Religion Clause

Monday, June 24, 2024

Supreme Court Grants Cert. in Ban on Gender-Affirming Care for Minors

The U.S. Supreme Court today granted review in United States v. Skrmetti, (Sup. Ct., Docket No. 23-477, certiorari granted 6/24/2024). (Order List.) In the case, the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 decision, reversed a preliminary injunction issued by a district court in a challenge to Tennessee's ban on chemical, hormonal or surgical treatment of minors for gender dysphoria. The majority rejected due process and equal protection challenges to the state law. (See prior posting.) SCOTUSblog reports on the Supreme Court's action.

Namibia Court Strikes Down Bans on Male Homosexual Conduct

In Dausab v. Minister of Justice, (NA HC MD, June 21, 2024), a 3-judge panel of the High Court of Namibia held that the common law and statutory provisions that ban "sodomy" and "unnatural sexual offenses" unconstitutionally discriminate against gay men. The court said in part:

What emerges from the definition of sodomy is that the offense clearly and undoubtedly criminalises such sexual conduct between males.... What furthermore emerges is that various forms of sexual conduct, which have been held to constitute an offense, if committed by a male person with another male person are not regarded as criminal, if committed by a male person with a female person....

...[T]he impugned laws differentiate ... between male and female and between gay men and heterosexual men.... [T]he differentiation ... in so far as it criminalises anal sex between men and men but not between men and women, [is] based on one of the enumerated grounds set out in Article 10(2).... [I]n so far as the impugned laws differentiate between heterosexual men and gay men, it is not based on one of the enumerated grounds in Article 10(2)....

We have no qualms with counsel's argument that Article 10 does not make express reference to 'sexual orientation' as a ground of discrimination.... We, however, hold the view that the matter is not as simple as counsel portrays it to be, because the fact that a ground is not listed in Article 10(2) is not a license for the law to discriminate on that ground....

A press release by Human Dignity Trust has further background on the decision. [Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]

Sunday, June 23, 2024

Illegal Hajj Pilgrims Contributes to Large Death Toll; Countries Take Actions Against Tour Companies and Pilgrims

According to CNN, Saudi Arabia says that 1301 people died while on the recently-completed Hajj where temperatures soared as high as 120 degrees Fahrenheit. 83% of those who died were on unauthorized trips that generally lacked air-conditioned busses and easy access to air-conditioned tents, food and water. According to BBC, nationals of Egypt, Indonesia, India, Pakistan, Malaysia, Jordan, Iran, Senegal, Sudan, Kurdistan and the United States were among the dead. The largest death toll seems to have been among Egyptians. Egypt announced today that it will revoke the licenses of 16 tourism companies who were involved in making illegal trip arrangements. According to VisaGuide, earlier this month Saudi Arabia announced that it would impose fines on citizens, expatriates and visitors who are caught in the area of the Hajj without a Hajj permit. Anyone caught transporting visitors who do not have Hajj permits will also be subject to fines and up to six months in prison. BBC says that mismanagement by Saudi authorities also contributed to the death toll.

DC Circuit: No Tax-Exempt Status for Church Promoting Psychedelics Unless It Has Received DEA or Judicial Exemption

In Iowaska Church of Healing v. Werfel, (DC Cir., June 21, 2024), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld the IRS's denial of tax-exempt status to a church whose practices revolved around the use of the psychedelic Ayahuasca. According to the court:

The Church’s purpose and mission revolve primarily around the consumption of Ayahuasca and embracing certain spiritual benefits that the Church’s members believe follow from Ayahuasca consumption.

The church contended that denial of tax-exempt status violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. However, the court concluded that the church lacked standing to assert a RFRA claim because it did not show sufficient economic injury, and it had waived other theories of standing.

Additionally, the church argued that it qualified for an exemption under Internal Revenue Code §501(c)(3) because it was organized for religious purposes. The court said, however, that tax-exempt status can be denied if its purposes or activities are illegal. Use of Ayahuasca in religious ceremonies is legal only if the Drug Enforcement Agency or a federal court has issued the church an exemption from the Controlled Substances Act. The church had received no exemption. The court rejected the church's argument that the Supreme Court's 2006 O Centro decision made the use of Ayahuasca presumptively legal for churches. the court concluded:

... [T]he IRS was correct in concluding that the Church’s Ayahuasca use foreclosed its eligibility for tax-exempt status.

Friday, June 21, 2024

EEOC Obtains Settlement for Failure to Accommodate Jewish Employee's Sabbath Observance

The EEOC today announced that two related automotive hauling and logistics companies have agreed to a $65,000 settlement (plus an injunction, reporting, monitoring and employee training requirements) to settle a Title VII suit charging them with religious and racial discrimination and retaliation. The EEOC said in part in its press release:

According to the EEOC’s lawsuit, Wheeler subjected Charles R. Lynch, III, a Torah Observant employee at its Sheffield, Ohio, location to discrimination when they revoked his religious accommodation that would have allowed him to continue having Saturdays off to observe the Sabbath. The company also exposed Lynch, who is Israeli, to unlawful harassment that included likening him to a terrorist and mocking his religious beliefs.

Louisiana Governor Signs "Given Name Act", School Chaplaincy and 10 Commandments Bills

On Wednesday, Louisiana Governor Jeff Landry signed a package of 18 separate bills which the Governor's office described as " bills that will transform our education system and bring back common sense in our classrooms." Among the bills were:

HB 121, the "Given Name Act" (full text). The new law prohibits any public or charter school policy "that provides for an inquiry of" the pronouns of a student or employee that are inconsistent with their biological sex, or "that provides for an inquiry of" their name that is not their legal name or a derivative of it. Teachers and other employees as well as other students may not be required to address a student by a name other than the student's legal name or a derivative of it, or to address a student using pronouns that are inconsistent with the person's biological sex. A parent may seek corrective action if a school employee refers to a student by other pronouns or by another name and may bring suit if corrective action is intentionally not taken. ADF issued a press release announcing the governor's signing of the bill.

HB 334 (full text) which permits public school boards to "employ or accept as a volunteer a certified chaplain to provide support, services, and programs for students, staff, and parents as assigned by a school board...." The new law also provides the chaplain with immunity from suit for actions or statements made under the program unless they were "maliciously, willfully, and deliberately intended to cause harm to harass or intimidate those seeking support, services and programs."

HB 71 that requires the posting of the Ten Commandments in every public school and college classroom. See this post for additional details.

Thursday, June 20, 2024

Court Says States Lack Standing to Challenge EEOC's New PWFA Abortion-Accommodation Rule [CORRECTED]

In States of Tennessee et. al. v. EEOC, (ED AR, June 17, 2024), an Arkansas federal district court held that 17 states that are plaintiffs in the case lack standing to challenge an EEOC Final Rule implementing the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act. At issue is the Rule's requirement that employers provide reasonable accommodation for employees' elective abortions. The court said in part:

[The states] press dual theories of injury -- sovereign harms and economic harms. The sovereign harms, the States say, are twofold: the rule will abridge their ability to regulate abortions and their interests in maintaining a pro-life message in dealing with state employees. The economic harms are the rule-related compliance costs the States say they will incur in response to potential enforcement....

The sovereign harms are not imminent because there is no credible threat of enforcement. ...

Even assuming an injury in fact, though, the States' sovereign-injury theory still fails for lack of causation and redressability. ...

Unlike in situations involving private employers, the EEOC cannot bring enforcement actions against state employers.... If an agreement isn't reached within thirty days after a charge is filed, the EEOC "shall take no further action and shall refer the case to" the Department of Justice"....

That leaves the alleged economic harms. The States don't claim any sunk costs. They only say that their compliance costs are imminent.. This economic-harm theory fails for two reasons.

First, the challenged costs-- those resulting only from rule-related compliance activities associated with illegal, elective abortions are neither concrete nor particularized. ...

Second, even assuming some concrete and particularized compliance costs related to illegal, elective abortions, these costs are not fairly traceable to any threat of enforcement....

Beyond the intense controversy surrounding abortion, there are no signs that this is a major questions case. Chevron's general rule applies.

CORRECTION: An earlier version of this post incorrectly said this was decided by a Tennessee federal district court.

A Louisiana federal district court has just reached the opposite conclusion (see prior posting.) [Thanks to Thomas Rutledge for the lead.]

Wednesday, June 19, 2024

Court Says EEOC Exceeded Its Authority in New Rules Under Pregnant Workers Fairness Act

In State of Louisiana v. EEOC, (WD LA, June 17, 2024), a Louisiana federal district court granted a preliminary injunction to the states of Louisiana and Mississippi, as well as to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and two Louisiana dioceses, postponing the effectiveness of new EEOC rules under the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act that require employers to accommodate employees' elective abortions. The court said in part:

If Congress had intended to mandate that employers accommodate elective abortions under the PWFA, it would have spoken clearly when enacting the statute, particularly given the enormous social, religious, and political importance of the abortion issue in our nation at this time (and, indeed, over the past 50 years). The Court is therefore not persuaded, on the record before it, that Congress could reasonably be understood to have granted the EEOC the authority to interpret the scope of the PWFA in a way that imposes a nationwide mandate on both public and private employers – irrespective of applicable abortion-related state laws enacted in the wake of Dobbs – to provide workplace accommodation for the elective abortions of employees.

In this sense, EEOC’s use of its regulatory power to insert the issue of abortion into a law designed to ensure healthy pregnancies for America’s working mothers squarely implicates the “major questions doctrine” as enunciated by the Supreme Court.... The major questions doctrine applies when an “agenc[y] assert[s] highly consequential power beyond what Congress could reasonably be understood to have granted.”...

Clearly, EEOC failed to include a broad religious exception in the Final Rule, and... EEOC’s interpretation of the PWFA religious exception – inasmuch as it mirrors the religious exception in Title VII, an antidiscrimination statute – does not square with the PWFA.

See prior related posting.

9th Circuit Reverses Dismissal of Suit Challenging Refusal to Grant Religious Exemptions to Vaccine Mandate

In Bacon v. Woodward, (9th Cir., June 18, 2024), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 decision reversed a Washington federal district court's dismissal of a suit by firefighters who claim that their free exercise rights were infringed by the city of Spokane refusing to accommodate their religious objections to the Covid vaccine. The majority said in part:

The Complaint alleges that, once unvaccinated firefighters were terminated, Spokane would turn to firefighters from neighboring fire departments to fill the gaps left by the firefighters’ departure even though those fire departments granted religious accommodations to their employees. In other words, Spokane implemented a vaccine policy from which it exempted certain firefighters based on a secular criterion—being a member of a neighboring department—while holding firefighters who objected to vaccination on purely religious grounds to a higher standard. The Free Exercise Clause prohibits governments from “treat[ing] comparable secular groups more favorably.”...

... [T]he Complaint alleges at least three less restrictive ways that “[t]he Mayor, the Fire Chief, and the City could accomplish its same compelling purpose.”...

Judge Hawkins dissented, saying that rational basis review should apply:

The complaint alleges that the City Defendants applied the Proclamation to their employees uniformly and treated medical and religious objectors the same. The complaint also alleges that other cities and entities adopted different policies and the City Defendants had pre-existing mutual aid agreements with some neighboring fire departments. The complaint then predicts that, as a result of those pre-existing mutual aid agreements, some unvaccinated firefighters from neighboring departments may operate within the City of Spokane. In my view, these allegations are insufficient to plausibly show that the Proclamation, as implemented by the City Defendants, is not neutral or generally applicable.

Tuesday, June 18, 2024

9th Circuit: Homeowner's Intrusive Christmas Display at Center of Fragmented Decision on Fair Housing Act Claims

In Morris v. West Hayden Estates First Addition Homeowners Association, Inc., (9th Cir., June 17, 2024), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals partially affirmed an Idaho federal district court's rejection of a jury's verdict against a Homeowner's Association charged by plaintiff with violating provisions of the Fair Housing Act. At issue was efforts by the Homeowners Association to prevent plaintiffs from purchasing a home in the subdivision because of plaintiffs' plans to put on at their home a multi-day Christmas festival with thousands of lights, a live nativity scene, costumed characters and a real camel, all in order to raise funds for charity. A letter from the Homeowners Association to plaintiffs included a sentence reading: "And finally, I am somewhat hesitant in bringing up the fact that some of our residents are non-Christians or of another faith and I don’t even want to think of the problems that could bring up."

Judge Berzon's opinion, reflecting the conclusion of a majority of the 3-judge panel, held that there was insufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict of religious discrimination in violation of §3604(b) the Fair Housing Act, saying in part:

... [T]o support a disparate treatment claim, plaintiffs must be able to point to some concrete adverse impact suffered as a result of the defendants’ behavior. The Morrises have pointed to no such harm.

Similarly she held that the evidence did not support claims of a violation of §3604(c), saying in part:

Viewing the letter as a whole, an ordinary reader would understand the Board to have indicated a preference, limitation, or discrimination based not on whether the prospective homeowners were themselves religious or nonreligious, Christian or atheist, but on whether the event they proposed to host once a year would disturb the neighbors, both by its size and raucousness and by offending non-Christians.

However, the court upheld the jury's conclusion that the Homeowners Association violated §3617 of the Act, saying in part:

The Board’s letter to the Morrises could reasonably be read to indicate that the program’s association with the Christian faith was one consideration in the Board’s opposition to the show....

These statements sufficiently support an inference by the jury that an anti-Christian purpose was at least a motivating factor in the Board’s conduct regarding the proposed Christmas event, independent of any other concerns also underlying that conduct. And given this permissible inference, there was sufficient evidence for the jury rationally to conclude that the Board interfered with the Morrises’ exercise of their right to purchase and enjoy their home at least in part because of their religious expression, and therefore violated § 3617 of the FHA.

Judge Berzon went on to conclude that on the facts of this case, the Homeowners Association was not liable for harassing conduct of subdivision residents.

Judge Tashima dissented in part, contending that the district court correctly granted judgment for the Homeowners Association on all claims because the Homeowners Association's concern was with the size and scale of the Morrises' holiday events, not with the Morrises' religion.

Judge Collins dissented in part saying that he would have affirmed the jury's finding of liability on all the Morrises' claims.

6 More States Fend Off Enforcement of Title IX Transgender Discrimination Rules

Four days after a Louisiana federal district court enjoined the Department of Education from enforcing its new sex-discrimination rules under Title IX against Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana and Idaho (see prior posting), a Kentucky federal district court issued an opinion barring enforcement against Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana, Virginia, and West Virginia which were plaintiffs in the case. DOE's new rules interpret the Title IX ban on sex discrimination to include discrimination against transgender students and faculty by institutions receiving federal financial assistance. Intervenors in the Kentucky case are an organization of Christian educators and a cisgender high school girl who objects to a transgender female who was on her Middle School track team. In State of Tennessee v. Cardona, (ED KY, June 17, 2024), the court in a 93-page opinion said in part:

The Department’s new definition of “discrimination on the basis of sex” wreaks havoc on Title IX and produces results that Congress could not have intended....

For purposes of Title IX, “sex” is unambiguous. Therefore, there is no “implicit delegation from Congress” to the Department to change or expand its meaning.... But even if the word were ambiguous, there would be significant reason for pause before assuming that Congress “had intended such an implicit delegation.”... Education is one of the most important functions of state and local governments and is an area where states “historically have been sovereign.” ... Accordingly, it is unlikely that Congress would have intended to delegate the authority to deviate from Title IX’s original purpose “in so cryptic a fashion.”...

The major questions doctrine assumes that Congress speaks clearly when it delegates to an agency the authority to make “decisions of vast economic and political significance.”...

The court also concluded that the new rules violate teachers' free speech rights, saying in part:

... [P]rivate and public institutions, as well as the students, faculty, and staff therein, will be forced to convey a particular message that may contradict moral or religious values.... For example, the Final Rule’s definition of harassment will likely compel “students and teachers to use ‘preferred’ rather than accurate pronouns.” ...

It is unclear how the Government’s articulated position can be seen as anything less than a tacit endorsement of a content-based heckler’s veto So long as the offended individuals complain with sufficient vigor, the refusal to abide by preferred pronouns can be deemed harassment and exposes a recipient of Federal funds to liability under Title IX....

The court also focused on parental rights and privacy rights, saying in part:

Although the Final Rule gestures at retaining a certain role for parents, it does not provide that parental opposition to their child’s selective gender identity requires schools to exempt that student from Title IX’s new mandate. To the contrary, it implies that Title IX could supersede parental preferences about a child’s treatment depending on the case.

... [D]espite society’s enduring recognition of biological differences between the sexes, as well as an individual’s basic right to bodily privacy, the Final Rule mandates that schools permit biological men into women’s intimate spaces, and women into men’s, within the educational environment based entirely on a person’s subjective gender identity. This result is not only impossible to square with Title IX but with the broader guarantee of education protection for all students.

ADF issued a press release announcing the decision.

Monday, June 17, 2024

White House Statements Extend Greetings On Eid al-Adha

Today is Eid al-Adha. Yesterday the White House posted a message from President Biden (full text) and a separate message from Vice-President Harris (full text) conveying holiday wishes to American Muslims and Muslims around the world. President Biden said in part:

This year, Eid al-Adha comes at a difficult time for many Muslims around the world. In Gaza, innocent civilians are suffering the horrors of the war between Hamas and Israel. Too many innocent people have been killed, including thousands of children. Families have fled their homes and seen their communities destroyed. Their pain is immense. My Administration is doing everything we can to bring an end to the war, free all hostages, deliver humanitarian relief, and work toward a future two-state solution, which I continue to believe is the only way to achieve a lasting peace for Palestinians and Israelis. And I strongly believe that the three-phase ceasefire proposal Israel has made to Hamas and that the U.N. Security Council has endorsed is the best way to end the violence in Gaza and ultimately end the war.

We’re also working to bring a peaceful resolution to the horrific conflict in Sudan. And we continue to advocate for the rights of other Muslim communities – including the Rohingya in Burma and the Uyghurs in the People’s Republic of China – facing persecution around the world. They, like all people, deserve to live free from violence and fear....

In the spirit of Eid al-Adha, let us all renew our commitment to values that unite us – compassion, empathy, and mutual respect – which are both American and Islamic. We look forward to welcoming home our American Muslim pilgrims who have earned the title “Al-Hajj.” To them and all Muslims across the globe, we wish you a blessed and meaningful holiday. Eid Mubarak!

The White House also posted a Fact Sheet (full text) setting out a lengthy list of steps it has taken this year to support the Muslim community.

Sunday, June 16, 2024

6th Circuit: DOE's Interpretive Letter on Title IX Should Have Gone Through Notice and Comment Procedure

In State of Tennessee v. Department of Education, (6th Cir., June 14, 2024), the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 decision held that a "Dear Educator" Letter and accompanying Fact Sheet from the Department of Education interpreting Title IX should be set aside because they amount to a legislative rule which did not go through the required notice and comment procedure. At issue are documents from DOE interpreting Title IX's ban on sex discrimination as covering discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity in education programs and activities that receive federal financial aid. The suit challenging these documents was brought by 20 states whose policies on separate sex programs are based on biological sex. In a footnote, the majority added:

We are aware that the Federal Register recently published a final rule amending the Department of Education’s Title IX regulations.... This new rule does not moot this case for two reasons. First, the final rule does not go into effect until August 2024. Second, the final rule does not cover everything that is covered by the documents, like housing and athletics.

Judge Boggs dissented, contending that plaintiffs lacked standing to bring the lawsuit, saying in part:

... [T]he Interpretation, “Dear Educator” Letter, and Fact Sheet ,,, are interpretative rules or policy statements, which are generally not final for purposes of judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act.....

I agree that the Documents are intended to have in terrorem effect on states and school districts such as the plaintiffs. They clearly can be interpreted as desiring a change in voluntary policies by recipients of federal funding. However, the same could be said of a major Presidential address or a Secretarial campaign targeting the States with speeches and public statements.

Saturday, June 15, 2024

Missouri Abortion Bans Do Not Violate State Constitution's Establishment Clauses

In Blackmon v. State of Missouri, (MO Cir. Ct., June 1, 2024), a Missouri trial court held that Missouri's various statutory provisions banning abortion do not violate the Establishment Clauses of the Missouri Constitution. Plaintiffs focused particularly on the mention of God in one of the statutory provisions and the legislative determination that life begins at conception in other provisions. The court concluded that the language mentioning God was similar to that in the Preamble to the Missouri Constitution, and that finding that language problematic would call into question whether the state Constitution's Preamble itself violates the Constitution. In rejecting plaintiffs' other challenges, the court said in part:

Large portions of the parties' arguments centered around comments made by legislators concerning their religious motivations for supporting the Challenged Provisions. However, the court finds that individual comments by legislators should be given little to no consideration when determining the constitutionality of the Challenged Provisions....

The court does not accept Petitioners' argument that the determination that life begins at conception is strictly a religious one. The plain language of the Challenged Provisions stating that life begins at conception do not do so in religious terms.... While the determination that life begins at conception may run counter to some religious beliefs, it is not itself necessarily a religious belief. As such, it does not prevent all men and women form worshiping Almighty God or not worshipping according to the dictates of their own consciences....

Americans United issued a press release responding to the decision.

Friday, June 14, 2024

DOE Enjoined from Applying New Title IX Rules Protecting Transgender Students In 4 States

In State of Louisiana v. U.S. Department of Education, (WD LA, June 13, 2024), a Louisiana federal district court enjoined the Department of Education from enforcing against four states new rules under Title IX which, among other things, bar discrimination by educational institutions against transgender students. (See prior posting). The new rules essentially apply the Supreme Court's interpretation of Title VII in the Bostock case to Title IX as well. The injunction applies to the states that were plaintiffs in the case-- Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana and Idaho. The court found that the new rules violate a number of statutory and constitutional provisions, saying in part:

In applying these statutory principles to Title IX, the Court finds that the term “sex discrimination” only included discrimination against biological males and females at the time of enactment. ,,,,

... [T]his Court finds that the application of Bostock and the Final Rule’s definition of “sex discrimination” contradict the purpose of Title IX.... Bostock does not apply because the purpose of Title VII to prohibit discrimination in hiring is different than Title IX’s purpose to protect biological women from discrimination in education. ...

Defendants thus seemingly use Bostock in an attempt to circumvent Congress and make major changes to the text, structure, and purpose of Title IX. Such changes are undoubtedly contrary to Title IX and contrary to the Law.....

Plaintiffs argue the Final Rule’s new broad “severe or pervasive” standard, which considers speech or other expressive conduct that “limits” a person’s ability to participate in a program to be discriminatory harassment, cannot be squared with Title IX....

While Title VII is vastly important, and the Court sees the merits in harassment standards set forth in those provisions, the Court cannot simply apply the same standard to federally funded educational institutions. The “harassment standard” created by the Final Rule is obviously contrary to Title IX, and Plaintiffs have made compelling arguments for how it can violate the free speech right of the First Amendment. ...

Because the Final Rule is a matter of both vast economic and political significance, the Court finds the enactment of this rule involves a major question pursuant to the major questions doctrine. Therefore, Congress must have given “clear statutory authorization” to the applicable agency. The Court finds that Congress did not give clear statutory authorization to this agency....

This Court finds the Final Rule violates the Spending Clause because it contains ambiguous conditions and because the Final Rule violates other constitutional provisions – free speech and free exercise. Because this Court has found the Final Rule violates the Spending Clause, there is no need to discuss the Plaintiffs’ argument that the Final Rule violates the non-delegation doctrine....

This Court further finds that the Final Rule is arbitrary and capricious because the DOE (1) failed to address relevant factors and (2) and failed to consider important aspects of the problem.

Court Upholds Firing of Nurse with Religious Objections to Flu Vaccine

In French v. Albany Medical Center, (ND NY, June 12, 2024), a New York federal district court upheld a hospital's firing of a nurse who refused for religious reasons to receive the flu vaccine. Plaintiff based her religious exemption claim on teachings of the "Israelite" religion which she adopted in 2018. Rejecting plaintiff's claim that the hospital violated Title VII by refusing to accommodate her religious beliefs, the court said in part:

[T]he Court concludes that Plaintiff's requested accommodation was not reasonable as it was a blanket exemption request which would have allowed her to continue interacting with staff and vulnerable patients while unvaccinated. This exemption would have caused an undue hardship on Defendant.

The court also rejected plaintiff's claims of disparate treatment and retaliation, saying in part:

Plaintiff has not presented any evidence that her religion was a motivating factor in Defendant's decision to suspend and terminate her.

Thursday, June 13, 2024

Florida Restrictions on Gender-Affirming Care Are Unconstitutional

In Doe v. Ladapo, (ND FL, June 11, 2024), a Florida federal district court in a 105-page opinion held unconstitutional many of the provisions in Florida law that ban gender-affirming care for minors and regulate it for adults. The court, analyzing equal protection and substantive due process challenges, said in part:

The elephant in the room should be noted at the outset. Gender identity is real. The record makes this clear….

For some, the denial that transgender identity is real—the opposition to transgender individuals and to their freedom to live their lives—is not different in kind or intensity from the animus that has attended racism and misogyny, less as time has passed but still today. And some transgender opponents invoke religion to support their position, just as some once invoked religion to support their racism or misogyny. Transgender opponents are of course free to hold their beliefs. But they are not free to discriminate against transgender individuals just for being transgender. In time, discrimination against transgender individuals will diminish, just as racism and misogyny have diminished. To paraphrase a civil-rights advocate from an earlier time, the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice…..

This record includes overwhelming evidence that the House sponsors and a significant number of other House members were motivated by anti-transgender animus. This is clear from their own animus-based statements and from the failure of other members to call them out…..

Banning gender-affirming care for minors across the board in all circumstances, rather than appropriately regulating such care, is not sufficiently related to the legitimate state interest in safeguarding health.

The ban on care for minors does not survive intermediate scrutiny….

[T]here are some, including the Governor and quite a few members of the Florida Legislature, who believe transgenderism—and thus gender-affirming care—is morally wrong. Enforcing this moral view is not, however, a legitimate state interest that can sustain this statute, even under rational-basis scrutiny….

[W]hether based on morals, religion, unmoored hatred, or anything else, prohibiting or impeding a person from conforming to the person’s gender identity rather than to the person’s natal sex is not a legitimate state interest…..

In addition to invalidating the ban on care for minors, the court also struck down various unnecessary limits placed on gender affirming care for adults.

The Hill reports on the decision and says that the state will appeal it.

Supreme Court Says Plaintiffs Lack Standing To Challenge FDA's Rules on Abortion Drugs

In Food and Drug Administration v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, (Sup. Ct., June 13, 2024), the U.S. Supreme court today held unanimously that plaintiffs who are challenging the FDA’s rules on prescribing and distributing the abortion drug mifepristone lack standing to bring the lawsuit. The Court said in part:

Here, the plaintiff doctors and medical associations are unregulated parties who seek to challenge FDA’s regulation of others. Specifically, FDA’s regulations apply to doctors prescribing mifepristone and to pregnant women taking mifepristone. But the plaintiff doctors and medical associations do not prescribe or use mifepristone. And FDA has not required the plaintiffs to do anything or to refrain from doing anything….

The plaintiffs have sincere legal, moral, ideological, and policy objections to elective abortion and to FDA’s relaxed regulation of mifepristone. But under Article III of the Constitution, those kinds of objections alone do not establish a justiciable case or controversy in federal court. Here, the plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that FDA’s relaxed regulatory requirements likely would cause them to suffer an injury in fact. For that reason, the federal courts are the wrong forum for addressing the plaintiffs’ concerns about FDA’s actions. The plaintiffs may present their concerns and objections to the President and FDA in the regulatory process, or to Congress and the President in the legislative process. And they may also express their views about abortion and mifepristone to fellow citizens, including in the political and electoral processes.

“No principle is more fundamental to the judiciary’s proper role in our system of government than the constitutional limitation of federal-court jurisdiction to actual cases or controversies.”

Justice Kavanaugh wrote the Court’s opinion, and Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion.

AP reports on the decision.