Posted on by L&R Forum

Around the Web

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

  • In Bardonner v. Bardonner, the Indiana Court of Appeals upheld a custody order that prohibited a father from taking his son to his church. The court held that his free exercise rights were not infringed upon by this restriction as the child’s mother, the legal guardian of the child, had the right to determine the religious upbringing of her child.
  • In Catholic Charities Bureau, Inc. v. State of Wisconsin Labor and Industry Review Commission, the Wisconsin Supreme Court held that the Catholic Charities Bureau and four of its sub-entities were not exempted from the state’s unemployment compensation law. The court reasoned that the controlling factor for qualification was whether the charity was operated primarily for religious purposes, and held that the charity’s purposes were instead charitable and secular.
  • The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom ended an official visit to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia following a demand by Saudi officials to have USCIRF Chairman Rabbi Abraham Cooper remove his kippah while visiting a religious site.
  • In Miller v. McDonald, the District Court for the Western District of New York upheld the State of New York’s removal of religious exemptions from its mandatory student vaccination requirement. The Court held that the law was facially neutral, and the mere removal of existing religious exemptions is insufficient to prove hostility towards religion.
  • An observant Jewish passenger on a JetBlue flight filed suit against the airliner in the District Court for the Southern District of New York after being forced off the flight when he refused to sit next to a woman who wasn’t his wife or blood relative, on account of his religious beliefs.
Posted on by L&R Forum

Around the Web

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

  • In St. Hillaire v. Montefiore Medical Center, a New York federal court ruled against a hospital manager’s religious discrimination claim over a denied Covid vaccine exemption. The court noted the hospital’s legal obligation to follow state mandates, which made the plaintiff’s exemption as a registered nurse impossible without incurring undue hardship.
  • In Russo v. Patchogue-Medford School District, a New York federal court ruled that the school district’s refusal to accommodate a psychologist’s religious objection to Covid mandates did not violate Title VII. The court found the state’s test-or-vaccination requirement to be a neutral law and determined that the plaintiff’s request for remote work, which involved reducing job responsibilities, constituted an undue hardship for the employer.
  • In Melton v. Union Hill Missionary Baptist Church, the Mississippi Supreme Court vacated a lower court’s ruling in a pastor-dismissal dispute. The court declared the chancellor’s involvement in a congregational vote was unconstitutional, stating it breached church-state separation under the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine.
  • In Kestenbaum v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, students sued Harvard University in a Massachusetts federal court, alleging Title VI Civil Rights Act violations. The complaint accuses Harvard of not protecting Jewish students from widespread anti-Jewish sentiment and discrimination, contrasting its approach to other forms of bias. The suit demands institutional changes, including disciplinary actions and antisemitism training.
  • A Pennsylvania appellate court in South Hills Catholic Academy v. Department of Human Services ruled against the school’s claim that state regulations infringed on its religious freedoms. The court found no violation of religious rights, as the regulations merely required compliance with civil rights laws, which do not apply to religious schools.
  • The State Department, following the International Religious Freedom Act, designated several countries as concerns for religious freedom violations. Among those listed as Countries of Particular Concern are China, Iran, and Russia, while Azerbaijan was included on the Special Watch List. The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom expressed disappointment over Nigeria and India’s exclusion from the list.
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:

  • 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 Palmer v. Liberty University, Inc., a divided 4th Circuit declined to apply the ministerial exception to a former art professor at Liberty University. One judge argued the professor was indeed a religious “messenger” due to her integration of faith into teaching.
  • In The Satanic Temple, Inc. v. Young, a federal district court in Texas dismissed the Satanic Temple’s challenge to a Texas requirement for a sonogram prior to an abortion on lack of standing and on sovereign immunity grounds. The court refused to grant the group leave to replead its claims, given its lawyer’s increasingly “conclusory, reductive, and intemperate” filings.
  • In Willey v. Sweetwater County School District No. 1 Board of Trustees, a federal district court in Wyoming upheld most of a school district’s policy mandating the use of a student’s chosen name or pronoun by school personnel, despite objections from parents.
  • In Gackenheimer v. Southern New England Conference of the United Church of Christ, Inc., a Connecticut trial court examined a lawsuit brought by a minister who was dismissed from his role at a church’s conference center. The court applied the ministerial exception doctrine to dismiss the minister’s defamation and emotional distress claims, but allowed his contract-related claims to proceed.
  • In State of Ohio v. Sobel, an Ohio appellate court rejected the defendant’s argument that his drug possession sentence was based on his religious use of mushrooms. The court noted, “Sobel failed to establish that he uses psilocybin mushrooms in connection with a sincerely held religious belief,” deeming his beliefs more personal preference than deeply held religious conviction.
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. Supreme Court denied certiorari in The School of the Ozarks v. Biden, in which the 8th Circuit held a Christian college did not have standing to challenge a U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development memorandum directing the HUD to investigate all discrimination complaints, including those based on sexual orientation or gender identity. This decision affected the school’s policy of maintaining single-sex residence halls according to biological sex, which is part of their religiously-inspired Code of Conduct.
  • In Braidwood Management, Inc. v. EEOC, the 5th Circuit held that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) necessitates an exemption from the sex discrimination provisions of Title VII for a company operating based on Christian beliefs about sexual orientation and gender identity. The court said that forcing the company to hire employees with opposing religious and moral views is not the least restrictive means of promoting its compelling interest.
  • In United States v. Lindor, the Army Court of Criminal Appeals found that the appellant’s use of Vodou rituals, while in accordance with his First Amendment rights, did not shield him from prosecution for murder. The court stated, “[A]ctivities that harm others are not protected by the free exercise clause. To characterize appellant’s chosen techniques to plan, express, and actuate his intent to murder . . . as the free exercise of his religious beliefs would expropriate the free exercise clause of any principled, reasonable meaning.”
  • The Darren Patterson Christian Academy has filed a lawsuit challenging the conditions Colorado has set for pre-schools to participate and receive funding in the state’s universal pre-school program. The school argues that the Colorado Department of Early Childhood’s regulations, which prohibit discrimination based on religion, sexual orientation, or gender identity, force it to forgo its religious character and beliefs. The school asserts that these rules compel it to hire employees who do not share its faith and to change internal rules and policies aligned with its religious beliefs, including those related to restroom usage, pronouns, dress codes, and student housing during field trips.
  • In Brandon v. Board of Education of the City of St. Louis, the Eastern District of Missouri declined to dismiss Free Exercise Clause and Equal Protection Clause claims by 41 teachers and staff challenging the school district’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The court reasoned, “[b]ecause Plaintiffs have pleaded the existence of a late-2021 policy apparently lacking the urgency that characterized the regulations and executive orders issued early in the pandemic… [the Court is] to apply the ordinary tiers of scrutiny to the District’s Policy as alleged.”
  • In Foothills Christian Church v. Johnson, the Southern District of California dismissed a free exercise challenge by Christian pre-schools to California’s child care licensing requirement. It held that the Child Day Care Facilities Act does not prevent the schools from offering a program that includes compulsory participation in religious events. While the Act requires that schools make attendance at religious activities voluntary in the discretion of the child’s parents or guardian, it also allows schools to refuse to admit children whose parents or guardians are unwilling to agree that their children will attend religious activities.
Posted on by Mark Movsesian

More on Markets and Religion

Here at the Forum at elsewhere, my friend Nate Oman (William and Mary Law School) and I have debated the “doux commerce” thesis: the notion that the market, over time, softens disagreements about religion and other deep commitments. It’s a thesis with a proud lineage that goes back to Montesquieu and other Enlightenment figures. Nate is persuaded by the thesis and wrote a very good book about it. I’m less persuaded by the thesis and wrote an article critiquing it. But it’s been a fun and interesting debate.

I was delighted to see that Nate is now the co-editor of a new collection of essays from Routledge that continues the conversation. The book is Democracy, Religion, and Commerce: Private Markets and the Public Regulation of Religion. Nate’s co-editor is Kathleen Flake (University of Virginia). Here’s the description from the Routledge website:

This collection considers the relationship between religion, state, and market. In so doing, it also illustrates that the market is a powerful site for the cultural work of secularizing religious conflict. Though expressed as a simile, with religious freedom functioning like market freedom, “free market religion” has achieved the status of general knowledge about the nature of religion as either good or bad. It legislates good religion as that which operates according to free market principles: it is private, with no formal relationship to government; and personal: a matter of belief and conscience. As naturalized elements of historically contingent and discursively maintained beliefs about religion, these criteria have ethical and regulatory force. Thus, in culture and law, the effect of the metaphor has become instrumental, not merely descriptive. This volume seeks to productively complicate and invite further analysis of this easy conflation of democracy, religion, and the market. It invites scholars from a variety of disciplines to consider more intentionally the extent to which markets are implicated and illuminate the place of religion in public life. The book will be a valuable resource for researchers and academics working in the areas of law and religion, ethics, and economics.

Posted on by Anthony Nania

Around the Web

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