Posted on by L&R Forum

Around the Web

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

  • A Maine church filed a motion with the U.S. Supreme Court seeking an injunction to prevent Maine from enforcing its COVID-19 capacity restrictions on worship services while its petition for certiorari is pending.
  • The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in Obataiye-Allah v. Steward, vacated an Oregon federal district court’s holding that prison officials were shielded from damages by qualified immunity in an inmate’s suit alleging that he was denied participation in Ramadan.
  • A Texas federal district court held, in Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc. v. Mack, that a Justice of the Peace who started his court sessions with an opening prayer from a volunteer chaplain violated the Establishment Clause because the attendees were impermissibly coerced into participating in religious activities.
  • The Iowa Supreme Court affirmed, in Koster v. Harvest Bible Chapel-Quad Cities, the dismissal of a suit against a church and three pastors by a congregant who alleged breach of fiduciary duty, concluding that the claim could not proceed because it would require consideration of the church’s doctrine and religious practices.
  • The University of Florida concluded that the University’s Student Senate violated the First Amendment when it removed Jack Denton, student president, because he privately shared his belief that the ACLU and other activist organizations advocate for causes that oppose Catholic teachings and his religious beliefs.
  • A Michigan high school initially directed a graduating senior, Elizabeth Turner, to alter her valedictory speech to remove all religious references, but after receiving a demand letter from the First Liberty Institute, officials at Hillsdale High School announced that religious students will be able to state their religious beliefs in graduation speeches.
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 granted review in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Center, in which the Fifth Circuit struck down a Mississippi statute that prohibits abortions, with limited exceptions, after 15 weeks’ gestational age.
  • The Supreme Court dismissed, by a vote of 6-3, the certiorari petitions in three related cases challenging a Trump Administration rule that imposed new restrictions on abortion referrals by health care providers receiving Title X family planning funds.
  • The Ninth Circuit affirmed an Arizona federal district court’s dismissal of a religious discrimination suit filed by The Satanic Temple, concluding the group failed to prove that religious beliefs were a factor in the decision to not approve its giving a legislative prayer.
  • A federal district court in Washington denied summary judgment to five current and former high school students who sued the state’s Interscholastic Activities Association for failing to accommodate Seventh Day Adventists’ Sabbath observance in scheduling and administering the high school state tennis championships.
  • Suit was filed in a Massachusetts federal district court by a church challenging the state’s COVID-19 reopening regulations; the suit alleges that Massachusetts’ phased COVID-19 reopening regulations single out places of worship for differential and disfavored treatment.
  • A Texas Appellate Court held that under the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine, a civil court lacked jurisdiction over an age discrimination and fraud case brought by a Catholic priest against his diocese.
  • An Indiana trial court ruled in favor of the Archdiocese of Indianapolis, in Payne-Elliot v. Archdiocese of Indianapolis, affirming the Archdiocese’s constitutional right to set religious standards for its schools.
  • A Hawaii federal district court rejected a free exercise challenge to Hawaii’s COVID-19 mask requirements, concluding that the complaint failed to allege that the mask mandate imposed a substantial burden on the plaintiff’s practice of religion.

Posted on by Mark Movsesian

Movsesian Teaches Class at Moscow State University

I had a wonderful time this morning, teaching a (virtual!) class at Lomonosov Moscow State University on the COVID epidemic and religious exemptions under the US Constitution. Thanks to Professor Gayane Davidyan for inviting me and to her students for their wonderful, thoughtful questions. Lomonsov will post the class on YouTube soon, and I’ll link it when it appears.

UPDATE: Here’s a link to the class. It was a lot of fun!

Posted on by Mark Movsesian

Church Closings during COVID: The State of Play

At the Law and Liberty site this morning, I have an essay on current litigation regarding church closings during the coronavirus epidemic. I explain why courts have reached different results, and ask why some churches, rather than others, are bringing the lawsuits. Here’s an excerpt:

So far, the lawsuits have achieved mixed results. Federal district courts in California and New Mexico, for example, have rejected challenges and ruled that the bans in those states are constitutional. Federal district courts in Kansas and Kentucky, by contrast, have ruled that the bans in those states do violate the First Amendment. This past weekend, the Sixth Circuit agreed, holding that Kentucky’s ban on church services violates the Free Exercise Clause.

These cases are very fact-specific and turn on the specific language of the bans in question. But there is another, more important reason for the courts’ division. The law with respect to religious exemptions is quite indeterminate. Under the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in Employment Division v. Smith (1990), no right to an exemption exists where a law is neutral and generally applicable, that is, where the law does not target religion for disfavored treatment. If a ban on public gatherings qualifies as a neutral and generally applicable law, a church cannot prevail.

If a law targets religion for disfavored treatment, by contrast, a church may have a right to a religious exemption—but not where the state can show that it has a compelling reason for enforcing the law against the church and has chosen the least restrictive means of doing so. As many have noted, this form of “strict scrutiny” essentially operates as a balancing test that requires judges to weigh the seriousness of the burden on religious exercise against the significance of the goal the state is trying to reach. If the goal is sufficiently important, the law will stand, regardless of the burden on religious exercise.

Both these questions—whether a law is generally applicable and whether the burdens of a ban outweigh its benefits—leave much to the discretion of individual judges….

You can read the whole essay here.

Posted on by Daniel Vitagliano

Around the Web

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

Posted on by L&R Forum

Legal Spirits Episode 016: The New Wedding Vendor Cases

In this episode, we discuss recent court rulings in favor of wedding vendors who decline, from religious conviction, to provide services for same-sex weddings. After years of losing such cases, vendors like Joanna Duka and Breanna Koski of Phoenix’s Brush & Nib Studio (above) have won notable victories in the lower courts. We ask whether these victories reflect the changing membership of the judiciary–especially given the new Trump appointees to the federal appeals courts–and how the Supreme Court is likely to respond to them. Listen in!

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: RSS

Posted on by Mark Movsesian

Highlights from The King’s College

The King’s College has posted a video of excerpts from my Constitution Day Address last month, on how cultural trends, including the rise of the Nones, will likely affect the legal debate on religious accommodations. Here’s the link:

Posted on by Daniel Vitagliano

Around the Web

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

Posted on by Mark Movsesian

Comparative Conscience Exemptions

Religious accommodations figure prominently in current debates about law and religion. This past summer, Hart released a collection of essays on such exemptions in the UK, Canada, and the United States, Religious Beliefs and Conscientious Objections in a Liberal State. The editor is John Adentire (University of Birmingham). Here’s the description from the publisher’s website:

The central focus of this edited collection is on the ever-growing practice, in liberal states, to claim exemption from legal duties on the basis of a conscientious objection. Traditional claims have included objections to compulsory military draft and to the provision of abortions. Contemporary claims include objections to anti-discrimination law by providers of public services, such as bakers and B&B hoteliers, who do not want to serve same-sex couples. The book investigates the practice, both traditional and contemporary, from three distinct perspectives: theoretical, doctrinal (with special emphasis on UK, Canadian and US law) and comparative. Cumulatively, the contributors provide a comprehensive set of reflections on how the practice is to be viewed and carried out in the context of a liberal state.

Posted on by Daniel Vitagliano

Around the Web

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