthening family unions. The Court, however, cannot discern any risks for traditional marriage which the formal acknowledgment of same-sex unions may involve, since it does not prevent different-sex couples from entering marriage, or enjoying the benefits which the marriage gives....

56.  ... [T]he respondent Government have a margin of appreciation to choose the most appropriate form of registration of same-sex unions taking into account its specific social and cultural context (for example, civil partnership, civil union, or civil solidarity act). In the present case they have overstepped that margin, because no legal framework capable of protecting the applicants’ relationships as same-sex couples has been available under domestic law.

According to Euronews, Russian authorities have rejected the Court's judgment, saying that the Court is meddling in the country's internal affairs. 

7th Circuit En Banc: Ministerial Exception Applies To Hostile Work Environment Claims

In Demkovich v. St. Andrew the Apostle Parish, Calumet City, (7th Cir., July 9, 2021), the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, sitting en banc, held by a vote of 7-3 that the ministerial exception doctrine applies to protect religious organizations from  hostile work environment claims alleging minister-on-minister harassment. A 3-judge panel had reach the opposite conclusion. At issue is derogatory and demeaning comments made to the church's gay music director by the church's pastor. The majority opinion, written by Judge Brennan, said in part:

This case concerns what one minister, Reverend Dada, said to another, Demkovich. Adjudicating Demkovich’s allegations of minister-on-minister harassment would not only undercut a religious organization’s constitutionally protected relationship with its ministers, but also cause civil intrusion into, and excessive entanglement with, the religious sphere.

Judge Hamilton filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Judges Rovner and Wood, saying in part: 

[P]laintiff is not asking the court to pass on the substance of the Catholic Church’s religious doctrines or practices. Civil courts have nothing to say about whether the Church should permit same-sex marriage, for example, or whether the Church should have a hierarchical supervisory structure. The Church was free to decide whether to retain plaintiff or fire him. But plaintiff’s hostile work environment claims allege conduct that constituted abuse under neutral, generally applicable standards that would be enforceable on behalf of a non-ministerial employee. That conduct is, by definition, not necessary to control or supervise any employee.

Bloomberg Law reports on the decision.

Recent Articles of Interest

 From SSRN:

• Michael A. Helfand, Religious Liberty and Religious Discrimination: Where Is the Supreme Court Headed?, (2021 University of Illinois Law Review Online 98 (2021)).
• Edward J. Larson, 46 at 100: Live by Faith and Lead with Science, (2021 University of Illinois Law Review Online 184 (2021)).
• Barbara P. Billauer, The Devil and the Dice; Job and Justice: Understanding the Misfortunes of Job in light of Modern Science & Law, (May 18, 2021).
• Swargodeep Sarkar, Protection Rohingyas through International Adjudication-Decoding Provisional Measures of International Court of Justice in The Gambia vs Myanmar, (Musamus Law Review, Volume 3, Issue 1, October 2020).
• Dr. Rifai Sulaiman Lebbe, Teaching Pedagogies of the Prophet Muhammad. Part 1 (May 19, 2021).
• Carlo A. Pedrioli, Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, Same-Sex Marriage, and the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court as Critical Social Movement Ally. (54 Loyola Los Angeles Law Review(2021)).

From SmartCILP:

• Marc Spindelman, Masterpiece Cakeshop's Homiletics, 68 Cleveland State Law Review 347-420 (2020).

Indiana Trial Court Dismisses Catholic School Teacher's Suit Against Archdiocese

As previously reported, in May 2020 in Payne-Elliott v. Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Indianapolis, Inc., an Indiana trial court refused to dismiss a lawsuit against the Catholic Archdiocese brought by a Catholic high school teacher who the Archdiocese ordered fired after he entered a same-sex marriage. In July 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court broadly interpreted the "ministerial exception" doctrine as it applies to teachers in religiously affiliated schools. Subsequently, in State of Indiana ex rel. Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Indianapolis, Inc. v. Marion Superior Court, (IN Sup. Ct., Dec. 10, 2020), the Indiana Supreme Court denied a writ of mandamus and prohibition and remanded the case to a different trial court judge "to consider new and pending issues and reconsider previous orders in the case."  Now, in Payne-Elliott v. Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Indianapolis, Inc.,  (IN Super. Ct., May 7, 2021), the trial court dismissed the case for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted. Legal Reader reports on the case.

British Court Says Removal of Franklin Graham Bus Ads Violated Religion and Speech Rights

In Lancaster Festival of Hope With Franklin Graham v. Blackpool Borough Council, (Manchester Cty. Ct., April 1, 2021), a British trial court held that the Equality Act 2010 and the European Convention on Human Rights were violated when banner ads for the Lancaster Festival of Hope were removed from public buses. According to the court:

Upon the Defendants receiving complaints from members of the public about the advertisements, the advertisements were removed from the buses. The complaints related to Franklin Graham and his association with the Festival, and predominantly referred to his views on homosexuality and same-sex marriage as being offensive.

In finding a violation of the Equality Act, the court said in part:

The complaints arose from the objections of members of the public to the religious beliefs. The removal came about because of those complaints. I find it also came about because the Defendants allied themselves on the issue of the religious beliefs with the complainants, and against the Claimant and others holding them. If there were any doubt about that it is made explicit by the content of the press statement issued on behalf of the Second Defendant when the advertisements were removed....

Finding a violation of the European Convention, and thus of the Human Rights Act 1998, the court said in part:

Yes, the Claimant was still able to advertise its event and yes, it was still a success. But “it turned out all right in the end” cannot be an answer to the question of whether the interference with a fundamental right to freedom of expression can be justified. The Defendants had a wholesale disregard for the right to freedom of expression possessed by the Claimant. It gave a preference to the rights and opinions of one part of the community without having any regard for the rights of the Claimant or those who shared its religious beliefs. It made no effort to consider whether any less intrusive interference than removing the advertisements altogether would meet its legitimate aim.

Christianity Daily reports on the decision.

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Cecile Laborde, On the Parity between Secular and Religious Reasons, Social theory and Practice (2021).
• Adam Swift, Parents’ Rights, Children’s Religion: A Familial Relationship Goods Approach, (Journal of Practical Ethics, Vol. 8 No. 2, Dec 2020).
• Doug Magendanz, How Norms Interact: On Normative Plasticity, (March 6, 2021).
• Blaine Hutchison, Raymond J Lajeunesse, Jr., Bruce Cameron & Frank D. Garrison, Comments on EEOC Proposed Updates to Compliance Manual on Religious Discrimination,  (December 17, 2020).
• Alexander Lindvall, Forgive Me, Your Honor, For I Have Sinned: Limiting the Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine to Allow Suits for Defamation and Negligent Employment Practices, (South Carolina Law Review, Vol. 72, No. 1, 2020).
• Deborah Cantrell, Transformative Silence and Protest, (Rutgers Journal of Law & Religion, Forthcoming).
• Katie R. Eyer, The But-For Theory of Anti-Discrimination Law, (Virginia Law Review, Forthcoming).
• Amanda Harmon Cooley, The Powerful Problem of Prayer at Public School Board Meetings, (March 7, 2021).
• Reva B. Siegel, Why Restrict Abortion? Expanding the Frame on June Medical, (2020 Sup. Ct. Rev. (Forthcoming).
• Robert G. Schwemm, Fair Housing and the Causation Standard After Comcast, (Villanova Law Review, Vol. 66, No. No. 1, 2021).
• Shuai Chen & Jan van Ours, Mental Health Effects of Same-Sex Marriage Legalization, (Tinbergen Institute Discussion Paper 2021-003/V (2021)).

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

• Dimitry Gegenava, Legal and Social Status of the Georgian Orthodox Church: Challenges and Perspectives, (Teka Komisji Prawniczej PAN Oddział w Lublinie, t. XIII, 2020, nr 2).
• Cochav Elkayam-Levy, Re-Imagining the Rules – the Global Transition to Transformative Equality and the Narratives of Feminist Religious Movements, (December 31, 2020).
• Vincenzo Pacillo, The Role of Mario Piacentini and Mario Falco in the Drafting of the Italian Fascist Laws on Religious Minorities and Jewish Communities, Highlighting the Danger of Nationalism for the Freedom of Religion or Belief, (October 27, 2020).
• Warto Ahmad Saifuddin, Zainal Arif, Efri Syamsul Bahr & Zulfitria, Opportunities and Challenges of Halal Product Business Pasca COVID-19 in Indonesia, (November 10, 2020).
• Muhammad Sher Abbas, Honour Killings In Pakistan And Status Of Women In Islamic Law, (January 5, 2021).
• Faisal Kutty, In Search of the Elusive Middle Ground Between Blasphemy and Free Speech: From Defamation of Religion to Incitement to Hate, (August 5, 2020).

Colorado Supreme Court: Same-Sex Common Law Marriages Before Obergefell Are Valid

In In re Marriage of LaFleur & Pyfer, (CO Sup. Ct., Jan. 11, 2021), the Colorado Supreme Court held that a court may recognize as a common law marriage a relationship entered into by same-sex couples before the U.S. Supreme Court's Obergefell decision that legalized same-sex marriages. Chief Justice Boatright concurred in part. Justice Samour dissented. In In re Marriage of Hogsett & Neale, decided at the same time, the Colorado Supreme Court refined the test for common law marriages in Colorado.

New Survey On Attitudes Toward LGBT Rights

The Public Religion Research Institute yesterday released polling results on the extent of support in the U.S. for same-sex marriage and LGBT anti-discrimination laws. The study finds that majorities of Americans favor allowing same-sex marriage, oppose allowing religiously affiliated agencies that receive taxpayer funding to refuse to accept qualified same-sex couples as foster parents, oppose religiously-based refusals to serve gays and lesbians, and favor allowing transgender individuals to serve in the armed forces. When examined by religious preference, only white evangelical Protestants had majorities at odds with the broader results.

Title VII Religious Exemption Does Not Protect Against Suit Over Sexual Orientation Discrimination

 In Starkey v. Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Indianapolis, Inc., (SD IN, Oct. 21,2020), an Indiana federal district court held that a former Catholic school guidance counselor who was fired because of her same-sex marriage may bring a discrimination claim under Title VII. The court rejected the school's contention that the religious institution exemption in Title VII applies. The court said in part:

Sexual orientation is a protected class under Title VII, and the language and legislative history of Title VII indicate Congress intended that religious institutions remain subject to Title VII's prohibition on discrimination on the basis of a protected class. To be sure, this case requires a careful balancing of religious liberty and an employee's right to be free from discrimination. The proper balance is to interpret Title VII's religious exemption to allow a religious employer to make hiring decisions in favor of coreligionists without facing claims of religious discrimination, but to allow a plaintiff to bring claims of other forms of Title VII discrimination. The religious exemption does not bar Starkey's Title VII claims of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, retaliation, and hostile work environment....

So, the question then becomes: Does a religious reason for an employment decision bar a plaintiff's Title VII claim when the religious reason also implicates another protected class?  The exemption under Section 702 should not be read to swallow Title VII's rules. It should be narrowly construed to avoid reducing Title VII's expansive rights and protections.

 Indiana Lawyer reports on the decision.

Cert. Denied In Appeal By Kim Davis Who Refused To Issue Same-Sex Marriage Licenses

The U.S. Supreme Court today denied certiorari in Davis v. Ermold, the case involving former Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis who refused on religious grounds to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.  Justice Thomas, joined by Justice Alito, concurred in the denial of review, but issued a four page statement critical of the Court's same-sex marriage precedent. (Order List, scroll to page 55.) In the case, the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals held that Davis may be sued in her individual capacity and is not entitled to qualified immunity. (See prior posting). Justice Thomas wrote in part:

In Obergefell v. Hodges ... the Court read a right to same-sex marriage into the Fourteenth Amendment, even though that right is found nowhere in the text. Several Members of the Court noted that the Court’s decision would threaten the religious liberty of the many Americans who believe that marriage is a sacred institution between one man and one woman. If the States had been allowed to resolve this question through legislation, they could have included accommodations for those who hold these religious beliefs.... The Court, however, bypassed that democratic process. Worse still, though it briefly acknowledged that those with sincerely held religious objections to same-sex marriage are often “decent and honorable,” ... the Court went on to suggest that those beliefs espoused a bigoted worldview....

The Hill reports on the case.

Recent Virginia Anti-Discrimination Statutes Challenged

 Two lawsuits filed this week challenge two recently enacted Virginia statutes-- SB 868 prohibiting discrimination in public accommodations and employment, and HB 1429 that prohibits discrimination against transgender individuals in health insurance policies.

The complaint (full text) in Calvary Road Baptist Church v. Herring, (VA Cir. Ct., filed 9/28/2020) was filed by churches, Christian schools and pregnancy centers and alleges that the laws require plaintiffs to hire employees, provide insurance coverage and offer services that violate their religious beliefs on marriage, sexuality and gender.

The complaint (full text) in Updegrove v. Herring, (ED VA, filed 9/28/2020) was filed by a photographer who will "not provide wedding photography that celebrates any marriage not between one man and one woman, such as same-sex, polygamous, or open engagements or marriages, because [he] believes that God created marriage to be an exclusive union between one man and one woman."

ADF issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuits.

Recent Articles and Books of Interest

 From SSRN:

• Sephen A. Rosenbaum, Invisibility, Inclusivity & Fraternity: [Book Review Essay] 'Was Yosef on the Spectrum? Understanding Joseph Through Torah, Midrash and Classical Jewish Sources' , by Samuel J. Levine, Urim Publications (2019), (36 Touro Law Review 215 (2020)).
• Aabid Majeed Sheikh & Sayed Hanan Yusofi, Religion in International Relations Theory, (Journal of Advances and Scholarly Researches in Allied Education 16, February 2019).
• John H. Shannon & Richard J. Hunter, Jr, The Civil Rights Act of 1964: Beyond Race to Employment Discrimination Based on Sex: The 'Three Letter Word' That Has Continued to Vex Society and The United States Supreme Court, (Journal of Social and Political Sciences, Vol.3 No.3 (2020)).
• Jared Ham, Getting Away with Marginalization: Rejecting a Formalistic Standing Analysis and Remedying LGBTQ+ Discrimination Through Congressional Legislation, (Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy, Vol. 28, No. 3, 2019).
• Tal Mimran, In A Broken Dream: Lessons from The Rise and Demise of the Self-Declared Caliphate of the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq, (Journal of Transnational Law & Policy, Vol. 29, 2019-2020).
• Aabid Majeed Sheikh, Maulana Maududi and Sayid Qutub on Jihaad and Islamic State, (International Journal of Multidisciplinary Educational Research, Vol 7, No (12(2) (2018).
• Rosemary Teele Langford, Conflicts and Coherence in the Charities Sphere: Would a Conflict By Any Other Name Proscribe the Same?, ((2020) 14 Journal of Equity).
• Peter Molk & D. Daniel Sokol, Nonprofit Governance in an Age of Compliance,(August 7, 2020).

Recent & Forthcoming books:

• Aaron Griffith, God’s Law and Order: The Politics of Punishment in Evangelical America, (Harvard Univ. Press, Nov. 2020).
• William N. Eskridge Jr. & Christopher R. Riano, Marriage Equality: From Outlaws to In-Laws , (Yale Univ. Press, Aug. 2020).

Wedding Photographer Successfully Challenges Anti-Discrimination Ordinance

 In Chelsey Nelson Photography LLC v. Louisville/ Jefferson County Metro Government, (WD KY, Aug. 14, 2020), a Kentucky federal district court held that a wedding photographer is likely to succeed in her Free Speech challenge to Louisville, Kentucky's Fairness Ordinance. That law prohibits a business from denying services to an individual based on the person's sexual orientation, and from advertising that it will engage in such discrimination.  Holding that plaintiff's wedding photography is speech, the court said in part:

Nelson is a photographer, editor, and blogger. She takes engagement and wedding photos with artistic skill....

Nelson is also a Christian. Her faith shapes everything she does, including how she operates her photography studio. She believes that marriage is between one man and one woman. For that reason, she would decline to photograph a same-sex wedding, and she would decline to edit photos from a same-sex wedding. She wants to explain these views on her website....

 Louisville can’t ban expression just because it finds the expression offensive.

To be clear, most applications of anti-discrimination laws — including Louisville’s Fairness Ordinance — are constitutional. Today’s ruling is not a license to discriminate. Nor does it allow for the “serious stigma” that results from a sign in the window announcing that an owner won’t serve gay and lesbian customers.... Marriott cannot refuse a room to a same-sex couple.  McDonald’s cannot deny a man dinner simply because he is gay. Neither an empty hotel room, nor a Big Mac, is speech.

ADF issued a press release announcing the decision.

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Robert F. Cochran, Jesus and the Mosaic Law: Agapic Love as the Foundation and Objective of Law, (Touro Law Review, Vol. 36, No. 1, 2020).
• James M. Oleske, Jr., In the Court of Koppelman: Motion for Reconsideration, (2020 BYU Law Review, Forthcoming).
• Nicholas Aroney, Law, Education and Religion — Pathways to the Good Society?,(July 8, 2020).
• Itzchak E. Kornfeld, Equity in American and Jewish Law, (Touro Law Review, 2020).
• Jack M. Balkin, Obergefell v. Hodges: A Critical Introduction, (to appear in Jack M. Balkin, ed., What Obergefell v. Hodges Should Have Said: The Nation's Top Legal Experts Rewrite America's Same-Sex Marriage Decision (Yale University Press 2020).
• Rigel Christine Oliveri, Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Discrimination Under the Fair Housing Act After Bostock v. Clayton County, (University of Missouri School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2020-23).
• Ryan T. Anderson & Robert George, The Unfairness of the Misnamed 'Fairness For All' Act, (Notre Dame Journal of Legislation Online Supplement, 2020).
• Nan D. Hunter, Reconstructing Liberty, Equality, and Marriage: The Missing Nineteenth Amendment Argument, (Georgetown Law Journal, Vol. 108, Issue 7, Nineteenth Amendment Special Edition, pp. 73-104 (2020).
• Jacob Russell, For Whom Are Non-Profit Managers Trustees? The Contractual Revolution in Charity Governance, (Laby & Russell, eds., Fiduciary Obligations in Business (Cambridge University Press, Forthcoming)).
• David M. Schizer, Enhancing Efficiency at Nonprofits with Analysis and Disclosure , (Columbia Journal of Tax Law, Volume 11, Number 2, Pgs. 76 - 134 (July 30, 2020)).

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

• Faizan Kirmani, A New Theory on the Quraanic Term Hadd (pl.Hudood), (Journal of Legal Studies And Research, 2020).
• Adnan Zulfiqar, Pursuing Over-Criminalization at the Expense of Islamic Law, (Harvard Journal of Islamic Law, Forthcoming).
• Dimitry Kochenov & Uladzislau Belavusau, After the Celebration: Marriage Equality in EU Law post-Coman in Eight Questions and Some Further Thoughts, (Forthcoming in 27 Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law 2020).
• Reza Hasmath, Future Responses to Managing Muslim Ethnic Minorities in China: Lessons Learned from Global Approaches to Improving Inter-Ethnic Relations, (2020).
• Augustine Arimoro & Abba Elgujja, When Dissent by Football Fans On Social Media Turns to Hate: Call for Stricter Measures, (University of Maidguri Journal of Public Law Vol. 6 Iss. 1 (2019)).
• Charlotte Ku, What Can Islamic Law Practice Tell Us About the Peaceful Resolution of International Disputes, (International Studies Review, Forthcoming).
• Phillip Morgan, Judgment-Proofing Voluntary Sector Organisations from Liability in Tort, ((2020) 6 Canadian Journal of Comparative and Contemporary Law).

From SmartCILP:

• Stephen M. Krason, The Constitutional Jurisprudence of William Bentley Ball and Charles E. Rice, [Abstract], 16 Ave Maria Law Review 1-35 (2018).
• Michael Quinlan, The Twenty-First Century Catholic Lawyer, [Abstract], 16 Ave Maria Law Review 36-61 (2018).

Wedding Services Company Challenges Public Accommodation Non-Discrimination Ordinance

A Christian minister, Kristi Stokes, the owner of Covenant Weddings LLC, filed suit in an Ohio federal district court this week challenging the constitutionality of Cuyahoga County, Ohio's public accommodation ordinance (full text) which which makes it illegal for any public accommodation to

discriminate against, or treat differently any person except for reasons applicable alike to all persons regardless of race, color, religion, military status, national origin, disability, age, ancestry, sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity or expression...

The complaint (full text) in Covenant Weddings LLC v. Cuyahoga County, (ND OH, filed 7/22/2020) alleges in part:

The County ... cannot rescind religious liberty and free speech by relabelling them discrimination....

Through Covenant Weddings, Kristi personally officiates and writes custom homilies, vows, and prayers for weddings...

The Accommodations Clause forces Kristi to provide her wedding services for same-sex wedding ceremonies or for wedding ceremonies where a marrying individual identifies as the opposite sex and would require Kristi to proclaim messages and to participate in religious ceremonies that violate her religious beliefs, which she cannot do.... 

This undercuts Kristi’s message (expressed elsewhere in her social media accounts and wedding services) celebrating marriage between one man and one woman; harms Kristi’s reputation among her past and prospective clients; undermines her editorial control over what services she offers to the public; and adversely affects Kristi’s ability to share biblical truths about marriage with others....

ADF issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

2nd Circuit: Free Speech and Free Exercise Claims of Christian Adoption Agency Can Move Forward

In New Hope Family Services, Inc. v. Poole, (2d Cir., July 21, 2020), the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, in an 84-page opinion, reversed the dismissal of free exercise and free speech claims brought by a Christian adoption agency.  The court summarized the issues:

New Hope Family Services, Inc., is a voluntary, privately funded Christian ministry devoted to providing adoption services and authorized to do so in the State of New York for more than 50 years. New Hope professes that, consistent with its religious beliefs, it cannot recommend adoptions by unmarried or same-sex couples. It does not itself disapprove such couples; rather, it refers them to other adoption agencies. In 2018, the State’s Office of Children and Family Services (“OCFS”) informed New Hope that its policy respecting unmarried and same-sex couples violates the antidiscrimination mandate of N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 18, § 421.3(d). OCFS advised New Hope that it either had to change its policy or close its operation.

In reversing and remanding the case to the district court, the 2nd Circuit said in part as to plaintiff's free exercise claim:

[W]e conclude that the pleadings give rise to a sufficient “suspicion” of religious animosity to warrant “pause” for discovery before dismissing New Hope’s claim as implausible. 

In connection with plaintiff's free speech claim, the court said:

New Hope asserts that, based on its religious beliefs about marriage and family, it does not believe and, therefore, cannot state, that adoption by unmarried or same-sex couples would ever be in the best interests of a child. It charges OCFS with requiring it to say just that—or to close down its voluntary, privately funded adoption ministry....

AP reports on the decision.