During the 2014-2015 school year, Cole said she implemented breathing and stretching exercises based on yoga and meditation in classrooms as a way of reducing stress and encouraging relaxation....
According to the lawsuit, upset parents held a 2016 prayer rally for ‘‘Jesus to rid the school of Buddhism.’’UPDATE: Here is the full text of the opinion and additional pleadings in Cole v. Cobb County School District (ND GA, March 19, 2019).
§107(2) is simply one of many per se rules that provide a tax exemption to employees with work-related housing requirements.... Congress’s policy choice to ease the administration of the convenience-of-the-employer doctrine by applying a categorical exclusion is a secular purpose, not “motivated wholly by religious considerations.”
.... The government argues Congress passed § 107(2) because providing the tax exemption only to ministers given in-kind housing tended to exclude ministers of smaller or poorer denominations.... [W]e take the government at its word, which resolves this question. “The clearest command of the Establishment Clause is that one religious denomination cannot be officially preferred over another.”
The third secular legislative purpose cited by the Treasury Department is to avoid excessive entanglement with religion. To the government, Congress’s decision to exempt ministers from the proof requirements of § 119(a)(2) prevents the IRS from conducting intrusive inquiries into how religious organizations use their facilities....
[T]he primary effect of § 107(2) is not to advance religion on behalf of the government, but to “allow[] churches to advance religion, which is their very purpose.” ...
FFRF claims § 107(2) renders unto God that which is Caesar’s. But this tax provision falls into the play between the joints of the Free Exercise Clause and the Establishment Clause: neither commanded by the former, nor proscribed by the latter. We conclude § 107(2) is constitutional.Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reports on the decision.
(1) A history or diagnosis of gender dysphoria is disqualifying unless:
(a) As certified by a licensed mental health provider, the applicant demonstrates 36 consecutive months of stability in the applicant’s biological sex immediately preceding submission of the application without clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning; and
(b) The applicant demonstrates that the applicant has not transitioned to his or her preferred gender and a licensed medical provider has determined that gender transition is not medically necessary to protect the health of the individual; and
(c) The applicant is willing and able to adhere to all applicable standards, including the standards associated with the applicant’s biological sex.
(2) A history of cross-sex hormone therapy or a history of sex reassignment or genital reconstruction surgery is disqualifying.The DOD has created a special website explaining in clear language and diagrams the new policy. Washington Post reports on the new policy.
As the district court saw it, the Ohio law imposes two unconstitutional conditions on Planned Parenthood. It denies the organization funding if it continues to perform abortions— what the court perceived to be a due process violation. And the law denies the organization funding if it continues to promote abortion—what the court perceived to be a free speech violation. To prevail, Planned Parenthood must show that both limitations—the conduct and speech requirements—violate the U.S. Constitution. Ohio may deny funding to Planned Parenthood in other words if either limitation satisfies the Constitution. Because the conduct component of the Ohio law does not impose an unconstitutional condition in violation of due process, we need not reach the free speech claim.Judge White's dissent (joined by 5 others) argued:
The majority avoids this straightforward application of the unconstitutional-conditions doctrine primarily by adopting an unprecedented rule that abortion providers—entities that are necessary to ensure a woman’s right to safe abortions—cannot prevail in challenging the Statute. An abortion provider’s constitutional right may be derivative of the patient’s right—but it is a right nonetheless.Politico reports on the decision. [Thanks to Tom Rutledge for the lead.]
Some of the independent statements Plaintiff relies on are obviously fused with concepts of church law, polity, or doctrine, while others appear secular.... As a whole, the reports and letter constitute a matter of internal church discipline, and the statements contained within the documents are incapable of extrapolation from the overall ecclesiastical nature of the documents. Thus, Plaintiff's false light claim is barred by the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine....
Here, Plaintiff's claim is rooted in the MEC's disciplinary review of Plaintiff and decision that Plaintiff should be placed on administrative leave.... [T]he ministerial exception would apply to Plaintiff's false light claim and would provide an additional reason to grant summary judgment to Defendants.
The U.S. Department of Education, in consultation with the U.S. Department of Justice, determined the statutory provisions in Section 1117(d)(2)(B) and 8501(d)(2)(B) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) that require an equitable services provider to “be independent of … any religious organization” are unconstitutional because they categorically exclude religious organizations based solely on their religious identity.
These provisions run counter to the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer, 137 S. Ct. 2012 (2017) that, under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, otherwise eligible recipients cannot be disqualified from a public benefit solely because of their religious character.The Department will, however, continue to enforce the statutory requirement that the outside services being provided are "secular, neutral and non-ideological."
The lawsuit states that Commissioner Dr. Patricia Schnabel Ruppert's order, imposed during the county's continuing measles outbreak, violates the families' religious objections to vaccinations and is unnecessary because the cases have been largely confined to insular Hasidic Jewish communities.UPDATE: On March 12, a federal judge denied a temporary injunction that would have allowed the 44 students to return to classes. (Rockland Westchester Journal News).
52. ... [T]his law targets organizations that have religious and moral beliefs against abortion. Washington State has a history of targeting religious and moral pro-life organizations and individuals.
53. The strong statutory language, lack of any church exception, and anticipated evidence that pro-abortion groups assisted in drafting and enacting SB 6219, indicates that Washington and its officials deliberately targeted religious organizations and intentionally violated those organizations’ religious beliefs.The suit alleges violations of the Free Exercise, Equal Protection and Establishment Clauses. ADF issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.