Labor Department Proposes Rescinding Trump Era's Broad Religious Employer Exemption Rule

The Department of Labor yesterday released a proposal (full text) to rescind a Trump Administration rule (see prior posting) that defined expansively the religious exemption in the agency's rules imposing anti-discrimination requirements on government contractors and subcontractors. Yesterday's Release says in part:

OFCCP believes that the 2020 rule creates a lack of clarity regarding the scope and application of the exemption because ... it misstates the law in key respects. In addition, as a threshold matter, OFCCP has reevaluated the need for the rule. For the 17 years prior to 2020, OFCCP implemented the Executive Order 11246 religious exemption without seeking to codify its scope and application in specific regulatory language....

[T]he 2020 rule creates its own religious employer test, independent of Title VII case law interpreting the identical term. The test adopted in the 2020 rule permits a contractor whose purpose and/or character is not primarily religious to qualify for the Executive Order 11246 religious exemption....

In addition, the 2020 rule retreats from the general principle that qualifying religious employers are prohibited from taking employment actions that amount to discrimination on the basis of protected characteristics other than religion, even if the decisions are made for sincerely held religious reasons....

FCW reports on the proposed rule rescission.

School Must Offer Alternatives To Nursing Students Who Assert Religious Objection To COVID Vaccination Requirement

In Thoms v. Maricopa County Community College District,(D AZ, Nov. 5, 2021), an Arizona federal district court granted a preliminary injunction to two nursing students who sought religious exemptions from the COVID vaccination requirement they faced in order to complete their 3-day clinical rotation. Originally the school required all students to comply with the placement requirements of its most stringent clinical partner, but later modified this for students doing their rotation at a clinic that had less stringent standards. However this did not help plaintiffs since their clinic required universal vaccination with no religious exemptions. The court held that under Arizona's Free Exercise of Religion Act, the school had not shown that it met the compelling interest/ least restrictive means test.  It undermined its interest in preventing the spread of COVID by allowing religious exemptions when students were assigned to rotations at clinics which did not mandate vaccination. It also had options such as simulated clinical experiences that could be offered as accommodations. The court applied a similar strict scrutiny analysis to plaintiffs' 1st Amendment free exercise claim, finding that the school's policy is not a generally applicable one since in at least one case the school provided an alternative to in-person clinicals.

Before-School Religious Club Requirement To Play Basketball OK'd

In K.K. & K.K. v. Comer, (ED TN, Nov. 5, 2021), a Tennessee federal district court dismissed a suit brought by the married lesbian mothers of a middle school student challenging a before-school basketball program which allowed students to participate only if they also participated in the Teens For Christ Club. The court dismissed the claim against the Knox County Board of Education, saying in part:

Plaintiff’s allegations only suggest that a policymaker was aware of the existence of the Teens for Christ Club, but Plaintiff’s allegations do not go so far as to make it plausible that a final policymaker was put on notice of ongoing unconstitutional conduct like the alleged condition precedent.

The court also found that plaintiffs had failed to allege sufficient facts to support their claim that the school board failed to adequately train employees.

In addition, the court went on to dismiss the Establishment Clause claim brought against the physical education teacher involved on qualified immunity grounds, saying in part: 

Defendant Comer argues that the Court must assume that he was reading from the Bible and proselytizing to voluntary participants of the Teens for Christ Club and simply allowed those participants to shoot basketballs in the gymnasium before school. Lastly, Defendant Comer asserts that while he was allegedly reading from the Bible to the voluntary participants, he was lawfully exercising his own First Amendment rights....

Plaintiff cites to no caselaw clearly establishing that it is patently unconstitutional for a teacher like Defendant Comer to allow a religious school club to use the school gymnasium to shoot basketballs outside of regular school hours.

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Benjamin Porat, From a Conception of Territorial Jurisdiction to a Conception of Extra-Territorial Jurisdiction: A Study of a Tannaitic Legal Transition, (AJS Review (Forthcoming)).
• Walter Edward Afield, Framing Tax Enforcement Against the Poor Through Catholic Social Teaching, ((October 28, 2021), Canopy Forum).
• Britta van Beers & Gareth T. Davies, Human Dignity and Bioethics at the Beginning and End of Life, (in G.N.Cornelisse and C.H. Slingenberg (eds) Fundamental Rights in Europe (forthcoming, Edward Elgar, 2022)).

From SmartCILP and elsewhere:

• Journal of Law & Religion, Vol. 36, Issue 2 (Aug. 2021).
• Erwin Chemerinsky & Michele Goodwint, Civil Liberties in a Pandemic: The Lessons of History, 106 Cornell Law Review 815-850 (2021).

Supreme Court Will Hear Oral Arguments In FISA And Muslim Surveillance

The U.S. Supreme Court this morning will hear oral arguments in Federal Bureau of Investigation v. Fazaga. This case grows out of a suit for damages against FBI agents for discriminatory surveillance of Muslims in California. The issue for the Supreme Court is whether a provision in FISA displaces the state secrets privilege to allow the district court to move ahead in camera, rather than dismissing the claims. Here is the SCOTUS blog case page with links to all of the filings in the case. The arguments will be streamed live by the Court at 10:00 AM from this link. Al Jazeera has a lengthy report on the background of the case. When the transcript and audio of today's oral arguments become available, I will update this post with links.

UPDATE: Here are links to the transcript and audio of the oral arguments. AP reports on the oral arguments.

Ministerial Exception Doctrine Requires Dismissal Of Priest's Interference With Contract Claim

In Tracy v. O'Bell, (PA Super., Nov. 5, 2021), a Pennsylvania state appellate court held that the ministerial exception doctrine requires dismissal of a tortious interference with contract suit by Father Tracy, a Catholic priest, against three influential lay members of the Catholic parish which employed Tracy.  Tracy alleges that these members made false and defamatory statements to parish members and to the bishop in order to have him removed from his position after he discovered unexplained amounts of parish cash in a file cabinet under defendants' control. The court said in part:

[T]he First Amendment provides special protection to communications regarding the selection and retention of religious ministers.... [O]ur result does not insulate lay people from liability from defamatory statements against clergy. Nor do we deprive clergy of the ability to seek to redress all civil wrongs committed against them by lay people. We have no occasion to address those questions. Appellant’s complaint is very specific—he alleges that Appellees, through their communications with the local bishop and others, sought and successfully procured Appellant’s removal from ministry. Our holding is correspondingly narrow—Appellant’s allegations are inextricably intertwined with his removal from ministry, and therefore the trial court properly sustained Appellees’ preliminary objection based on the ministerial exception. 

Greek Top Court Bans Kosher and Halal Slaughter

Last week, Greece's highest administrative court-- the Hellenic Council of State-- in a ruling essentially banned kosher and Halal slaughter of animals in Greece. As reported by Israel Hayom:

The ruling saw the court revoke the standing slaughter permit, which was provided through a ministerial decision that exempted ritual Jewish and Muslim slaughter practices from the general requirement to stun animals prior to killing them.

The ruling further called on Greek lawmakers to devise a way to meet the demands of animal rights advocates and the needs of Jews and Muslims who follow the laws about food in their traditions.

According to the Jerusalem Post:

The reason the court gave for the law being balanced is that it allows for “reversible stunning.”

The court said the law limits one specific aspect of the ritual act of slaughter, not the act of slaughter itself; as such, it does not count as interference with religious practice.

First Ever Scientology Arbitration Award Upheld By 11th Circuit

In Garcia v. Church of Scientology Flag Service Organization, Inc., (11th Cir., Nov. 2, 2021), the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision, affirmed a district court decision refusing to vacate a arbitration award made under arbitration agreements between the Church of Scientology and two of its former members. After Luis and Maria Garcia were expelled from the Church as "suppressive members", they unsuccessfully sought refunds of their donations and payments. They then sued in federal court seeking $400,000 in damages. The district court compelled arbitration, and the arbitrators awarded the Garcia's only $18,495 in refunds in the first arbitration in the history of the Church of Scientology. The Garcia's unsuccessfully challenged the validity of the arbitration agreement and the conduct of the arbitrators.

On appeal to the 11th Circuit, the majority rejected the argument that the arbitration agreements were procedurally unconscionable because they did not adequately disclose the procedures that would govern the arbitration. The agreements provided that the arbitration would be “conducted in accordance with Scientology principles” by arbitrators who were “Scientologists in good standing with the Mother Church.” They also rejected the claim of substantive unconscionability.  The Garcia's argued that Scientology doctrine prevented a fair hearing for suppressive members.  The Church disagreed.  The court concluded that the 1st Amendment prevents civil courts from resolving disputes about church doctrine.

Judge Rosenbaum dissented, contending in part:

[T]he arbitration agreement is not a valid agreement to arbitrate. Rather, in requiring the Garcias to agree to be governed at arbitration by rules that did not exist and would be devised by the Church and evolve while the arbitration proceeded, the arbitration agreement was as one-sided and unconscionable as an arbitration agreement can be.

News Service of Florida reports on the decision.

4th Circuit: Denial Of Church's Application For Water and Sewer Plan Amendment Violated RLUIPA

In Redeemed Christian Church of God (Victory Temple) Bowie, Maryland v. Prince George's County, Maryland, (4th Cir., Nov. 3, 2021), the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals held that the legislative amendment to the County’s Water and Sewer Plan which Victory Temple sought to recategorize its property constitutes a "land use regulation" subject to RLUIPA. It also concluded that the denial of Victory Temple's application for a recategorization imposed a substantial burden on its exercise of religion. The court concluded in part:

[T]he County never sought to show at trial that it considered alternatives — such as roadway improvements or additional road signs — before denying the Application. At bottom, we agree with the district court that the County’s denial of the Application fails strict scrutiny review. In these circumstances, the court did not abuse its discretion in granting Victory Temple the injunctive relief that is appealed from.

From 2nd Circuit To Supreme Court, Fight Over NY's Removal Of Vaccine Religious Exemptions Continues

One day after hearing oral arguments in the cases challenging the elimination of religious exemptions from New York's requirement that health care workers be vaccinated against COVID, the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals vacated temporary injunctions that had been issued in We the Patriots USA, Inc. v. Hochul  and Dr. A v. Hochul. In its October 29 Order (full text), the 2nd Circuit said that written opinions in the two cases would follow expeditiously. On Nov. 1, petitioners in We the Patriots case filed an Emergency Application (full text) with the U.S. Supreme Court seeking a new injunction while they file a petition for certiorari with the Court. Washington Examiner reports on the filing.

UPDATE: Here is the 2nd Circuit's 50-page opinion supporting its Order rejecting requests for a preliminary injunction. We the Patriots USA, Inc. v. Hochul, (2d Cir., Nov. 4, 2021).

UPDATE2: On Nov. 12, petitioners in the Dr. A case also filed an Emergency Application for an Injunction or in the alternative the granting of certiorari. (Full text of application).

Mississippi City Is Sued Over Refusal To Approve Mosque Site Plan

Suit was filed yesterday in a Mississippi federal district court alleging that the City of Horn Lake denied approval of the site plan for a proposed mosque because of religious animus. The suit alleges violation of various provisions of RLUIPA as well as the 1st Amendment. The complaint (full text) in Abraham House of God and Cemetery, Inc. v. City of Horn Lake, (ND MS, filed 11/3/2021) alleges in part:

Despite the pretextual excuses for their decision, Board members did not work very hard to hide the true reason they denied approval for the project—anti-Muslim prejudice. As then Alderman John E. Jones Jr. told the local newspaper: “I don’t care what they say, their religion says they can lie or do anything to the Jews or gentiles because we’re not Muslims.” In making his motion to reject the mosque’s proposed site plan, Jones ominously warned his fellow Board members, “[I]f you let them build it, they will come. So I think we need to stop it before it gets here.”...

In sum, what should have been an uncomplicated approval of the site plan for the Abraham House of God foundered in a storm of anti-Muslim bias.

ACLU of Mississippi issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Christian Parents Challenge Virginia Ban On Religious Discrimination In Hiring Babysitter

Suit was filed last week in a Virginia state trial court by Christian parents of a developmentally disabled child who sought to employ a regular babysitter who is Christian to help raise their daughter in the Christian tradition. The Virginia Human Rights Act was amended in July 2021 to bars use of religion as a motivating factor in hiring domestic workers, including babysitters, and to bar expressing religious preferences in employment ads. The complaint (full text) in Woodruff v. Herring, (VA Cir. Ct., filed 10/28/2021) contends that application of this law to plaintiffs burdens their free exercise of religion in violation of the Virginia Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Foundation for Parental Rights issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit. [Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]

Texas Voters Approve Measure To Ban Limits On Religious Services

In reaction to limits imposed on religious gatherings during the COVID pandemic, Texas voters yesterday approved Proposition 3, a state constitutional amendment which provides:

This state or a political subdivision of this state may not enact, adopt, or issue a statute, order, proclamation, decision, or rule that prohibits or limits religious services, including religious services conducted in churches, congregations, and places of worship, in this state by a religious organization established to support and serve the propagation of a sincerely held religious belief.

The vote was 62.42% in favor, 37.58% opposed. More details at Ballotpedia.

Nurse's Religious Objections Should Have Been Accommodated Under Illinois Right of Conscience Act

 In Rojas v. Martell,(IL Cir. Ct., Oct. 25, 2021), an Illinois state trial court held that under Illinois Healthcare Right of Conscience Act, a county Health Department Clinic should have accommodated the objections of a nurse who on religious grounds would not participate in abortion referrals or provide contraceptives to patients. However, the court found that plaintiff was entitled only to the statutory minimum damages of $2500 because she should have mitigated damages by pursuing a position that was available at a nursing home. The court summarized its holding:

[W]hen one member of a team of employees makes an objection of conscience to performing a minority of her job duties, the employer should be required to accommodate the employee in her present position if doing so does not unreasonably compromise the employer's operations.

ADF issued a press release announcing the decision.

Suit Seeking Permission For Sidewalk Proselytizing Moves Ahead

In Peters v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville & Davidson County, Tennessee, (MD TN, Nov. 1, 2021), a Tennessee federal district court allowed plaintiffs who were prevented from religious proselytizing in areas, including the plaza and sidewalks, outside Nashville's Bridgestone Arena to move ahead with most their 1st and 14th Amendment, and failure-to-train, claims. The court said in part:

Drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of the Plaintiffs, it is reasonable to infer that Metro police officers were enforcing the Arena Policies with the approval or direction of the Metro legal department. At the motion to dismiss stage, this is sufficient to allege plausibly the existence of a municipal policy or custom.

California Ban On Harassing Persons Entering Vaccination Site Violates 1st Amendment

In Right to Life of Central California v. Bonta, (ED CA, Oct. 30, 2021), a California federal district court issued a temporary restraining order barring enforcement of a portion of a California statute that protects patients near vaccine sites from "harassment." The statute was challenged by a right-to-life organization that approaches women entering a Planned Parenthood clinic. The clinic is covered by the statute because it offers HPV vaccine. The court concluded that the 1st Amendment's free speech protections are violated by the prohibition on "harassing" anyone entering or exiting within 100 feet of the site.  The harassment ban bars approaching within 30 feet of such person to give them a leaflet or handbill, or to display a sign, or engage in oral protest, education or counseling. The court did not enjoin enforcement of the ban on obstructing, injuring, intimidating, or interfering with such person.  ADF issued a press release announcing the decision.

Illinois Legislature Eliminates Religious Exemption For COVID Vaccine Employer Mandates

Last week, the Illinois legislature gave final passage to SB 1169 (full text) which amends the Illinois Health Care Right of Conscience Act to provide:

It is not a violation of this Act for any person or public official, or for any public or private association, agency, corporation, entity, institution, or employer, to take any measures or impose any requirements ... intended to prevent contraction or transmission of COVID-19....

JD Supra explains:

The HCRCA has recently gained notoriety as a way for individuals to avoid complying with employer-mandated vaccine and testing policies and other COVID-19 safety measures. The HCRCA was enacted primarily to ensure that health care providers would not be compelled to participate in providing health care services that they find morally objectionable, such as performing abortions or dispensing contraceptives. However, the HCRCA is broadly worded.... 

While these protections are similar in some ways to Title VII in terms of requiring employers to accommodate employee religious beliefs ..., unlike Title VII, the HCRCA has no “undue hardship” exemption, even if granting an exception would create a significant risk to health and safety or prevent the employer from complying with federal or state regulations.

Religious Exemptions From Title VII Allow LGBTQ Employment Discrimination

In Bear Creek Bible Church v. EEOC, (ND TX, Oct. 31, 2021), a Christian church and a Christian-owned business filed a class action in a Texas federal district court seeking religious exemptions from provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Under the U.S. Supreme Court's Bostock case, Title VII's ban on sex discrimination prohibits employment discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. The court, in a 70-page opinion, held that as to churches and similar religious employers, the religious organization exemption in Title VII allows more than just religious discrimination:

[A] religious employer is not liable under Title VII when it refuses to employ an individual because of sexual orientation or gender expression, based on religious observance, practice, or belief.

As to businesses that assert a religious objection to homosexual and transgender behavior, the court held that Title VII substantially burdens their religious exercise in conducting business, in violation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act as well as of the 1st Amendment's Free Exercise and Freedom of Association protections.

The court went on to rule on several other questions which the Supreme Court's Bostock decision arguably left unresolved. It concluded: 

• Title VII bars discrimination against bisexuals, just as it does against gays, lesbians and transgender individuals. 
• Policies that require employees to refrain from certain sexual activities, including sodomy, premarital sex, adultery, and other sexual activity outside of marriage between a man and a woman are permitted because they do not apply exclusively to bar homosexual conduct.
• Sex-specific dress codes based on biological sex are permitted because they apply evenly to those who identify with their biological sex and to transgender individuals.
• Policies that prohibit employees from obtaining genital modification surgery or hormone treatment for gender dysphoria violate Title VII.
• Title VII allows employers to have policies that promote privacy, such as requiring the use of separate bathrooms on the basis of biological sex.

Bloomberg Law reports on the decision.

Supreme Court GVR's Challenge To New York's Abortion Coverage Mandate

In Roman Catholic Diocese v. Emami, (Docket No. 20-1501, GVR, 11/1/2021) (Order List) the U.S. Supreme Court today granted certiorari, vacated the judgment below and remanded the case to New York's Appellate Division for further consideration in light of Fulton v. Philadelphia. Justices Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch would have granted full review of the New York decision. In the case, the New York court rejected a challenge by several religious organizations and other plaintiffs to a New York administrative regulation requiring health insurance policies in New York to provide coverage for medically necessary abortion services. (See prior posting.) Becket Law issued a press release discussing the Court's action.

Certiorari Denied In Catholic Hospital's Free Exercise Claim

The U.S. Supreme Court today denied review in Dignity Health v. Minton, (Docket No. 19-1135, certiorari denied 11/1/2021) (Order List.) Justices Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch would have granted review. In the case, a California state appellate court (full text of opinion) held that California's Unruh Civil Rights Act allows a suit against a Catholic hospital for unequal access by a transgender man whose doctor was not permitted to perform a hysterectomy on him at the hospital. The hospital argued that performing the procedure would violate its long-held religious beliefs.

Recent Articles of Interest

 From SSRN:

• Charlie Martel, Racism and Bigotry as Grounds for Impeachment, (New York University Review of Law and Social Change, 45 Rev. L. & Soc. Change 101 (2021)).
• Muhammad Abdullah Fazi, Post-9/11 U.S. Immigration Laws and Implications for Muslims, (Hong Kong Journal of Social Sciences 2021).
• Gunjan Dubey & Ibrahima Haneef, Status of Indian Muslims with Special Consideration to Their Educational Attainment, (January 22, 2021).
• Robert W. Tuttle, Foster Care and the Growing Tension Between the Religion Clauses: A Comment on Rogers v. HHS, (60 Family Court Review ___ (forthcoming 2022)).
• Chao-Ju Chen, Single Equality in the Age of Marriage Equality,  (International Journal of Constitutional Law, Volume 18, Issue 2, July 2020, Pages 461–465).

From SmartCILP:

• Branton J. Nestor, Revisiting Smith: Stare Decisis and Free Exercise Doctrine, 44 Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy 403-462 (2021).

Supreme Court Will Hear Arguments Today In Texas "Heartbeat" Abortion Ban

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments this morning in two cases challenging the Texas "heartbeat" abortion ban. The question the Supreme Court agreed to consider is not the ultimate constitutionality of the ban, but whether Texas has effectively insulated the law from pre-enforcement challenge.  In Whole Woman’s Health v. Jackson, the question presented by the petition for certiorari is:

whether a State can insulate from federal-court review a law that prohibits the exercise of a constitutional right by delegating to the general public the authority to enforce that prohibition through civil actions.

In United States v. Texas, the Supreme Court's grant of certiorari was limited to the question:

May the United States bring suit in federal court and obtain injunctive or declaratory relief against the State, state court judges, state court clerks, other state officials, or all private parties to prohibit S.B. 8 from being enforced.

The SCOTUS blog case pages for the cases (1, 2 ) have links to all the filings by the parties, as well as to the numerous amicus briefs that have been filed. SCOTUS blog has an extensive preview of the arguments. The arguments will be streamed live by C-SPAN.  At 10:00 AM (EST) arguments in Whole Woman's Health can be heard here. At 11:00 AM (EST) arguments in U.S. v. Texas can be  heard here. I will update this post to furnish links to the transcripts and recordings of the arguments when those become available later today.

UPDATE: Here are links to the transcript and audio of arguments in Whole Woman's Health. And here are the links in United States v. Texas.

Pope Says Biden Should Not Be Denied Communion

According to a New York Times report yesterday:

President Biden told reporters on Friday that Pope Francis had called him a “good Catholic” and said he should keep receiving communion, an unexpected development that appeared to put a papal finger on the scale in a debate raging in the United States’ Roman Catholic Church over whether the president and other Catholic politicians who support abortion rights should be denied the sacrament....

Asked to confirm Mr. Biden’s remarks, Matteo Bruni, the Vatican spokesman, said the Holy See limited its comments to the news release about subjects discussed during the meeting and added, “It’s a private conversation.”

In a separate article today, the New York Times reports that President Biden received communion Saturday evening at St. Patrick’s Church in Rome, an English-speaking church dedicated to the American Catholic community. President Biden is in Italy for a meeting of G20 leaders, as well as for his meeting with Pope Francis.

Supreme Court, 6-3, Denies Injunction Pending Appeal In Maine COVID Vaccination Case

The U.S. Supreme Court yesterday, by a vote of 6-3, in John Does 1-3 v. Mills, (Sup. Ct., Oct. 29, 2021), refused to enjoin enforcement of Maine's COVID vaccine mandate while a petition for Supreme Court review of the 1st Circuit's decision is pending. Healthcare workers sued objecting to the absence of religious exemptions from the mandate. The 1st Circuit in an Oct. 19 opinion (full text) refused a preliminary injunction against enforcement. The Supreme Court's Order was issued without an accompanying majority opinion. However, Justice Barrett, joined by Justice Kavanaugh, issued a short concurring opinion which appears to recognize the concern with the Court's increasing use of its "shadow docket" to render important decision.  Justice Barrett wrote in part:

When this Court is asked to grant extraordinary relief, it considers, among other things, whether the applicant “‘is likely to succeed on the merits.’” ... I understand this factor to encompass not only an assessment of the underlying merits but also a discretionary judgment about whether the Court should grant review in the case.... Were the standard otherwise, applicants could use the emergency docket to force the Court to give a merits preview in cases that it would be unlikely to take—and to do so on a short fuse without benefit of full briefing and oral argument....

Justice Gorsuch, joined by Justices Thomas and Alito, filed an opinion dissenting from the denial of injunctive relief, saying in part:

Maine has so far failed to present any evidence that granting religious exemptions to the applicants would threaten its stated public health interests any more than its medical exemption already does.

This case presents an important constitutional question, a serious error, and an irreparable injury.... [H]ealthcare workers who have served on the front line of a pandemic for the last 18 months are now being fired and their practices shuttered. All for adhering to their constitutionally protected religious beliefs. Their plight is worthy of our attention.

SCOTUS blog reports on the decision.

Biden Meets With Pope Francis

As reported by CNN, President Joe Biden met for 90 minutes this morning with Pope Francis at the Vatican. The White House released a brief readout (full text) of the meeting, which said:

In his audience with Pope Francis today, President Biden thanked His Holiness for his advocacy for the world’s poor and those suffering from hunger, conflict, and persecution. He lauded Pope Francis’ leadership in fighting the climate crisis, as well as his advocacy to ensure the pandemic ends for everyone through vaccine sharing and an equitable global economic recovery.

After his audience with the Pope, Biden met with Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Parolin. They discussed a variety of issues (White House readout), including advocacy for religious freedom world-wide.

Supreme Court Lifts Stay Of Execution Despite Inmates' Religious Objections To Sentence Conditions

The U.S. Supreme Court yesterday, by a vote of 5-3, in a brief Order (full text) vacated a stay of execution that had been entered by the 10th Circuit in Crow v. Jones (Sup. Ct., Docket No. 21A116). According to the New York Times:

The inmates, John Marion Grant and Julius Jones, had argued that the state’s [Oklahoma's] lethal injection protocol, which uses three chemicals, could subject them to excruciating pain.

They also objected on religious grounds to a requirement imposed by a trial judge that they choose among proposed alternative methods of execution, saying that doing so would amount to suicide.

President Biden's Statement On International Religious Freedom Day

Yesterday was International Religious Freedom Day, commemorating the signing of the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998.(Current version). Yesterday President Biden issued a Statement (full text) marking the day, saying in part:

We stand in defense of religious freedom not only as an expression of our deepest values but also because it is a vital national security priority. The United States will continue to rally the globe to protect and promote the right of freedom of religion or belief, including through multilateral coalitions such as the International Religious Freedom or Belief Alliance.

2nd Circuit Hears Arguments On New York Vaccine Mandate

The U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday heard oral arguments in Dr. A v. Hochul. (Audio of oral arguments (mp3 file download)). In the case, a New York federal district court issued a preliminary injunction to health care workers who object to the elimination of religious exemptions from New York's requirement that health care workers be vaccinated against COVID. (See prior posting.) The case was consolidated for oral argument with We the Patriots USA, Inc. v. Hochul which poses similar issues. (Memorandum of Law ).

Texas Governor Signs Ban On Transgender Girls Participating On Female Sports Teams

On Monday, Texas Governor Gregg Abbott signed HB 25 (full text) which requires transgender students on interscholastic high school athletic teams to compete only on teams that conform to their biological sex as specified on their original birth certificate. The only exception is for female students competing on male teams when no female team is available. The law states that its purpose is:

to further the governmental interest of ensuring that sufficient interscholastic athletic opportunities remain available for girls to remedy past discrimination on the basis of sex.

KRIS TV reports on the new legislation. [Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]

Washington Vaccine Mandate Upheld Over Free Exercise Challenge

 In Wise v. Inslee, (ED WA, Oct. 25, 2021), a Washington federal district court refused to enjoin Washington state's COVID vaccine mandate for for educators, healthcare workers, and state employees and contractors. One claim was that the mandate violates free exercise rights. The mandate recognizes that individuals may be entitled to disability related or religious accommodations under various anti-discrimination statutes. According to the court:

Plaintiffs appear to argue Proclamation 21-14 is facially neutral but not generally applicable because it essentially creates “an unlawful faith-based barrier to gainful employment.”....

As Defendants rightly indicate, because there are no exemptions for political, personal, or other objections, if anything, the Proclamation encourages religious practice....   Plaintiffs cannot demonstrate a discriminatory application solely because they disagree with the availability of accommodations. Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate how the Proclamation is not generally applicable....

Plaintiffs’ objections to the Proclamation relate primarily to their disagreement with Defendants’ judgment regarding public health, which is insufficient to overcome the constitutionality of Defendants’ actions in enacting and promulgating the Proclamation, regardless of which level of scrutiny is applied.

Center Square reports on the decision.

Christian Student Group Challenges University's Non-Discrimination Policy

Suit was filed this week in a Texas federal district court by a Christian student organization at the University of Houston challenging the University's non-discrimination policy that led to a denial of recognition of the group as a Registered Student Organization. The complaint (full text) in Ratio Christi at the University of Houston- Clear Lake v. Khator, (SD TX, filed 10/25/2021), contends that the University violated the 1st and 14th Amendments by:

a. Denying Ratio Christi registered status because it requires that its officers, who have religious responsibilities, share the organization’s religious beliefs and support its purposes;

b. Conditioning a student organization’s access to campus resources and student services fee funding on a system where UHCL officials have unbridled discretion... [and [c]] must consider multiple content- and viewpoint-based factors; and

d. Compelling Plaintiffs to pay student service fees into a system that is viewpoint discriminatory.

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

UPDATE: ADF announced on Oct. 29 that the University has now recognized Ratio Christi as a Registered Student Organization.

New Survey of Antisemitism In U.S. Released

The American Jewish Committee yesterday released it latest annual State of Antisemitism in America report. It includes a Survey of American Jews, a Survey of the U.S. General Public, and a Comparison of the two surveys. Among other things, it indicates that 40% of American Jews and 21% of the general public think that anti-Semitism is a "very serious problem."

EEOC Updates Guidance On Religious Objections To COVID Vaccine

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission yesterday announced an update to its Technical Assistance Questions and Answers, adding Part L Title VII and Religious Objections to COVID-19 Vaccine Mandates. The extensive new guidance provides in part:

The employer may ask for an explanation of how the employee’s religious belief conflicts with the employer’s COVID-19 vaccination requirement.  Although prior inconsistent conduct is relevant to the question of sincerity, an individual’s beliefs – or degree of adherence – may change over time and, therefore, an employee’s newly adopted or inconsistently observed practices may nevertheless be sincerely held.  An employer should not assume that an employee is insincere simply because some of the employee’s practices deviate from the commonly followed tenets of the employee’s religion, or because the employee adheres to some common practices but not others.  No one factor or consideration is determinative, and employers should evaluate religious objections on an individual basis.

When an employee’s objection to a COVID-19 vaccination requirement is not religious in nature, or is not sincerely held, Title VII does not require the employer to provide an exception to the vaccination requirement as a religious accommodation.

Bloomberg Law reports on the new guidance.

Home-Based Synagogue Sues Over Zoning Restrictions

Suit was filed this month in an Ohio federal district court by a home-based synagogue in a Cleveland suburb alleging that the city's land use regulations violate the Religious Land Use an Institutionalized Persons Act, as well as the federal and state constitutions. The complaint (full text) in Aleksander Shul v. City of University Heights, Ohio, (ND OH, filed 10/13/2021), alleges in part:

Since 2009, Rabbi Shnior Zalman Denciger ... has engaged in prayer services at his residence.... The Property has become known throughout the City as the “Aleksander Shul,” ... that offers Orthodox Jewish prayer services in the Polish Chassidic style, and according to the unique customs of the Aleksander Chassidic sect, which was decimated by the Nazis during the Holocaust.

The City for many years permitted the Aleksander Shul to operate informally at the Property. For many residents of the City, the Aleksander Shul is the only place for them to exercise their religion because, pursuant to their Orthodox Jewish beliefs, they do not travel in cars on the Sabbath....The City, however, has taken various actions to shut down Orthodox Jewish shuls, including the Aleksander Shul, and the City’s zoning scheme makes it impossible to locate any parcel within the City where a place of worship can legally operate.

News 5 Cleveland has additional background on the lawsuit.

Canadian Court Upholds Job Program Funding Limited To Groups Supporting Abortion Rights

In Right to Life Association of Toronto v. Canada , (Fed.Ct., Oct. 22, 2021), Canada's Federal Court in a 63-pagae opinion upheld a requirement in the 2018 Canada Summer Jobs program that required organizations applying for funding to attest that they respected individual human rights, Charter rights and reproductive rights. A right-to-life organization and individuals associated with it claimed that the attestation went beyond the Ministry's authority, was added at the behest of an abortion rights lobby, and infringes their freedom of religion and of speech. The court said in part:

[191] As found, the Attestation was a reasonable policy decision and within the Minister’s authority in accordance with the DESDA [Department of Employment and Social Development Act]. The decision to add the Attestation was not made with a closed mind, for improper purposes, or based on irrelevant considerations.

[192] The effect of the Attestation restricted or limited the Applicants’ rights to freedom of religion and protection against compelled speech, but only minimally and only in the context of the application for 2018 CSJ [Canadian Summer Jobs] funding. The limitation on the Applicants’ Charter rights reflects a proportionate balancing with the objectives of the DESDA and the CSJ program.

National Post reports on the decision.

USCIRF Calls Attention To Persecution of Ahmadiyya Muslims

The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom has recently issued a new Factsheet on Persecution of Ahmadiyya Muslims, focusing particularly on issues in Pakistan, Algeria and Malaysia, saying part:

In these countries, authorities have targeted Ahmadis through hate speech and speech inciting violence against them, denied them citizenship, restricted their rights to worship, and prosecuted them for practicing their faith, including by charging them with, and in some cases convicting them of, blasphemy. Some states prohibit Ahmadis from declaring their faith publicly, criminalize them for identifying as Muslim, and prohibit them from calling their houses of worship mosques....

 USCIRF explains:

Because of the differences between Ahmadiyya beliefs and beliefs in Sunni and Shi’a Islam, many Muslims consider Ahmadiyya Muslims to be heretics.

Recent Articles and Books of Interest

 From SSRN:

• Linda C. McClain & James Fleming,  Civic Education in Circumstances of Constitutional Rot and Strong Polarization, (Boston University Law Review, Vol. 101, No. 1771, 2021).
• Judith Geldenhuys & Michelle Kelly-Louw, Demystifying Hate Speech under the PEPUDA, (PER / PELJ 2020(23)).
• Charles W. (Rocky) Rhodes & Howard Wasserman, Solving the Procedural Puzzles of Texas’ Fetal-Heartbeat Law and its Imitators: The Potential for Defensive Litigation, (SMU Law Review, (forthcoming 2022)).
• Howard Wasserman & Charles W. (Rocky) Rhodes, Solving the Procedural Puzzles of Texas’ Fetal-Heartbeat Law and its Imitators: The Limits and Opportunities for Offensive Litigation, (American University Law Review, Vol. 71, 2022).
• Abdul Muqaddas Opeyemi Ishaaq El-Mubarak, Zakariya Mustapha & Isyaku Hassan, Regulation Not Mere Legislation: The Issue of Enhancing Islamic Banking Performance Across Nigeria, (International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences 2021).

Recent Books of Interest:

• Spencer W. McBride, Joseph Smith for President-- The Prophet, the Assassins, and the Fight for American Religious Freedom, (Oxford Univ. Press, May 2021).
• Michael Graziano, Errand into the Wilderness of Mirrors-- Religion and the History of the CIA, (University of Chicago Press, June 2021).
• Greg Bourke, Gay, Catholic, and American-- My Legal Battle for Marriage Equality and Inclusion, (Notre Dame Univ. Press, Sept. 2021).
• Alvin H. Rosenfeld (ed.), Contending with Antisemitism in a Rapidly Changing Political Climate,(Indiana Univ. Press, Nov. 2021).

9th Circuit Hears Arguments In Apache Attempt To Prevent Sacred Land Transfer

Last Friday, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments in Apache Stronghold v. United States. (Video of full oral arguments.) In the case, an Arizona federal district court refused to issue a preliminary injunction to prevent a land exchange between the federal government and two foreign mining companies known as Resolution Copper. The land to be conveyed to Resolution Copper contains a sacred Apache ceremonial ground know as Oak Flat. (See prior posting.) In March, the 9th Circuit refused to issue an injunction pending appeal sought by Apache tribal members. (See prior posting.) Eagle Tribune reports on last week's oral arguments.

General Religious Objection Available Under Hawaii's COVID Mandate

In Pelekai v. State of Hawai'i, (D HI, Oct. 22, 2021), a Hawaii federal district court rejected various challenges to Hawaii state and county mandates that public employees be vaccinated against COVD or else submit to regular testing. One of plaintiffs' objections was to language rejecting any religious exemption based on opposition to "specific vaccinations". The court rejected that claim, saying in part:

The policy ... does not prohibit an employee from making the following objection: “I object to all vaccines that have been developed using aborted fetal cell lines on religious grounds.” The latter is not an objection to a specific vaccine, is not prohibited by Honolulu’s policy, and is the objection Plaintiffs themselves claim to want to make.

Oklahoma Governor Condemns State's Issuance Of Non-Binary Birth Certificate

According to The Oklahoman, Oklahoma Governor Kevin Stitt has reacted sharply to a legal settlement by the state's former attorney general. Under the settlement, a state district court in August ordered the State Health Department to reissue a birth certificate with a non-binary sex designation. Last week, Gov. Stitt issued a statement saying:

I believe that people are created by God to be male or female. Period. There is no such thing as non-binary sex and I wholeheartedly condemn the purported OSDH court settlement that was entered into by rogue activists who acted without receiving proper approval or oversight.

Oklahoma House Speaker Charles McCall contended that the settlement is invalid because state law requires any settlement that "substantially impacts the operation or programs of a state agency" be reviewed first by legislative leaders and the governor's office. A member of the legislature has already pre-filed a bill to prevent non-binary designations on birth certificates in the future. Oklahoma House Minority Leader Emily Virgin says she is disgusted by the Governor's statement. [Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]

U.S. Returns As Member Of U.N. Human Rights Council

As reported by CNN, on Thursday the United States was elected by the U.N. General Assembly to the United Nations Human Rights Council. This reverses the Trump Administration's withdrawal from the Council three years ago. US Ambassador to the United Nations Linda Thomas-Greenfield, commenting on the U.S.'s role, said in part:

[W]e will promote respect for fundamental freedoms and women's rights, and oppose religious intolerance, racial and ethnic injustices, and violence and discrimination against members of minority groups, including LGBTQI+ persons and persons with disabilities....

[The U.S.]  will oppose the Council's disproportionate attention on Israel, which includes the Council's only standing agenda item targeting a single country.

Also on Thursday, President Biden announced his intention to nominate Michèle Taylor as U.S Representative to the UN Human Rights Council with the rank of Ambassador. The Atlanta Jewish Times has extensive background information on Taylor.

Supreme Court Grants Extra Rapid Review In Texas Abortion Cases, But Postpones Granting Interim Stay

The U.S. Supreme Court today took action to decide quickly whether Texas has effectively shielded its new "heartbeat" abortion law (S.B. 8) from review.  In two cases in which emergency relief was sought, the Court granted review ahead of any decision by the Court of Appeals. In Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson, it granted a petition for certiorari before judgment. (Order List). In the case, the Supreme Court previously refused to prevent Texas' S.B.8 from continuing in effect while its constitutionality is being litigated. (See prior posting.) Also today, the Court acted in United States v. Texas, the Justice Department's challenge to the Texas law.  The Court granted certiorari before judgment and "deferred pending oral argument" the government's motion to vacate the 5th Circuit's stay of the district court's injunction barring enforcement of S.B.8. The grant of review was limited to:

May the United States bring suit in federal court and obtain injunctive or declaratory relief against the State, state court judges, state court clerks, other state officials, or all private parties to prohibit S.B. 8 from being enforced.

This parallels the question presented by the Petition for Certiorari in Whole Woman's Health:

[W]hether a State can insulate from federal-court review a law that prohibits the exercise of a constitutional right by delegating to the general public the authority to enforce that prohibition through civil actions.

In both cases, the Court ordered that petitioners' briefs (as well as any amicus briefs) be filed electronically by Oct. 27, and reply briefs be filed by Oct. 29. Oral argument in both cases is set for Nov. 1.

Justice Sotomayor filed a dissent to the Court's refusal in United States v. Texas to grant an immediate stay, pending the appellate process, of enforcement of the law, saying in part:

[T]he Court’s failure to issue an administrative stay of the Fifth Circuit’s order pending its decision on this application will have profound and immediate consequences. By delaying any remedy, the Court enables continued and irreparable harm to women seeking abortion care and providers of such care in Texas—exactly as S. B. 8’s architects intended... 

 CNN reports on the Court's action, as does the New York Times.

Catherine Lhamon Confirmed By Senate To Head DOE's Office For Civil Rights

On Wednesday, the United States Senate confirmed the nomination of Catherine Lhamon to be Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights at the U.S. Department of Education.  The vote was 51-50, with Vice-President Harris casting a tie-breaking vote. This returns Lhamon to a position she held under the Obama administration. According to Education Week:

During her first tenure under Obama, Lhamon oversaw the office when it helped draft 2016 guidance to schools directing them to allow transgender students to use facilities like restrooms and locker rooms that matched their gender identity.

Canadian Court Upholds COVID Restrictions On Churches

In Gateway Bible Baptist Church v. Province of Manitoba, (MBQB, Oct. 21, 2021), a Manitoba (Canada) trial court, in a 156-page opinion, upheld against constitutional challenges the public health restrictions imposed by the province on gatherings at places of worship and at private homes.  Plaintiffs were several churches and individuals. The court concluded that while the restrictions infringed the rights to freedom of conscience and religion; freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression; and freedom of peaceful assembly, the Public Health Orders are constitutionally justifiable as reasonable limits under Section 1 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The court said in part:

[T]he decision to temporarily close places of worship and otherwise limit the size of gatherings, was rational, reasoned and defensible in the circumstances of an undeniable public health crisis.

The court went on to conclude that the restrictions did not infringe the rights of liberty or security and did not amount to religious discrimination. The court said in part:

It is the position of the applicants that the impugned PHOs discriminate on the basis of religion in that they classify liquour, cannabis and big-box retailers as “essential” and therefore allow them to remain open [while they] classify churches and religious gatherings as “non-essential”.... Put simply, the applicants submit that it is discriminatory to allow people to assemble in liquor and grocery stores, but not worship at church.... [T]he applicants have inaccurately described Manitoba’s use of the adjective “essential” as it relates to churches and religious gatherings just as they have also failed to appreciate that the distinction in question (between what is permitted to remain open and what must remain closed) is not based on religion.

The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms issued a press release discussing the decision.

European Court Says Tabloid Coverage Of Deceased Priest Violated Privacy Rights

In M.L. v. Slovenia, (ECHR, Oct. 14, 2021), the European Court of Human Rights held that Article 8 (Respect for private life) of the European Convention on Human Rights was violated when Slovenian courts rejected claims that the mother of a deceased Roman Catholic priest brought against three newspapers. The son had been convicted in 1999 and 2002 on charges growing out of homosexual conduct. The son died in 2006, apparently of suicide. In 2008, three tabloid newspapers published sensationalized stories about the son's life. The Court said in part:

[I]t was crucial in the present case that the domestic courts make a careful assessment of the presence and level of public interest in the publishing of the information in question, and that the domestic courts strike a balance between any such public interest and the applicant’s individual interests....

[T]he domestic courts failed to carry out a balancing exercise between the applicant’s right to private life and the newspaper publishers’ freedom of expression in conformity with the criteria laid down in the Court’s case-law.

The Court awarded damages of 5000 Euros plus costs.  The Spectator reports on the decision.

Defamation Suit Filed By Prominent Pastor Against Former Southern Baptist Ethics Commission Head

Suit was filed this week in a Tennessee federal district court by Michael Stone, a prominent Southern Baptist pastor of a congregation in Georgia, against Russell Moore, former head of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission (ERLC) of the Southern Baptist Convention. The complaint (full text) in Stone v. Moore, (MD TN, filed 10/18/2021), alleges that soon after Stone, as Chairman of the Executive Committee, began to serve on a task force created to assess whether the actions of ERLC and Moore were negatively affecting the Southern Baptist Convention's fiscal well-being, Moore defamed him in two letters leaked to the news media. According to the complaint:

The First Letter ... contained numerous false allegations against Plaintiff, who was then a prominent candidate for the presidency of the SBC.... [It] indirectly identifies Plaintiff by alleging that “the current chairman of the Executive Committee” and the “Executive Committee... ‘exonerated’ churches, in a spur-of-the-moment meeting, from serious charges of sexual abuse cover-up.”...

[A]dditional statements made by Defendant in the First Letter, including a statement declaring the existence of an SBC “culture where countless children have been torn to shreds, where women have been raped” are demonstrably false.

Stone seeks damages of $750,000 for libel, false light invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Religion News Service has more background on the case.

DC Circuit: USCIS Denial Of Religious Worker Visa Violated RFRA

In National Capital Presbytery v. Mayorkas, (D DC, Oct. 19, 2021), the D.C. federal district court held that USCIS violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act when it refused to renew the R-1 nonimmigrant religious worker visa for one of National Capital Presbytery's (NCP) ministers who is a citizen of Myanmar. The church applying for a R-1 visa must show how it intends to compensate the religious worker. Here the agency's Administrative  Appeals Office concluded that NCP had not adequately shown this. The court said in part:

Plaintiffs note that Defendants promulgated the compensation regulation to improve its “ability to detect and deter fraud and other abuses in the religious worker program.”... No compelling interest exists here. Defendants do not argue that NCP does not exist, or that there is any fraud afoot here. Given the interest the compensation regulation serves, and that Defendants do not allege fraud, they cannot show a compelling interest in denying NCP’s petition for the reasons asserted....

Justice Breyer Refuses To Enjoin Maine Vaccine Mandate Pending Appeal

As previously reported, a Maine federal district court rejected claims by health care employees that Maine violated their free exercise rights when it eliminated religious exemptions from its COVID vaccine mandate for health care workers. The 1st Circuit refused to issue an injunction pending appeal, and plaintiffs sought similar relief from the U.S. Supreme Court through a filing with Justice Breyer. Yesterday in John Does 1-2 v. Mills, Justice Breyer issued an Order reading:

The application is denied without prejudice to applicants filing a new application after the Court of Appeals issues a decision on the merits of the appeal, or if the Court of Appeals does not issue a decision by October 29, 2021.

AP reports on developments.

Christian Employers Group Challenges HHS And EEOC Protection for Transgender Health Care

Suit was filed this week in a North Dakota federal district court by a Christian membership ministry that serves for-profit and non-profit employers challenging two federal rules on health care coverage for gender transition surgery. At issue are (1) an EEOC interpretation of Title VII that requires employers to cover gender transition services in their health plans; and (2) An HHS non-discrimination requirement that forces religiously-affiliated healthcare providers to perform gender transition surgeries, procedures, counseling, and treatments. The complaint (full text) Christian Employers Alliance v. U.S. EEOC, (D ND, filed 10/18/21), alleges in part:

31. CEA members believe and teach that each human being bears the image and likeness of God, and that the two, distinct biological sexes of male and female are complementary and together reflect the image and nature of God.

32. CEA members believe and teach that rejection of one’s biological sex is a rejection of the image of God within that person.

The suit alleges violations of RFRA, free exercise and free speech protections. ADF issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Appellate Court Says Injunction Against Church Picketer Was Too Broad

In Tenth Presbyterian Church v. Snyder, (PA Super, Oct. 18, 2021), a Pennsylvania state appellate court held that the trial court was justified in issuing a preliminary injunction against Phillip Snyder, an excommunicated member of the church, who picketed the church every Sunday. However the appellate court held that the preliminary injunction's requirement that Snyder remain at least 5,000 feet from the church property was not narrowly enough tailored. The appellate court pointed out that Snyder had engaged in aggressive and agitated behavior that frightened Church members, and that he carried a concealed firearm. Nevertheless, it concluded:

[T]he trial court couched its preliminary injunction in the broadest terms to protect the interest of the Church and its members, disregarding Snyder’s constitutional right to protest the Church and its leadership. A five-thousand-foot restriction places Snyder well beyond the point at which his constitutional right to protest is utterly extinguished.  Put succinctly, the five-thousand-foot restriction is not “couched in the narrowest terms that will accomplish the pin-pointed objective permitted by constitutional mandate and the essential needs of public order.”

2nd Circuit Upholds Prison's Change In Schedule For Quaker Meetings

In Green Haven Prison Preparative Meeting of the Religious Society of Friends v. New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, (2d Cir., Oct. 18, 2021), the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's denial of a preliminary injunction to plaintiffs who are individual and groups of Quakers who object to changes in the schedules for Quaker meetings at a maximum security prison. The court held that as to quarterly meetings attended by incarcerated as well outside Quakers, the non-incarcerated plaintiffs had not shown that under RLUIPA the schedule change had imposed a substantial burden on their exercise of religion. As to weekly meetings attended only by incarcerated Quakers, plaintiffs had not exhausted their administrative remedies as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act.

Justice Department Asks Supreme Court To Reinstate District Court's Injunction Against Texas Abortion Law

In United States v. Texas, the Justice Department today filed in the Supreme Court an Application (full text) to vacate the 5th Circuit's stay of a preliminary injunction that had been granted by a Texas federal district court. The application on the Court's Shadow docket was filed with Justice Alito who is assigned to take emergency filings from the 5th Circuit. At issue is the Justice Department's challenge to the Texas "heartbeat" abortion law. The Justice Department adds that the Court may treat this as a petition for a grant of certiorari before judgment. The Application says in part:

The question now is whether Texas’s nullification of this Court’s precedents should be allowed to continue while the courts consider the United States’ suit. As the district court recognized, it should not: The United States is likely to succeed on the merits because S.B. 8 is clearly unconstitutional and because the United States has authority to seek equitable relief to protect its sovereign interests -- including its interest in the supremacy of federal law and the availability of the mechanisms for judicial review that Congress and this Court have long deemed essential to protect constitutional rights.... 

Again, the Fifth Circuit disputed none of this. Instead, the divided panel’s one-paragraph order stayed the preliminary injunction solely for “the reasons stated in” two decisions addressing a prior challenge to S.B. 8.... But those reasons do not apply to this very different suit. Sovereign immunity forced the private plaintiffs in Whole Woman’s Health to sue individual state officers, and this Court and the Fifth Circuit questioned whether those officers were proper defendants. This suit does not raise those questions because it was brought against the State of Texas itself, and the State has no immunity from suits by the United States. The Fifth Circuit ignored that distinction, which refutes the court’s only justification for the stay.

Justice Alito ordered Texas to file a response by noon on Thursday.  Twenty-three states and the District of Columbia filed a joint amicus brief (full text) in support of the Justice Department.

CNN reports on these developments.

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Caroline Mala Corbin, The Pledge of Allegiance Revisited: Requiring Parental Consent, (Indiana Law Journal, Forthcoming).
• Rafael Domingo Osle, The Right to Religious Freedom: Extension or Erosion?, (Tom Angier, Iain Benson, and Marc Retter (eds), Handbook on Natural Law and Human Rights (Cambridge University Press Forthcoming)).
• Mohammad Fadel, Sovereignty, Territoriality and Islamic Private International Law, (October 12, 2021).

From SmartCILP:

• UCLA Journal of Islamic and Near Eastern Law, Vol. 18 (2020): Engy Abdelkader, China's Repression of Uigher Muslims: A Human Rights Perspective in Historical Context; Yael Efron & Mohammed S. Watad, When "Allahu Akbar" Becomes a Crime: The Israeli Case; Hallie Ludsin, International Human Rights Law and Religious and Cultural Law: Breaking the Impasse; Ryan Riegg, Sources of Saudi Conduct: How Saudi Family Law and Royal Polygyny Produce Political Instability.

LGBTQ Discrimination In Placing Unaccompanied Minor Refugees Is Challenged

Suit was filed earlier this week in federal district court for the District of Columbia challenging the Office of Refugee Resettlement's contracting with religiously-sponsored agencies (including the USCCB) that discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation in providing foster parents for unaccompanied minor refugees. The complaint (full text) in Easter v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, (D DC, filed 10/13/2021), alleges in part:

Some ... organizations ... provide taxpayer-funded foster placement services on the federal government’s behalf in a discriminatory manner that categorically excludes lesbian, gay, and bisexual people from participating as prospective foster parents. They contend that the organizations’ religious beliefs justify denying lesbian, gay, and bisexual people from participating equally in the government program that the agencies receive taxpayer funds to administer....

The United States Constitution constrains the government by requiring freedom without favor and equality without exception in performing its functions. And what the government cannot do directly, it may not do indirectly.

Americans United issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit. 

Class Action Challenges Denials Of Religious Exemptions From Federal COVID Vaccine Mandate

A class action lawsuit was filed yesterday in a Florida federal district court on behalf of military personnel, federal employees federal civilian contractors who have been denied a religious exemption from the federal government's COVID vaccine mandate. The complaint (full text) in Navy Seal I v. Biden, (MD FL, filed 10/15/2021) alleges in part:

Plaintiffs ... face a deadline under the Federal COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate to receive a COVID-19 vaccine that violates their sincerely held religious beliefs, and have been refused any religious exemption or accommodation....

Plaintiffs all have sincerely held religious beliefs, rooted in Scripture, that preclude them from complying with the Federal COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate because of the connections between the various COVID-19 vaccines and the cell lines of aborted fetuses, whether in the vaccines’ origination, production, development, testing, or other inputs. Plaintiffs also have sincerely held religious beliefs, rooted in Scripture, that their bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit and that they cannot place anything into their Temples without confirmation and conviction from the Holy Spirit.

The suit seeks a temporary restraining order and preliminary and permanent injunctions, claiming violations of the Free Exercise Clause, RFRA and the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. Liberty Counsel issued a lengthy press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

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.

Virginia County Allows Muslim Cemetery, Settling DOJ and Private Litigation

The  Justice Department yesterday announced that it had filed a Notice of Dismissal in United States v. Stafford County Virginia, (ED VA, Oct. 14, 2021). The Department said that it is dismissing its RLUIPA lawsuit because the county has repealed the ordinances that prevented the All Muslim Association of America (AMAA) from developing a religious cemetery for Muslims. the county has also approved a site plan for the new cemetery and has settled a private lawsuit by agreeing to pay AMAA $500,000 in damages.

2nd Circuit: Protesters' Sidewalk Tables Were Not A "Place of Worship" Under FACEA

A provision (18 USC §248) in the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act of 1994 (“FACEA”) prohibits intentionally injuring, intimidating, or interfering with anyone who is exercising 1st Amendment religious freedom rights “at a place of religious worship.”  In Zhang Jingrong v. Chinese Anti-Cult World Alliance, Inc., (2nd Cir., Oct. 14, 2021), the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals held that "a place of religious worship" in the statute is limited to "a place recognized or dedicated as one primarily used for religious worship", and not merely any place where religion is practiced.  Applying this definition, the court concluded that five tables on the sidewalk in Flushing, Queens, New York where Falun Gong adherents passed out flyers and displayed posters were not a "place of religious worship." The court said in part:

Plaintiffs and their fellow practitioners treated the tables primarily as a base for protesting and raising public awareness about the Chinese Communist Party’s alleged abuses against Falun Gong, rather than for religious worship. Nor was there evidence that the Falun Gong religious leadership had designated the tables as a place primarily to gather for or hold religious worship activities.

Judge Walker filed a concurring opinion arguing that 18 USC §248 exceeds Congress Commerce Clause power, saying in part:

In prohibiting violence against worshippers at places of religious worship, FACEA regulates local, non-economic conduct that has at best a tenuous connection to interstate commerce.

Courthouse News Service reports on the decision.

Maine's Vaccine Mandate Without Religious Exemption Upheld

In Jane Does 1-6 v. Mills, (D ME, Oct. 13, 2021), a Maine federal district court rejected claims by health care employees that Maine violated their free exercise rights when it eliminated religious exemptions from its COVID vaccine mandate for health care workers. The court, denying a preliminary injunction, said in part:

Here, the Rule does not compel the Plaintiffs to be vaccinated against their will, and the Plaintiffs have, in fact, freely exercised their religious beliefs by declining to be vaccinated. This is not to minimize the seriousness of the indirect consequences of the Plaintiffs’ refusal to be vaccinated, as it affects their employment. Nonetheless, the Rule has not prevented the Plaintiffs from staying true to their professed religious beliefs....

The medical exemption at issue here was adopted to protect persons whose health may be jeopardized by receiving a COVID-19 vaccination. The exemption is rightly viewed as an essential facet of the vaccine’s core purpose of protecting the health of patients and healthcare workers, including those who, for bona fide medical reasons, cannot be safely vaccinated. Because the medical exemption serves the core purpose of the COVID-19 vaccine mandate, it does not reflect a value judgment prioritizing a purely secular interest ...—over religious interests.

In addition, the vaccine mandate places an equal burden on all secular beliefs unrelated to protecting public health—for example, philosophical or politically-based objections to state-mandated vaccination requirements—to the same extent that it burdens religious beliefs....

The court rejected plaintiffs' Title VII failure to accommodate claim by concluding that plaintiffs had not exhausted their administrative remedies.

UPDATE: After the 1st Circuit refused to issue an injunction pending appeal, plaintiffs filed a Motion For Writ of Injunction Pending Appeal with the U.S. Supreme court on Oct. 15. (Liberty Counsel press release.)

5th Circuit Reinstates Texas "Heartbeat" Abortion Ban While Appeal Is Pending

By a 2-1 vote tonight, in United States v. State of Texas, (5th Cir., Oct. 14, 2021), the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in a one-page Order allowed Texas' restrictive "heartbeat" abortion law to go back into effect while an expedited appeal of the district court's decision enjoining it is heard.

Suit Uniquely Brings Together Issues of Abortion and Vaccines

Suit was filed this week in a California federal district court challenging California's recently enacted SB 742 which creates a 30-foot floating buffer zone to prevent harassment or interference with any person who is entering or exiting a vaccination site. The buffer zone applies to anyone within 100 feet from the vaccination site entrance. The complaint (full text) in Right To Life of Central California v. Bonta, (ED CA, filed 10/13/2021), raises the challenge in a unique factual context. Right to Life is an organization that attempts to dissuade women from having abortions and which provides support to pregnant women and those who have had abortions. Its Outreach Center is located next door to a Planned Parenthood clinic and its staff regularly approaches women who are entering Planned Parenthood. The new law prevents this-- even when outreach staff is on its own property-- because the contiguous Planned Parenthood Center offers HPV vaccine. The complaint alleges that the new law violates plaintiff's 1st and 14th Amendment rights. ADF issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Suit Challenges Connecticut Regulation Of Limited Services Pregnancy Centers

Suit was filed this week in a Connecticut federal district court challenging a Connecticut Public Act 21-17 that prohibits deceptive advertising practices by limited services pregnancy centers which are facilities that do not provide or refer for abortions or emergency contraception. The complaint (full text) in Pregnancy Support Center, Inc. v. Tong, (D CT, filed 10/12/2021), alleges that the law violates plaintiff's free speech, expressive association, free exercise, equal protection and due process rights. It contends in part:

The Act ... is informed by hostility toward pregnancy services centers’ religious beliefs and pro-life viewpoint, and it targets pregnancy service centers’ disfavored religious beliefs for punishment.

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

Baltimore Wrongly Denied Permission For Rally To Protest USCCB Conference

In St. Michael's Media, Inc v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, (D MD, Oct. 12, 2021), a Maryland federal district court in an 86-page opinion held that the city of Baltimore violated the free speech and assembly rights of St. Michael's (also known as "Church Militant") when it instructed the company managing the city-owned Pavilion to cease contract discussions with Church Militant.  Church Militant was planning a protest prayer rally across from the Fall General Assembly of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. According to the court, Church Militant:

“often criticizes the current leadership” of the Catholic Church for what it perceives as “corruption in the Church,” including the Church’s protection of priests and others implicated in the sexual abuse of minors.... In addition, St. Michael’s “is a vocal critic of what it perceives as politicization of the Catholic Church by the USCCB.” ... In particular, it “disagrees with, and criticizes, a number of the USCCB’s positions on religious doctrine and morality, as well as the Catholic Church’s covering up of the sexual abuse committed by priests.”

The city contended:

Church Militant is attempting to hold an event on November 16, 2021 with confirmed speakers including Steve Bannon and others whose speaking engagements and statements have a track record of inviting protestors and counter protestors and supporting the January 6 attack on the Capitol in Washington, D.C. According to available media reports, their events and statements have a demonstrated history of inciting property destruction, physical assaults, and other violence....

The court held, however:

Even under the more lenient standard applied to nonpublic and limited fora, viewpoint discrimination is constitutionally impermissible.... I conclude that plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits of its claim that the City was not viewpoint-neutral in barring the rally. Therefore, I need not consider whether the City’s actions would have been reasonable in the absence of viewpoint discrimination....

Without question, the City reacted to a perceived safety concern arising from past use of inflammatory remarks by some of the rally speakers. In thwarting the rally, the City essentially invoked or relied on the heckler’s veto. And, in doing so, it exercised complete, unfettered discretion; it acted on an ad hoc basis, without any standards. Further, it has presented somewhat shifting justifications for its actions, with little evidence to show that the decision was premised on these justifications....

The City cannot conjure up hypothetical hecklers and then grant them veto power.... Moreover, invocation of the events of January 6, 2021, as horrifying as they were, cannot, without more, serve as a license for the City to dispense with its obligations under the First Amendment.

The court granted a preliminary injunction and the city has appealed to the Fourth Circuit.

UPDATE: In an Order dated Nov. 3 (full text), the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, without opinion, affirmed the district court.

European Court Upholds Vatican's Immunity From Suit In Member-State Courts

In J.C. and Others v. Belgium, (ECHR, Oct. 12, 2021) (full text in French) (press release in English) the European Court of Human Rights in a 6-1 Chamber judgment held that Belgian courts acted properly in recognizing immunity of the Holy See from jurisdiction of domestic courts. At issue was a suit by 24 Belgian, French and Dutch nationals who alleged that as children they were abused by priests. They filed a class action for damages contending that the Church dealt with its sexual abuse problem in a structurally deficient manner. After the dismissal by Belgian courts, 20 of the plaintiffs were able to obtain compensation through the Church's own arbitration center for sexual abuse claims.

6th Circuit: RLUIPA Requires More Than Vegan Sabbath And Holiday Meals For Jewish Inmates

In Ackerman v. Washington, (6th Cir., Oct. 12, 2021), the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals held that Michigan Department of Corrections universal religious meal plan is inadequate to meet the religious needs of Jewish prisoners. The court summarized its holding:

The Michigan Department of Corrections serves a universal religious diet to all prisoners with religious dietary needs. It created this meal plan to avoid forcing prisoners to eat foods that violate their sincere religious beliefs. And because some religious beliefs forbid eating animal products, the universal religious meals are vegan. Because other prisoners require kosher food, the vegan meal is also kosher.

Gerald Ackerman and Mark Shaykin are Jewish prisoners confined in MDOC facilities. Their religious beliefs require them to eat a meal with kosher meat and a meal with dairy on the Jewish Sabbath and four Jewish holidays. They also believe that they must eat cheesecake on the holiday of Shavuot to celebrate the holiday properly. So they claim that MDOC policies that force them to eat vegan meals on these days substantially burden their sincere religious beliefs. And they argue that the MDOC needs to accommodate their beliefs under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). We agree and affirm the district court’s judgment in the prisoners’ favor.

Law & Crime reports on the decision.