Posted on by L&R Forum

Around the Web

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

  • The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops joined the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission in urging the Supreme Court to reject a broad application of the “finality” rule that subjects religious liberty plaintiffs to drawn-out proceedings.
  • The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear a case brought by a Catholic mother seeking a religious exemption from New York’s school vaccine mandates.
  • A federal district court in Maryland temporarily barred Montgomery County from enforcing a gun ban against a Jewish synagogue, holding that the synagogue was likely to succeed on its Second Amendment and Free Exercise claims, and that the county had not shown a sufficient historical tradition of banning guns in houses of worship.
  • A federal district court in Oregon dismissed negligence claims against the LDS Church, holding that church membership alone did not create a special relationship imposing a duty to protect a member from abuse occurring outside church supervision.
  • A federal district court in Maine upheld the state’s school vaccine mandate against Free Exercise and Establishment Clause challenges, holding that eliminating all personal belief exemptions did not single out religion and that the mandate does not burden the parents’ right to direct their child’s religious upbringing.
  • The Indiana Supreme Court heard arguments whether the state’s abortion ban violates the Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act, with plaintiffs arguing that the law burdens sincerely held religious beliefs that require religiously motivated abortions.
Posted on by Mark Movsesian

Legal Spirits 080: A Short Take on Religious Objections to New York’s Assisted-Suicide Law

Photo: Becket

In this Legal Spirits Short Take, Center Director Mark Movsesian discusses a new federal lawsuit challenging New York’s Medical Aid in Dying Act. Catholic healthcare providers argue that the state’s statutory regime will require them to counsel patients about medically assisted suicide, even though their religious commitments prohibit them from participating in the practice. New York has not yet responded, and important questions remain about what the law actually requires. Assuming the plaintiffs’ account is correct, Mark considers whether the counseling obligation substantially burdens their religious exercise, whether the law’s different treatment of hospices undermines its general applicability, and whether New York could protect patient access to legal end-of-life options through less restrictive means. 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:

  • Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton filed suit against the state’s Higher Education Board claiming that the state’s work-study program’s requirement that work be provided in ‘nonsectarian activities’, violates the Free Exercise clause. 
  • The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to hear an appeal by a Christian school that argued that its free speech rights were violated when it was barred from playing a prayer over the loudspeaker at a football game. 
  • In Pritchard v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Illinois, the 9th Circuit remanded a suit alleging that Blue Cross is liable under the anti-discrimination portion of the Affordable Care Act for enforcing a religious-based exclusion regarding coverage of gender dysphoria. 
  • The New York Times reports on a surge of interest among younger Americans, especially young men, in Orthodox Christianity.  
  • In Jeanpierre v. Trump, a Utah district court dismissed a lawsuit by the founder of Black Flag, a religious organization, claiming that the President’s Executive order infringed his Free Exercise rights. 
Posted on by Mark Movsesian

Movsesian on the Washington State Clergy Reporting Law

Delighted to be interviewed in today’s National Catholic Reporter on the Washington State law that requires priests to report information about child abuse that they receive during the sacrament of confession. Here’s a snippet:

At the heart of this legal case is a conflict between the free exercise clause of the First Amendment, which guarantees religious freedom, and the state’s compelling interest to prosecute child sex abuse, said Mark Movsesian, director of the Mattone Center for Law and Religion at St. John’s School of Law in New York. He said that if a law selects religion for “disfavored treatment,” the state must prove why the law is necessary and that it is as unrestrictive as possible. Movsesian also said that the Washington law targets clergy-penitent privilege within the sacrament of confession, but does not lift attorney-client privilege in the reporting of abuse cases. 

“I think it’s going to be hard for Washington to say: ‘We have a compelling interest in having priests reveal what they learned in confession, but we don’t have a compelling interest in making lawyers reveal what they hear in their client’s confidence,'” Movsesian said.  

You can read the article here.

Posted on by L&R Forum

Legal Spirits 067: Confession and the Constitution

Washington State Gov. Bob Ferguson at the Signing Ceremony for the New Clergy Reporting Law

In this episode of Legal Spirits, we examine a new Washington State law that eliminates the clergy-penitent privilege in child abuse reporting. The law requires clergy to report suspected abuse, even if they learn about it through Confession and other confidential spiritual communications—raising serious questions under the Free Exercise Clause. Host Mark Movsesian and guest Marc DeGirolami discuss the legal framework, historical background, and broader implications for religious liberty. 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. Safehouse, the Third Circuit heard arguments on whether a nonprofit aiming to open a safe injection site can invoke religious protections under the Free Exercise Clause or RFRA, after a lower court ruled that the founders’ religious motivations alone do not shield the group from federal drug laws.
  • In Mennonite Church USA v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, a D.C. federal court declined to issue a preliminary injunction to reinstate DHS’s “sensitive locations” policy, holding that the plaintiff religious organizations lacked standing to challenge its rescission based on speculative risks of enforcement at places of worship, decreased attendance, restricted services, and added security costs.
  • In Catholic Benefits Association v. Lucas, a North Dakota federal court issued a permanent injunction shielding a Catholic diocese and employers’ group from EEOC enforcement of federal anti-discrimination rules in ways that would compel them to support or accommodate abortion, fertility treatments, or gender transitions contrary to their religious beliefs.
  • In Kynwulf v. Corcoran, an Ohio federal court dismissed a Free Exercise claim challenging Medicaid’s estate recovery rules, holding that the plaintiff was not coerced into participation and could not demand that the state tailor its program to his religious beliefs.
  • In People of the State of California v. Calvary Chapel San Jose, a California appellate court upheld over $1.2 million in fines against the church for violating Covid-era health orders, rejecting its Free Exercise and due process claims by finding the mandates neutral and generally applicable.
  • West Virginia signed a new law, the Parents’ Bill of Rights, granting parents wide-ranging authority over their children’s education, healthcare, and moral upbringing, with state interference allowed only under a compelling interest and narrowly tailored means. 
Posted on by Mark Movsesian

New Video on Reynolds v. United States

Happy to announce the release of a new video in our YouTube series, “Landmark Cases in Religious Freedom.” The new video examines the landmark 1878 case, Reynolds v. United States, the Supreme Court’s first decision on the meaning of the Free Exercise Clause.

Through the story of George Reynolds, a devout Mormon charged with bigamy, the Court established that although the Free Exercise Clause protects religious belief absolutely, it allows the state to regulate religious conduct–at least if the state has a good reason for doing so. Learn how Chief Justice Waite’s opinion introduced Jefferson’s “wall of separation” metaphor to the Court’s caselaw and why the Court rejected religious belief as a defense to criminal charges, setting a precedent that still influences religious freedom cases today:



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 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.