Another Suit Seeks Religious Exemptions From Military's Vaccine Mandate

Yet another group of military personnel have filed suit challenging the military's COVID vaccine mandate.  As in a number of other cases, plaintiffs complain that while regulations allow religious exemptions, almost all applications for them are denied.  The complaint (full text) in Roth v. Austin, (D NE, filed 3/8/2022), was filed by 36 Air Force and Air National Guard members who allege that their rights under RFRA and the First Amendment have been infringed. WOWT reports on the lawsuit.

Sanctions On Russian Financial Firm Leads Counsel To End Representation In Litigation Over Recovery Of Jewish Books From Russia

As previously reported, for nearly two decades Agudas Chasidei Chabad has been attempting to recover from the Russian government two expropriated collections of valuable Jewish religious books and manuscripts. In 2013, the D.C. federal district court held the Russian government and three of its agencies in civil contempt, and imposed sanctions of $50,000 per day, for not complying with a 2010 default judgement ordering it to return the materials.  Plaintiffs have been attempting to find Russian assets to satisfy the sanctions by issuing subpoenas to various entities. In Agudas Chasidei Chabad of United States v. Russia Federation, (DC Cir., Dec. 3, 2021), the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals refused to quash subpoenas directed at several Russian entities, including State Development Corp VEB.RF. (Background).  At the same time that an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court was being planned, Russia began aggressive moves toward Ukraine. This led the U.S. to impose sanctions on VEB.RF. (Department of Treasury Press Release, Feb. 22, 2022). Now, as reported by Reuters, VEB.RF's lawyers in the litigation with Chabad, the global firm of Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer, announced on Monday that it is ending its representation of VEB.RF. On Monday, the law firm filed a Motion (full text) with the D.C. Circuit seeking a stay of proceedings until VEB has obtained substitute counsel.

Suit Challenges DC's Remaining Mask Mandate For Catholic Schools

In Mayor's Order 2022-029 (Feb. 14, 2022), the District of Columbia lifted its COVID mask mandate for various business and recreation venues, and houses of worship, but continued the mandate for a number of facilities including "Public, public charter, private, parochial, and independent schools."  On Monday, suit was filed in the D.C. federal district court by parents of Catholic school students alleging that keeping the mask mandate on Catholic schools violates RFRA and the First Amendment. The complaint (full text) in Dugan v. Bowser, (D DC, filed 3/7/2022) alleges in part:

Defendants’ mandate requiring the children to wear masks in their Catholic school classrooms—while allowing children and adults to not wear masks nearly everywhere else—is arbitrary, unscientific, and irrational. Under Defendants’ policy, a child could sit for hours at the Wizards game at the crowded Capitol One Arena without wearing a mask, but she must cover her face for seven hours a day, the moment she steps into her Catholic school building....

In addition to unconstitutionally burdening Catholic schools and treating them unequally, Defendants’ prolonged mask mandate has had substantially detrimental effects on—and is continuing to significantly impede—the Parents’ children’s Catholic formation and education.

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

UPDATE: On March 11, ADF announced that the lawsuit has been voluntarily dismissed after D.C. revoked the mask mandate.  (Plaintiff's Notice of Voluntary Dismissal).

Questionnaire Upheld As Basis For Vaccine Religious Exemption

In Ferrelli v. State of New York Unified Court System, (ND NY, March 7, 2022), a New York federal district court upheld the system for determining whether employees are entitled to religious exemptions from the COVID vaccine mandate imposed on all judges and employees of the New York state court system. The court described the screening process for exemptions in part as follows:

[T]he two most common reasons for seeking a religious exemption were (1) concern about the connection between COVID-19 vaccines and fetal cells, and (2) concern about the sanctity or purity of the applicant’s body.... Because the committee often found the information in applicants’ personal statements insufficient to assess the basis for and sincerity of the belief, it created a supplemental form.... In particular, Section A inquires as to applicants’ use of other medications and vaccinations that were tested using fetal cell lines, and requests explanations of inconsistencies in past or present use of such products.... Section B requests information about other medicines, medical treatments, vaccines and/or foods from which the applicant abstains due to her religious beliefs; when she began abstaining; and why her faith requires such abstention.....

The court concluded that this exemption process was neutral and generally applicable, saying in part:

Defendants have not created a system of individualized exemptions and refused to extend it to religious hardships. Rather, they have created a system of religious exemptions and refused to extend it to Plaintiffs based on responses, or lack thereof, to a supplemental form.

Pentagon Asks Supreme Court To Stay Injunction Obtained By Navy SEALS Who Object To Vaccines

 Yesterday in Austin v. U.S. Navy Seals 1-26 the Pentagon filed with the Supreme Court an Application (full text) for a stay while appeals are pending of an injunction issued by a Texas federal district court. In the case, the district court issued a preliminary injunction barring the Navy from imposing its COVID vaccine mandate on 35 Navy service members who have religious objections to the vaccines. (See prior posting.) The  Pentagon sought a stay of the injunction from the 5th Circuit insofar as it precludes the Navy from considering vaccination status in making deployment, assignment, and other operational decisions. The 5th Circuit refused to grant the stay. (See prior posting.)  In its Application to the Supreme Court, the Pentagon contends in part:

[E]ven if respondents’ claims had merit, respondents would not be entitled to an injunction dictating the Navy’s deployment, assignment, and operational decisions.... An injunction that trenches on core Article II prerogatives concerning which military servicemembers are qualified for which missions  ... has no precedent in our Nation’s history.

The Application was filed with Justice Alito who called for appellees to respond by March 14. SCOTUSblog reports on the filing.

Christian Student Sues His High School For Bullying and Harassment

 Suit was filed last week in a Florida federal district court by a Christian high school student against his public charter school alleging bullying and harassment by students, reinforced by the school, because he regularly brought a Bible to school and read it during his free time.  The complaint (full text) in Ortiz v. Mater Academy, Inc., (SD FL, filed 2/28/2022) summarizes the allegations as follows:

Nicholas Ortiz, a 14-year-old freshman, was discriminated and retaliated against by his high school, Mater Academy, because he is a Christian. Nicholas repeatedly made the school aware of a pattern of pervasive bullying by his fellow students, bullying that was reinforced by the words and actions of the school. Yet the school did not just sweep Nicholas's bullying claims under the rug-- failing to report them as required under the law-- they retaliated against Nicholas for reporting the harassment.... The school validated the despicable false rumors about Nicholas being broadcast on social media, [and] denied Nicholas due process....

The 57-page complaint sets out in detail the instances of bullying and harassment, including fellow-students ripping pages from his Bible. Numerous social media postings are reproduced in the complaint. The complaint alleges 1st and 14th Amendment violations as well as various state law claims. Christian Headlines reports on the lawsuit.

Code Enforcement Against Buddhist Temple Did Not Violate Free Exercise Clause Or RLUIPA

In Temple of 1001 Buddhas v. City of Fremont, (ND CA, March 4, 2022), a California federal district court dismissed a suit by a Miaolan Lee who lives on property owned by the Temple of 1001 Buddhas challenging the city's enforcement of the state's building, electrical and plumbing codes. Among others, the court dismissed plaintiff's free exercise and RLUIPA claims, saying in part:

Although the code enforcement does not permit her to use (for any purpose) the three buildings that are in severe noncompliance, Lee can exercise her religion elsewhere on her property. The code enforcement does not at all “coerce [her] into acting contrary to [her] religious beliefs or exert substantial pressure on [her] to modify his behavior and to violate [her] beliefs.” ...

Lee argues that the City violated RLUIPA when West “instruct[ed] Plaintiff Lee that she could only pray on the property in the main house or in the dome Meditation Hall and nowhere else on the Real Property.” ... Lee contends that this act was “an implementation of a land use regulation.”... [T]he Court now concludes that Lee does not state a claim on this basis because Lee does not plausibly allege that this remark constituted the “application of a zoning or landmarking law” within the meaning of RLUIPA.

Recent Articles Of Interest

From SSRN:

• Mark Rienzi, Religious Liberty and Judicial Deference, (Notre Dame Law Review, 2022).
• Sherif Girgis, Defining 'Substantial Burdens' on Religion and Other Liberties, (August 26, 2021).
• Netta Corren Barak, Yoav Kan-Tor, & Nelson Tebbe, Examining the Effects of Antidiscrimination Laws on Child Welfare: Law on the Books, (February 25, 2022).
• Bradley J. Lingo & Michael Schietzelt, A Second-Class First Amendment Right? Text, Structure, and Free Exercise After Fulton, (February 25, 2022).
• Samuel J. Levine, The Supreme Court’s Hands-Off Approach to Religious Questions in the Era of COVID-19 and Beyond, (24 J. Const. L. 276 (2022)).
• Anna Offit, Religious Convictions, (101 N.C. L. Rev. __ (Forthcoming).
• Robin S. Maril, The Administrative State and the Executive Establishment of Religion, (February 28, 2022).
• Robert C. Blitt, Human Rights and Disinformation Under the Trump Administration: The Commission on Unalienable Rights, (St. Louis University Law Journal, Vol. 66, 2021).
• Sonya G. Bonneau, The Romantic Author as Compelled Speaker,(March 1, 2022).

From SSRN (Reproductive Rights):

• Robert A. Bohrer, A Freezer Chest of Frozen Embryos: Valuing Lives, (February 22, 2022).
• Itay Ravid & Jonathan Zandberg, The Future of Roe and the Gender Pay Gap: An Empirical Assessment, (March 2, 2022).
• Jeffrey A. Parness, Abortion and Safe Haven Laws, (93 University of Colorado Law Review Online (2022 Forthcoming)).

From SSRN (Non-U.S. Law):

• Barry Winston Bussey, Not Set in Stone: Constitutional Religious Rights and Direct Democracy in Canada, (Direct Democracy Practices at the Local Level, edited by Christophe Emmanuel Premat, IGI Global, 2022, pp. 154-178).
• Smriti Parsheera, Half the Land with Half the Sky: Seeking Inheritance Rights for Lahaul's Tribal Women, (February 22, 2022).
• Chhavi Tiwari, Srinivas Goli, & Mohammad Zahid Siddiqui, Poverty, Wealth Inequality, and Nancial Inclusion among Castes in Hindu and Muslim Communities in Uttar Pradesh, India (January 4, 2022), (Journal of International Development. Forthcoming).
• Nizamuddin Ahmad Siddiqui, Personal Laws in India: A Theoretical Investigation from the Perspective of Muslim Personal Law, (1(1) Journal of Law and Religious Affairs 63 (2021)).

From SmartCILP:

• Ralph Gants, Remarks at the Islamic Society of Boston Cultural Center, 62 Boston College Law Review 2745-2746 (2021).

Court Issues TRO Preventing Enforcement Of Texas Governor's Order On Gender Transition Treatment For Minors

As reported in an ACLU press release, earlier this week a Texas state trial court in Jane Doe v. Abbott, (TX Dist. Ct., March 2, 2022), issued a temporary restraining order barring enforcement against the named plaintiffs of Texas Gov. Greg Abbott's order to investigate for child abuse parents who facilitate gender reassignment treatment for minors. (See prior posting.) The court said in part:

[T]he Court finds Plaintiffs will suffer irreparable injury unless Defendants are immediately restrained.... Jane Doe has been placed on administrative leave at work and is at risk of losing her job and ... Jane, John and Mary Doe face the imminent and ongoing deprivation of their constitutional rights, the potential loss of necessary medical care, and the stigma attached to being the subject of an unfounded child abuse investigation.... [I]f placed on the Child Abuse Registry, Jane Doe could lose the ability to practice her profession and both Jane and John Doe could lose their ability to work with minors and volunteer in their community.

The Court further finds that Plaintiff Mooney could face civil suit by patients for failing to treat them in accordance with professional standards and loss of licensure for failing to follow her professional ethics if she complies with Defendants’ orders and actions. If she does not comply with Defendants’ orders, Dr. Mooney could face immediate criminal prosecution, as set forth in the Governor’s letter.

The court set a temporary injunction hearing for March 11.

Supreme Court In Muslim Surveillance Case Says State Secrets Doctrine Survives FISA

The U.S. Supreme Court today, in a unanimous opinion written by Justice Alito issued a narrow decision in Federal Bureau of Investigation v. Fazaga, (Sup. Ct., March 4, 2022). The case involves a class action lawsuit filed by Muslims in California who claim they were subjected to illegal surveillance. The district court dismissed the suit under the "state secrets" doctrine.  The 9th Circuit reversed holding that FISA displaced the state secrets doctrine. The Supreme Court held that FISA does not displace the state secrets doctrine, but did not resolve the parties disagreement about the interpretation of the relevant portion of FISA, nor did it decide whether the district court was correct in dismissing the suit on the pleadings. Deseret News reports on the decision.

Florida Passes 15-Week Abortion Ban

Yesterday the Florida legislature gave final passage to H5 (full text) which, among other things, prohibits abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy except to save the mother's life, to avert serious risk of imminent substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function, or in the case of a non-viable fetus that has a fatal abnormality. AP reports on the legislation.

Supreme Court Allows New Kentucky AG To Intervene To Defend Abortion Restrictions

Yesterday in Cameron v. EMW Women's Surgical Center, (Sup. Ct., March 3, 2022), the U.S. Supreme Court by an 8-1 vote ruled that the newly-elected Kentucky Attorney General (a Republican) should have been allowed to intervene to defend a Kentucky statute that banned D&E abortions prior to fetal demise. The newly elected Democratic governor (through a cabinet official) had agreed not to pursue appeals of the 6th Circuit's decision holding the law unconstitutional. Justice Alito wrote the opinion for the Court. Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion. Justice Kagan, joined by Justice Breyer, concurred in the judgment, writing an opinion that reached the same conclusion as the majority, but through a different rationale. Only Justice Sotomayor dissented. CNN reports on the decision.

French High Court Upholds Ban On Lawyers Wearing Religious Garb In Court

France's Court of Cassation, one of the country's four courts of last resort, this week upheld a rule of the Lille bar association that provides: "the lawyer may not wear with the robe either decoration or sign ostensibly manifesting a religious, philosophical, community or political affiliation or opinion."  One of the litigants was a law student who wears a hijab.  In Appeal No. 20-20.185, (Ct. Cassation, March 2, 2022), the court said in part:

[T]he Court of Appeal held that the will of a bar association to impose on its members, when they appear before a court ... to wear a uniform suit contributes to ensuring the equality of lawyers and, through this, the equality of litigants..., that in order to protect their rights and freedoms, each lawyer, in the exercise of his functions of defense and representation, must erase what is personal to him and that the wearing of the costume of his profession without any sign distinctive is necessary to testify to its availability to any litigant.

24. The Court of Appeal ... rightly deduced that the prohibition ... was necessary in order to achieve the legitimate aim pursued, namely to protect the independence of the lawyer and ensure the right to a fair trial, but was also, without any discrimination, adequate and proportionate to the objective sought.

Jurist reports on the decision.

Stay Of Injunction Denied In Suit Over Religious Exemptions From Military's Vaccine Mandate

In Navy Seal 1 v. Austin, (MD FL, March 2, 2022), a Florida federal district court refused to stay, pending appeal, an injunction that had been granted to two service members who refused to comply with the military's COVID vaccine mandate.(See prior posting.)  In refusing the stay, the court said in part:

Although certainly not “given the task of running the Army,” the courts in the narrow instance of RFRA are given the task of ensuring that those who are given the task of running the Army (and the armed forces in general and every other component of the federal government) conform their actions to the governing law, to RFRA, to which the admirals and the generals and commandants are unquestionably subordinate — just like the President, the Speaker of the House, the Chief Justice, and every other person in the federal government.

Liberty Counsel issued a press release announcing the decision.

9th Circuit: Arizona's Free Exercise Statute Did Not Repeal Limit On Prisoner Suits

In Crespin v. State of Arizona, (9th Cir., March 3, 2022), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held that Arizona's Free Exercise of Religion Act did not repeal by implication a provision in Arizona's statutes that allows prisoners to sue for injuries suffered while incarcerated only if the inmate alleges serious physical injury.

Pro-Life Demonstrators Have Free Exercise Claim After Arrest For Violating COVID Order

In Global Impact Ministries v. Mecklenburg County, (WD NC, March 1, 2022), a North Carolina federal district court allowed pro-life demonstrators who were arrested for violating a county-city COVID stay-at-home order to move ahead with their free exercise, but not their free speech, claim for nominal damages. Discussing the free exercise claim, the court said in part:

Until fairly recently, the Supreme Court’s Free Exercise jurisprudence was highly deferential to COVID-19 regulations that burdened religion.... That deference changed dramatically with the Supreme Court’s decisions in Roman Catholic Diocese v. Cuomo ... and Tandon v. Newsom....

Plaintiffs allege that the Proclamation precluded them from engaging in pro-life activities, which Plaintiffs believe are a form of religious ministry.... They allege that shoppers at Home Depot were exempted from gathering limits, while their religiously motivated gatherings were prohibited.... Those activities are comparable for purposes of the Free Exercise analysis.... Because shopping indoors is likely to present greater risk for spreading COVID-19 than socially distanced sidewalk advocacy, strict scrutiny must apply here....

Moving to the free speech claim, the court said in part:

Defendant Mecklenburg County argues that the Proclamation was a valid content-neutral time, place, and manner restriction.... The Court agrees....

There is admittedly an obvious logical incongruity in finding that the Proclamation was not content-neutral for purposes of the free exercise claim, but content-neutral for purposes of the free speech claim. But neither the Supreme Court nor the Fourth Circuit has applied Tandon’s modified approach to content neutrality outside of the context of free exercise claims.

3rd Circuit: Foster Parents Have Religious Discrimination Claim For License Suspension Over Their Anti-LGBT Views

In Lasche v. State of New Jersey, (3rd Cir, March 1, 2022), the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a district court's dismissal of a suit by former foster parents who alleged that their free exercise rights were infringed when their foster care license was suspended because of their religious opposition to same-sex marriage and their religious belief that homosexual conduct is sinful. The court remanded for further proceedings plaintiffs' claims under 42 USC §1983 and §1985(3).  It also remanded for further proceedings their claim that defendants' action violated New Jersey's Law Against Discrimination, finding that the state's Division of Child Protection and Permanency is a "place of public accommodation" under that law.

Court Concludes Church Did Not Fire Cook Who Cohabited Outside of Marriage

In Sandoval v. Madison Equal Opportunities Commission, (WI App, Feb. 24, 2022), a Wisconsin state appellate court upheld the finding of the Madison Equal Opportunities Commission that Capitoland Christian Center Church did not engage in employment discrimination against plaintiff who was employed as a cook by the church.  Plaintiff violated an agreement with the church that she would not cohabit with members of the opposite gender outside of wedlock. The court concluded that substantial evidence supported the Commission's finding that plaintiff resigned and was not fired nor constructively discharged. Christian Post reports on the decision.

Satanic Temple Sues Billboard Company Over Abortion Ritual Ads

The Satanic Temple filed suit last week in an Arkansas federal district court claiming that a billboard advertising company violated the Arkansas Civil Rights Act by refusing to perform under its contract  to put up billboards in Arkansas and Indiana that would spread awareness of TST's Satanic Abortion Ritual. Arkansas Code § 16-123-107 prohibits religious discrimination in contractual and property transactions. The complaint (full text) in The Satanic Temple, Inc. v. Lamar Media Company, (WD AR, filed 2/25/2022), alleges in part:

Part of this case will involve proving that TST’s Satanic Abortion Ritual is substantively different than getting a secular abortion, even though it involves the abortive act, such that this advertising contract contemplated a religious message.....

The Satanic Abortion Ritual is a ceremonious casting off of guilt, doubt, and mental discomfort that the member may be experiencing in connection with their election to abort the pregnancy.

The complaint also alleged breach of contract claims. Arkansas Democrat Gazette reported on the lawsuit.

5th Circuit Upholds Injunction Against Vaccine Mandate For Navy Seals With Religious Objections

In U.S. Navy Seals 1-26 v. Biden, (5th Cir., Feb. 28, 2022), the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals refused to grant the Navy a partial stay of an injunction issued by a Texas federal district court protecting 35 special warfare personnel who object on religious grounds to complying with the military's COVID vaccine mandate. The court said in part:

Defendants have not demonstrated “paramount interests” that justify vaccinating these 35 Plaintiffs against COVID-19 in violation of their religious beliefs. They insist that “given the small units and remote locations in which special-operations forces typically operate, military commanders have determined that unvaccinated service members are at significantly higher risk of becoming severely ill from COVID-19 and are therefore medically unqualified to deploy.” But “[r]outine [Naval Special Warfare] mission risks include everything from gunshot wounds, blast injuries, parachute accidents, dive injuries, aircraft emergencies, and vehicle rollovers to animal bites, swimming or diving in polluted waters, and breathing toxic chemical fumes.” There is no evidence that the Navy has evacuated anyone from such missions due to COVID-19 since it instituted the vaccine mandate, but Plaintiffs engage in life-threatening actions that may create risks of equal or greater magnitude than the virus.