Posted on by L&R Forum

Around the Web

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

  • In Frankel v. Regents of the University of California, the federal government and University of California reached a settlement regarding Anti-Semitism charges.
  • In Jordan v. Rubio, a D.C. federal district court found that the State Department violated RFRA by denying the plaintiff a passport when she refused to provide a birth certificate for religious reasons.
  • In United States v. Safehouse, the 3rd Circuit held that RFRA and the Free Exercise clause apply to corporate entities that exercise religion. 
  • In Kane v. City of New York, petition for certiorari was filed where the 2nd Circuit affirmed denial of religious exemptions for Covid vaccine mandates on public school staff. 
  • Two state tuition assistance programs in Virginia have denied grants to various students pursuing educational programs based on religious training.
  • In Washington, a federal court blocked a law that would require priests to face jail time or break the “seal of confession” regarding reports of abuse. 
Posted on by L&R Forum

Legal Spirits 068: Religion at the Court: October Term 2024 Recap

In this episode of Legal Spirits, we review the Supreme Court’s major religion cases from the October 2024 Term. From religious charter schools to religious exemptions to parental rights in public education, the Court addressed long-standing issues—and, in one case, made a dramatic move. Join Center Director Mark Movsesian and guest John McGinnis as they unpack the implications of Drummond, Catholic Charities Bureau, and Mahmoud v. Taylor.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: RSS

Posted on by Mark Movsesian

New Paper at SSRN: “Status, Conduct, Belief, and Message”

And, continuing the wedding vendor theme from the last post, my draft paper on the wedding vendor cases, “Status, Conduct, Belief, and Message,” is now available for downloading on the SSRN site. The paper will appear in a forthcoming symposium edition of the Chicago-Kent Law Review. Comments welcome! Here’s the abstract:

This essay explores the constitutional and cultural tensions underlying the “wedding vendor cases,” in which small business owners decline from religious conviction to provide services for same-sex weddings. Litigants often invoke conceptual distinctions among status, conduct, belief, and message, but these distinctions are too indeterminate to resolve the cases in a principled way. The ultimate question is whether LGBT rights should override religious and expressive freedoms in the marketplace. In two recent wedding vendor cases, Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission and 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, the Court has avoided addressing this fundamental question directly. Instead, the Court has issued narrow rulings based on specific facts and party stipulations, thereby limiting the broader implications of its decisions. While this strategy sacrifices doctrinal clarity and leaves lower courts grappling with uncertainty, it also helps avoid exacerbating cultural polarization on an intensely divisive issue. In the current political climate, incremental case-by-case adjudication—a sort of “passive virtues” approach—may represent a prudent judicial strategy, even if it leaves both sides of the cultural divide dissatisfied.

Posted on by L&R Forum

Around the Web

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

  • In Anchor Stone Christian Church v. City of Santa Ana, a federal district court in California issued an injunction allowing a church to renovate an office building it acquired. The court held that the city’s denial of a conditional use permit to the church violated RLUIPA and the Free Exercise clause. 
  • An international human rights lawyer urged President Trump to fulfill his campaign promise of facilitating an agreement for the release of Christian Armenian POW’s in Azerbaijan.
  • The Georgia legislature passed the Georgia Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which requires that substantial burdens on the exercise of religion be justified by a compelling interest. A clause was added stating that “granting government funding, benefits, or exemptions” would not violate the act.
  • Kansas governor Laura Kelly vetoed a House Bill which, if passed, would ensure religious liberty for prospective foster families. The bill was designed to prohibit the state from requiring families to accept certain ideological policies which may conflict with their religious beliefs.
  • A federal district court held that two Jewish groups can pursue equal protection and free exercise claims against the University of California, Berkeley, regarding antisemitic treatment.
  • India’s parliament passed a new bill that amends the laws governing Muslim land endowments, allowing non-Muslims to manage the properties (known as waqfs).

Posted on by L&R Forum

Around the Web

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

  •  In Miller v. McDonald, the Second Circuit held that New York did not violate Amish parents’ Free Exercise rights under the First Amendment when it removed a religious belief exemption from its school immunization law. The court found that the public health law in itself was generally applicable and that there was no evidence that the legislature’s decision to repeal the religious belief exemption in 2019 was motivated by anti-religious sentiment.
  • In CNS International Ministries, Inc. v. Bax, a Missouri federal district court held that a the ministerial exception did not cover a janitor and cafeteria worker at a religious organization that runs residential care facilities for children.
  • Recently, the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing to address how to combat antisemitism and antireligious hate crimes in general.
  • A group of Christian Patriarchs and Heads of Churches in Jerusalem have come together to issue a public statement denouncing foreclosure proceedings initiated against the Armenian Patriarchate. The foreclosure proceedings stem from an alleged tax debt levied against the Patriarchate, originating from a municipal tax from which Christian institutions have traditionally been exempt. Christian leaders believe that if the proceedings go unchallenged, it will only lead to more expropriation of Christian assets in Jerusalem.
  • Recently, rebels from an Islamic terrorist group stormed a village in the Congo and took approximately one hundred people hostage. From those taken, seventy bodies were discovered in a Protestant church in Lubero. Sources believe that these hostages were killed when they could no longer continue to march alongside their captors.
Posted on by L&R Forum

Around the Web

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

  • In Swiech v. Board of Education for the Sylvania City School District, an Ohio state appellate court affirmed the dismissal of a suit brought by an elementary school student’s mother, which claimed that differential bussing violated her free exercise rights.
  • Various Christian and Jewish organizations have sued the Department of Homeland Security in a D.C. federal district court over the rescission of the Sensitive Locations Policy, which limited immigration actions in places of worship.
  • In Zubik v. City of Pittsburgh, a federal district court in Pennsylvania barred the city of Pittsburgh from designating a closed Catholic church as a historic structure.
  • In Higgs v. Farmor’s School, Britain’s Court of Appeals held that the termination of a schoolteacher’s employment due to Facebook posts related to Christian beliefs was a violation of the Equality Act of 2010.  
  • In Calvary Temple Church of Evansville Inc. v. Kirsch, the Indiana Supreme Court provided a broad interpretation of a state statute which partially shields non-profit religious organizations from tort liability.
Posted on by L&R Forum

Around the Web

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

  • President Donald Trump signed an executive order that established a temporary task force within the Justice Department aimed at eradicating anti-Christian bias within the federal government. The Executive Order names the Attorney General as the Task Force chair and vests within the Task Force with authority to review the activities of all executive departments and agencies for unlawful anti-Christian policies, practices, or conduct, recommend methods to revoke or terminate violative policies, develop strategies to protect the religious liberties of Americans, and more.
  •  In a new complaint filed for Arroyo-Castro v. Gasper, the plaintiff, a public school teacher,  alleges that DiLoreto Elementary & Middle School violated the Free Exercise clause when she was placed on administrative leave following her refusal to remove a crucifix that she had hung among other personal items in personal workspace near her classroom desk. The plaintiff alleges that the school district pressured her in several meetings to remove the crucifix, and suspended her for two days without pay shortly before placing her on administrative leave.
  • In Groveman v. Regents of the University of California, a California District Court recently dismissed a suit alleging that the University of California Davis alleging that the University violated the plaintiff’s First and Fourteenth Amendment rights when it allowed a pro-Palestinian encampment to operate on campus grounds and exclude Plaintiff from walking on the sidewalk where the encampment was located, despite the fact that the encampment violated school policy. The District Court found that the causal connection between the University’s inaction and the injury the plaintiff suffered was too attenuated for a Free Exercise claim to survive. Further, the District Court held that it was impossible to draw a plausible inference that the defendant’s inaction favored or disfavored any religion or burdened the plaintiff’s religious exercise.
  • The Australian Parliament recently passed new amendments to the country’s Hate Crimes Law, strengthening the punishments for existing offenses that urge and force violence and creating new offenses that threaten force or violence against targeted groups and members of groups. These amendments were passed following several high-profile incidents of antisemitism that have risen across the country.
  • The Supreme Court of India recently held that the government of Chhattisgarh has two months to demarcate new, exclusive burial sites for Christians in an attempt to reduce disputes over burial grounds. The Supreme Court’s decision was made against the backdrop of continued persecution by Chhattisgarh state officials, in which Christians have been routinely (and sometimes violently) denied the right to a Christian burial.
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

Around the Web

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

  • The Supreme Court agreed to hear a religious-liberty challenge to a Montgomery County, Maryland policy that ended opt-outs for parents who object to elementary-school instruction involving themes of sexuality and gender identity.
  • This week, in an ongoing battle between Southern Methodist University and the United Methodist Church, the Texas Supreme Court heard oral arguments regarding SMU’s desire to separate from the church.
  • In Secular Alliance v. U.S. Department of Education, the D.C. federal district court dismissed some of plaintiff’s claims regarding a rule prohibiting schools that receive Education Department funding from denying benefits to secular groups due to their religious beliefs.
  • Several Jewish schools in New York have filed suit against the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights, alleging that the department discriminated against them under Title VI by interfering with and disfavoring Jewish Studies curricula.
  • In Calvary Chapel Belfast v. University of Maine System, a Maine federal district court refused to issue a temporary restraining order in the Church’s suit against the University. The church alleges that the university’s decision to rescind the sale of a satellite campus to the church constituted Free Exercise and Equal Protection Clause violations.  
  • The American Humanist Association has filed suit against West Virginia for a grant of $5 million to a Catholic trade college, alleging that the grant violates the West Virginia constitution by awarding taxpayers’ money to a Catholic institution.
Posted on by L&R Forum

Around the Web

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

  • In DeVore v. University of Kentucky Board of Trustees, the Sixth Circuit found that a University did not discriminate against a University of Kentucky employee in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act by denying the employee’s religious accommodation request that would’ve exempted her from a series of University COVID testing policies. The Sixth Circuit reasoned that the plaintiff offered no evidence to show a conflict between her religion and the University’s policies, instead presenting her objection the COVID policies as a reflection of her personal moral code.
  • In Esses v. Rosen, a federal district court in New York declined to issue a preliminary injunction prohibiting the defendant from issuing a “seiruv,” which is a form of rabbinical court notice that informs the public that the plaintiff has failed to respond to a summons from the rabbinical court. The court declined to intrude on questions of rabbinical court procedure, which would violate the First Amendment’s Establishment clause.
  • Luther Rice College and Seminary has filed a complaint in a federal district court in Georgia, alleging that the State of Georgia has violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments by excluding Luther Rice students from being eligible for a statewide financial student aid program due to the fact that Luther Rice College is a religious institution that the state has classified as a “school of theology.” Luther Rice alleges that the state’s exclusion of the school from its financial aid programs forces the college to forfeit its religious character, beliefs, and exercise or be completely barred from state government financial aid programs, which the college pleads is a violation of the Free Exercise clause and the Equal Protection clause.
  • The Archdiocese of Los Angeles has recently agreed to pay $880 million to 1,353 people who alleged they were sexually abused as children by Catholic clergy. To date, the settlement has been regarded as the single highest payout by a diocese.
  • In Kumar v. State of Karnataka, an Indian High Court found that a pair of individuals who barged into a mosque and shouted “Jai Sriram” (Glory to Lord Rama) did not violate a section of the Indian Penal Code that prohibits “deliberate and malicious outraging of the religious feelings of any class of citizens.” While the Indian Court conceded that the outburst would outrage the religious feelings of any class of citizens, the High Court ultimately decided that the outburst did not have the “effect on bringing out peace or destruction of public order,” nor did it cause “public mischief or any rift.”