Posted on by L&R Forum

Around the Web

Here are some important law-and-religion news stories from around the web:

  •  In United States v. Village of Airmont, the Southern District of New York entered a consent decree settling a RLUIPA suit brought by the United States Justice Department alleging that the village engaged in religious discrimination by revising its zoning code to make it harder for Jews to worship in their homes. The consent decree increases the space in private homes for worship and removes restrictions that limited whom residents could invite into their homes to pray.
  • In Littlefield v. Weld County School District RE-5J, the District of Colorado refused to dismiss a retaliation claim in which a former high school principal sued the District’s Superintendent alleging that the Superintendent demoted him and subsequently failed to renew his contract because he was a conservative Christian male. He claimed that the Superintendent took action against him because of a motivational speech he had given to the Fellowship of Christian Athletes before school started, the retaliation for which violated his First Amendment rights. 
  • In Bella Health and Wellness v. Weiser, the District of Colorado issued a preliminary injunction barring the state from taking enforcement action–under a law enacted earlier this year–against an anti-abortion pregnancy center which offers and advertises its medication that reverses the effects of an abortion pill based on their religious beliefs. The court found that the law banning the abortion reversal medication is not neutral or generally applicable, thus violating Bella Health’s Free Exercise rights.
  • In Darren Patterson Christian Academy v. Roy, the District of Colorado issued a preliminary injunction barring Colorado from excluding a private Christian pre-school from its Universal Pre-School Program which requires schools in the program to agree that they will not discriminate on the basis of gender, race, ethnicity, religion, national origin, age, sexual orientation, gender identity, citizenship status, education, disability, socio-economic status, or any other identity when hiring employees. The court found that the rule likely interferes with the “ministerial exception,” which permits the school to hire key employees in accordance with its faith.
  • In Mays v. Cabell County Board of Education, the parties jointly dismissed their case before the Southern District of West Virginia after they settled a dispute surrounding an evangelical Christian revival assembly held by a high school during homeroom, which the plaintiffs alleged violated the Establishment Clause. Under the settlement agreement, the school board agreed to, inter alia, amend its policies on religion in schools and to require annual training for teachers regarding religion in schools.
  • In Drummond v. Oklahoma Statewide Virtual Charter School Board, the Attorney General of Oklahoma filed a Petition for Writ of Mandamus and Declaratory Judgment against the Oklahoma Statewide Virtual Charter School Board challenging its approval of the Catholic Archdiocese’s application for a state-funded online religious charter school. The Attorney General’s brief in support alleged that the approval violates the Establishment Clause and would require the state to directly fund other sectarian groups as well.
Posted on by L&R Forum

Legal Spirits 054: Is Classical Law Due for a Comeback?

Recently, many people have been talking about classical law–specifically whether classical law, with its focus on Christian universals and natural law concepts, can make a comeback in American law schools. Will classical law have traction in an academy dominated by positivism, law-and-economics, and critical theories? Would it be a good thing if it did? We’re joined on this episode by Steve Smith (San Diego) and Julia Mahoney (UVA), who recently debated the question in an online forum, here and here. Sparks fly (just kidding–it’s all among friends, as the above picture suggests). Listen in!

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: RSS

Posted on by L&R Forum

Around the Web

Here are some important law-and-religion news stories from around the web:

  • In United States v. Harris, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals deliberated on whether a defendant, charged with threatening a federal judge and declared incompetent for trial, could be involuntarily medicated despite his religious objections as a Jehovah’s Witness. The court recognized the importance of religious liberty in this context, concluding that it could be considered a “special circumstance” in deciding the permissibility of involuntary medication, according to Supreme Court precedent in Sell v. United States.
  • In Foshee v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP, a Maryland federal court dismissed a religious discrimination claim under Title VII by two employees seeking a religious exemption from a COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The court found that their objections, based on what plaintiffs assert was guidance from God or the Holy Spirit and personal concerns about the vaccine, were not strictly religious but intertwined with secular reasons, thus not qualifying for a religious exemption. The court emphasized that their beliefs, being “not subject to any principled limitation in…scope,” amounted to an unverifiable “blanket privilege” not strictly religious in nature.
  • In Hilsenrath v. School District of the Chathams, a New Jersey court reaffirmed its prior decision stating that a 7th grade curriculum on Islam did not violate the Establishment Clause. The court, after a reconsideration prompted by the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, emphasized that the educational materials were not coercively promoting religious establishments forbidden by the First Amendment, leading to a ruling in favor of the school board.
  • In Gospel Light Mennonite Church Medical Aid Plan v. New Mexico Office of the Superintendent of Insurance, a New Mexico federal district court declined to order an injunction that would prevent the state’s insurance superintendent from regulating Health Care Sharing Ministries (HCSMs), cost-sharing organizations intended to cut medical expenses for members. The plaintiffs argued that an official press release, which warned consumers about HCSMs and declared their plans unauthorized insurance products, showed a form of official disapproval of their religious beliefs. However, the court disagreed, and using rational basis review, found that state laws requiring compliance with the Insurance Code were justified and evinced a legitimate governmental concern.
  • In The Matter of James Hogue v. Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York, the New York Supreme Court Appellate Division upheld the denial of Hogue’s request for a religious exemption from the COVID-19 vaccination mandate for New York City Department of Education employees. It ruled that Hogue failed to prove his objection was based on sincere religious beliefs and that granting an exemption would impose undue hardship on the Department of Education. The court dismissed Hogue’s other arguments, including a lack of cooperative dialogue and issues of timeliness in the appeal process.
  • In Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty v. Union of India, India’s Supreme Court declined to recognize same-sex marriages, aligning with government and religious leaders who opposed the petitions. The Court concurred that the power to legislate on marriage resides with the parliament, not the judiciary. The petitioners had advocated for the modification of the Special Marriage Act to be more inclusive by using the term “spouse” instead of specifying gender. Despite refusing to legalize same-sex marriages, the Court did urge the government to explore and implement extended rights and privileges for same-sex couples, suggesting the formation of a committee to examine this prospect.
Posted on by L&R Forum

Around the Web

Here are some important law-and-religion news stories from around the web:

  • A petition for certiorari was filed with the U.S. Supreme Court in Reilly v. City of Harrisburg. Plaintiffs contend that a city ordinance restricting pro-life volunteers from offering one-on-one counseling near a Planned Parenthood facility violates the First Amendment by allowing certain speech within the buffer zone while banning pro-life speech.
  • In Brox v. Woods Hole, Martha’s Vineyard and Nantucket Steamship Authority, the 1st Circuit affirmed in part and vacated in part a trial court’s decision regarding religious vaccine exemptions due to the concern that a COVID-19 vaccine mandate policy would treat religious exemptions differently from medical exemptions.
  • The Department of Justice announced that a grand jury indicted an Indiana man for making death threats against the Anti-Defamation League because of the members’ religion. If convicted on all counts, the defendant could face a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison and a fine of up to $250,000.
  • A settlement has been reached between the federal government and Native American tribes in Oregon over the destruction of a sacred site near Mount Hood. The settlement includes measures to protect the site with a tree or plant barrier, provide access to a quarry for ceremonial and cultural purposes, and allow the plaintiffs to rebuild a stone altar at the location.
  • The Kansas Attorney General wrote a letter to the 10th Circuit requesting an end to the practice of using preferred pronouns for counsel, parties, and witnesses. He argues that the practice infringes on First Amendment rights, may conflict with religious beliefs, and may reveal bias on gender identity issues in ongoing legal matters.
  • California Governor Gavin Newsom vetoed Senate Bill 403, which aimed to ban caste-based discrimination, citing existing laws that already prohibit discrimination based on factors such as race, color, religion, ancestry, and national origin. Critics of the bill argued that it broadly paints the Hindu and South Asian communities as discriminatory.
Posted on by L&R Forum

Around the Web

Here are some important law-and-religion news stories from around the web:

  • In Thai Meditation Association of Alabama, Inc. v. City of Mobile, Alabama, the Eleventh Circuit U.S. partly reversed summary judgments entered in favor of the city of Mobile after Mobile denied zoning approval for a Buddhist organization to use a house in a residential district for religious purposes. The court found that neither party was entitled to summary judgment under RLUIPA; the district court correctly dismissed plaintiff’s Free Exercise claim because the zoning approval process is neutral and generally applicable; and the Buddhist organization was entitled to an injunction under the Alabama Religious Freedom Amendment to the state constitution.
  • A federal district court in South Carolina rejected two Establishment Clause challenges regarding waivers from federal anti-discrimination requirements that were granted to faith-based child placement agencies in Rogers v. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services and Madonna v. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. The plaintiffs in those cases, a same-sex couple and a woman who did not share the foster agency’s evangelical beliefs, applied to be foster parents, but were denied because the child placement agencies worked only with clients who shared their religious beliefs. 
  • in Johnson v. Cody-Kilgore Unified School District, a federal district court in Nebraska entered a consent decree in a case between Native American parents, who practice the Lakota religion, and a school district, after the student’s hair was cut as part of a lice check. The consent decree stated that the school district will not cut any student’s hair for any reason without prior consent from the parent or guardian.
  • In Tosone v. Way, plaintiff, who wishes to run for public office, filed suit in federal district court New Jersey alleging that he is unable as a matter of conscience to sign an oath that all candidates are required to sign. The oath ends with “so help me God,” which plaintiff argues violates the Free Speech, Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses.
  • The Colorado Supreme Court agreed to hear the case of Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Scardina after the Colorado Court of Appeals decided that Jack Phillips, the owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, would have to create cakes even though he did not believe with the message portrayed by the cakes. After the United States Supreme Court announced it would hear Phillips’ first case, in 2018, an activist lawyer called Phillips and requested that he make two cakes: one depicting Satan smoking marijuana and another celebrating a gender transition, and after Phillips refused, the lawyer filed the current suit.
  • The EEOC announced that it filed a Title VII suit against the restaurant chain Chipotle, arguing that a manager at a Kansas location harassed a teenage employee for wearing a hijab. The EEOC further alleges that although the teen continuously complained, Chipotle failure to take action, which led to the manager “forcibly removing part of the teen’s hijab.”
Posted on by L&R Forum

Legal Spirits 053: Tom Berg on Religious Liberty in a Polarized Age

A protester calling for justice for Elijah McClain clashes with a member of the Proud Boys in Denver, Colorado, U.S., November 21, 2020. REUTERS/Kevin Mohatt

Welcome back! In our first Legal Spirits episode of the academic year, we interview our friend, law professor Tom Berg (University of St. Thomas) about his new book, Religious Liberty in a Polarized Age. We explore how fights about religious liberty both reflect and contribute to the deep social division in the US today–but also how a commitment to religious liberty might help ease that division. Listen in!

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: RSS

Posted on by L&R Forum

Around the Web

Here are some important law-and-religion news stories from around the web:

  • The 4th Circuit heard oral argument in Billard v. Charlotte Catholic High School to determine whether a Catholic high school violated Title VII by firing a drama teacher for entering a same-sex marriage. While the district court sided with the teacher, during the appeal, judges inquired about the ministerial exception doctrine, even though the school had not raised it as a defense.
  • In Gardner-Alfred v. Federal Reserve Bank of New York, a New York federal district court dismissed claims by two FRB employees who were denied religious exemptions from the bank’s COVID vaccine mandate. The court concluded neither employee showed objections based on sincere religious beliefs. The court noted one employee’s ties to the Temple of Healing Spirit seemed only to seek a vaccination exemption and another’s actions and associations were inconsistent with her claimed religious views.
  • In Huck v. United States, a Utah federal court dismissed challenges to Congress’ 2019 designation of public lands in Utah as wilderness areas, resulting in stricter usage rules like motor vehicle bans. Plaintiffs claimed the designation favored Earth-religions and their views on the ‘sacredness’ of lands, violating the Establishment Clause. The court emphasized historical precedent supporting federal authority over land designations and did not find evidence of religious coercion or bias against specific groups.
  • In Kloosterman v. Metropolitan Hospital, a Michigan federal district court declined to dismiss a physician assistant’s religious discrimination claims against a hospital that fired her for not referring gender transitioning patients based on religious beliefs. The plaintiff, citing Christian beliefs, argued that she was against “eras[ing] or alter[ing] one’s sex.” The court found she plausibly argued that her termination was due to religious beliefs but dismissed her free speech claim.
  • Suit was filed in Rooks v. Peoria Unified School District against the Arizona school board to defend a plaintiff’s use of Scripture during Board meeting comments. Legal counsel to the Board deemed the practice a violation of the Establishment Clause.
  • Israel’s Supreme Court ordered the government to clarify its inaction against Jerusalem’s Sephardi Chief Rabbi Shlomo Amar over derogatory remarks about Reform Judaism, the LGBTQ community, and the Women of the Wall Movement. Amar attributed earthquakes to the LGBTQ community and labeled Reform Jews as “evil people.” The petitioners claim they’ve sought government action 16 times in four years without response.
Posted on by L&R Forum

Around the Web

Here are some important law-and-religion news stories from around the web:

  • In López Prater v. Trustees of Hamline University, a federal district court in Minnesota refused to dismiss plaintiff’s claim that her university employer discriminated against her based on religion. Plaintiff, a professor who was disciplined for showing depictions of the Prophet Muhammad in an art class, argues that she would not have been disciplined if she had been a Muslim.
  • Twelve Muslim plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against 29 federal officials in a Massachusetts district court, alleging that the officials violated their federal civil rights by adding them to a terrorist watchlist under vague criteria, Plaintifs claim they were unaware of their inclusion and had no recourse to challenge or comprehend the officials’ decision.
  • In Mirabelli v. Olson, the Southern District of California issued a preliminary injunction to prevent adverse employment action by the Escondido Union School District against two teachers who objected on religious grounds to the district’s policy of maintaining faculty confidentiality when communicating with parents about a student’s change in gender identity. The court found that the district’s policy conflicted with the teachers’ sincere religious beliefs in accurate communication with parents and that the district’s non-disclosure to parents policy was not narrowly tailored and could potentially cause more harm than good.
  • Several Jewish groups have filed a lawsuit against the Santa Ana Unified School District Board of Education, alleging that the district’s ethnic studies curriculum includes antisemitic and anti-Israel content, and that the district violated the “Brown Act” by providing inadequate notice and permitting harassment during school board meetings. At one meeting, attendees reportedly made antisemitic remarks, threatened Jews and Israelis, and displayed hostility toward Jewish participants.
  • In 2022, a Kentucky district court found that Kim Davis, the Rowan County Clerk, violated the constitutional rights of two same-sex couples by refusing to issue them marriage licenses due to religious reasons, and a jury was tasked with determining damages. Recently, in separate trials, the jury in the case of Yates v. Davis awarded zero damages, while in the second case, Emold v. Davis, the jury granted damages totaling $100,000.
  • In Davis v. Wigen, the 3rd Circuit overturned a district court’s dismissal of a RFRA claim filed by a former federal inmate and his fiancée against a private prison for denying their marriage request. The court ruled that the denials, while not explicitly forcing them to violate their faith, placed a significant burden on their religious beliefs, highlighting that government actions closely related to religious practices can be considered a substantial impediment under RFRA.
Posted on by L&R Forum

Around the Web

Here are some important law-and-religion news stories from around the web:

  • In Fellowship of Christian Athletes v. San Jose Unified School District Board of Education, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, sitting en banc, held that Fellowship of Christian Athletes (FCA) is entitled to a preliminary injunction requiring the school district to restore recognition to FCA chapters as student clubs. The school district revoked FCA’s recognition as a club because FCA requires its officers to affirm a Statement of Faith and abide by a sexual purity policy, which the 9th Circuit said violated the club’s Free Exercise and Free Speech rights.
  • In Catholic Healthcare International, Inc. v. Genoa Charter Township, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals ordered a Michigan federal district court to enter a preliminary injunction that will allow a Catholic healthcare organization to restore a Stations of the Cross prayer trail as well as a stone altar and mural after Genoa Township zoning officials insisted that the Prayer Trail should be treated as a church for zoning purposes. Plaintiffs argued that the zoning ordinance as applied to them violates RLUIPA, and the 6th Circuit agreed.
  • In Damiano v. Grants Pass School District, two Oregon educators filed their opening brief in the 9th Circuit after a federal district court ruled against them. The educators were terminated after they voiced their opinions online about gender identity education policy solutions, rooted in their religious beliefs, which they claim violated their Free Exercise and Free Speech rights.
  • In Virden v. Crawford County, Arkansas, the Western District of Arkansas denied plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction after the Crawford County Library System implemented a policy removing books with LGBTQ+ themes from the children’s sections of the libraries. Plaintiffs claim this violates the Establishment Clause because the policy was implemented due to pressure from religious objectors. However, the court left open the possibility of a narrower injunction later on. 
  • In The Catholic Store, Inc. v. City of Jacksonville, the Middle District of Florida entered a consent decree which concluded that The Catholic Store, a privately owned Catholic book store in Jacksonville, is exempt from Jacksonville’s public accommodations law. The order exempts the bookstore from the non-discrimination provisions relating to sexual orientation and gender identity.
  •  France’s Council of State upheld the government’s ban on Muslim girls wearing the abaya at school. The court found that the ban did not constitute a serious interference with private life, freedom of worship, or the right to education.
Posted on by L&R Forum

Around the Web

Here are some important law-and-religion news stories from around the web:

  • In Hindu American Foundation, Inc. v. Kish, a California federal district court ruled that the Hindu American Foundation lacks standing to challenge the California Civil Rights Department’s stance on caste discrimination being a part of Hindu teachings. The court found the organization’s complaint vague and insufficient in demonstrating whom it represented. The complaint broadly claimed to defend the rights of “all Hindu Americans” and “all Americans of faith.”
  • A Texas federal court imposed sanctions on Southwest Airlines for not adhering to a previous order which found the Airline guilty of violating Title VII by firing an employee who shared her religious views on social media. The court required three of the airline’s lawyers to attend religious liberty training by Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), a Christian legal non-profit. In response to Southwest’s objection to training with an “ideological organization,” the court emphasized ADF’s track record in winning Supreme Court cases on religious liberties.
  • In Union Gospel Mission of Yakima, Wash. v. Ferguson, a Washington federal district court dismissed, on federalism grounds, the plaintiff’s challenge to the the Washington Supreme Court’s interpretation of the state’s ministerial exception doctrine. The federal court saw the plaintiff’s challenge as an indirect attempt to overturn a prior state court decision in violation of the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine.
  • In Tilsen v. Benson, the Connecticut Supreme Court declined to a ketubah, or Jewish marriage contract, in an alimony decision. The court determined that the contract was vague and that enforcing it could breach the establishment clause. The court noted that parties could craft clear agreements that respect religious beliefs without causing legal conflicts.
  • In David v. South Congregational Church, a Massachusetts court dismissed a member’s defamation lawsuit against a church and its leaders. The member was removed from church committees over alleged unethical financial conduct. The court declined to intervene in church disciplinary decisions.
  • Three musicians have filed a lawsuit against the North Carolina Symphony alleging religious discrimination following their termination for refusing the Symphony’s 2021 COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The plaintiffs claim the Symphony violated the First Amendment and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by mandating the vaccine despite their religious objections. The Symphony, which reversed its vaccine mandate in August but did not reinstate the musicians, denies any wrongdoing and insists its actions were in line with health guidelines and the policies of other symphonies.