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 has agreed to review a decision blocking Idaho’s nearly total abortion ban, specifically examining whether the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act overrides state laws like Idaho’s Defense of Life Act. President Biden criticized the decision for allowing Idaho’s nearly complete abortion ban to be reinstated.
  • In United States v. Gallagher, a Tennessee federal court limited the extent to which defendants, facing charges for blocking the entrance to an abortion clinic, can reference their religious beliefs. The court stated that discussion of religion can be used to establish intent or purpose, but could not be used as a defense.
  • In Church of the Celestial Heart v. Garland, a California federal judge refused to dismiss a RFRA suit challenging the Controlled Substance Act, which restricts the church’s use of Ayahuasca, a plant-based psychedelic drug.
  • The School of the Art Institute of Chicago is being sued by a Jewish Israeli student claiming discrimination and hostility; the complaint alleges biased admissions and increased harassment after the October 7 Hamas attack on Israel.
  • A Yale professor has filed a sex discrimination suit against the Abyssinian Baptist Church in New York for rejecting her application to become Abyssinian’s senior pastor.
  • Pope Francis, in his recent remarks to the Diplomatic Corps at the Holy See, called for a global ban on surrogate motherhood, stating that a child should never be the basis of a commercial contract.
Posted on by Mark Movsesian

A History of Evangelicals and Religious Freedom

Here is an interesting-looking collection of essays from Baylor on the history of Evangelical Christians and politics–especially, the politics of religious freedom: The Gospel and Religious Freedom: Historical Studies in Evangelicalism and Political Engagement. Like most religious communities, Evangelicals have a mixed record in this regard, supporting religious freedom in some contexts and opposing it in others. The book’s chapters cover episodes from Wilberforce to Trump. The editor is David Bebbington (University of Stirling-Scotland). Here’s the publisher’s description:

Religious freedom as enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights remains a perennial concern across the globe. Over the centuries many evangelicals have not enjoyed this right in practice, but they have generally advocated its acceptance, especially to allow the spread of the gospel. Not always, however, have they supported freedom for religious groups besides themselves and sometimes they have endorsed discrimination against other bodies.

The Gospel and Religious Freedom explores the complex relationship in theory and practice between evangelicals and religious freedom, covering periods from the eighteenth century to the present. The volume includes studies of the intellectual lineage of asserting the free exercise of religion, of evangelicals in the United States who endorsed religious liberty in the early twentieth century, and of recent American evangelical political pressure on behalf of freedom of religion at home and abroad. Other contributions address the evangelical defense of the cause in British territories in the age of William Wilberforce, the apparent threat to religious liberty by Roman Catholics throughout the world, an evangelical attempt to restrain Muslim laws in Nigeria, and the persecution of believers by Communists in Eastern Europe and China.

Evangelical Christians emerge as preeminently concerned with evangelism but in other respects diverse in their responses to challenges in various global regions. This volume is designed to demonstrate something of the significance of the evangelical movement in the history of the modern world.

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 L&R Forum

Around the Web

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

  • In Wiggins v. Griffin, the 2nd Circuit reversed a dismissal by a district court and allowed a Baptist inmate’s lawsuit against prison officials to proceed. The inmate claimed his religious rights were violated when he couldn’t attend religious services for over five months due to a delay in updating the list of prisoners allowed to attend services.
  • In Schneider v. City of Chicago, an Illinois federal district court dismissed a couple’s lawsuit alleging that the city had violated Illinois’s RFRA by requiring COVID vaccinations for large gatherings, including the couple’s wedding. The court ruled that the couple hadn’t shown the city’s health order substantially burdened their religious beliefs.
  • The White House announced nominations for federal circuit and district courts, including Adeel A. Mangi for the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals. If confirmed by the Senate, Mangi would become the first Muslim American to serve on a federal appeals court.
  • In C.P. v. Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses, a New Jersey appellate court allowed a lawsuit against Jehovah’s Witnesses congregations for negligence after a woman was abused by her grandfather, who was also a church elder. Changes in state laws allowed her to sue the congregations, alleging they knew about the abuse but failed to take proper action to provide a safe environment for children.
  • In Cyriaque v. Director, Ohio Department of Job and Family Services, an Ohio appellate court upheld the denial of unemployment benefits to a clinical trainer who was terminated for refusing a COVID-19 vaccine despite seeking a religious exemption. The court determined that the denial was justified as the trainer’s initial exemption request did not align with her later testimony, indicating her opposition was not based on sincere religious beliefs.
  • A Christian school in Vermont has filed a lawsuit in federal court challenging state rules that prevent it from participating in educational programs and athletic competitions due to regulations prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. The lawsuit claims that these rules conflict with the school’s religious beliefs regarding sexuality and gender.
  • A Jewish doctor is suing NYU Langone after being terminated as director of its cancer research center due to his social media posts about the Israel-Hamas conflict. Dr. Neel alleges religious discrimination as his posts were linked to his Jewish identity, while NYU Langone defends its decision, citing breaches of its Code of Conduct and Social Media Policy.
Posted on by L&R Forum

Around the Web

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

  • In Pro-Life Action Ministries v. City of Minneapolis, a Minnesota federal district court dismissed void-for-vagueness and expressive-association challenges to a Minneapolis ordinance preventing access disruption to reproductive healthcare facilities. The court, however, allowed the plaintiff’s claims related to free speech, free exercise of religion, and overbreadth to proceed.
  • In Fitz-James v. Ashcroft, a Missouri state appeals court upheld a trial court’s ruling that the Secretary of State’s ballot summaries for six abortion rights initiative proposals were insufficient and unfair. The Secretary of State issued a press release criticizing the decision, stating he plans to appeal it.
  • The Pennsylvania legislature passed Senate Bill 84, repealing the state’s ban on public school teachers wearing religious attire or symbols in the classroom. Governor Josh Shapiro is expected to sign the bill, making Pennsylvania the last state to eliminate such a restriction, which had previously faced legal challenges on First Amendment grounds.
  • Louis Farrakhan filed a $4.8 billion lawsuit in the Southern District of New York against the Anti-Defamation League and the Simon Wiesenthal Center, accusing them of interfering with his activities by labeling him an anti-Semite. The complaint alleges violations of the First Amendment’s protections for freedom of association and free exercise of religion, as well as defamation claims.
  • The White House announced plans to develop the first National Strategy to Counter Islamophobia in the United States, citing the need to address hate-fueled attacks and discrimination against Muslims, Arabs, and Sikhs.
  • President Biden marked the 25th Anniversary of the International Religious Freedom Act with a statement acknowledging the rise of antisemitism, Islamophobia, and discrimination in the United States and the challenges faced by religious minority communities worldwide. He emphasized the United States’ commitment to defending religious freedom both domestically and globally.
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:

  • 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 In re Parks v. Commissioner of Labor, the Appellate Division of the New York State Supreme Court upheld the denial of unemployment compensation to a medical center security guard who was terminated for refusing to comply with a Covid vaccine mandate. The court ruled that the state mandate did not allow for a religious exemption, and the security guard’s religious beliefs did not excuse compliance with a valid, religion-neutral law of general applicability. The court held that when employment is terminated due to noncompliance with such a law, even when the motives for noncompliance are religious in nature, the First Amendment does not prevent the denial of unemployment insurance benefits if the mandate has a “rational public-health basis” and is justified by a compelling government interest.
  • New York City Mayor Eric Adams announced a new initiative allowing mosques to broadcast the call to prayer on Fridays and during Ramadan without requiring a permit. The initiative comes with new legal guidance from the NYPD, emphasizing that the call to prayer is permitted in the city despite sound restrictions in neighborhoods. Mosques can now broadcast the call to prayer on Fridays from 12:30 PM to 1:30 PM and during the sunset prayers throughout Ramadan, with collaborative efforts between the NYPD Community Affairs Bureau and Muslim faith leaders to ensure compliance with noise regulations.
  • In Rutan-Ram v. Tennessee Department of Children’s Services, the Court of Appeals of Tennessee reversed the decision of a trial court that held a Jewish couple did not have standing to sue the Tennessee Department of Children’s Services. The couple sued because they were denied foster training by a state-subsidized child-placement agency because they did not share the agency’s religious beliefs. The court held that there was an injury in fact because the Tennessee statute that protected faith-based agencies from providing services to those that did not share their belief made it more difficult for members of one group to obtain services.
  • In Lax v. City University of New York, the New York Kings County Supreme Court allowed five Orthodox Jewish faculty members at Kingsborough Community College to proceed with their religious hostile work environment and retaliation claims against the school. The Jewish faculty members allege that they have been subjected to pervasive discrimination by another faculty group called the Progressive Faculty Caucus (PFC). 
  • The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court in a case regarding whether, consistent with the Second Amendment, the government may prohibit firearm possession by a person with a domestic violence restraining order. The brief states that the bishops support measures that control the sale and use of firearms and make them safer.
  • Kentucky, Alabama, Arkansas, Idaho, Iowa, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, and West Virginia all signed an amicus brief supporting certiorari in a case challenging a New York law that bars counseling within a hundred feet of an abortion clinic, including on public sidewalks. The Second Circuit upheld the law based on Hill v. Colorado (2000).
Posted on by Mark Movsesian · 1 Comment

Classical and Christian Influences on the Founding

The American conception of religious freedom has been influenced strongly by both Enlightenment and Evangelical Christian ideas from the beginning. One need think only of Madison’s famous Memorial and Remonstrance, which skillfully weaves together arguments in both strains. It’s fair to say that conventional scholarship sometimes ignores the role that Christian ideas played in the founding, however. A new book from Cambridge, The Classical and Christian Origins of American Politics, seeks to remedy that. The authors are scholars Kody Cooper (University of Tennessee-Chattanooga) and Justin Buckley Dyer (University of Texas-Austin). Here is the publisher’s description:

There has been a considerable amount of literature in the last 70 years claiming that the American founders were steeped in modern thought. This study runs counter to that tradition, arguing that the founders of America were deeply indebted to the classical Christian natural-law tradition for their fundamental theological, moral, and political outlook. Evidence for this thesis is found in case studies of such leading American founders as Thomas Jefferson and James Wilson, the pamphlet debates, the founders’ invocation of providence during the revolution, and their understanding of popular sovereignty. The authors go on to reflect on how the founders’ political thought contained within it the resources that undermined, in principle, the institution of slavery, and explores the relevance of the founders’ political theology for contemporary politics. This timely, important book makes a significant contribution to the scholarly debate over whether the American founding is compatible with traditional Christianity.

Posted on by Mark Movsesian

Religious Liberty in a Polarized Age

Our friend Tom Berg, a professor at the University of St. Thomas Law School–Minnesota and a participant in the Center’s Tradition Project and other programs, is one of the country’s best known scholars of church and state. Next month, he comes out with a new book on the subject from Eerdman’s, Religious Liberty in a Polarized Age, arguing against a selective approach to religious freedom–“yes” for my allies, “no” for my opponents–and for a balanced commitment to religious freedom in the interests of social harmony. Anything Tom writes is worth reading and this looks like a very interesting book, indeed. Here’s the description from the Eerdman’s site:

As our political and social landscapes polarize along party lines, religious liberty faces threats from both sides. From antidiscrimination commissions targeting conservative Christians to travel bans punishing Muslims, recent litigation has revealed the selective approach both left and right take when it comes to freedom of religion. But what if religious liberty is part of the cure for our political division? 
  
Drawing on constitutional law, history, and sociology, Thomas C. Berg shows us how reaffirming religious freedom cultivates the good of individuals and society. After explaining the features of polarization and the societal benefits of diverse religious practices, Berg offers practical counsel on balancing religious freedom against other essential values. 
  
Protecting Americans’ ability to live according to their beliefs undergirds a healthy, pluralistic society—and this protection must extend to everyone, not just political allies. Lay readers and legal scholars who are weary of partisan quarreling will find Berg’s case timely and compelling.