Satanic Temple Can Move Ahead with Establishment Clause Challenge to Its Treatment by City Council

In The Satanic Temple v. The City of Chicago, (ND IL, March 31, 2024), an Illinois federal district court held that The Satanic Temple ("TST") had alleged enough to move ahead on its claim that the city had violated the Establishment Clause by constantly delaying for over three years a request by a TST clergyman to deliver an invocation at a Chicago City Council meeting.  The court said in part:

The Establishment Clause requires that the City treat Vavrick the same as it would any other clergy member from any other religion. Assuming, therefore, that the City has not scheduled Vavrick to give an invocation because of his religious beliefs, such practice violates the Establishment Clause.

The court however dismissed plaintiffs' free speech claim finding that plaintiffs had not plausibly alleged that City Council invocations are anything other than government speech. It also refused to grant a preliminary injunction.

Suit For Misappropriating Church Funds Not Precluded by Church Autonomy Doctrine

In Buck v. Peace Apostolic Church, Inc., (CA Super. Ct., March 8, 2024), a California trial court rejected the contention that the church autonomy or ecclesiastical abstention doctrine precludes the court from adjudicating a claim that two church officers and directors improperly spent church funds.  The court said in part:

The First Amendment does not immunize the Church or the individual defendants from illegal acts that apply equally to everyone, religious or not. The Plaintiffs alleged and proved that Defendants committed fraud and engaged in false advertising. Defendants solicited donations from the public promising that “no part of the income or assets of this corporation shall ever inure to the benefit of any director, officer, or member thereof or to the benefit of any private person.”... Prince used her position in the church and the representations made by her and by the church to enrich herself. While Brown did not enrich herself, she facilitated the enrichment of her son, Howard Woods. The defendants cannot take money based on a representation that it would be used for charitable purposes and church mission and use it for personal benefit. That's not internal church governance. That's fraud. The activities that occurred in that case are not protected by the First Amendment.... 

On December 19, 2023, the Court ordered injunctive relief. In part, PAC was ordered to post warnings that read “WARNING: A Jury has found that Tamara Swancy-Prince, Priscilla Woods Brown and Peace Apostolic Church have improperly misappropriated donations.” PAC objects to the injunction arguing that the Court misapplied the law.... The Court is simply not convinced that similar abuses won’t recur.

Florida Supreme Court Clears Abortion Rights Proposal for November Ballot

 In Advisory Opinion to the Attorney General re: Limiting Government Interference with Abortion, (FL Sup. Ct., April 1, 2024), the Florida Supreme Court, in a 4-3 decision, rejected challenges to placing a proposed abortion rights constitutional amendment on the November ballot. The proposed amendment provides:

Limiting government interference with abortion.—Except as provided in Article X, Section 22, no law shall prohibit, penalize, delay, or restrict abortion before viability or when necessary to protect the patient’s health, as determined by the patient’s healthcare provider.

The court said in part:

We decline to adopt a standard that would effectively vest us with the power to bar an amendment from the ballot because of a supposed ambiguity in the text of the amendment.  We decline to encroach on the prerogative to amend their constitution that the people have reserved to themselves.

Chief Justice Muniz filed a concurring opinion, joined by Justices Canaday and Couriel concur, saying in part:

... [Q]uestions of justice are appropriately at the heart of the voters’ assessment of a proposed amendment like the one under review.  With its reference to the existence of “inalienable rights” in all persons, our constitution’s Declaration of Rights assumes a pre-constitutional, objective moral reality that demands our respect—indeed, a moral order that government exists to protect.  The proposed amendment would constitutionalize restrictions on the people’s authority to use law to protect an entire class of human beings from private harm.  It would cast into doubt the people’s authority even to enact protections that are prudent, compassionate, and mindful of the complexities involved.  Under our system of government, it is up to the voters—not this Court—to decide whether such a rule is consistent with the deepest commitments of our political community.

Justice Grosshans filed a dissenting opinion in which Justic Sasso concurs. Justice Francis filed a dissenting opinion. Justice Sasso filed a dissenting opinion in which Justices Grosshans and Francis concur, saying in part:

I agree with the majority that, at a very high level, the voters will understand that this amendment creates a broad right to abortion in Florida.  However, our precedent has consistently required that the summary explain more than the amendment’s general aim.  Indeed, we have said that ballot summaries must explain the “material legal effect,” so that the electorate is advised of the “true meaning, and ramifications, of an amendment” and is thereby “adequately informed.” 

The summary here does none of this.

In a separate decision yesterday, the Florida Supreme Court held that the state Constitution's Privacy Clause does not protect abortion rights. (See prior posting.) Orlando Sentinel reports on the two decisions.

Florida Supreme Court Overrules Cases Holding State Constitution Protects Abortion

In Planned Parenthood of Southwest and Central Florida v. State of Florida, (FL Sup. Ct., April 1, 2024), the Florida Supreme Court in a 6-1 decision receded from (i.e. overruled) its prior decisions that held the Privacy Clause of the Florida Constitution protects the right to abortion. Focusing on the original public meaning of the Privacy Clause that was adopted by Florida voters in 1980, the Court said in part:

The Privacy Clause of the Florida Constitution does not mention abortion or include a word or phrase that clearly incorporates it.  Era-appropriate dictionary definitions and contextual clues suggest that abortion does not naturally fit within the rights at issue.  Reliable historical sources, like the technical meaning of the terms contained in the provision, the origin of the amendment, and the framing of the public debate, similarly do not support a conclusion that abortion should be read into the provision’s text.  Roe is also relevant to our analysis of the public meaning of the Privacy Clause.  But speculation as to Roe’s effect on voter understanding does not overcome the combined force of the substantial evidence we have examined above.  Thus, we cannot conclude that in 1980 a voter would have assumed the text encompassed a polarizing definition of privacy that included broad protections for abortion.

The Court thus rejected Planned Parenthood's suit seeking a temporary injunction against enforcement of Florida's 15-week abortion ban. As the dissent points out, however, the decision also has the effect of triggering in 30 days the effectiveness of the state's 6-week Heartbeat Protection Act. That Act, by its terms, was to take effect if the state Supreme Court held that the state Constitution's right to privacy does not protect abortion, if it allowed the 15-week ban to remain in effect or if the Court receded from any of its prior cases protecting abortion.

Justice Sasso filed a concurring opinion focusing on the issue of standing. Justice Labarga filed a dissenting opinion, saying in part:

The majority concludes that the public understanding of the right of privacy did not encompass the right to an abortion. However, the dominance of Roe in the public discourse makes it inconceivable that in 1980, Florida voters did not associate abortion with the right of privacy.

In a second case decided yesterday, the Florida Supreme Court cleared a proposed constitutional amendment protecting pre-viability abortion rights for placement on the November ballot. (See posting on decision.)  Orlando Sentinel reports on the two decisions.

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Laura Portuondo, Gendered Liberty, (Georgetown Law Journal, Forthcoming).
• Robert W. McGee, Human Rights and Religious Intolerance of Mixed Marriages: A Case Study of Indonesia, (February 26, 2024).
• Marc O. De Girolami, The Death and New Life of Law and Religion, (Oxford Journal of Law and Religion (forthcoming)).
• Stephanie H. Barclay, Constitutional Rights as Protected Reasons, (University of Chicago Law Review, Forthcoming).
• Zalman Rothschild, The Impossibility of Religious Equality, (Columbia Law Review (2024-2025), Forthcoming).
• Gabrielle Girgis, A Strict Scrutiny Regime for Free Exercise Post-Smith, (February 29, 2024). 
• Kimberly L. Wehle, The Ninth Amendment Post-Dobbs: Could Federalism Swallow Unenumerated Rights?, (Maryland Law Review, Vol. 83, No. 3, 2024).
• Martin Katz, Bostock and the Limits of Textualism: A Structuralist Approach, (U Denver Legal Studies Research Paper No. 24-06 (2024)).
• Rebecca E. Zietlow, Constitutional Allies: Abortion Rights, Fugitives from Slavery and the Networks that Support Them, (February 27, 2024).
• Nick Robinson, The Regulation of Foreign Funding of Nonprofits in a Democracy, (Virginia Journal of International Law, Forthcoming).

From SmartCILP:

• Michael J. Broyde & Alexa J. Windsor, Contract Law Should Be Faith Neutral: Reverse Entanglement Would Be Stranglement for Religious Arbitration, 79 N.Y.U. Annual Survey of American Law 17-88 (2023).

Appeals Court Upholds Preliminary Injunctions Against Texas Treating Gender-Affirming Care as Child Abuse

In Abbott v. Doe, (TX App., March 29, 2024), a Texas state appellate court upheld a trial court's preliminary injunction against the state's Department of Family and Protective Services and its Commissioner. The preliminary injunction barred these defendants from taking investigative or enforcement action based on the state Attorney General's Opinion, the Governor's letter and Statement by the Department implementing it that deemed many of the procedures used to treat gender dysphoria to be child abuse. (See prior posting.) The court, concluding that the trial court had not abused its discretion in entering the injunction, said in part:

The injuries Appellees allege, and that the injunction redresses, are that the application or threatened application of the allegedly invalid rule announced in the Department Statement interferes with or impairs the Doe Parents’ right to make imminent decisions about their child’s medical care, Mary’s guarantee of equal rights and equality under law, and Appellees’ rights to due process because the rule is unconstitutionally vague.  See Tex. Const. art. I, §§ 3, 3a, 19....

The temporary injunction specifically precludes the Department from taking action against Appellees based on the rule announced in the Department Statement, which references the Governor’s Directive and the Attorney General’s opinion....  The temporary injunction remedies Appellees’ injuries because it temporarily reinstates Department policies and procedures for screening reports and conducting investigations as they existed prior to February 22, 2022....  At that time, the Department would have applied the same policies and standards to a report concerning gender-affirming medical care as to any other case of suspected child abuse....  Before February 22, 2022, the Department had no rule that categorically deemed the provision of gender-affirming medical care presumptively abusive or required investigation and a disposition for every report of gender-affirming medical care without regard to medical necessity....

In Muth v. Voe, (TX App, March 29, 2024), a second case upholding two temporary injunctions issued by a different state trial court, the appellate court said in part:

We hold that at a minimum the Families have established a probable right to relief on their claim that the Department Statement is an invalid rule because it is a rule within the meaning of the APA and it was adopted without following proper rulemaking procedures.  This claim is sufficient to support the trial court’s temporary injunctions.

Reuters reports on the decision.

President Biden Sends Easter Greetings

The White House today posted a Statement from President Biden (full text) sending Easter greetings to the world's Christians.  The Statement reads:

Jill and I send our warmest wishes to Christians around the world celebrating Easter Sunday. Easter reminds us of the power of hope and the promise of Christ’s Resurrection.

As we gather with loved ones, we remember Jesus’ sacrifice. We pray for one another and cherish the blessing of the dawn of new possibilities. And with wars and conflict taking a toll on innocent lives around the world, we renew our commitment to work for peace, security, and dignity for all people.

From our family to yours, happy Easter and may God bless you.

White House Statements Trigger Partisan Religious Controversy

The confluence this year of the dates for Easter and for the international Transgender Day of Visibility has resulted in an unusual religious controversy.  President Biden issued a Proclamation (full text) designating today as Transgender Day of Visibility, saying in part:

Transgender Americans are part of the fabric of our Nation.  Whether serving their communities or in the military, raising families or running businesses, they help America thrive.  They deserve, and are entitled to, the same rights and freedoms as every other American, including the most fundamental freedom to be their true selves.  But extremists are proposing hundreds of hateful laws that target and terrify transgender kids and their families — silencing teachers; banning books; and even threatening parents, doctors, and nurses with prison for helping parents get care for their children.  These bills attack our most basic American values,,,,

As reported by NBC News, this, along with the terms of a White House Easter Egg design contest for youths from National Guard families has sparked criticism from numerous Republican politicians. The flyer (full text) calling for youths to submit their Easter Egg designs includes in the lengthy instructions the following:

The Submission must not contain material that promotes bigotry, racism, hatred or harm against any group or individual or promotes discrimination based on race, gender, religion, nationality, disability, sexual orientation or age....

The Submission must not include any questionable content, religious symbols, overtly religious themes, or partisan political statements....

A statement yesterday (full text) from the Trump campaign called Biden's Proclamation "blasphemous" and said in part:

Sadly, these are just two more examples of the Biden Administration’s years-long assault on the Christian faith. We call on Joe Biden’s failing campaign and White House to issue an apology to the millions of Catholics and Christians across America who believe tomorrow is for one celebration only — the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Husband's Defamation Action Against Organization Assisting His Wife in Obtaining a Get Is Dismissed

 In Satz v. Organization for the Resolution of Agunot, Inc., (SD NY, March 28, 2024), a New York federal district court dismissed a husband's suit alleging defamation and several other torts brought against an organization that assists Jewish women who have obtained divorces in civil courts but whose husbands refuse to provide them with a Jewish bill of divorce ("Get").  According to the court:

ORA posted on its website a graphic bearing Plaintiff’s picture, labeling him a “GET-REFUSER,” and asserting that “GET REFUSAL IS DOMESTIC ABUSE”.... ORA also posted a copy of a “Psak Din,” a ruling by a rabbinical court, which states that Plaintiff’s “recalcitran[ce]” justifies doing “anything that is not a criminal offense . . . to cause him to comply” with rabbinical court proceedings....

Expressions of opinion are not actionable....  Taken in context, ORA’s statement on the flyer posted on its website that “GET-REFUSAL IS DOMESTIC ABUSE” is not a statement of fact....  In this context, the statement that Get-refusal is domestic abuse clearly is an expression of opinion by an advocacy organization....

Finally, Plaintiff takes issue with the flyer’s statement that “Jewish law forbids” various forms of association with Plaintiff....  [A]djudicating the truth or falsity of ORA’s statement about what “Jewish law forbids,” would impermissibly entangle the Court in an “inquiry . . . into religious law.”...

New York courts also apply a qualified privilege to statements “fairly made by a person in the discharge of some public or private duty, legal or moral.” ... [T]here is a colorable argument that rabbis presiding over Get proceedings are engaged in the discharge of a moral duty and, therefore, the statements in the Psak Din, which ORA republished, are privileged.....

For this Court to adjudicate whether ORA defamed Plaintiff by republishing the Psak Din, the Court would have to determine the truth of the challenged statements in the Psak Din, which would impermissibly entangle the Court in questions of Jewish law.

3 More Leaders of Extremist Jewish Sect Convicted in 2018 Kidnappings

In a March 27 announcement (full text), the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York said in part:

Yoil Weingarten, Yakov Weingarten, and Shmiel Weingarten, leaders of Lev Tahor, an extremist Jewish sect based in Guatemala, have been found guilty of kidnapping a 12-year-old boy and a 14-year-old girl and transporting the 14-year-old girl outside the United States to continue a sexual relationship with her adult male ‘husband.’  With this verdict, all nine Lev Tahor leaders and operatives charged for these heinous crimes have been held accountable.

Rockland/ Westchester Journal News has a lengthier account of the convictions for the 2018 kidnappings, saying in part:

A jury in White Plains federal court took less than four hours to reject the claims of Shmiel, Yakev and Yoil Weingarten that the girl and her 12-year-old brother ... were rescued from abusive treatment in New York and that reuniting the girl with her community and 20-year-old husband had nothing to do with sex.

They face up to 30 years in prison, including a minimum of 10 years on the charge of transporting a minor for sex. They were also convicted of conspiracy charges and international parental abduction. U.S. District Judge Nelson Roman scheduled sentencing for July 9.

(See prior related posting.)

First Amendment Precludes Court from Enforcing Mahr in Divorce Action

 In Omid v. Ahmadi, (CT Super., March 18, 2024), a Connecticut state trial court in a action for dissolution of a marriage refused to enforce a mahr (dowry) agreement because interpreting it would require the court to interpret religious principles.  The mahr was entered by the parties in connection with their marriage in Afghanistan. The husband who had apparently been a translator for the U.S. military during the Afghan war received a visa to the United States and then returned to Afghanistan for one month to enter an arranged marriage. Three years later he arranged for his wife to obtain a U.S. visa. One year after she came to the U.S., the parties separated. In denying the wife's request in the dissolution case for an order enforcing the mahr, the court said in part:

The parties disagree as to when the 100,000 Afghanis must be paid, and whether, as the defendant argues, the terms "prompt" and "deferred" as used in the agreement describe a general duty to pay at any time, or a specific duty to pay one amount before marriage and one amount upon divorce or death of the husband. The term "prompt" in the parties' agreement is ambiguous and would require the court to look outside the four corners of the contract....

On the basis of the foregoing, to the extent that construction of the contract language would require this court to reference Islamic religious principles to determine the meaning of the terms employed, such action would likely violate the religion clauses of the first amendment of the United States constitution. The present agreement is sparse, and its terms are ill-defined without extratextual evidence. Because this extratextual evidence involves considerations of what the terms mean under Islamic law, the agreement is unenforceable because it is likely impossible for the court to disentangle secular from religious considerations.

West Virginia Governor Vetoes Vaccine Mandate Opt-Out for Parochial Schools

On Wednesday, West Virginia Governor Jim Justice vetoed House Bill 5105 which would have allowed private and parochial schools to opt out of the state's mandatory vaccination requirements for students. It also would have exempted full-time virtual public-school students from the immunization requirements unless they participate in activities that also involve other schools. In his Veto Letter (full text), the Governor says in part:

Since this legislation was passed, I have heard constant, strong opposition to this legislation from our State's medical community....

Additionally, we have heard from many private and parochial institutions all around the State, likewise requesting this bill be vetoed. We have heard from this community that they see this bill as purely divisive and, if signed into law, requiring consideration of adopting policies that will result in parents pulling their children from their schools.

AP reports on the Governor's action.

Restricting Frequency of Church Free Meal Services Violates RLUIPA

 In St. Timothy's Episcopal Church v. City of Brookings, (D OR, March 27, 2024), an Oregon federal district court held that a zoning ordinance that limits the number of days that a church can serve free meals to people in need violates the federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. St. Timothy's has been offering free lunchtime meals since 2009 and sees this as fundamental to their Episcopalian faith. Most recently meals have been served three to four times per week. In 2021, the city amended its zoning code to require a conditional use permit for "benevolent meal services" in residential districts and limited such services to two times per week. Finding that the city has burdened the church's religious exercise without a compelling interest in violation of RLUIPA, the court said in part:

[P]rotecting the public welfare, maintaining peace and order, and preventing crime are all certainly compelling government interests in a broad, general sense. However, the City has not articulated how the specific provisions of the Ordinance that limit meal service to two days per week ... serve to protect public welfare, maintain peace and order, or prevent crime in practical application. The Court can find no logical, causal relationship between the limitation and these interests....

Here, the City has long permitted, and arguably even supported benevolent meal services at St. Timothy's, without limitation as to the number of days such meals could be provided. This undisputed fact is fatal to their argument that the Ordinance's restrictions are intended to promote public welfare, peace, and order, and to deter crime....

... [T]he City has not shown that it considered and rejected the efficacy of less restrictive measures.

Tennessee Passes Law Banning Religious and Ideological Discrimination by Banks and Insurance Companies

The Tennessee legislature this week gave final approval to HB 2100 (full text) which prohibits banks and insurance companies from denying or cancelling services based on a customer's religious beliefs, practices or affiliations or the customer's political opinions, speech or affiliations. The bill also bans financial institutions and insurance companies from discriminating against customers based on a number of other factors such as firearm ownership, failure to meet environmental standards, or support of the government in combatting illegal immigration, drug trafficking or human trafficking. However, the bill permits financial institutions or insurance companies that claim a religious purpose to provide or deny service based on a customer's religious beliefs, exercise, or affiliation. The bill now goes to Governor Bill Lee for his signature. ADF issued a press release on the passage of the legislation.

District Court Enters Final Order in Wedding Website Designer Case

As previously reported, last year the U.S. Supreme Court in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis held that the 1st Amendment's free speech protection bars Colorado from using its public accommodation anti-discrimination law to require a wedding website designer to design websites for same-sex weddings in violation of her religious beliefs. Now in the case on remand, 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, (D CO, March 26, 2024), the Colorado federal district court entered a final Order in the case which provides in part:

ORDERED that the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause prohibits Colorado from enforcing CADA’s Communication Clause to prevent plaintiffs from posting the following statement on her website or from making materially similar statements on her website and directly to prospective clients:  

I firmly believe that God is calling me to this work. Why? I am personally convicted that He wants me – during these uncertain times for those who believe in biblical marriage – to shine His light and not stay silent. He is calling me to stand up for my faith, to explain His true story about marriage, and to use the talents and business He gave me to publicly proclaim and celebrate His design for marriage as a life-long union between one man and one woman.  

These same religious convictions that motivate me also prevent me from creating websites promoting and celebrating ideas or messages that violate my beliefs. So I will not be able to create websites for same-sex marriages or any other marriage that is not between one man and one woman. Doing that would compromise my Christian witness and tell a story about marriage that contradicts God’s true story of marriage – the very story He is calling me to promote.

It is further ORDERED that defendants, their officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and those acting in active concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of this order are permanently enjoined from enforcing:  

a. CADA’s Accommodations Clause to compel plaintiffs to create custom websites celebrating or depicting same-sex weddings or otherwise to create or depict original, expressive, graphic or website designs inconsistent with her beliefs regarding same-sex marriage; and  

b. CADA’s Communication Clause to prevent plaintiffs from posting the above statement on her website and from making materially similar statements on her website and directly to prospective clients.

DOJ Sues California Prisons for Failing to Accommodate Officers' Religious Beard Requirements

The Department of Justice this week filed suit in a California federal district court seeking to enjoin the California correctional system from requiring its peace officers to be clean shaven in contravention of their sincerely held religious beliefs.  The problem arose for Muslim and Sikh correctional employees when they were required to meet the conditions for wearing tight-fitting respirators.  The complaint (full text) in United States v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, (ED CA, filed 3/25/2024), contends that the Department of Corrections has not attempted to accommodate the peace officers' concerns by offering them positions in the Department that do not require wearing of respirators or by offering alternative respirators that could be worn with beards.  The complaint alleges in part:

The Charging Parties allege that CDCR has discriminated against them on the basis of religion in violation of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(a)(2), by: a. Failing to provide a religious accommodation;  b. failing to adequately engage in the interactive process with the Charging Parties, including by failing to make good faith efforts to consider whether alternative accommodations will eliminate the conflict between the Charging Parties’ religious beliefs and CDCR’s clean  shaven policy; and c. failing to demonstrate that implementing the alternative accommodations proposed by the Charging Parties would pose an undue hardship.

The Department of Justice issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit. AP reports on the lawsuit.

New Idaho Law Bars Adverse Action Because of Religious Conduct in Adoption, Foster Care, Licensing and State Contracting

On Monday, Idaho Governor Brad Little signed House Bill 578 (full text) which prohibits state and local governments from treating adversely any adoption or foster care agency that declines to provide services because of a sincerely held religious belief. The new law also provides:

The state government shall not take any discriminatory action against a person who the state grants custody of a foster or adoptive child wholly or partially on the basis that the person guides, instructs, or raises a child, or intends to guide, instruct, or raise a child, based on or in a manner consistent with a sincerely held religious belief. The state government may consider whether a person shares the same religious or faith tradition as a foster or adoptive child when considering placement of the child in order to prioritize placement with a person of the same religious or faith tradition.

The new law goes on to provide that the state cannot deny licensing or the award of a contract to a person because the person believes, maintains policies and procedures, or acts in accordance with a sincerely held religious belief. ADF issued a press release announcing the governor's signing of the bill.

California's Removal of Personal Belief Exemption from School Immunization Requirement Is Upheld

 In Royce v. Bonta, (SD CA, March 25, 2024), a California federal district court upheld the constitutionality of a law enacted by California in response to a 2015 measles outbreak. The law removed the personal belief exemption, but retained the medical exemption, from the requirement that school children enrolled in public and private schools be immunized against nine specific diseases.  The law also gives immigrant and homeless children a grace period in which to prove compliance with the immunization requirement. The court rejected parents free exercise challenge to the law, concluding that the law is neutral and generally applicable, saying in part:

In considering California’s interest in the health and safety of students and the public at large, the risk posed by SB 277’s enumerated exemptions does not qualify as comparable to the risk posed by a personal belief exemption....  Accordingly, SB 277 is generally applicable....

There is a legitimate State interest in protecting the health and safety of students and the public at large, and SB 277’s repeal of California’s prior personal belief exemption is rationally related to furthering that interest.  Because Plaintiffs fail to allege facts from which an inference can be drawn to hold otherwise, SB 277 survives rational basis review.  Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Free Exercise claim fails as a matter of law.

Supreme Court Hears Oral ArgumentsToday On Abortion Pill Restrictions

 The U.S. Supreme Court is hearing oral arguments today in two related cases-- FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine and Danco Laboratories, LLC v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine.  At issue is the FDA's actions in 2016 and 2021 regarding the administration and distribution of the abortion pill mifepristone. (See prior posting.) Links to briefs and pleadings in the cases can be found on the SCOTUSblog case pages (Danco, Alliance).  Live audio broadcast of the arguments beginning at 10:00 AM EDT can be accessed here. SCOTUS blog has further background on the issues being argued today. This posting will be updated to link to the transcript and recording of the arguments when they become available later today.

UPDATE: Here is a link to the transcript and audio of this morning's oral arguments. NBC News reports on the oral arguments.

Interference With Contractual Relationship Created by Jewish Marriage Contract Is Not Actionable

In S.E. v. Edelstein, (OH App., March 25, 2024), an Ohio state appellate court affirmed the dismissal of a suit for intentional interference with a contractual relationship brought by an Orthodox Jewish wife (Kimberly) against her father-in-law (Max) who disapproved of her marriage to his son (Elliott). The court held that the suit essentially sought damages for alienation of affections and breach of promise to marry which were barred as causes of action by Ohio Revised Code 2305.29. The court said in part:

In the complaint, it was alleged that Max had intentionally interfered with the ketubah, the supposed "contract" at issue in this case, by engaging in a continuous "campaign to undermine" Kimberly and Eliott's contractual relationship (i.e., their marriage) for nearly 20 years.  The complaint alleged that this included Max being "emotionally abusive" towards Kimberly, as well as Max making "negative and derogatory statements" about Kimberly.  This, according to the complaint, included Max criticizing Kimberly's "status as a convert to Judaism" and by frequently stating that Kimberly's and Eliott's children "were not Jewish."  The complaint also alleged that Max, "with the intent to destroy the contractual relationship between" Kimberly and Eliott, routinely disparaged Kimberly to "persuade" Eliott to "terminate his contractual relationship with [her]."...

[T]he complaint raises amatory claims of a breach of a promise to marry and alienation of affections against Max couched in terms of an intentional interference with a contractual relationship ..., loss of consortium... , loss of parental consortium ..., intentional infliction of emotional distress ...,, and malice.....  As stated previously, pursuant to R.C. 2305.29, neither Max, nor any other person, could be held liable in civil damages.... for any breach of a promise to marry or alienation of affection.  This holds true despite those claims being pled within the complaint in other, generally more suitable terms....   

Just as a rose is a rose by any other name, a non-actionable claim does not become actionable simply by masquerading as one that is....