10th Circuit: Jail Chaplain Succeeds On Qualified Immunity Grounds In Suit Over Religious Diet

In Ralston v. Cannon, (10th Cir., Aug. 9, 2021), the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals held that a suit by a Messianic Jewish inmate should be dismissed on qualified immunity grounds. The suit challenged jail Chaplain Hosea Cannon's denial of plaintiff's request for a kosher diet. The court said in part:

When Mr. Cannon denied the kosher diet request, it was not clearly established that his conduct violated the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. More specifically, the law was not clearly established that, even if Mr. Cannon did not act with a discriminatory purpose, his denial of a kosher diet could effect a violation of Mr. Ralston’s free-exercise rights.

Court Enjoins Requirement That Christian Doctors Perform Gender Transition Procedures And Abortions

In Franciscan Alliance, Inc. v. Becerra, (ND TX, Aug. 9, 2021), on remand from the 5th Circuit, a Texas federal district court permanently enjoined enforcing the anti-discrimination provisions of the Affordable Care Act or implementing regulations against Christian health care providers and health plans in a manner that would require them to perform or provide insurance coverage for gender-transition procedures or abortions. The court said in part:

No party disputes that the current [Affordable Care Act] Section 1557 regulatory scheme threatens to burden Christian Plaintiffs’ religious exercise ... by placing substantial pressure on Christian Plaintiffs, in the form of fines and civil liability, to perform and provide insurance coverage for gender-transition procedures and abortions....

In reaching its conclusion, the court rejected mootness and other justiciability arguments that stemmed from shifting regulations while the case wound its way through the courts. 

In Pakistan, 8-Year Old Boy Is Charged With Blaspehmy

The Guardian  today reports that in the Punjab province of Pakistan, an 8-year old Hindu boy has become the youngest person ever charged in Pakistan with blasphemy. He is accused of intentionally urinating on a carpet in a madrassa library. Last week, after he was released from custody on bail, Muslims attacked a Hindu temple in Rahim Yar Khan. The boy is now being held in protective custody by police, and his family is in hiding.

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Daniel Judge, Catholic Education and the Formation of Conscience, (96 Notre Dame Law Review Reflection 248 (2021).
• Kenny Mok & Eric A. Posner, Constitutional Challenges to Public Health Orders in Federal Courts during the COVID-19 Pandemic  (August 1, 2021).
• James G. Hodge, et. al., Vaccinating Urban Populations in Response to COVID-19: Legal Challenges and Options, (Fordham Urban Law Journal, Vol. 49, No. 1, 2021).

From SmartCILP:

• Mark Satta, Unclear Hostility: Supreme Court Discussions of "Hostility to Religion" from Barnette to American Legion, 68 Buffalo Law Review 641-708 (2020).
• Sergio Alberto Gramitto Ricci, Archeology, Language, and Nature of Business Corporations, 89 Mississippi Law Journal 43-84 (2019).

10th Circuit: Parolee May Move Ahead In Suit Challenging His Placement In Christian Housing

In Janny v. Gamez, (10th Cir., Aug. 6, 2021), the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals held that a parolee, who is an atheist, should be able to move ahead with his Free Exercise and Establishment Clause claims growing out of a requirement that in order to stay out of jail he stay at a Christian homeless shelter and participate in its religious programming.  The court said in part:

[W]hile the Lemon test remains a central framework for Establishment Clause challenges, it is certainly not the exclusive one.... And claims of religious coercion, like the one presented here, are among those that Lemon is ill suited to resolve. Lee [v. Weisman] teaches that a simpler, common-sense test should apply to such allegations: whether the government “coerce[d] anyone to support or participate in religion or its exercise.” ...

Mr. Janny argues that Officer Gamez’s written parole directive to abide by the Mission’s “house rules as established,”... shows the State required him to participate in the Mission’s religious programming.... These facts establish a genuine dispute as to whether the State, through Officer Gamez, acted not just to place Mr. Janny in the Mission, but to place him specifically into the Christian-based Program....

The record [also] allows Mr. Janny to reach the jury on his claim that Officer Gamez burdened his right to free exercise by allegedly presenting him with the coercive choice of obeying the Program’s religious rules or returning to jail.

The court also rejected defendants' qualified immunity defenses. 

Judge Carson dissented in part, contending that the director of the Mission should not be liable as a state actor.

ACLU issued a press release announcing the decision.

White House Announces Liaison To Jewish Community

The White House announced yesterday that Chanan Weissman will serve as the Biden-Harris Administration's liaison to the Jewish community. He served in the same role in the Obama administration.

6th Circuit En Banc Upholds Tennessee Abortion Waiting Period

In a 9-7 en banc decision in Bristol Regional Women's Center, P.C. v. Slatery, (6th Cir., Aug. 5, 2021), the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Tennessee's 48-hour waiting period for abortions. Judge Thapar's majority opinion concluded:

Tennessee’s 48-hour abortion waiting period is facially constitutional. The law is supported by a rational basis, and it is not a substantial obstacle to abortion for a large fraction of women seeking previability abortions in Tennessee. And the plaintiffs failed to present any specific evidence to sustain their as-applied challenge. We thus reverse the district court’s decision and remand for entry of judgment in Tennessee’s favor on these claims.

Two judges joined in a concurring opinion.  The primary dissenting opinion was written by Judge Moore, who said in part:

Rather than plunge into the vast pool of evidence compiled in the district court ... the majority dips a toe and recoils. Speaking vaguely of “inconveniences,”... “logistical challenges,” ... and “increased costs,”... but shirking the specifics that the district court explored in exhaustive depth, the majority improvises a sanitized account of the record free of uncomfortable realities. In whitewashing the record, the majority has crystalized what has been clear at least since it agreed to hear this case initially en banc without a principled basis: this case was dead on arrival.... An honest look at the record compels but one conclusion: a law that peddles in stigma, forces women into unnecessary and invasive surgical procedures, and forces low-income women to sacrifice basic necessities for themselves and their families in order to obtain an abortion is nothing if not an undue burden.

Judge Gibbons also filed a dissenting opinion. The Hill reports on the decision. 

DOJ Reports On 15 Years Of Hate Crime Prosecutions

Last month (July 8), the Department of Justice Bureau of Justice Statistics issued a 15-page report titled Federal Hate Crime Prosecutions, 2005–19 (full text). A press release summarizing the report said in part:

U.S. attorneys declined to prosecute 82% of suspects, prosecuted 17% and disposed of 1% for prosecution by U.S. magistrates. Insufficient evidence was the most common reason hate crime matters were declined for prosecution.

Among the 310 defendants adjudicated in U.S. district court for hate crime violations during 2005-19, more than 9 in 10 defendants (284) were convicted. About 85% (240) of those convicted of a hate crime were sentenced to prison, with an average term of over 7.5 years. About 14% (39) were sentenced to probation only, and 1% (4) received a suspended sentence. Forty percent of the convictions for hate crimes during 2005-19 occurred in federal judicial districts in six states: New York (30), California (26), Texas (19), Arkansas (15), Tennessee (13) and Pennsylvania (12).

This week, the Los Angeles Blade reported on the data.

Transgender Students Sue Over Tennessee Public School Bathroom Law

Suit was filed this week in a Tennessee federal district court challenging the Tennessee Accommodations for All Children Act. The suit was brought on behalf of two transgender students. The complaint (full text) in A.S. v. Lee, (MD TN, filed 8/3/2021) alleges that the effect of the law is to force transgender students in public schools to either use a multi-occupancy bathroom inconsistent with their gender identity or ask for a "reasonable accommodation" such as use of a single-occupancy or a teacher's restroom or changing room. Use of a multi-occupancy restroom or changing room consistent with their gender identity is not an option. The complaint charges that the law violates the equal protection clause and Title IX. CNN reports on the lawsuit.

For First Time, Orthodox Rabbi Appointed To An Australian State Supreme Court

 ABC News and Hamodia report that for the first time, an Orthodox rabbi has been appointed to a Supreme Court of a state in Australia. Rabbi Marcus Solomon takes office today as the newest justice of the Supreme Court of the state of Western Australia. Rabbi Solomon, who has particular expertise in complex commercial matters, received his law degree in 1991. In 2006 he founded Perth Yeshivah, Western Australia's first post-secondary institution of Jewish studies and Talmudic law.

Challenge To Virginia's COVID Restrictions On Worship Services Dismissed As Moot

 In Tolle v. Northam, (ED VA, July 29, 2021), a Virginia federal district court dismissed as moot a lay minister's challenge to the Virginia governor's now-terminated COVID-19 orders.  Those orders had caused plaintiff's church to stop offering public worship services and otherwise limited gatherings for religious worship.

Protective Order Did Not Violate Ex-Husband's Free Exercise Rights

 In Kaur v. Singh, (PA Super., Aug. 2, 2021), a Pennsylvania appellate court upheld a Protection From Abuse Order that excludes plaintiff's former husband from attending the Nazareth Temple on Sundays when his former wife is present. The court said in part:

[T]he Final PFA Order did not substantially burden Appellant’s right to practice his religion....The Order did not ban Appellant from practicing his religion, nor compel him to perform actions against his religion. Appellant can attend services at several other temples in the area on Sunday, attend services at Nazareth Temple every day but Sunday, and attend services at Nazareth Temple on Sunday if Ms. Kaur is not present. As the trial court explained, “[t]he record established that all of the Sikh temples in the area have essentially the same services”....

Additionally ... [s]ince Appellant’s purpose of attending the services at Nazareth Temple is to harass Ms. Kaur as opposed to practicing his religion, the Order arguably does not impact Appellant’s ability to practice his religion at all.

Supreme Court Justice Denies Church's Application For Injunction Pending Cert. Application

Yesterday, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer in Calvary Chapel of Bangor v. Mills, denied  an application (full text) by a Maine church for injunctive relief pending disposition of its petition for certiorari. The church sought to prevent Maine's governor from reinstating COVID-related restrictions on worship services while exempting other activities. AP reports on the denial.

Cert. Filed In Case On Washington State's Religious Exemption From Anti-Discrimination Law

A petition for certiorari (full text) was filed yesterday with the U.S. Supreme Court in Seattle's Union Gospel Mission v. Woods, (cert. filed 8/2/2020). In the case, Washington state's Supreme Court held that, as applied, the religious and non-profit exemption to the state's anti-discrimination law may be unconstitutional. Plaintiff in the case was denied employment as a staff attorney by a Christian legal aid program for the homeless because he was in a same-sex relationship. (See prior posting.) ADF issued a press release announcing the filing of the petition for review.

Cert. Filed In Dispute Over Ministerial Exception's Applicability To Faculty Member

A petition for certiorari (full text) was filed yesterday with the U.S. Supreme Court in Gordon College v. DeWeese-Boyd, (cert. filed 8/2/2021). In the case, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held that the ministerial exception does not apply in a suit by an associate professor of social work at a private Christian liberal arts college who claims her promotion to full professor was denied because of her vocal opposition to the school's policies on LGBTQ individuals. The court concluded that the faculty member was not a ministerial employee. (See prior posting.) ADF issued a press release announcing the filing of the petition for review.

Supreme Court Review Sought In Dispute Over Virginia Property Tax Exemption

A petition for certorari (full text) was filed with the U.S. Supreme Court yesterday in Trustees of the New Life In Christ Church v. City of Fredericksburg, Virginia, (cert. filed 8/2/2021).  The decisions below are an unreported decision from a Virginia state trial court and a Virginia Supreme Court order refusing to grant review. The petition for review filed with the U.S. Supreme Court describes the case:

New Life In Christ Church claimed the tax exemption for a property occupied by Josh and Anacari Storms. The Church explained that the Stormses are “ministers” under the Presbyterian Church in America’s Book of Church Order because they were hired to teach and spread the faith to college students in the community. The City of Fredericksburg agreed that eligibility for the exemption turned on whether the Presbyterian Church in America considered the Stormses to be ministers, but it denied the exemption because, under its reading of the Book of Church Order, only ordained persons with specific duties are ministers of that church.

One of the issues presented is whether a civil court may substitute its own interpretation of church doctrine for that of church officials. First Liberty Institute issued a press release announcing the filing of the cert. petition.

8th Circuit: Challenge To Church Capacity Limits Dismissed On Mootness and Standing Grounds

 In Hawse v. Page, (8th Cir., July 30, 2021), the U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision, dismissed on standing and mootness grounds challenges to St. Louis County, Missouri's now-superseded COVID-related limit on the number of persons who could attend church services. The majority said in part:

Whether or not the churches were formally closed in April 2020, the complaint is bereft of an allegation that but for the Order, the churches attended  by the appellants would have allowed groups of ten or more persons to gather in the early weeks of the pandemic.

Judge Stras filed a dissenting opinion. 

Recent Articles of Interest

 From SSRN:

• Douglas Laycock & Thomas Charles Berg, Protecting Free Exercise Under Smith and After Smith, (Cato Supreme Court Review 2020-21 (forthcoming)).
• Perry Dane, ‘My Name Is Great Among the Nations’ an Essay on David VanDrunen, Politics After Christendom: Political Theology in a Fractured World, (Journal of Law and Religion, Forthcoming).
• Robert Kahn, 'My Face, My Choice?' — Mask Mandates, Bans, and Burqas in the Covid Age, (14 New York University Journal of Law and Liberty 2 (2021)).
• Jeffrey M. Lipshaw, Between Rights and Rites: The Ironies of Crisis and Contract, (Law and Contemporary Problems, Forthcoming).
• Michael S. Paulsen, Abortion as an Instrument of Eugenics,(134 Harvard Law Review Forum 415 (2021)).
• Douglas NeJaime, Biology and Illegitimacy, (SMU Law Review, Vol. 74, No. 2, 2021).
• Tariq Javed, Indian Citizenship Act: Reality and Usage, (January 15, 2020).

Most Misrepresentation Claims Against LDS Church Dismissed; RICO Claim Survives

In Gaddy v. Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, (D UT, July 28, 2021), a Utah federal district court dismissed most of the claims in an amended complaint by a former LDS Church member alleging that several basic teachings of the Church involve misrepresentations. The court previously dismissed plaintiff's original complaint. (See prior posting.) In passing on her amended complaint, the court said in part:

Gaddy's new factual allegations relating to the locations of events described in the Book of Mormon and the founding prophet Joseph Smith's marriages directly implicate the Church's core religious teachings.... [S]he seeks to attack the veracity of the Church's teachings about the Book of Mormon and its doctrines by challenging the accuracy of certain facts contained in the text. As this court previously explained, a plaintiff may not, for example, challenge in a court of law religious beliefs that Noah built an ark, loaded it with his family and representative animals of the world, and was thereby saved from world-engulfing floods. Neither may a plaintiff circumvent this restriction by merely attacking religious accounts concerning the locations where Noah built the ark or where the ark came to rest....

Gaddy is correct that courts are required to evaluate the sincerity of religious beliefs.... However, courts engage in this inquiry of those seeking religious accommodation or exception to a rule or law of general application ... for the purpose of ensuring the government accommodate only genuine religious beliefs that are sincerely held.

This rationale is inapplicable here because the church autonomy doctrine is not an accommodation.... Rather, it is a "fundamental right of churches to decide for themselves, free from state interference, matters of church government as well as those of faith and doctrine."

The court however did allow plaintiff to move ahead with her civil RICO claim based on alleged misrepresentations about the way in which tithed funds would be spent:

Here, Gaddy does not challenge the Church's tithing doctrine or teachings related to it.... Gaddy instead points to specific factual statements allegedly made by the Church ... concerning the Church's use of tithing funds and alleges those statements are false. The inquiry required to adjudicate this claim does not implicate religious principles of the Church or the truth of the Church's beliefs concerning the doctrine of tithing. This claim further does not require the court to determine whether the Church or its members were acting in accord with what they perceived to be the commandments of their faith. Gaddy has instead challenged secular representations....

9th Circuit: Arizona Prison Rules Did Not Substantially Burden Inmate's Religious Exercise

 In Yokois v. Ryan, (9th Cir., July 30, 2021), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of an Arizona inmate's 1st Amendment and RLUIPA claims. The court said in part:

ADC’s policy requiring inmates to go through authorized vendors to purchase religious items was at most, an inconvenience, and not a substantial burden on Yokois’ ability to acquire religious items. Similarly, ... the ADC policy in question only prevented Yokois from pinning religious materials on his bulletin board while he was outside his cell and not using them. As a result, Yokois did not show that these policies so burdened his right to exercise his religion that he felt pressured to abandon his beliefs.