North Carolina Methodist Churches Sue to Disaffiliate from Parent Body

Suit was filed last month in a North Carolina state trial court by 38 United Methodist Churches in North Carolina which are seeking to disaffiliate from the United Methodist Church and retain their buildings and property.  The complaint (full text) in Mount Carmel United Methodist Church v. Western North Carolina Conference of the United Methodist Church, (NC Super. Ct., filed 11/10/2022), alleges in part:

Plaintiff Churches wish to disaffiliate from the United Methodist Church ("UMC") to pursue their deeply held religious beliefs. Defendants want to force Plaintiff Churches to stay affiliated with the UMC, and violate those beliefs by holding their church buildings and property hostage. Defendants claim Plaintiffs' Churches property is encumbered by an irrevocable trust for the benefit of the UMC and the only way for Plaintiff Churches to disaffiliate without surrendering the buildings and property that are central to their congregations is by the permission of the UMC and payment of a financial ransom.

Plaintiffs ask the court to declare that the UMC trust is terminated or is revocable and to quiet title to the Churches properties. Religion News Service reports on the lawsuit, saying in part:

Legal action — or the threat of legal action — represents a new strategy on behalf of churches that want to leave the 6.4 million-member United Methodist Church. The denomination is undergoing a wholesale splinter after decades of rancorous debate over the ordination and marriage of LGBTQ members.

The denomination allows churches to leave through the end of 2023. The exit plan allows them to take their properties with them after paying two years of apportionments and pension liabilities.

State Department Updates List of Countries Violating Religious Freedom; USCIRF Reacts

Last week (Dec. 2) the U.S. State Department, as required by the International Religious Freedom Act, announced its annual list of countries and entities that violate or tolerate severe violations of religious freedom.  In a press statement, Secretary Blinken said in part:

Today, I am announcing designations against Burma, the People’s Republic of China, Cuba, Eritrea, Iran, Nicaragua, the DPRK, Pakistan, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Tajikistan, and Turkmenistan as Countries of Particular Concern under the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 for having engaged in or tolerated particularly severe violations of religious freedom.  I am also placing Algeria, the Central African Republic, Comoros, and Vietnam on the Special Watch List for engaging in or tolerating severe violations of religious freedom.  Finally, I am designating al-Shabab, Boko Haram, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, the Houthis, ISIS-Greater Sahara, ISIS-West Africa, Jama’at Nusrat al-Islam wal-Muslimin, the Taliban, and the Wagner Group based on its actions in the Central African Republic as Entities of Particular Concern.

Responding to the State Department's action, the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom issued a press release stating in part:

The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) finds it inexplicable that the U.S. Department of State did not include Nigeria or India in its latest designations of “Countries of Particular Concern”....

Religion News Service has posted an opinion piece on the State Department's actions by a former State Department adviser.

Catholic Parish Sues Michigan Over Expansion of Its Civil Rights Act

Suit was filed this week in a Michigan federal district court by a Catholic parish which operates an elementary school claiming that the Michigan Supreme Court's interpretation of the state's anti-discrimination law violates the parish's First Amendment rights.  The complaint (full text) in St. Joseph Parish St. Johns v. Nessel, (WD MI, filed 12/5/2022), alleges in part:

5. In a series of actions culminating in a Michigan Supreme Court decision from July 2022, the Michigan Attorney General, the Michigan Department of Civil Rights, and the Michigan Civil Rights Commission ... reinterpreted the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act (“ELCRA”) such that provisions which previously prohibited conduct based only on biological sex now also apply to distinctions made based on sexual orientation and gender identity....

10. As a result, Michigan’s new understanding of “sex” discrimination deems it unlawful for St. Joseph’s to follow the 2,000-year-old teachings of the Catholic Church, including its teaching that marriage is a lifelong commitment between one man and one woman, that sexual relations are limited to marriage, and that human beings are created as either male or female....

11. Michigan’s reinterpretation poses an imminent threat to St. Joseph. St. Joseph needs to hire new employees and to publicize its job openings. St. Joseph’s advertisements would note, as they have in the past, that applicants must be “practicing Catholic[s] with the ability to infuse Catholic faith and teaching throughout the curriculum.”... 

12. St. Joseph is also reviewing applications for new families seeking to send their children to its school. And families at St. Joseph Catholic School enter a “Family – School Agreement.” This agreement requires, among other things, that parents and students agree “to live their lives in a way that supports, rather than opposes, the mission of our school and our faith beliefs.”

13. Also at stake is St. Joseph’s ability to rent its facilities—like its gymnasium and soccer fields—and whether it can carry out its parish activities open to all, like attending Mass, without being held liable as a public accommodation....

15. St. Joseph’s religious decisions regarding how to advance its mission and ministry are protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Michigan cannot force the Catholic Church to compromise its religious character simply as a function of its doors being open to all.

Becket has a case page with more details on the case.

Street Preacher Loses His Free Speech Lawsuit

In Sessler v. City of Davenport, (SD IA, Nov. 22, 2022), an Iowa federal district court dismissed a suit for damages and injunctive relief brought by a street preacher who claimed that his free speech rights were violated when he and others with him were required to move from the location at which they were preaching during the city's Street Fest and continue their preaching from another location. According to the court:

Sessler and his group carried signs on extendable poles with messages including: "Hell is enlarged for adulterers . . . homosexuals . . . abortionists" and "Warning! If you are involved in sex out of marriage[,] homosexuality[,] drunkenness[,] night clubbing . . . you are destined for a burning hell[.]" 

The court concluded that Street Fest was a limited public forum, and plaintiff's removal was reasonable and viewpoint neutral.  It went on to say in part:

Sessler has failed to carry his burden of showing Behning, Smith, and Alcala violated a clearly established right, even if Street Fest is considered a traditional public forum. The case law discussed by Sessler does not show a member of the public has a right to continue preaching at a permitted event open to the public after event organizers requested his removal due to complaints that his preaching was driving customers away from fee-paying vendors. Rather, the case law on point suggests a reasonable officer could have concluded Sessler had no constitutional right to continue preaching within the boundaries of Street Fest following such complaints, as long as he was permitted to continue preaching across the street from an entrance to Street Fest. The Officers violated no clearly established right, so they are entitled to qualified immunity from Sessler's claims against them.

New Zealand Court OK's Hate Speech Law That Does Not Cover LGBTQ Victims

In Hoban v. Attorney General, (NZ HC, Dec. 5, 2022), a New Zealand High Court, reviewing a decision of the Human Rights Review Tribunal, held that New Zealand's hate speech law (Human Rights Act Sec. 61) that covers incitement of racial disharmony but not hate speech aimed at sexual orientation does not violate the Bill of Rights Act. The court held that while the hate speech provisions of the Human Rights Act have a discriminatory effect on victims of hate speech based on sexual orientation, the discriminatory effect is permitted by Sec. 5 of the Bill of Rights Act that allows "demonstrably justified" limits. The court said in part:

We consider it significant that there is no human rights obligation, in either domestic or international law, to make hate speech on the basis of sexual orientation unlawful. By contrast there is such an obligation in relation to racial hate speech, both in ICERD [International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination] and the ICCPR [International Convention on Civil and Political Rights]....

Section 61 only has apparently discriminatory effect because it is a targeted remedial measure. We consider that the existence of the international obligations in ICERD and the ICCPR in of themselves provide the s 5 justification for s 61 of the HRA being in the targeted terms that it is. The New Zealand legislation is limited, but the limit corresponds to the international obligations.

Stuff discussed the case when it was argued before the court. [Thanks to Jane Norton for the lead.]

En Banc rehearing Denied in Challenge to Courtroom Invocations

In Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc. v. Mack, (5th Cir., Dec. 2, 2022), the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals by a vote of 12-3 denied an en banc rehearing in a case decided by a 3-judge panel in September. (See prior posting.) The panel held that a program devised by a Texas Justice of the Peace under which his court sessions are opened with a prayer from a volunteer chaplain does not violate the Establishment Clause.  Judge Higginson, joined by Judge Graves, filed an opinion dissenting from the denial of an en banc rehearing. They said in part:

None of the history cited by our court contemplates a judicial command “to stand and bow” for prayer, much less under threat of retaliation. At best, our court digs up “scattered evidence” that some nineteenth- and twentieth-century courts started with a prayer. Along with other evidence that prayers have been said and God invoked in courtrooms, our court thinks this is enough to prove that “courtroom prayer is consistent with a broader tradition of public, government-sponsored prayer.” I agree with the dissenting panel opinion that this history is too thin to justify that conclusion, but I would add that our court’s answer is pitched at the wrong level of generality....  [T]he question is whether “history shows that the specific practice is permitted,” not whether a general practice is permitted.

New Resource on Abortion Litigation

The Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law and the Center for Reproductive Rights today announced its State Court Abortion Litigation Tracker, a website that tracks pending and completed state court litigation against abortion bans that were, or would have been, unconstitutional under Roe. v. Wade. The site has been added to the Religion Clause sidebar.  Information on the site will be updated monthly.  This site supplements the Center's Abortion Laws By State website that tracks the current status of abortion laws in each state.

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Aaron Tang, Who's Afraid of Carson v. Makin?,  (132 Yale L. J. Forum 504 (2022)).
• Nicolas Graber-Mitchell, All Rise for God: Toleration, Secularism, and the Role of Religion in Legal Adjudication, (April 14, 2022).
• Reva B. Siegel & Linda Greenhouse, Abortion: Rights in Motion - Global Constitutionalism 2022, (Yale Law School, Public Law Research Paper Forthcoming).
• Melvin Otey, Jesus’s Objections During His Preliminary Examination and Modern Notions of Due Process, (Regent University Law Review, Vol. 35, No. 91, 2022).
• Adam MacLeod, The First Amendment, Discrimination, and Public Accommodations at Common Law, (November 9, 2022).
• Richard M. Re, Should Gradualism Have Prevailed in Dobbs?, (November 16, 2022).
• Phil Lord, Trumping Dobbs, (October 26, 2022).

From elsewhere:

• Steven H. Sholk, A Guide to the Substantiation Rules for Deductible Charitable Contributions, (Journal of Taxation, Dec. 2022).

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.

Indiana Court Enjoins Abortion Restrictions as Violating State's RFRA

In Anonymous Plaintiff 1 v. Individual Members of the Medical Licensing Board of Indiana, (IN Super. Ct., Dec. 2, 2022), an Indiana state trial court preliminarily enjoined the state from enforcing Indiana's law restricting abortions against plaintiffs whose religious beliefs permit or require abortions in situations not allowed under Indiana law.  Plaintiffs were Jewish and Muslim, and one plaintiff of no specific denomination. The court, invoking Indiana's Religious Freedom Restoration Act, said in part:

26. This Court finds that the Plaintiffs practices regarding abortion are religious in nature: they have established that, under circumstances that would be prohibited by S.E.A. 1, their religious beliefs would compel them to have abortions....

43. The undisputed evidence establishes that the Plaintiffs do not share the State’s belief that life begins at fertilization or that abortion constitutes the intentional taking of a human life. To the contrary, they have different religious beliefs about when life begins, and they believe that under certain circumstances not permitted by S.E.A. 1, they would be required to receive abortions. Under the law, the Court finds these are sincere religious beliefs.

44. The State has not asserted a compelling interest in refusing to provide an exception to the Plaintiffs if the law were otherwise enforceable. Indiana has no interest in violating the sincere religious beliefs and exercise of the Plaintiffs....

49. The Plaintiffs argue that S.E.A. 1 is not narrowly tailored and is underinclusive, in that it provides exceptions for some abortions—though not religious exceptions—in circumstances that directly contravene the State’s purported interest. 

50. The State argues that abortion, regardless of gestational age of the zygote, embryo, or fetus, is the killing of an innocent human being, and its interest is in preventing that killing....

51. However, the statute explicitly allows abortions in circumstances that the State acknowledges constitute the “killing” of an “innocent human being”: for example, where the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest and where the fetus is viable but will not live beyond three months after birth.

A different state trial court has previously enjoined enforcement of the Act on state constitutional grounds. (See prior posting.)

Indianapolis Star reports on the decision. [Thanks to Daniel Conkle via Religionlaw for the lead.]

Suit By Law Prof and Internet Site Challenges NY Statute on Online Hate Speech

 In May, the New York legislature enacted A7685-A requiring social media networks to provide a means for its users to report postings which vilify, humiliate or incite violence group on the basis of race, color, religion, ethnicity, national origin, disability, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression.  They must also have a policy on responding to and addressing such postings.  Yesterday-- two days before the law is to go into effect-- suit was filed in a New York federal district court by law professor and blogger Eugene Volokh and the social media platform Rumble challenging the law on free speech as well as overbreadth and vagueness grounds. The complaint (full text) in Volokh v. James, (SD NY, filed 12/1/2022), alleges in part:

New York cannot justify such a sweeping regulation of protected speech. The Online Hate Speech Law violates the First Amendment because it burdens the publication of speech based on its viewpoint, unconstitutionally compels speech, and is overbroad. It is also vague in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment....and preempted by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Given well-settled Supreme Court precedent, the New York’s law must be enjoined and struck down.

Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Establishment Clause Challenge to Pending Abortion and LGBTQ Laws Is Dismissed

 In Pickup v. Biden, (D DC, Nov. 30, 2022), plaintiffs-- including four pastors-- asked the D.C. federal district court to declare two bills pending in Congress unconstitutional and enjoin their passage. At issue are the Women's Health Protection Act which assures the right to abortion and the Equality Act which would add sexual orientation and gender identity to the federal Civil Rights Act. Plaintiffs focused primarily on an Establishment Clause challenge. The court described plaintiffs' claims, saying in part:

In their view, the Supreme Court’s decisions in Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey undermine the Establishment Clause by promoting the religion of “secular humanism.”...  According to Plaintiffs, secular humanism includes a “pro-abortion” denomination and an “LGBTQ” denomination.... Plaintiffs thus argue that the Government violates the Establishment Clause if it promotes abortion or LGBTQ ideology.

The court held that the Constitution's Speech or Debate Clause bars Plaintiffs’ claims against the congressional Defendants, that it lacks jurisdiction to enjoin a President from performing his official duties, and that plaintiffs lack standing.

Court Rejects Religious Challenges to COVID Mask Requirements

 In Joseph v. Becerra, (WD WI, Nov. 29, 2022), a Wisconsin federal district court rejected a pro se plaintiff's claims that VA and Postal Service COVID masking requirements violated his free exercise and Establishment Clause rights as well as various other rights. The court said in part:

Joseph refuses to wear a mask, which he views as a medical device and religious symbol. A Christian, Joseph claims to practice his faith in part by “taking a stance against what he sees and understands to be evil or unlawful,” such as the masking requirements.... Specifically, Joseph alleges that the masking requirements violate several of the tenets of his faith and promotes “Collectivism” over his individual rights. By promulgating a masking policy, Joseph further alleges that the federal government is seeking to establish “a nameless and covert religion/religious order” that “is a type of scientism ... discriminatory and divisive in nature and in practice.”...

[P]laintiff’s Establishment Clause claim is not only based on a Bivens claim not yet recognized by the Supreme Court, but also on the “faulty premise” that “scienticsm” is a religion. .... Admittedly, the governing case law does not precisely define the contours of what constitutes “religion,” but “courts are well-equipped to weed out spurious Establishment Clause ‘religions’ on grounds of common sense.”...

[E]ven if wearing a mask has substantially impaired plaintiff’s ability to exercise his faith while receiving in-person medical treatment, working, traveling in public spaces, or attending public events, rules that have only an “incidental effect of burdening a religious practice” will pass muster under the Free Exercise Clause provided they are applied neutrally and generally applicable.

Police Officer Sues Over Denial of COVID Vaccine Religious Exemption

This week, a former Boston police officer who is a Jehovah's Witness filed suit in a Massachusetts state trial court seeking $2 million in damages for the actions of the Boston Police Department in denying his request for a religious exemption from the Department's COVID vaccine mandate. He was placed on administrative leave and subsequently terminated. The complaint (full text) in Colon v. City of Boston, (MA Super. Ct., filed 11/28/2022), also alleges that he was ridiculed because of his religious beliefs. Boston.com reports on the lawsuit.

6th Circuit Affirms Preliminary Injunction Protecting Air Force Personnel Who Have Religious Objections to COVID Vaccine

 In Doster v. Kendall, (6th Cir., Nov. 29, 2022), the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a district court's grant of a class-wide preliminary injunction barring the Air Force from disciplining Air Force personnel who have sought religious exemptions from the military's COVID vaccine mandate. The injunction however did not interfere with the Air Force’s operational decisions over the Plaintiffs’ duties. The 6th Circuit concluded that plaintiffs' RFRA claim was likely to succeed on the merits, saying in part:

Some 10,000 members with a wide array of duties have requested religious exemptions from this mandate. The Air Force has granted only about 135 of these requests.... Yet it has granted thousands of other exemptions for medical reasons (such as a pregnancy or allergy) or administrative reasons (such as a looming retirement)....

Under RFRA, the Air Force wrongly relied on its “broadly formulated” reasons for the vaccine mandate to deny specific exemptions to the Plaintiffs, especially since it has granted secular exemptions to their colleagues.... The Air Force’s treatment of their exemption requests also reveals common questions for the class: Does the Air Force have a uniform policy of relying on its generalized interests in the vaccine mandate to deny religious exemptions regardless of a service member’s individual circumstances? And does it have a discriminatory policy of broadly denying religious exemptions but broadly granting secular ones? A district court can answer these questions in a “yes” or “no” fashion for the entire class.....

In the abstract, the Air Force may well have a compelling interest in requiring its 501,000 members to get vaccinated. It has also largely achieved this general interest, as evidenced by its ability to vaccinate over 97% of its force.... Under RFRA, however, the Air Force must show that it has a compelling interest in refusing a “specific” exemption to, say, Lieutenant Doster or Airman Colantonio.... To succeed ..., the Air Force must identify the duties of each Plaintiff and offer evidence as to why it has a compelling interest in forcing someone with those duties to take the vaccine or face a sanction....

If the Air Force can permanently retain those who cannot deploy because of their religious objections to a war, it must explain why it cannot permanently retain those who cannot deploy because of their religious objections to a vaccine.

(See prior related posting.) Courthouse News Service reports on the decision.

7th Circuit: Law on Disposal of Fetal Remains Does Not Violate 1st Amendment

In Doe v. Rokita, (7th Cir., Nov. 28, 2022), the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected 1st Amendment challenges to an Indiana statute that requires abortion providers to dispose of fetal remains either by burial or by cremation. The suit was brought both by two women who raise free exercise claims and by two physicians who oppose the requirement that they inform patients of the law's provisions. The court said in part:

[N]either of the two plaintiffs who has had an abortion contends that a third party’s cremation or burial of fetal remains would cause her to violate any religious principle indirectly. What these two plaintiffs contend is that cremation or burial implies a view—the personhood of an unborn fetus—that they do not hold. They maintain that only human beings are cremated or buried. This is questionable. Dogs, cats, and other pets may be cremated or buried, sometimes as a result of legal requirements not to put animals’ bodies in the garbage,,,,. Indiana’s statute about fetal remains therefore need not imply anything about the appropriate characterization of a fetus. At all events, a moral objection to one potential implication of the way medical providers handle fetal remains is some distance from a contention that the state compels any woman to violate her own religious tenets....

As for the requirement that physicians and other providers tell patients about the statutory options: no one contends that the required notice is false or misleading....

The norm that units of government may require physicians (and other professionals) to provide accurate information to their clients long predates Casey and has not been disturbed since...

State Religious Discrimination Claims Against Airline Union Are Pre-empted By Federal Law

In Brown v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., (WD WA, Nov. 23, 2022), a Washington federal district court dismissed state-law religious discrimination claims brought against the flight attendants' union by two of its members.  Alaska Airlines fired plaintiffs because they posted comments on the company's internal intranet opposing the Airline's support for a federal statute that would add sexual orientation and gender identity to federal anti-discrimination laws. Plaintiffs claimed their comments were grounded in their religious beliefs. The Union unsuccessfully represented the flight attendants at a hearing appealing their termination.  Plaintiffs then sued claiming not only that Alaska Airlines discriminated against them because of their Christian faith, but that the Union did not defend them as vigorously as it defends other flight attendants because of the flight attendants' religious beliefs. The court dismissed the flight attendants' claims against the Union that were brought under Washington and Oregon anti-discrimination laws.  It concluded that that the "duty of fair representation" stemming from provisions of the federal Railway Labor Act pre-empts claims brought under state anti-discrimination laws where the charge is that a union did not adequately represent an employee in the grievance process.

3rd Circuit: Challenge to COVID Limits on Worship Services Is Moot

In Clark v. Governor of the State of New Jersey, (3d Cir., Nov. 28, 2022), the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of appeals in a 2-1 decision held that a challenge by two Christian congregations and their pastors to former COVID limits on in-person worship services is moot. The court affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the suit.  In the case, plaintiffs challenged orders by the Governor of New Jersey that limited religious gatherings while permitting certain essential secular activities to continue. The majority said in part:

Appellants offer nothing more than speculation to suggest that we have a live controversy here. They invite us to hypothesize about future scenarios in which (a) not only does the COVID-19 pandemic reach crisis levels comparable to early-2020, but (b) New Jersey’s executive officials will choose to ignore everything—both legal and factual—we have learned since those early months and bluntly reintroduce legally-suspect gathering restrictions on religious worship. This will not do, and we will therefore affirm.

Judge Matey dissented, saying in part:

[N]o lively imagination is needed to conjure up future competitions between public health and religious liberty given the volatility of respiratory viruses, the increased probability of future pandemics, and the routine declaration of “emergencies” by Governor Murphy. I would take the opportunity to provide an answer now, giving the people of New Jersey, and its representatives, the guidance they are entitled to under the Constitution.

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.

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Jessica Lowe, "Our Experiences Make Us Who We Are": Lessons from Thomas Ruffin and Dirk Hartog, (Virginia Public Law and Legal Theory Research Paper No. 2022-76 (Nov. 2022)).
• Greer Donley & Rachel Rebouche, The Promise of Telehealth for Abortion, (in Digital Health Care Outside of Traditional Clinical Settings: Ethical, Legal and Regulatory Challenges and Opportunities (Cambridge University Press, Forthccoming).
• Saleh Alamer, The Role of the Sharīʿah Supervisory Board: A Gatekeeper?, (December 19, 2021).
• Kim Kit Ow & Vincent Ooi, Making Singapore a Regional Centre for Philanthropy, (The Straits Times, 7 October 2022).

From SmartCILP:

• Leslie C. Griffin, What Did Those Sixteen Justices Say?, 58 Willamette Law Review 163-250 (2022).
• Jomana Qaddour, Iraq's Constitutional Moments and the Institutionalization of Ethno-Sectarianism, 36 Emory International Law Review 237-286 (2022).
• John G. Browning, Is the Devil in the Details? Religious Objections to Biometric Technology in the Workplace, [Abstract], 99 University of Detroit Mercy Law Review 299-322 (2022).
• Abigail Matthews & Rebecca J. Kreitzer, How Personal Beliefs and Identity Affect Bodily Autonomy Attitudes, [Abstract], 99 University of Detroit Mercy Law Review 373-424 (2022).