Doctor Sues Over Hospital's Limits On Providing Aid-In-Dying Medications

Last month, a doctor and her terminally ill patient filed a lawsuit in a Colorado state court against Centura Health's St. Anthony Hospital challenging its religion-based policy of refusing to allow its physicians to prescribe medication for patients under the state's End of Life Options Act, or to assist in qualifying a patient for use of aid-in-dying medication. The complaint (full text) in Mahoney v. Morris, (CO Dist. Ct., filed 8/21/2019), alleges that the hospital's policy goes beyond the opt-out permitted by the Colorado statute which only permits hospitals to bar their physicians from writing prescriptions for assisted-suicide medications that will be used on hospital premises.

Last week, Centura Health fired plaintiff Dr. Barbara Morris, and filed a petition to remove the case to federal court, contending that the hospital, sponsored by Catholic and Seventh Day Adventist ministries, cannot be barred from dismissing an employee who violates its policy.  The Notice of Removal (full text) in Mahoney v. Morris, (D CO, filed 8/30/19) alleges that the hospital's rights under the Free Exercise and Establishment clauses would be violated if it cannot discipline its doctors for acting in opposition to its religious doctrines. It also invokes 42 U.S. Code § 2000e–1, the exemption from Title VII for religious institutions. Kaiser Health News reports on these developments. [Thanks to Michael Peabody for the lead.]

Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine Prevents Decision On Church Demolition

In Friends to Restore St. Mary's, LLC v. Church of St. Mary, Melrose, (MN App., Sept. 3, 2019), a Minnesota state appellate court held that the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine precludes a civil court from adjudicating a dispute over whether an arson-damaged church building is a “historical resource” protected under Minnesota Environmental Rights Act.  Plaintiffs sought an injunction to prevent demolition of the church building after the Bishop and the Diocesan Building Council recommended demolition and building of a new structure. The court concluded:

On the record before us, the decision to remove features of religious significance and demolish the church building is an internal decision that affects the faith and mission of the church. Appellant’s MERA claim cannot be adjudicated without violating the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine.

British Appeals Court Upholds Order For Payments Until A "Get" Is Granted

In Moher v. Moher, (EWCA, Aug. 21, 2019), Britain's Court of Appeal upheld an order issued by a trial court in a divorce action requiring the husband to pay £22,000 per year until the husband granted the wife a get (Jewish divorce decree). British statutes specifically allow courts to order that the civil divorce decree will not become final until the marriage has been dissolved under Jewish law. The appeals court concluded that this does not prevent other types of orders directed at obtaining a get. The appeals court pointed out that "a Get obtained by compulsion is invalid in Jewish law," but concluded that:

the structure of the order in the present case does not compel the husband to act in a certain way. The court order provides only that until he grants a Get he has to pay periodical payments to the wife.

Family Law Week reports on the decision.

City's Special Events Ordinance Partly Upheld

In Shook v. City of Lincolnton, NC, (WD NC, Aug.29, 2019). a North Carolina federal district court agreed with only part of a challenge by a group of Christian street preachers to a city's Special Event and Unnecessary Noise Ordinances. the court said in part:

[T]he Court will grant Plaintiff’s preliminary injunction [as to] the portion of the Special Events Ordinance prohibiting “[a]ny conduct deemed to be disruptive . . . to participants or attendees of the special event” and “[a]busive . . . language that disrupts a special event or festival.” However, the City may still enforce the ... [ban on] "language ... that abuses or threatens another person in a manner likely to cause a fight or brawl at a special event or festival,” “... conduct deemed to be ... dangerous to participants or attendees of the special event,” and “threatening language that disrupts a special event or festival.”

The court also upheld the city's Unnecessary Noise ban.

Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine Requires Dismissal of Pastor's Contract Claim

In In re First Christian Methodist Evangelistic Church, (TX App., Aug. 30, 2019), a Texas state appellate court held that the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine, as a matter of constitutional law, prevented civil courts from adjudicating a pastor's claim that he was entitled to 6 months severance pay under his employment contract. The court said in part:

[T]o determine if the Church was required to pay the Senior Pastor severance under the contract, the trial court will be required to determine why the Senior Pastor was terminated and, if the termination was for misconduct, the court will be required to determine if the Senior Pastor was properly terminated for misconduct as defined by the Church’s Book of Discipline and ecclesiastical rules.... The ecclesiastical nature of the dispute cannot be severed from the contractual issues asserted by the Senior Pastor. 

County Settles Suit Over Invocation Policy

According to yesterday's Carroll County Times, the Carroll County, Maryland, Board of Commissioners voted unanimously yesterday to settle a lawsuit, originally filed in 2013, challenging the Commissioners' policy on invocations.  Prayers that were often sectarian were delivered by members of the County Commission, on a rotating basis, rather than by invited clergy or a chaplain.  The Commissioners decided to settle the case after the 2017 decision by the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in Lund v. Rowan County, North Carolina finding a similar practice unconstitutional. (See prior posting.) At yesterday's Board meeting, a number of citizens objected to the settlement.

Pence To American Legion:VA Hospitals Will Not Be "Religion-Free Zones"

On Wednesday, Vice President Mike Pence addressed the American Legion's National Convention in Indianapolis (full text of remarks). Among the accomplishments of the Trump Administration which Pence reviewed in his 35-minute speech, was the following:

You might’ve heard even today that there’s a lawsuit to remove a Bible that was carried in World War II from a Missing Man Table at a VA hospital in New Hampshire.  There’s a lawsuit underway.  It’s really no surprise because, under the last administration, VA hospitals were removing Bibles and even banning Christmas carols in an effort to be politically correct.  But let me be clear: Under this administration, VA hospitals will not be religion-free zones.  (Applause.)

We will always respect the freedom of religion of every veteran of every faith.  And my message to the New Hampshire VA hospital is: The Bible stays.  (Applause.)

Pence ended his speech thanking veterans, alluding to language from Psalm 18 and Psalm 144 in doing so:

As the Psalmist wrote, you “trained your hands for war,” and we thank Him who gave you the grace “to advance against a troop” and come home safe to serve all of those who also serve.

Baptist Leader Sued In Myanmar Over Meeting With Trump

According to The Irrawaddy, in Myanmar a member of the military's northern command stationed in Kachin province filed a lawsuit Monday in the Myitkyina Township Court against a Baptist pastor for his remarks at a White House meeting. In July, Kachin Baptist Convention President Rev. Dr. Hkalam Samson attended a U.S. State Department meeting of victims of religious persecution from around the world. As part of the event, he and others met with President Donald Trump in the Oval Office.  Irrawaddy reports:

The legal complaint cites a live broadcast of the conversation between the religious leader and the US president on the Facebook page of World News Now....

... Samson told Trump there was no religious freedom in Myanmar and that oppression and torture were still common in the country, where fighting between ethnic armed organizations and the Myanmar military continues despite a return to civilian rule. 

He also requested Trump support Myanmar’s transition to “genuine” democracy and federalism. 

... Samson also thanked the US for imposing sanctions against Myanmar military commander-in-chief Senior-General Min Aung Hlaing and other leaders over extrajudicial killings of Rohingya Muslims. The sanctions bar the officers from entry to the US.

New Jersey Assisted Suicide Law Reinstated By Appeals Court

In Glassman v. Grewal, (NJ App.,  Aug. 27, 2019), a New Jersey state appeals court lifted the temporary restraining order entered by a trial courtearlier this month (see prior posting) preventing the state's Aid in Dying for the Terminally Ill Act from being enforced.The appeals court said in part:

Here, plaintiff failed to establish that injunctive relief was necessary to prevent irreparable harm and preserve the status quo.... The only harm identified by the court was the Executive Branch's failure to adopt enabling regulations. Neither the court nor plaintiff, however, identified how the absence of such regulations harmed him, irreparably or otherwise.... 

Further, as the Act makes clear, participation by physicians like plaintiff is entirely voluntary. The only requirement the Act imposes on health care providers who, based upon religious or other moral bases, voluntarily decide not to treat a fully-informed, terminally-ill patient interested in ending their lives, is to transfer any medical records to the new provider selected by the patient. See N.J.S.A. 26:16-17(c). We fail to discern how the administrative function of transferring those documents constitutes a matter of constitutional import, or an act contrary to a physician's professional obligations. In this regard, we note that a physician has long been required to transfer a patient's records on request, see N.J.A.C. 13:35-6.5, and does so without personal assent to any subsequent medical procedures.

A few hours later, the New Jersey Supreme Court refused to vacate the appeals court decision. (Full text of Supreme Court Order.) NorthJersey.com reports on the decisions.

9th Circuit: FLDS Towns Discriminated Against Non-Church Members

In United States v. Town of Colorado City, Arizona, (9th Cir., Aug. 26, 2019), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld an injunction issued by an Arizona federal district court, finding that the FLDS-controlled town of Colorado City engaged in a pattern or practice of discriminating against non-members of the Fundamentalist Latter Day Saints.  In affirming a finding that the city violated 34 U.S.C. § 12601, the court concluded that the statute imposes liability on governments for patterns of unconstitutional conduct by their officers and agents.  In the suit, the United States charged that Colorado City (as well Hildale, Utah) "functioned as an arm of the Church and conspired with FLDS leaders to use the Towns’ municipal resources to advance Church interests." AP reports on the decision.

Suit Challenges North Carolina County's Refusal To Recognize Marriages Performed By Universal Life Clergy

Suit was filed this week in a North Carolina federal district court challenging the refusal by the Cleveland County, North Carolina marriage official to issue marriage licenses to couples whose weddings were performed by Universal Life Church (ULC) ministers. ULC ordains anyone "who feels the call" as a minister. Ordination takes place online for free and credentials are sent to applicants by mail. North Carolina Gen. Stat. §51-1 allows "an ordained minister of any religious denomination to officiate at weddings.  The complaint (full text) in Universal Life Church Monastery Storehouse v. Harnage, (WD NC, filed 8/26/2019), alleges violation of the Establishment, Equal Protection and Free exercise clauses, as well as of Art. VI and of the North Carolina constitution, saying in part:

Defendant’s apparent policy of refusing to recognize the validity of marriages performed by ULC Monastery ministers officially prefers certain religions or religious denominations over ULC Monastery by allowing other religious leaders to solemnize marriages but declining to extend that same benefit to ULC Monastery ministers.

Charlotte Observer reports on the lawsuit.

Part of Missouri's New Abortion Law Is Preliminarily Enjoined

In Reproductive Health Services of Planned Parenthood of the St. Louis Region, Inc. v. Parson, (WD MO, Aug. 28, 2019), a Missouri federal district court granted a preliminary injunction against enforcement of provisions in Missouri law (full text) that wold have gone into effect today that would have banned all abortions (except in cases of medical emergencies) after 8, 14, 18 or 20 weeks of pregnancy. The court ultimately refused to enjoin another section of Missouri's law that bans any abortion if the provider knows that the woman is seeking the abortion because of the sex or race of the child or because of a prenatal diagnosis of Down Syndrome. The court held that while such provisions as they apply to non-viable fetuses are likely unconstitutional, plaintiffs have not shown that a preliminary injunction pending final resolution of the issue is necessary to prevent some demonstrable real-life harm. NPR reports on the decision.

Suit Challenges Illinois Waiver Form To Allow Drivers License Photo With Head Covering

Suit was filed this week in an Illinois federal district court on behalf of a Muslim woman who wears a hijab challenging the disclaimer that Illinois administrative rules require to be filed in order to allow a driver's license photo to be taken wearing a head covering. The complaint (full text) in Bicksler v. Illinois Secretary of State, (ND IL, filed 8/26/2019),contends that plaintiff's free exercise rights under the 1st Amendment and Illinois' Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the Illinois Human Rights Act were violated when she was required to sign this statement:

In observation of my religious convictions, I only remove my head dressing in public when removal is necessary (such as for a medical examination or a visit to a hair dresser or barber). I do not remove the head dressing in public as a matter of courtesy or protocol (such as when entering a professional office or attending a worship service). I acknowledge that if the Director of the Driver Services Department is provided with evidence showing I do not wear a religious head dressing at all times while in public, unless circumstances require the removal of the head dressing, my driver’s license or identification card may be canceled.

CAIR Chicago issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Nuclear Protesters' RFRA Defense Rejected

In United States v. Kelly, (SD GA, Aug. 26, 2019), a Georgia federal district court refused to dismiss indictments against seven Catholics who are members of the Plowshares Movement, an activist group opposed to nuclear weapons.  Defendants were indicted for trespass and destruction of government property after they broke into a highly secured Naval Submarine Base and in protest of nuclear weapons poured blood on the ground, hung banners and painted messages. Defendants contended that their actions were protected by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The court said:

Because Defendants' actions at Kings Bay were exercises of their sincerely held religious beliefs that they should "take action in opposition to the presence of nuclear weapons at Kings Bay,"... Defendants' actions at Kings Bay were engaged in for religious reasons and were thus "religious exercises" within the meaning of RFRA....

It went on, however:

The government has established that it has compelling interests in the safety of those on Kings Bay Naval Submarine Base, the security of the government assets housed there, and the smooth operation of the base.

NY Court Rejects Challenge To Vaccination Exemption Repeal

In F.F. on behalf of her minor children v. State of New York, (Albany Cty. Sup. Ct., Aug. 23, 2019), a New York state trial court judge rejected a class action challenge to recently enacted New York legislation that repeals the religious exemption to vaccination requirements for school children. The repeal was enacted in response to a measles outbreak earlier this year. The suit was brought by 55 families. The court refused to issue a preliminary injunction, finding that plaintiffs were unlikely to prevail on the merits of their free exercise, equal protection or compelled speech claims. The court concluded that the vaccination law was a neutral law of general applicability, and that the repeal was not action showing hostility to religious belief. The court concluded that plaintiffs did have a colorable argument that elevated scrutiny might be required under the hybrid rights theory, but that even if that is the case the state had a compelling interest in repealing the exemption:

Protecting public health, and children's health in particular, through attainment of threshold inoculation levels for community immunity from communicable diseases is unquestionably a compelling state interest....

Gothamist reports on the decision. (See prior related posting.)

Suit By Mennonite Group Over Lockers For Homeless Is Settled

The Rocky Mountain Collegian yesterday reported on the settlement of a lawsuit brought by the Fort Collins Mennonite Fellowship against the city of Fort Collins after City Council added restrictions on the Fellowship's locker program for the homeless.  The city limited the hours of operation and required constant supervision of the lockers during those hours.  The Fellowship sued claiming that the restrictions are unreasonable, vague, overly burdensome and prevent the church from practicing its religious obligation of helping those less fortunate. According to the paper's report, a negotiated settlement has been reached, but must still be approved by City Council at its Sept. 3 meeting:

The City will pay a negotiated amount of $60,000 to FCMF’s lawyers to cover some of the costs incurred during the lawsuit.

As for the locker program, access hours are expanded to 6 a.m. to 9 p.m., and a church representative no longer has to supervise during all hours of operation. Lockers will still be physically restricted outside those hours, but guests may access their belongings if a church representative unlocks the lockers for them. 

The church’s surveillance camera, installed early on in the program, will continue running 24/7. Footage will be retained for seven days.

Israel's Courts Wrestle With Sex-Segregated Cultural Events

In Israel, the controversy over gender-segregated events sponsored by municipalities continues. Times of Israel reports that on Sunday a Haifa district court ordered cancellation of a performance by ultra-Orthodox singers Mordechai Ben David and Motty Steinmetz which was to be open only to men. The ruling came in a suit filed by a women's rights group.  The court said in part:

The ultra-Orthodox public in Haifa is entitled to funding for cultural activities like every other public group, but when it comes to public money, there is a need to act in accordance with instructions from the attorney general and the government. It’s important to remember that in regards to the entrance to public places, there is a law that forbids discrimination in products, services and entrances to entertainment venues and public areas, 

Earlier this month, the High Court of Justice banned a similar sex-segregated performance in the city of Afula, but its ruling came too late to actually prevent the performance from going ahead. In response to the Afula case, Israel's Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit provided guidance on when municipal authorities can organize gender-segregated cultural events.  As reported separately by Times of Israel:

Mandelblit published guidelines for authorities saying that gender-segregation could be permissible if the separation were voluntary and desired by the target audience, men and women had equal conditions, and separation did not unduly impact those opposed to it.

“The greater the voluntary component, the less the difficulty in gender segregation, and when it comes to a completely voluntary segregation in which every person chooses his place without being directed, there is no difficulty,” Mandelblit said.

Amicus Briefs In SCOTUS Gay and Transgender Title VII Discrimination Cases Now Available

Dozens of amicus briefs have been filed with the U.S. Supreme Court and are now available from the SCOTUSblog case page in R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes, Inc. v. EEOC. At issue is whether Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rightts Act prohibits discrimination against transgender people based on their transgender status or on a "sex stereotyping" theory.  The 6th Circuit held that discrimination on the basis of transgender status violates Title VII. (See prior posting.) the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the case on Oct. 8.

Similarly, numerous amicus briefs are available in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, (consolidated with Altitude Express, Inc. v. Zarda) which will also be argued on Oct. 8. These cases raise the question of whether Title VII prohibits sexual orientation discrimination. The 2nd Circuit in Altitude Express  held that Title VII does cover such discrimination. (See prior posting.) In the Clayton County case, the 11th Circuit held that Title VII does not ban sexual orientation discrimination.

RLUIPA Allows Inmate To Grow Fist-Length Beard

In Sims v. Inch, (ND FL, Aug. 23, 2019), a Florida federal district court, in a 19-page opinion, extended the U.S. Supreme Court's 2015 holding in Holt v. Hobbs which allowed a Muslim inmate to grow a half-inch beard for religious reasons.  In the case decided last week, the district court held that RLUIPA similarly entitles a Muslim prisoner to grow a fist-length beard (and trim his mustache) when his religious requires it. The court concluded that "a fist-length beard can be accommodated as easily as a half-inch beard-- or nearly so." [Thanks to Glenn Katon for the lead.]

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Ashutosh A. Bhagwat, The Conscience of the Baker: Religion and Compelled Speech, (William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal, Forthcoming).
• Tipu Makhdoom, Politics of Religion in Pakistani Law, (January 1, 2016).
• Nancy J. Knauer, The Politics of Eradication and the Future of LGBT Rights, (Georgetown Journal of Gender and the Law, Vol. 21, No. 2, 2020).
• Elizabeth Katz, 'Racial and Religious Democracy': Identity and Equality at Mid-Century, Stanford Law Review, Forthcoming.
• Christian Lee Gonzalez Rivera, A Government by Men, Not Nature: A Natural Law Case for Limits on the Judicial Enforcement of Natural Law and Unenumerated Rights under the Constitution, 24 Trinity L. Rev. 1 (2019).
• Robert J. Miller, Nazi Germany and American Indians, (August 14, 2019).

From SmartCILP:

• Steven K. Green. The "Irrelevance" of Church-State Separation In the Twenty-First Century, [Abstract], 69 Syracuse Law Review 27-68 (2019).
• Mark Strasser, Masterpiece of Misdirection?, 76 Washington & Lee Law Review 963-1010 (2019).

From Academia.edu:

• Studia Gilsoniana, The State, Law, Religion, and Justice in Cicero’s The Republic and The Laws: An Aristotelian-Thomistic Interpretation, (Studia Gilsoniana 8, no. 3 (July –September 2019): 645 –680.
• Zachary Purvis, Religion, Revolution, and the Dangers of Demagogues: The Basel "Troubles" (Wirren) and the Politics of Protestantism, 1830-1833, (Church History 88, no. 2 (June 2019): 409–439, 2019).