Ministerial Exception and RFRA Defenses Rejected in Suit Over Firing of Bible Translation Company IT Employee

In Ratlliff v. Wycliffe Associates, Inc., (MD FL, May 26, 2023), a Florida federal district court refused to dismiss a Title VII employment discrimination suit brought against a Bible translation company by a software developer who was fired after the company learned that he had entered a same-sex marriage. The court rejected defendant's reliance on RFRA, concluding that "s RFRA does not apply to lawsuits in which the government is not a party."  It rejected defendant's "ministerial exception" defense, saying in part:

... Plaintiff does not qualify as a minister.

... Plaintiff was seemingly hired for his technological aptitude.... Accordingly, Plaintiff’s role was to employ his knowledge to develop software, not to act as a source of religious conveyance.... While the software’s purpose may have been to translate the Bible, Plaintiff himself was not doing so.... Further, Plaintiff’s direct interactions involved other software and database developers—not the individuals seeking out Defendant’s mission....

... [A]t bottom here, Plaintiff is a software developer, with no idiosyncratic religious title, background, education, or function.....

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Howard A. Palley, The Overturning of Roe v. Wade: A Theocratic and Anti-Democratic Decision, (March 31, 2023).
• Noura Erakat, Darryl Li & John Reynolds, Race, Palestine, and International Law, (AJIL Unbound, Vol. 117, No. 2, pp. 77-81, 2023).
• Andrew M. Koppelman, Religious Liberty as a Judicial Autoimmune Disorder: The Supreme Court Repudiates its Own Authority in Kennedy v. Bremerton, (Hastings Law Review, 2023 Forthcoming).
• Joel A. Nichols, Faith and Faithfulness: Vocation as Self, Others, and a Third Thing, (Touro Law Review, Vol. 38, 2023).
• Kelley Loper, Equality, Dignity and Same-sex Marriage: Reflections on Developments in Hong Kong, 53 Hong Kong Law Journal, Forthcoming.
• Malinda L. Seymore, Adoption as a Substitute for Abortion?, (University of Colorado Law Review, Vol. 95, 2023).
• Lu-in Wang, Reframing Hate,, (Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Vol. 112, p. 847, 2022).
• Daniel Bird & Eric Maier, Wayward Samaritans: 'Non-Profit' Hospitals and Their Tax Exempt Status, (University of Pittsburgh Law Review, Forthcoming,).

From SmartCILP:

• Khaled A. Beydoun, Killing an Arab, 101 North Carolina Law Revies 207-222 (2022).
• Blaine L. Hutchison, Revisiting Employment Division v. Smith, 91 University of Cincinatti Law Review 396-436 (2022).
• Justin Burnworth, Replacing Smith with a "Graduated Scale" Approach to the Free Exercise Clause, 54 University of Toledo Law Review 1-26 (2022).

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Carolyn Sharp, A Heart-Centered Defense, (March 18, 2023).
• Miranda McGowan, The Democratic Deficit of Dobbs, (Loyola University Chicago Law Journal, (forthcoming 2023)).
• Deborah Hellman, Defining Disparate Treatment: A Research Agenda for Our Times, (Indiana Law Review, Forthcoming).
• Francesca Laguardia, Pain That Only She Must Bear: On the Invisibility of Women in Judicial Abortion Rhetoric, (Journal of Law and the Biosciences, Volume 9, Issue 1, January-June 2022, lsac003).
• Carlos A. Ball, Balancing Abortion, (Santa Clara Law Review, Vol. 63, 2023, Forthcoming).
• Gerard Letterie & Dov Fox, Legal Personhood and Frozen Embryos: Implications for Fertility Patients and Providers in Post-Roe America, (Journal of Law and the Biosciences, Vol. 10 (2023)).
• Kyle Velte, The Supreme Court's Gaslight Docket (March 30, 2023).
• Sara Friedman & Chao-Ju Chen, Same-Sex Marriage Legalization and the Stigmas of LGBT Co-Parenting in Taiwan, (Law & Social Inquiry, 1-29 (2022).
• Shea Esterling, The Journey Home: The Repatriation of the Maaso Kova, (27 American Society of International Law Insights 3 (March 2023)).
• Rosemary Teele Langford & Miranda Webster, The Australian Charitable Incorporated Organisation: A Reform Proposal, ((2023) 39 Company and Securities Law Journal 347).

From SmartCILP:

• M. Mehdi Ali, Shi'i Legal Discourses in Iraq and Lebanon: Exploring the Intersection of Juristic Rulings and State Legal Regimes, 45 Loyola Los Angeles International & Comparative Law Review 249-280 (2022).

Christian Teacher Did Not Show That Her Removal Was Retaliation for Protected Speech or Beliefs

In Barr v. Tucker (SD GA, Feb. 21, 2023), a Georgia federal district court denied a preliminary injunction to plaintiff whose position as a substitute elementary school teacher was terminated after she complained to her own children's teachers and to the principal about the school librarian's reading aloud to classes a book that contains illustrations of same-sex couples with school-age children. The court explained:

Plaintiff told Defendant Tucker [the school principal] that she believed the book was '"inappropriate for young children, conflicted with her Christian faith, and appeared to bean effort to indoctrinate young children into a progressive ideological agenda[]" and asked that her children be excused from the read-aloud program.

Plaintiff contended that the school had retaliated against her for her exercising her free speech and free exercise rights. The court disagreed, saying in part:

... Plaintiff's inquiries principally addressed her personal concerns about exempting her children from the read-aloud program, and the context of her speech suggests she spoke on a matter of private or personal interest.

Accordingly ... Plaintiff has failed to establish a substantial likelihood of success in showing she spoke on a matter of public concern .... As a result. Plaintiff has also failed to establish a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of her First Amendment [free speech] retaliation claim....

The Court accepts, as Plaintiff alleges, that her sincerely held religious beliefs include ''that God created marriage to be between one man and one woman, and that family formation should occur within the confines of heterosexual marriage."... However, at this stage. Plaintiff has not established that she is substantially likely to succeed on showing that Defendants substantially burdened her religious beliefs by terminating her.

It is not clear that Defendants called for Plaintiff's removal due to her religious beliefs....

Defendants maintain they removed Plaintiff due to her inappropriately timed interactions with her children's teachers and concern about how she would support students or parents that identify as gay, not because of her beliefs about marriage and family formation.

European Court Says Russia Violated Rights of Same Sex Couples Who Were Denied Marriage Registration

In Fedotova and Others v. Russia, (ECHR, Jan. 17, 2023), the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights held that Russia violated the rights of three same-sex couples when it refused to permit them to marry. The court said in part:

 206.  The Government argued, firstly, that it was necessary to preserve the traditional institutions of marriage and the family, these being fundamental values of Russian society that were protected by the Constitution.... 

209.  Given that the Convention is a living instrument which must be interpreted in the light of present-day conditions, the State, in its choice of means designed to protect the family and secure respect for family life as required by Article 8, must necessarily take into account developments in society and changes in the perception of social and civil-status issues and relationships, including the fact that there is not just one way or one choice when it comes to leading one’s family or private life....

212.  In the present case, there is no basis for considering that affording legal recognition and protection to same-sex couples in a stable and committed relationship could in itself harm families constituted in the traditional way or compromise their future or integrity..... Indeed, the recognition of same-sex couples does not in any way prevent different-sex couples from marrying or founding a family corresponding to their conception of that term. More broadly, securing rights to same-sex couples does not in itself entail weakening the rights secured to other people or other couples. The Government have been unable to prove the contrary.

213.  Having regard to the foregoing, the Court considers that the protection of the traditional family cannot justify the absence of any form of legal recognition and protection for same-sex couples in the present case....

219.  ... [T]he allegedly negative, or even hostile, attitude on the part of the heterosexual majority in Russia cannot be set against the applicants’ interest in having their respective relationships adequately recognised and protected by law....

Law & Religion UK reports in greater detail on the decision.

Dismissal of Title VII Suit By Teacher Fired By Catholic School Is Denied

In Ference v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Greensburg, (WD PA, Jan. 18, 2022), a Pennsylvania federal magistrate judge recommended denying a motion to dismiss filed by the Catholic Diocese in a Title VII sex-discrimination lawsuit by a Lutheran 6th-grade teacher in a Catholic school who was fired shortly after being hired when the school discovered that he was in a same-sex marriage. The Diocese had raised defenses based on Title VII's exemption for religious discrimination, the church autonomy doctrine, the ministerial exception and RFRA.

Top 10 Religious Liberty and Church-State Developments of 2022

Each year in December, I attempt to pick the most important church-state and religious liberty developments of the past year.  My choices are based on the importance of the pick to law or policy, regardless of whether the development has garnered significant media attention. The selection of top stories obviously involves a good deal of subjective judgment. Here is a somewhat different list of top stories and newsmakers from the Religion News Association, the professional association of religion journalists. I welcome e-mail comment at religionclause@gmail.com on my choices. Here are my Top Ten picks:

1. In the Dobbs decision, the Supreme Court overrules Roe v. Wade after premature leak of Court's opinion. Newly imposed abortion restrictions are challenged on Free Exercise grounds by clergy and religious organizations with pro-choice beliefs. Some states act to ensure abortion rights.

2. In Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, Supreme Court repudiates the Lemon test for Establishment Clause violations.

3. In Carson v. Makin, Supreme Court says exclusion of sectarian schools from tuition reimbursement program violates Free Exercise clause.

4. Antisemitic incidents in the U.S. increase. White House creates inter-agency group to counter antisemitism.

5. Numerous lawsuits seek religious exemptions from COVID vaccine mandates. Congress in National Defense Authorization Act orders military to rescind its mandate.

6. Congress enacts Respect for Marriage Act, codifying recognition of same-sex and interracial marriages.

7. Accommodation of transgender students and treatment of minors with gender dysphoria remain highly charged political and legal issues.

8. Battles continue over whether anti-discrimination provisions of Title IX, the Affordable Care Act, and some state laws cover discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, and scope of exemptions from those provisions for religious institutions.

9. In Ramirez v. Collier, Supreme Court recognizes rights of pastor to lay hands on the prisoner and audibly pray with him during his execution.

10. In Shurtleff v. City of Boston, Supreme Court holds that group's free speech rights were violated by refusing to allow it to briefly fly its Christian flag from City Hall flagpole which is open to other groups for their ceremonies.

Congress Gives Final Passage To Respect For Marriage Act

 Yesterday the U.S. House of Representatives gave final passage to HR 8404 the Respect for Marriage Act (full text). By a vote of 258- 169, the House accepted the amendments added to the original bill by the Senate. The bill now goes to President Biden for his signature. Biden issued a statement yesterday praising Congress' passage of the bill. The bill assures federal recognition of same-sex and interracial marriages between two individuals and requires states to recognize same-sex and interracial marriages from other states. The bill goes on to provide:

Consistent with the First Amendment to the Constitution, nonprofit religious organizations, including churches, mosques, synagogues, temples, nondenominational ministries, interdenominational and ecumenical organizations, mission organizations, faith-based social agencies, religious educational institutions, and nonprofit entities whose principal purpose is the study, practice, or advancement of religion, and any employee of such an organization, shall not be required to provide services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges for the solemnization or celebration of a marriage. Any refusal under this subsection to provide such services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges shall not create any civil claim or cause of action....

 Nothing in this Act, or any amendment made by this Act, shall be construed to deny or alter any benefit, status, or right of an otherwise eligible entity or person which does not arise from a marriage, including tax-exempt status, tax treatment, educational funding, or a grant, contract, agreement, guarantee, loan, scholarship, license, certification, accreditation, claim, or defense.

Fox4 reports on contents of the bill.

UPDATE: On Sept. 13, President Biden signed the bill into law. (White House press release.)

House Hearing Explores Lobbying of Supreme Court by Religious Conservatives

Yesterday, the House Judiciary Committee held a hearing titled Undue Influence: Operation Higher Court and Politicking at SCOTUS. One of the witnesses was Rev. Robert Schenck who, in his written testimony, expanded on his previously published interview with the New York Times.  Schenck recounts his organization's attempts to gain access to Supreme Court Justices through donors to the Supreme Court Historical Society. He said in part:

My purpose was to develop relationships with the Justices who held positions sympathetic to religious conservatives' general concerns. In this way, I could gain insights into their thinking regarding the questions and cases that come before them and, perhaps, read their disposition toward the topics of most significant interest to me and my cohorts. Over time, I also thought my associates and supporters might be able to shore up the resolve of the conservative members. Our concern was for cases we adjudged beneficial to the country's culture, such as those restricting or banning abortion, euthanasia and assisted suicide, as well as same-sex relationships, especially marriage, and those expanding religious liberty, predominantly Christian practice, and public displays of Christian belief. The Historical Society was also a place where my cohorts and I could learn more about the customs, traditions, mores, and protocols of the Court, easing our entry into their social circles.

His testimony went on to describe his learning in advance about the outcome of the Hobby Lobby case. 

Another witness before the Committee, Mark R. Paoletta, in his written testimony sharply criticized Schenck's account, saying that Schenck has "built his career on deception and deceit."  NPR reports on the hearing.

Supreme Court Hears Arguments Today on Wedding Website Designer Who Opposes Same-Sex Marriage

Today the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in 303 Creative v. Elenis. In the case, the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the application of Colorado's Anti-Discrimination Act to a wedding website design company whose owner for religious reasons refuses to create websites that celebrate same-sex marriages. The Court granted certiorari only on the question of "Whether applying a public-accommodation law to compel an artist to speak or stay silent violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment." Over 75 amicus briefs have been filed in the case.  The SCOTUSblog case page has links to them and to other filings in the case. The arguments will be broadcast live beginning at 10:00 AM at this link. SCOTUSblog has a preview of the arguments. I will update this post with links to the recording and transcript of the arguments when they become available later today.

UPDATE: Here are links to the transcript and audio of this morning's oral arguments.

Senate Will Begin Voting on Respect for Marriage Act with Religious Liberty Amendments

The U.S. Senate is expected to begin voting today on an amended version of H.R. 8404, the Respect for Marriage Act (full text). The House has previously passed the original version of the bill, and the Senate has passed a cloture motion ending a filibuster of the original bill.  The Act will assure federal recognition of same-sex marriages that were valid where performed and will require states to give full faith and credit to same-sex (as well as interracial) marriages performed in other states. Amendments designed to protect religious liberty were added in the Senate.  If the bill passes, it will then go back to the House to act on the amended version. Here are the major changes added in the Senate version to protect religious liberty:

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds the following:

       (1) No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family.

       (2) Diverse beliefs about the role of gender in marriage are held by reasonable and sincere people based on decent and honorable religious or philosophical premises. Therefore, Congress affirms that such people and their diverse beliefs are due proper respect....

SEC. 6. NO IMPACT ON RELIGIOUS LIBERTY AND CONSCIENCE.

       (a) In General.-- Nothing in this Act, or any amendment made by this Act, shall be construed to diminish or abrogate a religious liberty or conscience protection otherwise available to an individual or organization under the Constitution of the United States or Federal law.

       (b) Goods or Services.--Consistent with the First Amendment to the Constitution, nonprofit religious organizations, including churches, mosques, synagogues, temples, nondenominational ministries, interdenominational and ecumenical organizations, mission organizations, faith-based social agencies, religious educational institutions, and nonprofit entities whose principal purpose is the study, practice, or advancement of religion, and any employee of such an organization, shall not be required to provide services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges for the solemnization or celebration of a marriage. Any refusal under this subsection to provide such services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges shall not create any civil claim or cause of action.

SEC. 7. STATUTORY PROHIBITION.

       (a) No Impact on Status and Benefits Not Arising From a Marriage.-- Nothing in this Act, or any amendment made by this Act, shall be construed to deny or alter any benefit, status, or right of an otherwise eligible entity or person which does not arise from a marriage, including tax-exempt status, tax treatment, educational funding, or a grant, contract, agreement, guarantee, loan, scholarship, license, certification, accreditation, claim, or defense.

       (b) No Federal Recognition of Polygamous Marriages.-- Nothing in this Act, or any amendment made by this Act, shall be construed to require or authorize Federal recognition of marriages between more than 2 individuals....

As reported by The Center Square and The Hill, various conservative religious organizations (some expressing extreme concerns about the effect of the bill), as well as some Republican senators, continue to strongly oppose the bill.

UPDATE: On Nov. 29, the Senate by a vote of 61-36 passed the Respect for Marriage Act.  The bill now goes back to the House for a vote on the bill in the amended form passed by the Senate.

Baker With Religious Objections to Same-Sex Marriage Did Not Violate California's Civil Rights Law

In a tentative decision which becomes final in ten days unless objections are filed, a California state trial court has concluded that a bakery which refuses on religious grounds to furnish custom designed cakes for same-sex weddings and instead refers customers to another bakery for such items did not violate the Unruh Civil Rights Act. In Department of Fair Employment and Housing v. Cathy's Creations, Inc., (CA Super. Ct., Oct. 21, 2022), the court concluded that the state failed to prove intentional sexual orientation discrimination, saying in part:

Miller and Tastries do not design and do not offer to any person-- regardless of sexual orientation-- custom wedding cakes that "contradict God's sacrament of marriage between a man and a woman.

The court went on to hold that because California's Unruh Civil Rights Act is a neutral law of general applicability, the state did not violate defendant's free exercise rights. However, application of the Unruh Civil Rights Act here would violate defendants' free speech rights because it would compel expressive conduct based on content or viewpoint. Thomas More Society issued a press release announcing the decision.

Pre-School Teacher Sues After Being Fired For Her Stance On Same-Sex Marriage

A child-care employee who was fired by her employer for refusing to read to her pre-schoolers books that celebrate same-sex relationships has filed suit alleging religious discrimination, wrongful termination, harassment and retaliation. The complaint (full text) in Parisenkova v. Bright Horizons Children's Center, LLC, (CA Super. Ct., filed 10/13/2022), filed in a California state trial court, alleges that plaintiff's Christian religious beliefs prevent her from promoting messages that support same-sex marriage. After an initial informal accommodation, the school's director, who took personal offense at plaintiff's religious beliefs, refused to grant plaintiff a formal religious accommodation.  As a prelude to her dismissal, plaintiff was forced to leave the school building mid-day in extremely hot weather.  Plaintiff was terminated after she refused the requirement that she receive diversity awareness training. Thomas More Society issued a press release announcing the filing of the law suit.

School Counselor's Employment Agreement Sufficient To Invoke Ministerial Exception Doctrine

In Fitzgerald v. Roncalli High School, Inc., (SD IN Sept. 30, 2022), an Indiana federal district court invoked the ministerial exception doctrine to dismiss a suit brought by Michelle Fitzgerald, a Catholic high school guidance counselor who was fired after the school and the church that oversaw it learned that she was in a same-sex marriage. The court said in part:

Fitzgerald argues that Roncalli never entrusted her with religious teaching duties by raising numerous genuine factual disputes over what exactly she did at the school. She contends the record demonstrates that Roncalli entrusted her in description alone. She never engaged in religious teaching, nor did Roncalli expect her to....

[However,] Fitzgerald's employment agreement and Roncalli's description of Fitzgerald's expected duties are, alone, sufficient to resolve this case because those documents make clear that Roncalli entrusted Fitzgerald to teach the Catholic faith and carry out Roncalli's religious mission....

All this indicates Roncalli entrusted guidance counselors like Fitzgerald to convey the Church's message in addition to their secular duties. And under Seventh Circuit precedent, Fitzgerald's non-performance of these entrusted duties makes her "an underperforming minister" who may be removed pursuant to the ministerial exception.

Washington Examiner reports on the decision.

6th Circuit Affirms That County Clerk Kim Davis Had No Qualified Immunity Defense

In Ermold v. Davis, (6th Cir., Sept. 29, 2022), the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a Kentucky federal district court decision that Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis does not have qualified immunity in a suit against her for stopping the issuance of all marriage licenses to avoid issuing licenses to same-sex couples. The court said in part:

[P]laintiffs have not only “alleged” but also now “shown” that Davis violated their constitutional right to marry.... And, as we held three years ago, that right was “clearly established in Obergefell.”

The court held that insofar as Davis has raised a free exercise defense under the First Amendment, that issue should be resolved when the case goes to trial and not at the current motion-to-dismiss stage. [Thanks to Thomas Rutledge for the lead.]

Cuba Referendum Approves Family Code Allowing Same-Sex Marriage and More

AP reports that on Sunday, voters in Cuba approved a new Family Law Code that allows same sex couples to marry and to adopt. The over 400-Article Code also allows surrogate pregnancies and expands grandparent rights. Cuba's evangelical movement opposed the new Code. The Code was approved by 66.9% in favor to 33.1% opposed. [Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]

Christian University Trustees Sued Over LGBTQ Hiring Policy

Suit was filed this week in a Washington state trial court against six members of the Board of Trustees of Seattle-Pacific University challenging the University's policy of refusing to hire LGBTQ faculty or staff if they are in a same-sex marriage or a same-sex relationship.  The complaint (full text) in Guillot v. Whitehead, (WA Super. Ct., filed 9/11/2022), brought by a group of students, faculty and staff, alleges breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, negligent misrepresentation and interference with contractual relationships. It contends that "rogue" members of the University Board of Trustees have misled other Board members about the vote necessary to eliminate the hiring policy. The University, which was founded by the Free Methodist Church of North America, defines itself as a Christian university. One-third of its board members and its president must be members of the Free Methodist Church. The complaint alleges in part:

1. This case is about six men who act as if they, and the educational institution they are charged to protect, are above the law.

2. They are powerful men who use their positions, as trustees of Seattle Pacific University (“SPU”), to advance the interests of a religious denomination at the expense of the students, alumni, staff, and faculty of the university....

102. SPU is a university in crisis, stemming from the abusive leadership of entrenched interests who usurped control of the BOT to place it in service of sectarian-motivated LGBTQ+ discrimination....

AP reports on the lawsuit.

Certiorari Petition Filed Again In Bakery's Refusal To Design Wedding Cake For Same-Sex Marriage

Last week, a petition for certiorari (full text) was filed with the U.S. Supreme Court in Klein v. Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries, (Sup. Ct., filed 9/7/2022). This is the second time the case has worked its way up to the Supreme Court. (See prior posting.) At issue is a finding by the state Bureau of Labor and Industries that Sweetcakes bakery violated the state's public accommodation law when it refused on religious grounds to design and create a wedding cake for a same-sex wedding. In January, the state court of appeals remanded the case to the Bureau of Labor and Industries for it to determine a remedy after finding that the Bureau's first determination of damages was tainted by non-neutrality. (See prior posting.) In August, the Bureau imposed damages of $30,000. First Liberty has additional background.

Church Autonomy Doctrine Bars Catholic High School Teacher's Suit Against Archdiocese

In Payne-Elliott v. Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Indianapolis, Inc., (IN Sup. Ct., Aug. 31, 2022), the Indiana Supreme Court held that the church autonomy doctrine bars a suit by a former Catholic school teacher against the Catholic Archdiocese for interfering with his employment contract with a Catholic high school. The suit alleges that the Archdiocese pressured the school to fire plaintiff because he had entered a same-sex marriage. Citing a 2003 decision, the court said in part:

[U]nder the church-autonomy doctrine a civil court may not (1) penalize via tort law (2) a communication or coordination among church officials or members (3) on a matter of internal church policy or administration that (4) does not culminate in a criminal act.

Becket issued a press release announcing the decision.

Recent Articles of Interest

 From SSRN:

• Michael A. Helfand, The Law of Torah U’Madda: Considering the Legal Implications of an Integrated Curriculum, (COVID 19 and Chinuch: Lessons Learned and Opportunities Uncovered. Volume 3: Families, Communities and Funders).
• Jeffrey A. Redding, Islamic Challenges to Pakistan’s Transgender Rights Law, (10 Melbourne Asia Review (2022)).
• William Wagner, Amicus Brief in Kennedy v Bremerton School District, (U.S. Supreme Court (No. 21-418) (February 28, 2022)).
• Lael Daniel Weinberger, Carson v. Makin and the Relativity of Religious Neutrality, (Forthcoming, Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy Per Curiam).
• Emmanuel Umbu & Joseph Agada, The Right to Freedom of Marriage and the Constitutionality of the Prohibition of Same Sex Marriage in Nigeria, (Nigerian Bar Journal (2021), Vol. 11, Issue 1).

From SSRN (Abortion Rights):

• Paul Benjamin Linton, Neutralizing State Constitutions as a Source of Abortion Rights: The Path Forward, (Regent University Law Review, Vol. 34, No. 3, 2021-2022).
• Richmond Idaeho, Turning Point in American Abortion Law: US Supreme Court’s Reversal of Roe V. Wade, (July 9, 2022).
• Peggy Cooper Davis, The Reconstruction Amendments Matter when Considering Abortion Rights, (The Washington Post 2022).
• Peggy Cooper Davis, Overturning Abortion Rights Ignores Freedoms Awarded after Slaverys's End, (The Economist 2022).
• Melanie Kalmanson, Death After Dobbs: Addressing the Viability of Capital Punishment for Abortion, (July 11, 2022).