Posted on by Mark Movsesian

New Mattone Center Video: Everson v. Board of Education

The Mattone Center has posted a new video on our YouTube channel about Everson v. Board of Education (1947), one of the Supreme Court’s landmark Establishment Clause cases. In Everson, the Court upheld a New Jersey program that reimbursed parents for transportation costs to parochial as well as public schools. Justice Black’s majority opinion famously explores several arguments about the meaning of the Establishment Clause and has influenced the Court’s jurisprudence ever since.

In our new video, we explain the facts of the case, the Court’s reasoning, and why Everson remains such a touchstone in the law of church and state.

We hope you’ll take a look—and please consider subscribing to the Center’s channel for more explainers on law-and-religion cases and issues.

Posted on by Mark Movsesian

Video of Center Panel on the Catholic Charter School Case

A video of our panel this month in the Catholic Charter School case, Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board v. Drummond, set for argument at SCOTUS in a couple of weeks, is now available on the Mattone Center’s YouTube channel. Thanks again for Professors Michael Helfand (Pepperdine) and Michael Moreland (Villanova) for participating. Link is below:

Posted on by L&R Forum

Around the Web

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

  • The Justice Department recently reached a settlement with a township in Pennsylvania on behalf of group of Old-Order Amish residents who were penalized for failing to connect to the town’s sewage system and placing permanent outhouses on their property. The Justice Department brought suit under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), and the settlement requires the Township to exempt certain households, as well as forgive any outstanding liens or fines arising from the violations.
  • President Trump issued an executive order intended to combat antisemitism, reaffirming Executive Order 13899 issued during his prior administration.
  • A court in Ukraine recently suspended the evictions of Orthodox monks from the Kiev Caves Lavra Monestary, among the most famous of Orthodox monasteries in Ukraine and spiritually significant to Orthodox Ukrainians and Russians. The monastery has been state-owned since the Soviet era, and the Brotherhood’s contract with the State of Ukraine was terminated as part of a general trend of discrimination against the Ukrainian Orthodox Church/Moscow Patriarchate, partially in response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
  • In Little v. Los Angeles County Fire Department, a California federal district court allowed an Evangelical Christian lifeguard’s free exercise and Title VII claims to proceed in a case seeking a religious accommodation to displaying a pride flag on his lifeguard stand.
  • US Catholic Bishops have petitioned believers to urge their members of Congress to resume foreign aid programs recently suspended by the Trump administration.
Posted on by L&R Forum · 1 Comment

Around the Web

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

  • In Roake v. Brumley, a Louisiana federal district court found that Louisiana violated the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses when it passed a law that required a copy of the Ten Commandments to be posted in every public school classroom in the state. The court reasoned that the Louisiana statute burdened plaintiffs’ sincere religious practices and beliefs and was not neutral toward religion.
  • Oklahoma Governor Kevin Stitt announced the launch of the Oklahoma Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. The new division of state government is meant to act as a point of contact for faith-based and nonprofit organizations, facilitating connections with state services, including creating a repository of state agency programs and recognizing impactful faith-based organizations through partnerships with state agencies.
  • Justin Welby, the Archbishop of Canterbury, announced he would resign after a report revealed that he failed to launch a proper investigation into claims of widespread abuse of boys and young men that occurred decades ago at Christian summer camps.
  • In Bird v DP (a pseudonym), the High Court of Australia found that a Catholic diocese was not vicariously liable for sexual abuse of a young child by a priest from a parish church. The High Court determined that the priest was not employed by the Diocese or engaged by the Diocese as an independent contractor and, therefore, was not an agent of the Diocese.
Posted on by L&R Forum

Legal Spirits 061: Is a Catholic Charter School Constitutional?

Source: KFOR

Last month, in a much-watched case, the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled that a new Catholic charter school, St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School, violates the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause–and, alternatively, that denying St. Isidore a charter does not violate the school’s rights under the Free Exercise Clause. In this episode, Center Director Mark Movsesian and Notre Dame Law Professor Richard Garnett debate whether the Oklahoma court got the decision right. Is a Catholic charter school constitutional? And are religiously affiliated charter schools a good idea in the first place? Listen in!

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: RSS

Posted on by L&R Forum

Around the Web

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

  • In Farrakhan v. Anti-Defamation League, a New York federal district court dismissed a complaint alleging that the Anti-Defamation League violated Farrakhan’s First Amendment Rights by repeatedly referring to him and his organization as antisemitic. In the dismissal, the Court reasoned that Farrakhan failed to allege that his injuries were concrete or traceable to the ADL.
  • The City of New York has agreed to settle a class action damage claim brought by Muslim women protesting a policy that required wearers of hijabs to remove them when sitting for arrest photos. The NYPD agreed to change the policy in an earlier settlement in 2020, and the settlement amounts to $17.5 million.
  • In Citizens United to Protect Our Neighborhoods v. Village of Chestnut Ridge, New York, the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a complaint challenging a new zoning law that allowed places of worship to be more easily built, claiming that the law improperly promoted religion. The Court reasoned that the plaintiffs lacked standing, suffering no cognizable harm apart from tax dollars passing the law.
  • In United States v. Safehouse, a Pennsylvania district court held that the prosecution of a nonprofit providing safe injection sites for drug users did not violate the Free Exercise Clause. Despite the leaders of the nonprofit claiming religious motivation, the entity itself has no religious affiliation, and the Court therefore held that the religious inspiration of its leaders doesn’t protect it against prosecution for the violation of a federal statute criminalizing the maintenance of drug-involved premises.
  • In Ocean Grove, New Jersey, the NJ State Department for Environmental Protection ordered the Christian nonprofit owners of the waterfront area to allow beach access to the public on Sunday mornings or face up to $25,000 in fines per day. State officials claim that the closure violates the Coastal Area Facilities Review Act, which itself is based on the public-trust doctrine, outlining that certain natural goods like waterfront areas are to be reserved for public use.
Posted on by L&R Forum

Around the Web

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

  • The Supreme Court of the United States denied certiorari in Missouri Department of Corrections v. Finney, a case in which a Missouri state appellate court upheld a trial court’s striking of three potential jurors who were disqualified because of their religious belief that homosexuality is a sin. The underlying suit against the Department of Corrections involved sex discrimination and hostile work environment claims by a lesbian employee.
  •  In United States v. Rourke, the 9th Circuit held that it was “plain error” for a district court to impose a condition to a defendant’s supervised release that the defendant live at and participate in a 12-step rehabilitation program, which asks the participant to call on a spiritual power to overcome addiction problems. The court found that without a non-religious alternative, the supervised release violates the Establishment Clause.
  • In Prodan v. Legacy Health, a federal district court in Oregon found that two former health care workers who challenged their employer’s denial of a request for a religious exemption from a Covid vaccine requirement made out a prima facie case of religious discrimination in the workplace under Title VII.
  • In Annunciation House, Inc. v. Paxton, a Catholic agency serving migrants and refugees in Texas filed suit against the Texas Attorney General, arguing that his demand for certain records violated the agency’s religious freedom. A Texas state court granted a TRO barring the Attorney General from examining the records.
  • In Tennessee, Governor Bill Lee signed a bill which says, in relevant part, “[a] person shall not be required to solemnize a marriage.” The original bill would have allowed refusals by those who objected to the solemnization on religious belief.
  • The Utah legislature passed a bill that prohibits the government from imposing substantial burdens on the free exercise of religion unless it can show that it had a compelling interest to do so, and it used the least restrictive means to further that interest.
Posted on by L&R Forum

Around the Web

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

  •  In Kristofersdottir v. CVS Health Corp., a nurse-practitioner filed a complaint in the Southern District of Florida alleging that CVS revoked all religious accommodations that allowed employees to refuse to prescribe contraceptives, which is the accommodation plaintiff had for over 7 years. 
  • In Dad’s Place of Bryan, Ohio v. City of Bryan, a Christian church filed suit in the Northern District of Ohio, alleging that the city has violated the First Amendment’s Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses, as well as RLUIPA, by charging the church’s pastor with 18 criminal counts for allowing homeless persons to reside on the property for an extended amount of time in violation of city zoning rules.
  • In Uzomechina v. Episcopal Diocese of New Jersey, the District of New Jersey dismissed racial discrimination and wrongful discharge claims brought by a priest who was fired after he was allegedly falsely accused of financial and sexual misconduct. However, the court allowed the priest’s defamation claim, which he alleges that the Diocese passed on false information about him to his subsequent employer, to proceed.
  •  In Carter v. Virginia Real Estate Board,  a Virginia trial court held unconstitutional a portion of Virginia’s Fair Housing Law that said: “use of words or symbols associated with a particular religion . . . shall be prima facie evidence of an illegal preference under this chapter that shall not be overcome by a general disclaimer.” A realtor included references to Jesus and a Bible verse in her email signature and was investigated, but the court invalidated the statute, saying the presumption of animus was unconstitutional.
  • A Michigan hospital agreed to pay a $50,000 settlement in a Title VII discrimination lawsuit alleging that the hospital had refused to hire an employee who had objected on religious grounds to receiving a flu shot. The settlement prohibits the hospital from refusing to hire applicants because of their sincerely held religious beliefs opposing such a vaccine mandate.
  • In India, Prime Minister Narendra Modi dedicated the Ram Mandir, a Hindu Temple located on a contested holy site once home to a 16th-century mosque. Critics allege that the temple represents an effort by Modi to elevate the Hindu religion in India’s public life.
Posted on by L&R Forum

Around the Web

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

  • In Carrero v. City of Chicago, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois allowed a city employee, who was placed on unpaid leave for refusing to comply with the city’s Covid vaccine mandate because of religious objections, to move ahead with claims under the Free Exercise Clause and the Illinois Religious Freedom Restoration Act.  The employee was denied an exemption from the mandate because he did not bring forth a signed affirmation of belief from his pastor, who had a policy of not signing the forms.
  • In Chaudhry v. Community Unit School District 300 Board of Education, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois dismissed Establishment Clause, Due Process and Equal Protection claims by Muslim parents against an Illinois school board where a teacher allegedly convinced their daughter to convert to Christianity. The court found that under Monell, a school board cannot be held liable under the theory of respondeat superior.
  • In Craven v. Shriners Hospital for Children, the United States District Court for the District of Oregon dismissed a Title VII religious discrimination claim brought by a hospital maintenance technician who was fired after he was denied a religious exemption from the employer’s Covid vaccine mandate because the technician had not adequately alleged that his objections to the vaccine were religious in nature.
  • In Markley v. Liberty University, Inc., a Virginia state trial court held that the ministerial exception doctrine does not prevent a former Administrative Dean from suing Liberty University, a Christian institution, where the school terminated his employment because he engaged in whistleblower activities. The court found that the plaintiff was not a “minister” because his responsibilities did not include leading religious organizations or worship services, nor did they include serving as a minister of the faith.
  • The EEOC announced that Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta will pay $45,000 in damages to a former maintenance employee who brought a Title VII suit after the employee was denied a religious exemption from the healthcare system’s flu vaccine requirement. Under the settlement, Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta agreed to modify its religious exemption policy to presume eligibility for employees who work away from patients and other staff.
  • In another Title VII suit, the EEOC announced that Triple Canopy, Inc. will pay $110,759 in damages to an employee who was denied a religious accommodation of his Christian belief that men must have beards after the employee was unable to provide support for the validity of his beliefs. The company also agreed, in the settlement, to institute a new religious accommodation policy.
Posted on by Mark Movsesian

Washington and Jefferson: Pals?

In our most recent Legal Spirits episode on the meaning of the Establishment Clause, Marc and I discuss the differing views of George Washington, who argued that religion was an essential basis for public morality, and Thomas Jefferson, who originated the phrase “separation of church and state.” This wasn’t the only disagreement these two Framers, and sometime friends, had. A forthcoming book from Harvard, A Revolutionary Friendship: Washington, Jefferson, and the American Republic, discusses these disagreements and makes an important point. In the Framers’ generation, as in ours, Americans disagreed on the meaning and application of fundamental principles. Somehow, they were able to compromise–at least much of the time. The author is historian Francis Cogliano (University of Edinburgh). Here’s the description from the Harvard website:

The first full account of the relationship between George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, countering the legend of their enmity while drawing vital historical lessons from the differences that arose between them.

Martha Washington’s worst memory was the death of her husband. Her second worst was Thomas Jefferson’s awkward visit to pay his respects subsequently. Indeed, by the time George Washington had died in 1799, the two founders were estranged. But that estrangement has obscured the fact that for most of their thirty-year acquaintance they enjoyed a productive relationship. Precisely because they shared so much, their disagreements have something important to teach us.

In constitutional design, for instance: Whereas Washington believed in the rule of traditional elites like the Virginia gentry, Jefferson preferred what we would call a meritocratic approach, by which elites would be elected on the basis of education and skills. And while Washington emphasized a need for strong central government, Jefferson favored diffusion of power across the states. Still, as Francis Cogliano argues, common convictions equally defined their relationship: a passion for American independence and republican government, as well as a commitment to westward expansion and the power of commerce. They also both evolved a skeptical view of slavery, eventually growing to question the institution, even as they took only limited steps to abolish it.

What remains fascinating is that the differences between the two statesmen mirrored key political fissures of the early United States, as the unity of revolutionary zeal gave way to competing visions for the new nation. A Revolutionary Friendship brilliantly captures the dramatic, challenging, and poignant reality that there was no single founding ideal—only compromise between friends and sometime rivals.