Friday, July 09, 2021

Enforcement of Islamic Pre-Nup Challenged On Appeal

An appeal was filed last month in a Texas state appellate court challenging a trial court's enforcement of an arbitration clause in an Islamic pre-nuptial agreement. The petition for a writ of mandamus in In re Ayad, (TX App., filed 6/22/2021) (full text) contends that the agreement is void as a matter of law and against public policy, and was involuntarily executed. The petition contends in part:

The trial court clearly abused its discretion in failing to properly analyze the law when it validated and enforced the Islamic Pre-Nuptial Agreement and compelled arbitration in front of a Muslim Court applying solely Islamic Law....

[Thanks to Eugene Volokh via  Religionlaw for the lead.]

Dismissal Of Suit Against Trump For Promoting Religion Affirmed By Delaware Supreme Court

In Kelly v. Trump,(DE Sup. Ct., July 7, 2021), the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal on standing grounds of two claims in a suit against then-President Donald Trump contending that he created the illusion of government sponsorship of religion, The court also affirmed the refusal to allow plaintiff to substitute President Biden as defendant because he allowed Executive Order 13798 to remain in effect.  According to the court:

[Plaintiff]  contends that the executive order “require[s] government organizations and agents to partner with churches to pay churches to perform government business for the government....  She states that the “churches create the illusion of charity while serving business greed” and that she “believe[s] people will be damned to hell for thinking business greed is charity.”...

Kelly’s claim is manifestly without merit. Contrary to her assertion, Executive Order 13798, on its face, does not prescribe any partnership between the government and any religious organization.

Thursday, July 08, 2021

5th Circuit: Ban On Proselytizing At Outdoor Market Violates Free Speech Rigths

In Denton v. City of El Paso, Texas, (5th Cir., July 6, 2021), the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals remanded the case to a Texas federal district court ordering it to grant a preliminary injunction barring El Paso from prohibiting religious proselytizing at the weekly outdoor El Paso Art and Farmers Market. The city's rules bar fundraising, political campaigning and religious proselytizing from the market. The court held that these exclusions are content-based, and concluded:

It is unclear whether the City has asserted a compelling government interest. We need not decide this issue because, even assuming that it did assert a compelling government interest, a prior restraint of speech based on a viewpoint is unlikely to be the least restrictive means of regulation available.

Parents Who Headed Capital Drive Sue Catholic School For Straying From Mainstream Catholicism

Suit was filed in a Florida state trial court last month by the parents of two Catholic school students who were the joint chairs of the school's $9 million capital campaign. They had personally pledged over $1.35 million to the campaign and paid a portion of that pledge. They now seek to have the court declare the pledge null and void, and order return to them of pledged amounts already paid, as well as tuition paid for their daughters. The complaint (full text) in Scarpo v. Academy of the Holy Names of Florida, Inc., (FL Cir. Ct., filed 6/26/2021), alleges in part:

[I]n Defendants' zeal to embrace the politically correct, "woke" culture currently in vogue, the Defendants breached Defendants' promises to provide Plaintiffs minor children with a Cahtolic [sic.] Education in return for Plaintiffs paying tuition and fund-raising for the Academy of the Holy Names....

[T]he Academy lost its way, distancing itself from mainstream Catholicism, and embracing the new, politically correct, divisive and "woke" culture where gender identity, human sexuality, and pregnancy termination among other "hot-button issues," took center stage and mainstream Catholicism and Catholic Catechism were relegated to what was billed as an unfortunate past deserving of its Students guilt for not having been "woke" sooner.

Friendly Atheist blog reports on the case, as does AP.

Wednesday, July 07, 2021

5th Circuit Hears Arguments From Judge Who Refuses To Officiate At Same-Sex Weddings

 Yesterday, the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments in Umphress v. Hall. (Audio of full oral arguments.) In the case, a Texas federal district court dismissed on standing and ripeness grounds (Umphress v. Hall,(ND TX, Nov. 10, 2020), a suit by a Texas judge who was seeking to prevent future action by the State Commission on Judicial Conduct against judges who refuse to officiatae at same-sex weddings. Bloomberg Law reports on the case.

Social Work Applicant Moves Ahead On Religious Discrimination Claim

In Weiss v. City University of New York, (SD NY, filed 7/2/2021), a New York federal district court refused to dismiss certain of plaintiff's equal protection and Establishment Clause claims. Plaintiff alleged that she was denied admission to the University's social work program because officials weeded out Jews from a religious background, believing they are too conservative to be social workers.

Alaska Homeless Shelter Challenges City's Public Accommodation Law

Last week, an Anchorage, Alaska women's homeless shelter filed suit in an Alaska federal district court contending that the city's recently amended public accommodation law that requires it to house transgender women violates the shelter's 1st and 14th Amendment rights.  The law prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex or gender identity. The complaint (full text) in Downtown Soup Kitchen v. Municipality of Anchorage, (D AK, filed 6/30/2021), says in part:

Defendants insist Hope Center’s religious beliefs— specifically, its beliefs about sexuality and gender—are discriminatory and deserving of punishment. In Defendants’ view, providing charitable shelter exclusively to vulnerable women is unlawful sex and gender-identity discrimination....

Because of its religious beliefs and desire to create a safe and secure environment, Hope Center allows only biological women to stay overnight at the shelter....

No Hope Center policy prohibits biological women who identify as men from accessing the shelter....

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

Tuesday, July 06, 2021

State Department Will Accommodate LGBTQI+ Citizens In Passport Designations

The U.S. State Department in a press release dated June 30 announced: 

the Department will be taking further steps toward ensuring the fair treatment of LGBTQI+ U.S. citizens, regardless of their gender or sex, by beginning the process of updating our procedures for the issuance of U.S. Passports and Consular Reports of Birth Abroad (CRBA).

Most immediately, we will be updating our procedures to allow applicants to self-select their gender as “M” or “F” and will no longer require medical certification if an applicant’s self-selected gender does not match the gender on their other citizenship or identity documents.  The Department has begun moving towards adding a gender marker for non-binary, intersex, and gender non-conforming persons applying for a passport or CRBA.  We are evaluating the best approach to achieve this goal.

TLDEF issued a press release reacting to the announcement.

Monday, July 05, 2021

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

From SmartCILP and elsewhere:

Ohio Enacts Conscience Protections For Medical Personnel and Institutions

On July 1, Ohio Governor Mike DeWine signed Am. Sub. House Bill 110, Ohio's Budget bill. (Signing ceremony.) Included in the 2438-page bill is a provision providing conscience protections for health care practitioners, institutions and insurers (at pg. 1453- 1455, enacting ORC Sec. 4743.10). The new section reads in part:

Notwithstanding any conflicting provision of the Revised Code, a medical practitioner, health care institution, or health care payer has the freedom to decline to perform, participate in, or pay for any health care service which violates the practitioner's, institution's, or payer's conscience as informed by the moral, ethical, or religious beliefs or principles held by the practitioner, institution, or payer. Exercise of the right of conscience is limited to conscience-based objections to a particular health care service.

... When possible and when the medical practitioner is willing, the medical practitioner shall seek to transfer the patient to a colleague who will provide the requested health care service. If participation in a transfer of care for a particular health care service violates the medical practitioner's beliefs or convictions or no willing colleague is identified, the patient shall be notified and provided the opportunity to seek an alternate medical practitioner. Upon patient request, the patient's medical records shall be promptly released to the patient.

The law provides for treble damage actions and injunctive relief for medical personnel where the new conscience provisions have been violated.

Metro Weekly reports on the enactment of this provision. [Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]

Wisconsin Supreme Court Interprets Statute Limiting School Aid To One Area School Of Each Denomination

In St. Augustine School v. Taylor, (WI Sup. Ct., July 2, 2021), the Wisconsin Supreme Court answered a certified question from the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals on how to apply a state statute regarding transportation aid to parochial schools. Under Wis. Stat. §§ 121.51 and 121.54, private schools can receive funding for transporting children to school, but in each attendance area only one school affiliated with each religious denomination can get funding. At issue in this case is how a court is to determine whether two Catholic schools in the same area are affiliated with the same denomination.  The court concluded:

... [I]n determining whether schools are "affiliated with the same religious denomination" pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 121.51, the Superintendent is not limited to consideration of a school's corporate documents exclusively. In conducting a neutral and secular inquiry, the Superintendent may also consider the professions of the school with regard to the school's self-identification and affiliation, but the Superintendent may not conduct any investigation or surveillance with respect to the school's religious beliefs, practices, or teachings.

Justice Roggensack filed a concurring opinion arguing that whether both schools are "affiliated" with the Archdiocese of Milwaukee depends on whether there is a mutual organizational relationship between the schools and the Archdiocese.

Justice Hagedorn filed a concurring opinion, saying in part:

[A] "religious denomination" is an organizational entity, not a synonym for religious faith generally. Thus, when Wis. Stat. § 121.51(1) asks whether two schools are "affiliated with the same religious denomination," the question is not whether both schools share the same creed, but whether they are both affiliated with a particular kind of religious organization——a religious denomination.

Justice Bradley filed a dissenting opinion arguing that the provision denying benefits where two religious schools serve overlapping attendance areas is unconstitutional, saying in part:

On its face, § 121.51(1) denies a public benefit only to students attending religious schools in overlapping attendance areas. Private but secular schools located in overlapping attendance areas are not disqualified from receiving benefits on this basis. Denying an otherwise publicly available benefit on account of religious identity violates the First Amendment to the United States Constitution....

 Any governmental overriding of a religious school's profession of independence from the "religious denomination" of another school ... would "require us to rule that some religious adherents misunderstand their own religious beliefs. We think such an approach cannot be squared with the Constitution or with our precedents, and that it would cast the Judiciary in a role that [courts] were never intended to play."

Sunday, July 04, 2021

Supreme Court GVR's Amish Families' Challenge To Septic Tank Requirements

On Friday, in Mast v. Fillmore County, Minnesota, (Sup. Ct., July 2, 2021), the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari, summarily vacated the judgment of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, and remanded for consideration in light of the Court's recent decision in Fulton v. Philadelphia, the case of Amish families who object to state sewage system regulations. In the case, the Minnesota appellate court rejected claims by Swartzentruber Amish community members that laws requiring them to install septic systems to dispose of their waste water violate their rights under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. (See prior posting.) 

Two Justices filed opinions concurring in the Court's action. Justice Alito in a brief opinion said that the lower court "plainly misinterpreted and misapplied" RLUIPA. Justice Gorsuch, in a longer concurring opinion, said in part:

Perhaps most notably, the County and courts below erred by treating the County’s general interest in sanitation regulations as “compelling” without reference to the specific application of those rules to this community. As Fulton explains, strict scrutiny demands “a more precise analysis.”

Supreme Court Denies Cert. In Case of Florist's Refusal To Provide Flowers For Same-Sex Wedding

On Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court, by a vote of 6-3, denied review in the long-running case of Arlene's Flowers, Inc. v. Washington,  (Docket No. 19-333, certiorari denied 7/2/2021). (Order List.) Justices Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch would have granted review.  In the case, the Washington state Supreme Court held that a florist shop's refusal to provide flowers for a same-sex wedding constitutes sexual orientation discrimination under the Washington Law Against Discrimination, and that enforcement of the law does not violate the constitutional rights of the floral shop owner. (See prior posting.)

Saturday, July 03, 2021

Supreme Court Grants Cert. In Maine Case On Tuition Vouchers For Sectarian Schools

The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday granted review in Carson v. Makin, (Docket No. 20-1088, certiorari granted 7/2/2021). (Order List.) In the case, the U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Maine's statutory provisions that pay tuition to out-of-district public or private high schools for students whose districts do not operate a high school. However, to qualify to receive tuition assistance payments, a private school must be non-sectarian. Schools that provide religious instruction do not qualify. (See prior posting.) The SCOTUSblog case page has links to the briefs and other filings in the case.

Friday, July 02, 2021

5th Circuit Refuses To Dismiss Suit Against Teacher Who Required Writing The Pledge

In Oliver v. Arnold, (5th Cir., June 29, 2021), the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision  dismissed a high school teacher's appeal of a Texas federal district court's refusal to grant his summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds. The suit was brought by his former student who refused on religious grounds to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. The student alleged that the teacher attempted to require her to transcribe the Pledge and when she refused, he continued to retaliate against her in class. The majority said in part:

Because Arnold seeks to have this court resolve the very factual disputes that the district court found to be genuine and properly submitted for trial on the merits, which we do not have jurisdiction to do, we grant Oliver’s motion and DISMISS the appeal.

Judge Duncan dissented, saying in part:

[C]onsider the implications of the majority’s approach. It sends to trial a § 1983 claim based on a student’s objection to a written assignment, merely because there is a question about the teacher’s motive for giving it. One can imagine where this approach might lead. It is not a happy place.

Thursday, July 01, 2021

Supreme Court Strikes Down California Donor Disclosure Rules

The U.S. Supreme Court today in Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta, (Sup. Ct., July 1,2021), held unconstitutional California's requirement that charitable organizations soliciting funds in the state disclose their major donors to the state Attorney General. In a 6-3 opinion written by Chief Justice Roberts, the Court said in part:

We are left to conclude that the Attorney General’s disclosure requirement imposes a widespread burden on donors’ associational rights. And this burden cannot be justified on the ground that the regime is narrowly tailored to investigating charitable wrongdoing, or that the State’s interest in administrative convenience is sufficiently important. We therefore hold that the up-front collection of Schedule Bs is facially unconstitutional, because it fails exacting scrutiny in “a substantial number of its applications . . . judged in relation to [its] plainly legitimate sweep.

Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion. Justice Alito, joined by Justice Gorsuch, filed a concurring opinion. Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justices Breyer and Kagan, dissented, saying in part:

Today, the Court holds that reporting and disclosure requirements must be narrowly tailored even if a plaintiff demonstrates no burden at all. The same scrutiny the Court applied when NAACP members in the Jim Crow South did not want to disclose their membership for fear of reprisals and violence now applies equally in the case of donors only too happy to publicize their names across the websites and walls of the organizations they support. 

SCOTUSblog reports on the decision in greater detail.

Firefighter Loses Suit Over Refusal To Be Photographed

In Swartz v. Sylvester, (D MA, June 28, 2021), a Massachusetts federal district court dismissed a damage action brought by a firefighter who was disciplined after he refused, based on his personal Christian religious beliefs, to sit for an in -uniform photograph because it might be used for promotional purposes, and not just for ID tags and cards. The court said in part:

[T]he order was both facially neutral (and neutral in light of the totality of the circumstances) and generally applicable. Therefore, Sylvester must show only a “rational basis” for the policy....

The court also found qualified immunity:

even assuming that Swartz’s rights under the Free Exercise Clause were in fact violated, the legal contours of those rights were not sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would have understood that what he was doing violated them. 

Wednesday, June 30, 2021

UN Tribunal Sentences 2 For War Crimes In Bosnia

The Guardian reports that the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia today sentenced Jovica StaniÅ¡ić, former head of Serbia's state security service (DB), and his deputy Franko “Frenki” Simatović who ran DB’s special forces, to 12 years in prison for war crimes.  The court found that they provided support to the Serbian paramilitary units that engaged in ethnic cleansing in the Bosnian town of Bosanski Å amac. According to The Guardian:

The ruling marks the first time senior Serbian officials from Slobodan MiloÅ¡ević’s regime in the 1990s have been found guilty for war crimes committed in Bosnia.

It has been the longest running international war crimes case in history. Stanišić and Simatović were first charged in 2003.

The men have already served 6 years in jail while trials and appeals were under way. This will be deducted from their sentence. They are expected to appeal.

North Carolina Governor Vetoes Race/ Sex/ Down Syndrome Abortion Ban

On June 25, North Carolina Governor Roy Cooper vetoed HB 453 which banned abortions unless the physician has determined that it is not being sought because of the race or sex of the fetus or because the fetus has Down Syndrome. In his veto message (full text), Cooper said: 

This bill gives the government control over what happens and what is said in the exam room between a woman and her doctor at a time she faces one of the most difficult decisions of her life. The bill is unconstitutional and it damages the doctor-patient relationship with an unprecedented governmental intrusion.

Tuesday, June 29, 2021

Gibraltar Voters Approve Liberalized Abortion Law

Last week, in a referendum, voters in Gibraltar by a vote of 7,656 to 4,520 approved the coming into force of Parliament's Crimes (Amendment) Act of 2019  The Act creates exceptions to the current near-total ban ban on abortions in the country. (Background on proposal.)  With certain restrictions, the law allows abortions in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy where there is risk to the physical or mental health of the mother. Abortion is allowed at any time where there is graver threat to the mother's life or health, or where the fetus has a fatal abnormality. Medical personnel may assert conscience objections to participating in abortions. AP reports on the referendum. [Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]