Two Additional Courts Enjoin Enforcement of New Title IX Rules

In addition to the nationwide preliminary injunction against enforcement of the Department of Education's new Title IX rules on transgender discrimination (see prior posting), two other federal district court last week issued more geographically limited preliminary injunctions against enforcement of the same rules. In State of Florida v. Department of Health and Human Services, (MD FL, July 3, 2024),  a Florida federal district court enjoined enforcement within Florida, saying in part:

HHS and the Final Rule interpret Title IX, and hence section 1557, to prohibit discrimination based on “gender identity.” 89 Fed. Reg. at 37,699 (45 C.F.R. § 92.101(a)(2)). The Final Rule is stillborn and a nullity if Title IX does not prohibit discrimination on the basis of “gender identity.” The Eleventh Circuit has spoken on this point, clearly: Title IX does not address discrimination on the basis of gender identity. Adams v. Sch. Bd. of St. John’s Cnty., 57 F. 4th 791, 812–15 (11th Cir. 2022) (en banc). Frankly, this ends the issue—the new Rule appears to be a dead letter in the Eleventh Circuit.

In State of Kansas v. U.S. Department of Education, (D KS, July 2, 2024), a Kansas federal district court issued a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the new rules in Kansas, Alaska, Utah and Wyoming, saying in part:

... [T]he purpose of Title IX was to protect “biological women from discrimination in education[;] [s]uch purpose makes it difficult to sincerely argue that, at the time of enactment, ‘discrimination on the basis of sex’ included gender identity, sex stereotypes, sexual orientation, or sex characteristics.”... The DoE’s reinterpretation of Title IX to place gender identity on equal footing with (or in some instances arguably stronger footing than) biological sex would subvert Congress’ goals of protecting biological women in education....

... [T]he court finds that the Final Rule involves issues of both vast economic and political significance and therefore involves a major question.... As such, Congress must have given the agency “clear statutory authorization” to promulgate such a Final Rule.....The court finds that Congress did not give such clear statutory authorization to the DoE....

... [T]he Final Rule violates the Spending Clause because it introduces conditions for spending that were not unambiguously clear in Title IX....

The court finds that Plaintiffs have shown that the Final Rule violates he First Amendment by chilling speech through vague and overbroad language.....

 [T]he court finds that the Final Rule is arbitrary and capricious because it offers an implausible explanation for agency action, is a sharp departure from prior action without a reasonable explanation, and failed to consider important interests as discussed herein.

Arizona Governor Vetoes Bill That Would Have Required Equal Insurance Coverage and Access for Gender Detransitioning

On June 18, Arizona Governor Katie Hobbs vetoed (full text of veto letter) vetoed Senate Bill 1151 (full text) that would have required health insurers that cover gender transition procedures to also provide coverage for gender detransition procedures. It would also have required physicians and hospitals that provide gender transition procedures to provide or pay for gender detransition procedures. It also would have required insurance companies to report data to the state (without identifying information on patients) on detransition claims. Governor Hobbs in her veto letter said that the bill is unnecessary and would create privacy risks for patients. Catholic News Agency reported on the Governor's veto, quoting many who disapproved of her action.

Court Grants Nationwide Injunction Barring Extensiion of Title IX To Gender Identity Discrimination

In State of Tennessee v. Becerra, (SD MS, July 3, 2024), in a suit brought by 15 states a Mississippi federal district court issued a nationwide preliminary injunction barring the Department of Education from enforcing its new rules under Title IX insofar as they define sex discrimination as including discrimination on the basis of gender identity. The court said in part:

The Supreme Court recently held that agencies are no longer entitled to deference pursuant to Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc.... because Chevron “allow[ed] agencies to change course even when Congress [had] given them no authority to do so.” Loper Bright Enters. v. Raimondo,....

The Supreme Court further held that “statutes, no matter how impenetrable, do — in fact, must — have a single, best meaning....

In summary, the Court has found no basis for applying Bostock’s Title VII analysis to Section 1557’s incorporation of Title IX. HHS acted unreasonably when it relied on Bostock’s analysis in order to conflate the phrase “on the basis of sex” with the phrase “on the basis of gender identity.”...

... [T]his Court cannot accept the suggestion that Congress, with a “clear voice,” adopted an ambiguous or evolving definition of “sex” when it acted to promote educational opportunities for women in 1972.

Mississippi Today reports on the decision.

NY Sanitation Worker Can Move Ahead on Failure To Accommodate Anti-Vax Beliefs

Decisions on suits by individuals who were denied religious exemptions from now-rescinded Covid vaccine mandates are still being issued by the courts.  In Rizzo v. New York City Department of Sanitation, (SD NY, July 2, 2024), a New York federal district court refused to dismiss a Title VII failure to accommodate claim (as well as similar state-law and local-law claims) brought by a New York City sanitation worker. The court rejected the city's arguments that the worker's objections were based on conscience, not religion. It also rejected, at least at this stage of the litigation, the city's argument that accommodation would impose an undue burden on the city.  The court also allowed plaintiff to move forward on his claim that the city failed to engage in cooperative dialogue as required by the New York City Human Rights Law.  However, the court dismissed plaintiff's Title VII disparate impact claim and his 1st Amendment Free Exercise claim.

Court Rejects Texas AG's Challenge To Catholic Agency Assisting Migrants

 As previously reported, a legal battle has been underway between Annunciation House, a Catholic agency serving migrants and refugees in El Paso, and Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton who accuses the agency of sheltering migrants who have entered the country illegally. This week the Attorney General failed in his efforts to close down Annunciation House.  In Annunciation House, Inc. v. Paxton (I), (TX Dist. Ct., July 1, 2024), a Texas state trial court held that Texas statutes which bar harboring migrants to induce them to stay illegally in the U.S. are pre-empted by federal law and cannot be used as the basis for a quo warranto action to revoke the agency's registration to operate in Texas. The court said in part:

The State’s proposed counterclaim in the nature of quo warranto violates the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act by substantially burdening Annunciation House’s free exercise of religion and failing to use the “least restrictive means” of securing compliance with the law.

In Annunciation House, Inc. v. Paxton (II), (TX Dist. Ct., July 1, 2024), the court dismissed the Attorney General's suit against Annunciation House, saying in part:

The record before this Court makes clear that the Texas Attorney General’s use of the request to examine documents from Annunciation House was a pretext to justify its harassment of Annunciation House employees and the persons seeking refuge.

El Paso Times reports on the case.

Belgian Court Fines Catholic Archbishop and Cardinal for Denying Woman Clergy Training

The Pillar and Catholic News Agency report that a Belgian civil court has fined a Cardinal and an Archbishop each 1500 Euros for refusing to allow a woman to register for training as a deacon in the Catholic Church. Article 10 of Belgium's Constitution provides that "Equality between women and men is guaranteed." In Belgium, the state pays the salaries of clergy, but the Catholic Church reserves holy orders to baptized men. While the court held that the Church should have admitted Veer Dusauchoit for training, it did not address whether the Church would later be required to ordain her.

Alaska Supreme Court Rejects Facial Challenge To Law Allowing State Reimbursement to Home Schoolers For Materials

In State of Alaska, Department of Education & Early Development v. Alexander, (AK Sup. Ct., June 28, 2024), the Alaska Supreme Court refused to hold unconstitutional on its face a state statute that permits school districts to approve an allotment of funds to families to purchase educational materials and services for correspondence study programs from public, private or religious organizations. Plaintiffs contended that the law violates a provision in the Alaska Constitution barring the use of public funds for the direct benefit of any religious or other private educational institution. The Supreme Court said that there are some clearly constitutional applications of the statute, so a facial challenge does not succeed. It added:

Under AS 14.13.300-.310 it is school districts, not the State, that design students’ individual learning plans and authorize particular uses of allotment funds to purchase services and materials in connection with those plans. For this reason, Alexander’s claim that certain uses of allotment funds are unconstitutional cannot proceed without joining a school district that has authorized those uses of allotment funds.

The superior court rejected this argument, which was error. We therefore vacate the court’s denial of the State’s motion to dismiss Alexander’s as-applied challenge and remand for further proceedings. To proceed with an as-applied challenge on remand, Alexander must decide which particular uses of allotments he believes are unconstitutional and then identify and join the school district or districts that authorized that spending.

Alaska Watchman reports on the decision.

Jewish Women Lack Standing in Religious Freedom Challenge to Kentucky Abortion Restrictions

In Sobel v. Cameron, (KY Cir. Ct., June 28, 2024), plaintiffs, three Jewish women, alleged, among other things, that the lack of exceptions for complications during pregnancy and lethal fetal anomalies in Kentucky's restrictive abortion laws impinge on their willingness to follow their religious obligations to expand their families in a manner that does not jeopardize their health or the health of their unborn children. Plaintiffs say that "In Judaism, having children is considered a blessing, and the commandment to be fruitful and multiply is paramount." Plaintiffs alleged that the abortion statutes are unconstitutionally vague, violate the Kentucky Religious Freedom Restoration Act and reflect sectarian Christian views that denigrate Jewish practice. A Kentucky state trial court dismissed the case, saying in part:

... [T]he alleged injuries of the three Plaintiffs are hypothetical as none are currently pregnant or undergoing IVF at the present time. Accordingly, the Court simply cannot find that the plaintiffs have shown "the existence of an actual controversy respecting justiciable questions which is a required condition precedent for a declaratory judgment action.... Therefore, the Court must conclude that the Plaintiffs here lack standing to proceed in this action.

NPR reports on the decision. [Thanks to Thomas Rutledge for the lead.]

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Robert C. Blitt, Agent of Russian Interests Abroad: Assessing the Moscow Patriarchate’s Activity in the Balkans and Beyond, (27(2) Gonzaga Journal of International Law 57, Forthcoming).
• Elizabeth Sepper, Crisis of Conscience in Post-Roe America, (25 J. of Contemp. Legal Issues 67 (2024)).
• Sahar F. Aziz, Racing Religion in the Palestine-Israel Discourse, (May 20, 2024).
• Netta Barak Corren, Cleaning the Mess of 303 Creative v. Elenis, (Notre Dame Law Review, Forthcoming).
• Mark V. Tushnet, Hate Speech, (May 30, 2024).
• Itay Ravid & Jonathan Zandberg, The Business of Abortion: Access to Capital Post Dobbs, (75(4) UC L. J. 977 (2024)).
• Daniel Del Gobbo, Reckoning with Queer History: The Canadian 'LGBT Purge' Case and the Limits of Forgiveness, (Forthcoming in (2025) 62:1 Osgoode Hall Law Journal).
• Andrew M. Koppelman, The Ugly Rhetoric of Dobbs, or, Why Jack Balkin is History, (William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal (Forthcoming)).
• Christopher R. Green, Moral Reality as a Guide to Original Meaning: In Defense of United States v. Fisher, (Journal of Christian Legal Thought, Volume 14, no. 1, pp. 35-43).
• Trace Maddox, “No Superior But God”: History, Post Presidential Immunity, and the Intent of the Framers, (81 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. Online 333 (2024)).

From SmartCILP:

• Muhammad Ahmad Munir & Brian Wright, Reshaping Insanity in Pakistani Law: The Case of Safia Bano, 49 American Journal of Law & Medicine 301-313 (2023).
•  Anne Alstott, Melisa Olgun, Henry Robinson & Meredithe McNamara, "Demons and Imps": Misinformation and Religious Pseudoscience in State Anti-Transgender Laws, 35 Yale Journal of Law & Feminism 223-288 (2024).

Justice of the Peace's Challenge to Reprimand for Refusing Same-Sex Marriage Officiation Is Remanded

 In Hensley v. State Commission on Judicial Conduct, (TX Sup. Ct., June 28, 2024), the Texas Supreme Court, in an 8-1 decision, held that a Justice of the Peace may move ahead with her suit brought against members of the Judicial Conduct Commission who issued a formal warning to the Justice of the Peace because of her refusal to perform same-sex marriages. The Justice of the Peace would perform marriages for heterosexual couples, but referred same-sex couples to others that would perform a ceremony for them. She contended that the Commissioners' actions violated the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act as well as her free speech rights. The court held that there was no requirement to exhaust administrative remedies before filing suit, nor was the suit against individual commissioners (as opposed to the Commission itself) barred by sovereign immunity.

Justice Blacklock, joined by Justice Devine, filed a concurring opinion, agreeing that as a procedural matter the case can move forward, but said that the Supreme Court should have reached the substantive claims and dismissed them.  He said in part:

There are no victims. There was no crime. We have a Christian justice of the peace in a small Texas city doing her best to navigate her duties to God and to the public. We have no real people even claiming to be harmed by her actions. We certainly have no same-sex couples denied a marriage—or anything even close to that. There is no good reason for this case to exist.

But it does exist. It exists because of the Judicial Conduct Commission, which veered far outside its proper lane by self-initiating this victimless but politically and emotionally charged case. The Commission misinterpreted the Code of Judicial Conduct and violated Judge Hensley’s religious-freedom rights by publicly sanctioning her and by continuing to hold over her head the threat of a future, harsher sanction should she resume her marriage-referral policy. To her credit, Judge Hensley did not capitulate. And for the last several years, the Commission has doubled down again and again on this misbegotten case, all the way to the Texas Supreme Court.

Justice Young filed a brief concurring opinion. Justice Lehrmann filed a dissenting opinion contending that plaintiff failed to exhaust her administrative remedies before filing suit.

First Liberty Institute issued a press release announcing the decision.

Iowa Supreme Court Allows 6-Week Abortion Ban to Go into Effect

In Planned Parenthood of the Heartland, Inc. v. Reynolds, (IA Sup.Ct., June 28, 2024), the Iowa Supreme Court in a 4-3 decision reversed the grant of a temporary injunction against Iowa's 6-week fetal heartbeat abortion ban. The Court said in part:

We have previously held that abortion is not a fundamental right under the Iowa Constitution....  Applying our established tiers of scrutiny, we hold that abortion restrictions alleged to violate the due process clause are subject to the rational basis test. Employing that test here, we conclude that the fetal heartbeat statute is rationally related to the state’s legitimate interest in protecting unborn life. We thus reverse the district court order entering the temporary injunction blocking enforcement of the fetal heartbeat statute....

Chief Justice Christensen, joined by Justices Waterman and Mansfield, filed a dissenting opinion, saying in part:

Today, our court’s majority strips Iowa women of their bodily autonomy by holding that there is no fundamental right to terminate a pregnancy under our state constitution. I cannot stand by this decision. The majority’s rigid approach relies heavily on the male-dominated history and traditions of the 1800s, all the while ignoring how far women’s rights have come since the Civil War era. It is a bold assumption to think that the drafters of our state constitution intended for their interpretation to stand still while we move forward as a society. Instead, we should interpret our constitution through a modern lens that recognizes how our lives have changed with the passage of time.

Justice Mansfield, joined by Chief Justice Christensen and Justice Waterman, filed a dissenting opinion saying in part:

I believe that subjecting a near-total ban on abortion to a rational basis test—the same test we apply to traffic cameras, and a more forgiving test than the one we apply to a law not allowing county auditors to correct defective absentee ballot applications—disserves the people of Iowa and their constitution. The liberty protected by article I, section 9 of the Iowa Constitution includes a woman’s ability to make decisions regarding her own body, just as it includes rights of procreation, parenting, and to use contraception.

Wisconsin Supreme Court: Harassment Injunction Against Anti-Abortion Protester Vacated

In Kindschy v. Aish, (WI Sup. Ct., June 27, 2024), the Wisconsin Supreme Court ordered a trial court to vacate a harassment injunction issued against an anti-abortion protester.  At issue were allegedly threatening statements made to nurse practitioner Nancy Kindschy on three different dates as she left work at a family planning clinic. For example, defendant Brian Aish warned Kindschy that she "had time to repent, that 'it won't be long before bad things will happen to you and your family,' and that 'you could get killed by a drunk driver tonight.' " The court said in part:

We conclude that the injunction is a content-based restriction on Aish's speech, and therefore complies with the First Amendment only if: (1) Aish's statements were "true threats" and he "consciously disregarded a substantial risk that his [statements] would be viewed as threatening violence;" or (2) the injunction satisfies strict scrutiny; that is, it is narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling state interest.... On the record before us, we hold that the injunction fails to satisfy either of these two standards. We therefore reverse the decision of the court of appeals and remand to the circuit court with instructions to vacate the injunction.

The court explained further:

In this case, the circuit court's harassment injunction was issued before Counterman [v. Colorado] was decided [by the U.S. Supreme Court]. The circuit court therefore did not evaluate whether Aish's statements were true threats, or whether he "consciously disregarded a substantial risk that his communications would be viewed as threatening violence." ... Because the circuit court failed to make clear findings regarding Aish's subjective mental state as it relates to his statements to Kindschy, we need not decide whether Aish's statements were true threats. Whether they were true threats or not, the injunction cannot be justified on true-threats grounds.,,,

Justice Bradley filed a concurring opinion, saying in part:

On their face, Aish's statements cannot be interpreted as true threats.

Aish uttered words of caution or warnings, not threats of violence....

More importantly, none of the three statements suggested Aish or a co-conspirator would be the one to cause any harm to Kindschy. At most, the statements suggested unaffiliated third parties could cause Kindschy harm, like a "drunk driver."

Thomas More Society issued a press release announcing the decision.

Oklahoma Education Head Requires All Schools to Incorporate the Bible into Their Curriculum

Yesterday, Oklahoma State Superintendent of Public Instruction Ryan Walters issued a Memo (full text) to all public-school superintendents in the state requiring them to incorporate the Bible into their schools' curriculum. The Memo reads in part:

Effective immediately, all Oklahoma schools are required to incorporate the Bible, which includes the Ten Commandments, as an instructional support into the curriculum across specified grade levels, e.g. grades 5 through 12....

The Bible is one of the most historically significant books and a cornerstone of Western civilization, along with the Ten Commandments. they will be referenced as an appropriate study of history, civilization, ethics, comparative religion, or the like, as well as for their substantial influence on our nation's founders and the foundational principles of our Constitution. This is not merely an educational directive but a crucial step in ensuring our students grasp the core values and historical context of our country....

Adherence to this mandate is compulsory.... 

The Department of Education also issued a press release announcing the new policy. KFOR News reports on the new policy. [Thanks to Thomas Rutledge for the lead.]

City-Sponsored Prayer Vigil Violated Establishment Clause

In Rojas v. City of Ocala, (MD FL, June 26, 2024), a Florida federal district court held that a prayer vigil in the town square organized by the police department violated the Establishment Clause. The 2014 vigil was planned in order to encourage witnesses to a shooting spree to come forward. The court in a previous decision found that the vigil violated the Establishment Clause, but the 9th Circuit remanded the case after the U.S. Supreme Court in 2022 repudiated the Lemon test and adopted a new test for determining when there has been an Establishment Clause violation. (See prior posting.) Reflecting on the time that had passed since the vigil, the court said:

In the meantime, the Chief of Police, Greg Graham, passed away; the Mayor of Ocala at the time left office; and the Prayer Vigil (which occurred in 2014) has not been repeated. Thus, the Court inquired whether it would make sense to call it a day on this timeworn litigation. But the parties, both represented by lawyers who specialize in First Amendment religion cases, insist on going forward. And, as the Court previously awarded nominal damages, the case is not moot....  So on we go.

Reaching the conclusion that under the Supreme Court's new Establishment Clause test set out in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District there was still an Establishment Clause violation, the court said in part:

Based on the undisputed facts, the City’s involvement in conceiving, organizing, and implementing the Prayer Vigil is government sponsorship of a religious event...

... [T]he City’s support of the Prayer Vigil favored a religious viewpoint. While the Prayer Vigil was geared towards Christianity, there is some evidence that it was not limited to any one faith.... But that thin layer of neutrality is not enough to avoid an Establishment Clause violation....

Similarly, Chief Graham’s offer to connect an objector, Paul Tjaden, with organizers... is not comparable to neutrality....  Trying to achieve neutrality towards religion by inviting an atheist to speak at an event whose only purpose is prayer fails to treat the secular viewpoint with the same level of respect being provided to religious prayer.

As Kennedy commands, the Court bases its decision on a “historically sensitive understanding of the Establishment Clause”....

Suit Challenges Michigan Medicaid Ban on Abortion Funding

Suit was filed yesterday in the Michigan Court of Claims challenging the exclusion of abortion coverage from the state's Medicaid program. Plaintiff is a local YWCA which operates a Reproductive Health Fund that provides financial support for county residents for reproductive health care, including abortion services. The complaint (full text) Young Women's Christian Association of Kalamazoo, Michigan v. State of Michigan, (MI Ct. Cl., filed 6/27/2024), alleges that the exclusion violates the state Constitutional Amendment protecting reproductive freedom, the Michigan Reproductive Health Act which implemented the Amendment and the ban on sex discrimination. ACLU issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Supreme Court Backs Off Deciding Whether EMTALA Pre-empts Idaho's Abortion Ban

In Moyle v. United States, (Sup. Ct., June 27, 2024), the U.S. Supreme Court reinstated an injunction that had been issued by an Idaho federal district court (see prior posting) which barred Idaho from enforcing its nearly total abortion ban to the extent it conflicts with the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act.  The Supreme Court did this in a per curiam order that vacated a previous stay of the injunction issued by the Supreme Court and which returned the case to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, finding that certiorari had been improvidently granted.

Justice Kagan, joined by Justice Sotomayor filed an opinion concurring with the dismissal, saying in part: 

Idaho’s arguments about EMTALA do not justify, and have never justified, either emergency relief or our early consideration of this dispute....

[Idaho] mainly argues that EMTALA never requires a hospital to “offer medical treatments that violate state law,” even when they are needed to prevent substantial health harms.... In my view, that understanding of EMTALA is not “likely to succeed on the merits,” and so cannot support a stay of the injunction.

Justice Jackson concurred in the portion of Justice Kagan's opinion that responded to Justice Alito's dissenting opinion. 

Justice Barrett, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kavanaugh filed a concurring opinion, saying in part:

A grant of certiorari before judgment presumes that further proceedings below are unnecessary to the Court’s resolution of the question presented. That was a miscalculation in these cases, because the parties’ positions are still evolving. The United States has clarified that EMTALA’s reach is far more modest than it appeared when we granted certiorari and a stay. Idaho law has materially changed since the District Court entered the preliminary injunction, and, based on the parties’ arguments before us, it seems that the framing of these cases has not had sufficient opportunity to catch up...

On top of that, petitioners have raised a difficult and consequential argument, which they did not discuss in their stay applications, about whether Congress, in reliance on the Spending Clause, can obligate recipients of federal funds to violate state criminal law.

Justice Jackson filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, saying in part:

This Court typically dismisses cases as improvidently granted based on “circumstances . . . which ‘were not . . . fully apprehended at the time certiorari was granted.’” ... This procedural mechanism should be reserved for that end—not turned into a tool for the Court to use to avoid issues that it does not wish to decide.

The reasons that justified our grant of certiorari in these cases still hold true today.... The importance of recognizing Congress’s judgments in EMTALA remains as imperative as ever. The United States is still hamstrung in its ability to enforce federal law while States pass laws that effectively nullify EMTALA’s requirements. And, on the ground, healthcare providers “have been all but paralyzed by legal uncertainties,” placing pregnant patients at risk while they are waiting to be transferred out of State to receive the care they need....

If anything, the need for a clear answer to the Supremacy Clause question has only increased in the intervening months....

Despite the clarity of the legal issue and the dire need for an answer from this Court, today six Justices refuse to recognize the rights that EMTALA protects....

Justice Alito, joined by Justice Thomas and in part by Justice Gorsuch, filed a dissenting opinion, saying in part:

 At no point in its elaboration of the screening, stabilization, and transfer requirements does EMTALA mention abortion. Just the opposite is true: EMTALA requires the hospital at every stage to protect an “unborn child” from harm....

For those who find it appropriate to look beyond the statutory text, the context in which EMTALA was enacted reinforces what the text makes clear. Congress designed EMTALA to solve a particular problem—preventing private hospitals from turning away patients who are unable to pay for medical care.... And none of many briefs submitted in this suit has found any suggestion in the proceedings leading up to EMTALA’s passage that the Act might also use the carrot of federal funds to entice hospitals to perform abortions. To the contrary, EMTALA garnered broad support in both Houses of Congress, including the support of Members such as Representative Henry Hyde who adamantly opposed the use of federal funds to abet abortion.....

EMTALA is an exercise of Congress’s spending power. And when Congress relies on its authority to attach conditions to the receipt of federal funds, special rules apply....

The potential implications of permitting preemption here are far-reaching. Under the Government’s view, Congress could apparently pay doctors to perform not only emergency abortions but also third-trimester elective abortions or eugenic abortions. It could condition Medicare funds on hospitals’ offering assisted suicide even in the vast majority of States that ban the practice....

NBC News reports on the decision.

Pro-Life Pregnancy Centers May Move Ahead with Challenges to Vermont Regulations

 In National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Clark, (D VT, June 14, 2024), a Vermont federal district court allowed three pro-life pregnancy centers to move ahead with free speech challenges to Vermont's regulation of limited-service pregnancy centers. At issue is a prohibition on disseminating misleading information about the services offered by such pregnancy centers as well as a provision making health care professionals at these pregnancy centers responsible for the conduct and speech of non-licensed individuals.  The statute also provides that offering services to reverse a medication abortion constitutes unprofessional conduct by health care workers at the centers. The court rejected the state's claim that the speech being regulated is commercial speech or is regulation of professional conduct that merely incidentally regulates speech. It allowed plaintiffs to move ahead with their claims that the statutes discriminate on the basis of the viewpoint. However, the court dismissed plaintiffs' vagueness claims. ADF issued a press release announcing the decision.

Michigan Court Enjoins Abortion Restrictions Including 24-Hour Waiting Period and Consent Form

 In Northland Family Planning Center v. Nessel, (MI Ct. Cl., June 25, 2024), the Michigan Court of Claims issued a preliminary injunction against enforcement of three restrictions on abortion procedures found in Michigan law.  The enjoined provisions impose a 24-hour mandatory waiting period, require a uniform informed consent for women seeking an abortion, and bar advanced practice clinicians from performing abortions. The court held that the provisions are unconstitutional under a state constitutional amendment adopted by referendum in 2022 which grants every individual a fundamental right to reproductive freedom and provides that an "individual’s right to reproductive freedom shall not be denied, burdened, nor infringed upon unless justified by a compelling state interest achieved by the least restrictive means." The court said in part:

... [T]he Court is convinced that the [24-hour] mandatory delay exacerbates the burdens that patients experience seeking abortion care, including by increasing costs, prolonging wait times, increasing the risk that a patient will have to disclose their decision to others, and potentially preventing a patient from having the type of abortion that they prefer....

The informed-consent provisions, read as whole, are designed to force a patient to consider the alternative of not having an abortion. The manner in which the information is presented is not neutral; it is designed to eschew abortion in favor of completing a pregnancy. This forced deliberation, through the mandatory informed-consent process, burdens and infringes upon a patient’s right to make and effectuate decisions about abortion care. The State is metaphorically putting its finger on the scale, thereby infringing upon a patient’s deliberative process.

The court however refused to enjoin provisions calling for oral counseling against coercion and providing resources to victims of domestic violence. Bridge Michigan reports on the decision.

Oklahoma Supreme Court Says Creation of Religious Charter School Is Unconstitutional

In Drummond v. Oklahoma Statewide Virtual Charter School Board, (OK Sup, Ct., June 25, 2024), the Oklahoma Supreme Court held that the state Charter School Board's authorization of a Catholic sponsored publicly-funded charter school violates Oklahoma statutes, the Oklahoma Constitution and the First Amendment's Establishment Clause. The court said in part:

Although a public charter school, St. Isidore is an instrument of the Catholic church, operated by the Catholic church, and will further the evangelizing mission of the Catholic church in its educational programs. The expenditure of state funds for St. Isidore's operations constitutes the use of state funds for the benefit and support of the Catholic church. It also constitutes the use of state funds for "the use, benefit, or support of . . . a sectarian institution." The St. Isidore Contract violates the plain terms of Article 2, Section 5 of the Oklahoma Constitution....

Because it is a governmental entity and a state actor, St. Isidore cannot ignore the mandates of the Establishment Clause, yet a central component of St. Isidore's educational philosophy is to establish and operate the school as a Catholic school. St. Isidore will fully incorporate Catholic teachings into every aspect of the school, including its curriculum and co-curricular activities. It will require students to spend time in religious instruction and activities, as well as permit state spending in direct support of the religious curriculum and activities within St. Isidore--all in violation of the Establishment Clause....

... [W]hat St. Isidore requests from this Court is beyond the fair treatment of a private religious institution in receiving a generally available benefit, implicating the Free Exercise Clause. It is about the State's creation and funding of a new religious institution violating the Establishment Clause.12 Even if St. Isidore could assert free exercise rights, those rights would not override the legal prohibition under the Establishment Clause. Compliance with the Establishment Clause in this case is a compelling governmental interest that satisfies strict scrutiny under other provisions of the First Amendment.

Vice Chief Justice Rowe concurred in part and dissented in part, saying that he concurred only in the conclusion "that Article 1, Section 5 of the Oklahoma Constitution mandates that public charter schools are nonsectarian."

Justice Kuehn dissented, saying in part:

St. Isidore would not become a "state actor" merely by contracting with the State to provide a choice in educational opportunities. By allowing St. Isidore to operate a virtual charter school, the State would not be establishing, aiding, or favoring any particular religious organization. To the contrary: Excluding private entities from contracting for functions, based solely on religious affiliation, would violate the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

AP reports on the decision.

Israel's Supreme Court Orders Drafting of Haredi Men

Yesterday, Israel's Supreme Court in a controversial ruling ordered the government to end draft deferments that have been given to ultra-Orthodox Jewish men studying in yeshivas.  According to The Guardian:

The unanimous ruling on Tuesday, from an expanded panel of nine judges, upheld an interim decision last month that the state had no authority to offer the current exemption for ultra-Orthodox, or Haredi, men. It found that yeshivas – Orthodox seminaries for Torah study – should be ineligible for state subsidies unless students enlisted in the military.

The court ruled the state was carrying out “invalid selective enforcement, which represents a serious violation of the rule of law, and the principle according to which all individuals are equal before the law … In the midst of a grueling war, the burden of inequality is harsher than ever and demands a solution.”

According to Times of Israel, within hours after the Court's decision, Israel's Attorney General ordered the Israel Defense Forces to immediately draft 3000 yeshiva students and ordered government ministries to stop transferring already-appropriated funds to yeshivas where students were studying in lieu of military service.