Bidens Send Eid Greetings

Today is Eid al-Adha. Yesterday President and Mrs. Biden issued a statement (full text) sending greetings to those celebrating the holiday. The statement reads in part:

The Hajj, which convenes people from all walks of life and from every corner of the globe, is also a reminder of Islam’s commitment to equality and the shared roots of the world’s Abrahamic faiths. The United States is committed to working with the international community to emerge stronger from the pandemic, and thousands of Muslim Americans are among those eager to perform the pilgrimage next year, God willing.

9th Circuit Denies En Banc Review Of Football Coach's Challenge To Dismissal For On-Field Prayer

In Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, (9th Cir., July 19, 2021), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected a sua sponte request for a rehearing en banc in the case of a high school football coach who insisted on prominently praying at the 50-yard line immediately after football games. A 3-judge panel upheld upheld a Washington state school board's dismissal of the coach. (See prior posting.) The denial of the rehearing however generated six concurring and dissenting opinions and statements spanning 92 pages, reflecting sharp differences. Judge Smith's opinion concurring in the denial of review says in part:

Unlike Odysseus, who was able to resist the seductive song of the Sirens by being tied to a mast and having his shipmates stop their ears with bees’ wax, our colleague, Judge O’Scannlain, appears to have succumbed to the Siren song of a deceitful narrative of this case spun by counsel for Appellant, to the effect that Joseph Kennedy, a Bremerton High School (BHS) football coach, was disciplined for holding silent, private prayers. That narrative is false.... [T]he reader should know the following basic truth ab initio: Kennedy was never disciplined by BHS for offering silent, private prayers.

Senior Judge O'Scannlain, joined in full by 5 other judges and in part by two more, said in part:

It is axiomatic that teachers do not “shed” their First Amendment protections “at the schoolhouse gate.”... Yet the opinion in this case obliterates such constitutional protections by announcing a new rule that any speech by a public school teacher or coach, while on the clock and in earshot of others, is subject to plenary control by the government. Indeed, we are told that, from the moment public high school football coach Joseph Kennedy arrives at work until the very last of his players has gone home after a game, the Free Speech Clause simply doesn’t apply to him.

First Liberty announced that an appeal will be filed with the U.S. Supreme Court.

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Brian Bix, Protestant Interpretation, Conventions, and Legal Truth, (Thomas Bustamante & Thiago Lopes Decat (eds.), Philosophy of Law as an Integral Part of Philosophy: Essays on the Jurisprudence of Gerald J. Postema (Hart Publishing, 2020)).
• Marc Spindelman, Justice Gorsuch's Choice: From Bostock to Dobbs (What a Blockbuster LGBT Rights Ruling Might Mean for the Future of Abortion Rights), (Nat'l L.J. (July 9, 2021)).
• Nelson Tebbe, The Principle and Politics of Equal Value, (Columbia Law Review, Forthcoming).
• Nakul Nayak, Constitutional Morality: An Indian Framework,  (American Journal of Comparative Law (forthcoming)).

From SmartCILP:

• Kristen A. Carpenter, Book Review. Living the Sacred: Indigenous Peoples and Religious Freedom. Defend the Sacred: Native American Religious Freedom beyond the First Amendment, by Michael D. McNally, 134 Harvard Law Review 2103-2157 (2021).
• Peter B. Janci, Helping #ChurchToo Abuse Victims Hold Religious Entities Accountable in Civil Cases, 14 Liberty University Law Review 317-350 (2020).
• Victor I. Vieth et al., Keeping Faith: The Potential Role of a Chaplain to Address the Spiritual Needs of Maltreated Children and Advise Child Abuse Multi-Disciplinary Teams, 14 Liberty University Law Review 351-380 (2020).
• Bradley J. Lingo & Michael G. Schietzelt, Fulton and the Future of Free Exercise, 33 Regent University Law Review 5-38 (2020).

Minnesota Governor Orders Agencies To Combat Conversion Therapy

On July 15, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz issued Executive Order 21-25 (full text) providing:

All state agencies must pursue opportunities and coordinate with each other to protect Minnesotans, particularly minors and vulnerable adults, from conversion therapy to the fullest extent of their authority.

The Executive Order then details administrative actions that are to be taken by various state departments and agencies to prevent mental health professionals from working to change individuals' sexual orientation or gender identity.  AP reports on the governor's action. [Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]

EU Court of Justice Says Neutral Ban On Employees Wearing Any Religious Or Political Symbols Is Permitted

In IX v. WABE eV, (CJ EU, July 15, 2021), the Court of Justice of the European Union gave preliminary rulings in two cases from German Labor Courts on the extent to which employers can ban employees from wearing visible political, religious or philosophical signs in the workplace.  At issue was whether applying such a ban to Islamic headscarves constitutes either direct discrimination or indirect discrimination. EU Directive 2000/78 allows apparently neutral rules that particularly impact persons of a specific religion or belief only if they are "objectively justified by a legitimate aim and the means of achieving that aim are appropriate and necessary."

In one case, at issue was whether a day care center could apply such a ban to a special needs teacher. The court held the ban does not constitute direct religious discrimination "provided that that rule is applied in a general and undifferentiated way." It held that the ban would not constitute prohibited indirect discrimination if the policy meets a genuine need on the part of that employer; the difference of treatment is appropriate for the purpose of ensuring that the employer’s policy of neutrality is properly applied, and the ban is limited to what is strictly necessary.

The second case involves a sales assistant/ cashier at a drug store. The employer's policy only banned "conspicuous, large-sized political, philosophical or religious signs." The Court concluded that a ban limited to the wearing of conspicuous, large-sized signs cannot be a neutral policy since the wearing of any sign, even a small-sized one, undermines the ability ... to achieve the aim allegedly pursued and therefore calls into question the consistency of that policy of neutrality."

AP reports on the decision. [Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]

8th Circuit: University of Iowa Discriminated Against Christian Student Group

In Intervarsity Christian Fellowship/ USA v. University of Iowa, (8th Cir., July 16, 2021), the U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals held that the University of Iowa violated the 1st Amendment rights of Intervarsity Christian Fellowship when the University applied its Human Rights Policy against ICF in a discriminatory manner. ICF required students seeking leadership positions to affirm a statement of faith based on biblical Christianity-- including the belief that same-sex relationships were against the Bible. The court said in part:

For decades, the University permitted RSOs to base their membership and leadership on religious affirmations or other traits that are protected by the Human Rights Policy.... In fact, the University still permits this; but it didn’t for InterVarsity. The district court found that the defendants likely violated BLinC’s constitutional rights and ordered the University to apply the Human Rights Policy equally to all RSOs. But instead of doing that, the University started a compliance review that prioritized religious organizations. That review led to InterVarsity’s deregistration, along with other religious groups. The University’s fervor dissipated, however, once they finished with religious RSOs. Sororities and fraternities got exemptions from the Human Rights Policy. Other groups were permitted to base membership on sex, race, veteran status, and even some religious beliefs.

Take LoveWorks, for example. It was formed by the student who was denied a leadership role in BLinC. LoveWorks requires its members and leaders to sign a “gay-affirming statement of Christian faith.’” ... Despite that requirement—which violates the Human Rights Policy just as much as InterVarsity’s—the University did nothing. 

We are hard-pressed to find a clearer example of viewpoint discrimination.

Becket issued a press release announcing the decision.

Suit Claims Change Of High School's Name Was Motivated By Anti-Catholic Sentiment

Suit was filed this week in a California state trial court challenging on Establishment Clause, as well as other, grounds the change of name of San Diego's Junipero Serra High School to Canyon Hills High School.  The complaint (full text) in Cox v.Renfree, (CA Super. Ct., filed 7/14/2021) alleges in part:

the entire effort to rebrand Junipero Serra High School has demonstrated systemic, deep-seated, anti-Catholic motivations....

The Franciscan priest, Junipero Serra, has been regarded as California's founding father. He established a Mission on the shores of San Diego Bay in 1769. The complaint in the lawsuit contends:

In the summer of 2020, Black Lives Matter protests and other demonstrations swept across the county, sparking an acute interest in Critical Race Theory and public erasure of symbols of colonialism—including Serra himself. Statues of Serra were defaced and attacked, and one of his churches was burned in an attack that represented animosity toward the Catholic faith and its role in California history. 

The complaint goes on to argue:

By selecting the rattlesnake as the school’s new mascot, which tribal members have stated is a sacred creature to their people, and removing the name of a Catholic saint from the school, Defendants are clearly endorsing and celebrating the religion of one group at the expense of another.

Thomas More Society issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Samuels Confirmed For Second Term On EEOC

According to a press release from the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the U.S. Senate yesterday confirmed the nomination of Jocelyn Samuels to serve a second term as an EEOC Commissioner. She will serve a 5-year term and continue to serve as Vice-Chair of the EEOC. Before joining the EEOC, Samuels was Executive Director of UCLA's Williams Institute which conducts research on sexual orientation and gender identity law and public policy. The EEOC enforces federal laws barring employment discrimination, including religious discrimination.

Pennsylvania Man Sentenced For Online Threats To Jewish Community

The U.S. Attorney's Office for the Middle District of Pennsylvania announced yesterday that a 32 year old Pennsylvania man has been sentenced to 18-months in prison after he pleaded guilty to one count of interstate transmission of threats to injure another person. According to the press release:

[Corbin]  Kauffman posted a digitally-created image of his own arm and hand aiming an AR-15 rifle at a congregation of praying Jewish men, gathered in a synagogue.  The threatening image came in the wake of the October 27, 2018 mass-shooting at Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.....  On the same day ..., Kauffman also shared a video of the Tree of Life shooting, as well as another post in support of the shooter [and] ... also posted multiple references to “hate crimes” and a photograph of vandalism he committed by defacing a display case at the Chabad Lubavitch Jewish Center in Ocean City, Maryland, with white supremacist and anti-Semitic stickers.

Teacher Who Refused To Address Transgender Students By Preferred Names Loses Title VII Suit

In Kluge v. Brownsburg Community School Corporation, (SD IN, July 12, 2021), an Indiana federal district court dismissed a suit by a former teacher who resigned rather than comply with a school policy requiring him to address transgender students by their preferred names and pronouns. Plaintiff contended that it violated his Christian religious beliefs to comply with this policy. He sued under Title VII, claiming failure to accommodate his religious beliefs and retaliation. The court said in part:

[A]  name carries with it enough importance to overcome a public school corporation's duty to accommodate a teacher's sincerely held religious beliefs against a policy that requires staff to use transgender students' preferred names when supported by a parent and health care provider. Because BCSC ... could not accommodate Mr. Kluge's religious beliefs without sustaining undue hardship, and because Mr. Kluge has failed to make a meaningful argument or adduce evidence in support of a claim for retaliation, BCSC's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED....

Indiana Lawyer reports on the decision.

Plaintiff Lacks Standing To Challenge Michigan COVID Order Exemption For Worship Services

In Bormuth v. Whitmer, (ED MI, July 12, 2021), a Michigan federal magistrate judge denied plaintiff's motion to file a supplemental complaint in a challenge to a portion of Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer's now-rescinded COVID-19 Orders. At issue was an exemption from penalties for violation of stay-at-home orders by places of religious worship that allowed worship services, or by individuals travelling to places of worship. The court said in part:

The exemptions from prosecution for places of religious worship and their owners caused no harm to Plaintiff; if anything, they provided a protection to him. Under the exemptions, he enjoyed the freedom to practice his own religion at any indoor or outdoor “place of religious worship” without fear of prosecution....

The exemptions at issue neither established a state religion, nor favored particular religions, nor inhibited Plaintiff’s own free expression of genuinely-held religious beliefs. Indeed, the exemptions protected his expression of such beliefs....

Plaintiff’s proposed supplemental complaint still fails to demonstrate standing on the basis of a “concrete, particularized, and actual or imminent” injury... His proposed supplemental pleading will not cure the lack of justiciability identified in my prior report and recommendation.

Plaintiffs Lack Standing To Challenge "Black Lives Matter" Mural As Establishment Clause Violation

In Penkoski v. Bowser, (D DC, July 12, 2021), the D.C. federal district court held that a Black Lives Matter mural painted on DC streets was government speech, rejecting plaintiffs' claim of content discrimination in a public forum.  The court also dismissed on standing grounds plaintiffs' claim that the mural violates the Establishment Clause by promoting the religion of Secular Humanism.

Court Enjoins Statute Requiring Warning About Restroom Access

In Bongo Productions, LLC v. Lawrence, (MD TN, July 9, 2021), a Tennessee federal district court issued a preliminary injunction against enforcement of a recent Tennessee statute that requires businesses which allow individuals to use rest rooms consistent with their gender identity to post a sign by each rest room stating: "This facility maintains a policy of allowing the use of restrooms by either biological sex, regardless of the designation of the restroom." The court concluded that the statute violates plaintiffs' First Amendment free speech rights by compelling speech. The court said in part:

[T]here is simply no basis whatsoever for concluding that the Act is narrowly tailored to serve any compelling governmental purpose....

The defendants are right that, as the Supreme Court has held, strict scrutiny typically does not apply to laws compelling commercial actors to disclose “purely factual and uncontroversial information about the terms under which [their] services will be available.”...

The Supreme Court has expressly recognized that “sexual orientation and gender identity” are, generally speaking, “controversial subjects.”...

[P]eople on one side of a disagreement do not get to unilaterally declare their position to be uncontroversial, because that is not how the concept of “controversy” works. Put another way, the defendants might be wise to accept that, once you are in a heated argument with multiple folks about whether your position is uncontroversial, there is a good chance that you may have already lost.

Gay City News reports on the decision.

5th Circuit: Courtroom Invocations Do Not Violate Establishment Clause

In Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc. v. Mack, (5th Cir., July 9, 2021), the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals granted a stay pending appeal of a Texas district court's declaratory judgment order which concluded that a a Justice of the Peace's program under which court sessions are opened with a prayer from a volunteer chaplain violates the Establishment Clause. (See prior posting.) Attendees may to step out of the courtroom before the ceremony if they wish. The appeals court held that official capacity claims under 42 USC §1983 are barred, and that FFRF's individual capacity claims are likely to fail. The court said in part:

The Supreme Court has held that our Nation’s history and tradition allow legislatures to use tax dollars to pay for chaplains who perform sectarian prayers before sessions. See Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783 (1983). If anything, Judge Mack’s chaplaincy program raises fewer questions under the Establishment Clause because it uses zero tax dollars and operates on a volunteer basis....

It’s true that Marsh and Town of Greece involved a legislature’s chaplains, not a justice of the peace’s chaplains. But it’s unclear why that matters, given the abundant history and tradition of courtroom prayer.

Washington Times reports on the decision.

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

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

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

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

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

Bloomberg Law reports on the decision.

Israel's Supreme Court Extends Surrogacy Rights To Same-Sex Couples and Single Men

As reported by AP and The Forward, Israel's Supreme Court sitting as the High Court of Justice yesterday ruled that the government must allow same-sex couples and single men to become parents through surrogate mothers on a equal basis with heterosexual couples and single women. Its ruling takes effect in 6 months, in order to give time for the creation of professional guidelines. AP explains:

The court ruled in 2020 that a surrogacy law, which had expanded access to single women but excluded gay couples, “disproportionately harmed the right to equality and the right to parenthood” and was unlawful.

It gave the government a year to draw up a new law, but parliament failed to meet the deadline.

[Thanks to Steven H. Sholk for the lead.]

Recent Articles of Interest

• From SSRN:
• M. Mohsin Alam Bhat, Religious Freedom in Contest: Enforcing Religion Through Anti- Conversion Laws in India, (Journal of Law, Religion and State (2021)).
• Raphael Cohen-Almagor, Can Group Rights Justify the Denial of Education to Children? The Amish in the United States as a Case Study, (SN Social Sciences, 1: 164 (2021)).
• Jayanta Boruah, Euthanasia in India: A Review on Its Constitutional Validity, (Lex Humanitariae: Journal for a Change 2021).
• Anthony Michael Kreis, Unlawful Genders, (Law and Contemporary Problems (forthcoming)).

From SmartCILP:

• T.J. Denley, Balancing Burdens in Religious Freedom Claims, [Abstract], 26 Cardozo Journal of Equal Rights & Social Justice 207-232 (2020).

9th Circuit Hears Oral Arguments In Washington Insurance Coverage Mandate Challenge

On Friday, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments in Cedar Park Assembly of God v. Kreidler. (Video of full oral arguments.) In the case, a Washington federal district court refused to grant a preliminary injunction to a church that objects to Washington's SB 6219 which requires health insurance plans that cover maternity care to also cover abortions. A Washington federal district court had dismissed the suit on standing grounds. (See prior posting.) Washington Examiner reports on the oral arguments.

Content of Sermon Protected By Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine

In Hullibarger v. Archdiocese of Detroit, (MI App., July 8, 2021), a Michigan state appellate court held that the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine requires dismissal of a suit claiming that a priest's sermon at the funeral of plaintiff's son amounted to intentional infliction of emotional distress, misrepresentation and invasion of privacy. The court also held that the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine requires dismissal of  a negligent hiring, supervision and retention claim. According to the court:

Plaintiff’s son committed suicide in early December 2018, but his family kept the manner of his death from the public. Plaintiff’s pastor, defendant Father Don LaCuesta, officiated at the funeral and during his homily revealed the suicide of plaintiff’s son to the public. He then proceeded to preach about suicide as a grave sin and specifically about how it endangered the immortal soul of plaintiff’s son.