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 L&R Forum

Around the Web

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

  •  In People v. Johnson, a California appellate court ruled that prohibiting a criminal defendant, an ordained minister, from wearing a clerical collar and having a Bible during trial was not a reversible error. The court found that this restriction did not affect the trial’s fairness or the verdict. 
  • In Gartenberg v. The Cooper Union for the Advancement of Science and Art, a New York federal court ruled that while Title VI must be applied consistently with the First Amendment, it still requires schools to address harassment that goes beyond protected speech. The court found that Cooper Union’s response to antisemitic intimidation, where protestors banged on a locked library door while Jewish students sheltered inside, was inadequate under Title VI, as the conduct was physically threatening and not shielded by free speech protections.
  • In Civil Rights Department v. Cathy’s Creations, Inc., a California appellate court ruled that a bakery violated state civil rights law by refusing to sell a predesigned white cake for a same-sex wedding reception. The court rejected the bakery’s free speech and religious freedom defenses, finding that its policy was facially discriminatory.
  • In Miller v. City of Burien, a Washington federal court upheld the city’s requirement that a Methodist church obtain a permit before hosting a homeless encampment on its property. The court ruled that the permit process did not substantially burden the church’s religious exercise, as the city’s request was a minor inconvenience aimed at ensuring safety.
  • In Roman Catholic Archbishop of Washington v. Doe, the Maryland Supreme Court upheld the retroactive elimination of the limitation period for filing child sexual abuse lawsuits, ruling that the General Assembly had the power to abrogate the statute of limitations.
Posted on by L&R Forum

Around the Web

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

  • In Loffman v. California, the Ninth Circuit held that California’s exclusion of Jewish schools from special-education programs violates the Constitution’s neutrality requirement. The court found that California’s policy discriminates against religious parents and schools.
  • In Tanvir v. Tanzin, on remand from the Supreme Court, the Second Circuit held that FBI agents were entitled to qualified immunity against RFRA damages claims because the Muslim plaintiffs who were put on a no-fly list had not disclosed their religious objections to serving as informants. The court found that, since the agents had no reason to know their actions violated the plaintiffs’ religious beliefs, they could not be personally liable for damages.
  • Luther Rice College and Seminary filed a complaint saying that Georgia officials are violating the Constitution by excluding its students from state financial aid programs solely because of the college’s religious mission. The lawsuit argues that this exclusion from public benefits violates the Free Exercise Clause by discriminating against religious institutions based on their religious character.
  • President Biden formally apologized for the U.S. Federal Indian Boarding School Policies (1819–1969), which aimed to assimilate Native American children. He acknowledged that over half of these schools were associated with religious organizations, and many of them subjected Native children to severe mistreatment, leaving lasting trauma across generations.
  • The Vatican and China have agreed to extend their Provisional Agreement on the Appointment of Bishops for another four years, marking the third renewal since its initial signing in 2018. This agreement has allowed bishops in China to be appointed with papal consent, fostering full communion with the Pope and resulting in about ten new bishop appointments and formal recognition of previously unrecognized bishops.
Posted on by L&R Forum

Around the Web

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

  • In Apache Stronghold v. United States, the 9th Circuit refused to bar the government from transferring federally-owned forest land, significant to Western Apache Indians’ spirituality, to a copper mining company. The court stated that the transfer did not substantially burden religious exercise under RFRA and the Free Exercise Clause.
  • In Christian Employers Alliance v. U.S. EEOC, a North Dakota district court blocked the Department of Health and Human Services and the EEOC from enforcing Affordable Care Act and Title VII mandates that require Christian employers to provide insurance coverage for gender transition procedures. The court stated that these employers would have to violate their religious beliefs to comply with these mandates.
  • In Bair Brucha Inc. v. Township of Toms River, New Jersey, a New Jersey district court found that the town used land use regulations to impede the construction of a synagogue in order to prevent the growth of the Orthodox Jewish community. The court cited evidence of anti-Semitic animus as the motivating factor behind the regulations and rejected the township’s argument that subsequent amendments to zoning laws shielded them from liability.
  • In Crosspoint Church v. Maikin, a Maine district court rejected a request to block the state’s laws barring LGBTQ discrimination from applying to a Christian school receiving public funding. The court stated that the legislature had the authority to define protected classes despite the school’s objections due to a conflict with religious beliefs.
  • Jewish students at Columbia University have filed a lawsuit accusing the institution of widespread antisemitism. The complaint alleges discriminatory policies, support for anti-Jewish violence by faculty, and a lack of protection for Jewish students from harassment.
  • A Christian youth-mentoring ministry in Oregon has filed a lawsuit challenging an anti-discrimination rule adopted by the Oregon Department of Education. The ministry argues that the rule violates its Free Exercise and Free Expression rights by disqualifying it from receiving grants due to their religious hiring practices, which require adherence to a Statement of Faith.
Posted on by Mark Movsesian

Movsesian on RFRA and the Rise of the Nones

The Emory Center for the Study of Law and Religion has published my essay, “RFRA and the New Thoreaus,” which I presented in last week’s online symposium. Here’s an excerpt:

In short, the question whether RFRA’s definition of “religion” includes idiosyncratic, personal beliefs is not entirely clear. To be fair, when Congress enacted RFRA in 1993, one could dismiss the question as peripheral. As I have explained, at the time, more than 90% of Americans claimed a religious affiliation, and the question of idiosyncratic convictions did not have great legal significance. The Rise of the Nones has changed things. As Nones become more established in our religious culture, one can imagine many claims for exemptions based on idiosyncratic spiritual commitments: a vegetarian diet in prison, for example, or the right to wear certain clothing or insignia in the military–or, as has already occurred, an exemption from public health requirements, like vaccination and mask mandates. 

The rise of the Nones thus makes it likely that courts will have to grapple seriously with the definition of religion for purposes of RFRA–as well as the Free Exercise Clause and other laws. As I have argued elsewhere, the best approach would be a flexible one. At its core, religion means a collective phenomenon, a community of believers that exists through time, not a solitary spiritual quest. In common understanding, religion has always suggested a group of people linked together in worship. As sociologist Christian Smith writes, “religions are almost invariably social activities—communities of memory engaged in carrying on particular traditions.” Without a communal structure to give them meaning, religious practices such as prayer, fasting, and so on are incoherent, “simply the strange doings of odd people.” 

You can read the whole essay here.

Posted on by Mark Movsesian

Online Symposium: RFRA at 30 (Oct. 19, 2023)

I’m greatly looking forward to participating in an upcoming online symposium, “The Religious Freedom Restoration Act at 30,” sponsored by Emory’s Center for the Study of Law and Religion. I’ll present a paper on how the rise of the Nones will put pressure on the concept of religious exemptions. Details here. Register to listen in!

Posted on by L&R Forum

Around the Web

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

  • In Cedar Park Assembly of God of Kirkland, Washington v. Kreidler, the Western District of Washington dismissed a free exercise challenge by a church to a law requiring health insurance plans that provide maternity coverage to provide substantially equivalent abortion coverage as well. The court dismissed the challenge, finding that the law was neutral and generally applicable, and that it served a legitimate governmental purpose.
  • In Kumar v. Koester, the Central District of California dismissed for lack of standing free exercise and equal protection challenges to CSU’s use of the term “caste” in its interim non-discrimination policy. However, the court concluded that plaintiffs, Hindu professors, could bring Establishment Clause and vagueness claims.
  • In Society of the Divine Word v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services, the Northern District of Illinois rejected RFRA, free exercise, Establishment Clause and equal protection challenges to a federal law allowing foreign-born ministers and international religious workers to file for green cards only after their employers obtain special immigrant religious worker classifications for them. Employees of non-religious organizations may file for green cards concurrently with their employers’ filings.
  • In Ellison v. Inova Health Care Services, three hospital employees sued under Title VII in the Eastern District of Virginia because their applications for religious exemptions from the Covid vaccine mandate were rejected. The court found one of the plaintiff’s objections, involving aborted fetal cell lines, was linked to plaintiff’s religious beliefs, but that the other objections were not religious in nature. 
  • On July 24, the Guam legislature overrode Governor Lourdes Leon Guerrero’s July 12 veto of Bill No.62-37, which allows private and religious schools to petition to convert to government-funded Academy Charter Schools, by a 13-0 vote. The legislation authorizes up to 7 charter schools to operate at any one time.
  • On July 14, the United Nations Human Rights Council adopted Resolution A/HRC/53/L.23, Countering Religious Hatred Constituting Incitement to Discrimination, Hostility or Violence, which condemned the burning of the Qur’an, affirming it as an “offensive, disrespectful and a clear act of provocation, constituting incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence and a violation of international human rights law.”
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 two cases (Faith Bible Chapel International v. Tucker and Synod of Bishops v. Belya) holding that interlocutory appeals from denials of a ministerial exception defense are not allowed.
  • In Donovan v. Vance, the 9th Circuit held that Department of Energy employees who objected to the government’s Covid vaccine mandate on religious grounds could not seek damages because the Executive Orders at issue had been revoked. Plaintiffs had sued federal officials in their official capacity, but the court held further that the United States has not waived sovereign immunity for damages under RFRA.
  • In United States v. Grenon, the Southern District of Florida ruled that the government could not preclude defendants from offering evidence of free exercise and RFRA defenses in their trial for manufacturing, marketing and distributing an unlicensed drug. The defendants are members of a church called Genesis II Church of Health and Healing, and they “promoted MMS [the drug] as a miracle cure to various illnesses and ailments,” which, when ingested, becomes chlorine dioxide.
  •  In McMahon v. World Vision Inc., the Western District of Washington dismissed a Title VII sex discrimination suit as barred by the Church Autonomy Doctrine.  A Christian ministry offered a job to the plaintiff, but rescinded the offer when the defendant learned that plaintiff was in a same-sex marriage. The court concluded that the Church Autonomy Doctrine may be invoked when a non-ministerial employee brings a Title VII action.
  •  In Micah’s Way v. City of Santa Ana, the Central District of California refused to dismiss a suit by a center that aids impoverished and disabled individuals in which it claimed that the city had violated its rights under RLUIPA and the First Amendment by refusing to issue it a Certificate of Occupancy unless it agrees to stop providing food and beverages to its clients. The court held that Micah’s Way plausibly alleged that its food distribution activities are a “religious exercise” and that the city substantially burdened that religious exercise.
  •  In The Catholic Bookstore, Inc. v. City of Jacksonville, the Middle District of Florida found that a Catholic bookstore has standing to challenge Jacksonville’s Human Rights Ordinance, which provides that it is unlawful to publish, circulate or display any communication indicating that service will be denied, or that patronage is unwelcome from a person, because of sexual orientation or gender identity. The bookstore wants to publicize its policy requiring its staff to address co-workers and customers only by “pronouns and titles that align with the biologically originating sex of the person being referenced . . . .”
Posted on by L&R Forum

Around the Web

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

  •  In Lowe v. Mills, the 1st Circuit reversed in part a Maine district court’s dismissal of a suit byhealth care facility workers who were denied religious exemptions from the state’s COVID vaccine mandate. The court affirmed dismissal of the Title VII claims, but allowed plaintiffs’ Free Exercise and Equal Protection claims to go forward.
  • In Ratlliff v. Wycliffe Associates, Inc., the Middle District of Florida refused to dismiss a Title VII employment discrimination suit brought by a software developer who was fired from a Bible translation company after the company learned that he had entered a same-sex marriage. The court rejected the company’s RFRA and ministerial exception defenses.
  • In Tatel v. Mt. Lebanon School District (II), the Western District of Pennsylvania held that parents of first-grade students asserted plausible claims that their due process and free exercise rights were violated by a teacher who discussed gender identity with young students. The court found that the teacher’s discussion “conflicts with [the Plaintiffs’] sincerely held religious and moral beliefs.”
  • In Rolovich v. Washington State University, the Eastern District of Washington refused to dismiss a Title VII failure-to-accommodate claim by the head football coach of Washington State University. The coach was terminated after he refused to comply with the state’s Covid vaccine mandate on religious grounds, and the court found that he had done enough at the pleading stage to show a sincerely held religious belief.
  • The EEOC announced that it has filed a Title VII suit against Triple Canopy, Inc., for failing to reasonably accommodate an employee’s religious beliefs. The employee maintained that he “did not belong to a formal religious denomination but nonetheless held a Christian belief that men must wear beards.” The employer discharged him because he could not obtain a supporting statement from a religious leader.
  • The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota challenging a Minnesota law that excludes religious universities from a program that allows high school students to obtain no-cost college credit. 
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 denied certiorari in Keister v. Bell. In that case, the 11th Circuit rejected an evangelical preacher’s challenge to an Alabama law which required a permit for any speaker who sought to participate in expressive conduct on university grounds. The preacher set up a banner, handed out religious literature, and preached through a megaphone without a permit on campus grounds.
  • In Mack v. Yost, the 3d Circuit held that qualified immunity can be asserted by prison officers in a suit brought against them under the RFRA, but the defendants had not shown facts that they were entitled to that defense. The plaintiff was an inmate of Muslim faith who would pray during his shift breaks. He alleged that officers would interfere with his prayers, so he eventually stopped praying.
  • In Dousa v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, the Southern District of California held that U.S. immigration officials violated a pastor’s free exercise rights by urging the Mexican government to deny him entry into Mexico. The pastor married immigrant couples with children who were coming to the United States so that they would not be separated upon entry into the country.
  • In Edgerton v. City of St. Augustine, the Middle District of Florida found that when the City relocated a Confederate Civil War monument, it did not violate the Establishment Clause or plaintiff’s free exercise rights. The plaintiff alleged that he would pray at the monument, and the relocation was hostile and offensive to those who used the monument to pray.
  • In DeJong v. Pembrook, the Southern District of Illinois denied an Illinois University’s motion to dismiss a former student’s Free Speech claim. The student posted her religious, political, and social views to her social media, which led to a “no-contact” order that prohibited her from having any contact with three students who complained about the posts.
  • The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom held a virtual hearing to discuss the impact of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine on religious freedom in Ukraine. The Commission discussed how Russia’s control of certain areas in Ukraine has led to the suppression of religious communities such as the Orthodox Church of Ukraine, Muslim Crimean Tatars, and Jehovah’s Witnesses.