Posted on by L&R Forum

Around the Web

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

  • In Fellowship of Christian Athletes v. San Jose Unified School District Board of Education, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, sitting en banc, held that Fellowship of Christian Athletes (FCA) is entitled to a preliminary injunction requiring the school district to restore recognition to FCA chapters as student clubs. The school district revoked FCA’s recognition as a club because FCA requires its officers to affirm a Statement of Faith and abide by a sexual purity policy, which the 9th Circuit said violated the club’s Free Exercise and Free Speech rights.
  • In Catholic Healthcare International, Inc. v. Genoa Charter Township, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals ordered a Michigan federal district court to enter a preliminary injunction that will allow a Catholic healthcare organization to restore a Stations of the Cross prayer trail as well as a stone altar and mural after Genoa Township zoning officials insisted that the Prayer Trail should be treated as a church for zoning purposes. Plaintiffs argued that the zoning ordinance as applied to them violates RLUIPA, and the 6th Circuit agreed.
  • In Damiano v. Grants Pass School District, two Oregon educators filed their opening brief in the 9th Circuit after a federal district court ruled against them. The educators were terminated after they voiced their opinions online about gender identity education policy solutions, rooted in their religious beliefs, which they claim violated their Free Exercise and Free Speech rights.
  • In Virden v. Crawford County, Arkansas, the Western District of Arkansas denied plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction after the Crawford County Library System implemented a policy removing books with LGBTQ+ themes from the children’s sections of the libraries. Plaintiffs claim this violates the Establishment Clause because the policy was implemented due to pressure from religious objectors. However, the court left open the possibility of a narrower injunction later on. 
  • In The Catholic Store, Inc. v. City of Jacksonville, the Middle District of Florida entered a consent decree which concluded that The Catholic Store, a privately owned Catholic book store in Jacksonville, is exempt from Jacksonville’s public accommodations law. The order exempts the bookstore from the non-discrimination provisions relating to sexual orientation and gender identity.
  •  France’s Council of State upheld the government’s ban on Muslim girls wearing the abaya at school. The court found that the ban did not constitute a serious interference with private life, freedom of worship, or the right to education.
Posted on by L&R Forum

Around the Web

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

  • In St. Augustine School v. Underly, the 7th Circuit addressed a long-standing dispute over transportation benefits for private religious schools in Wisconsin. While a state statute allows these benefits for only one school from a single organizational entity in each district, the court had previously ruled that the state Superintendent wrongfully denied St. Augustine School these benefits. However, in the latest decision, the 7th Circuit declined to address federal constitutional issues the plaintiffs raised, emphasizing that the court would not provide an advisory opinion on an unnecessary theory, and upheld the district court’s declaratory judgment without an injunction or damages.
  • In Spirit of Aloha Temple v. County of Maui, a Hawaii federal district court ruled in favor of the Spirit of Aloha Temple regarding their special use permit on agriculturally-zoned land for religious purposes. The court decided the state did not meet the strict scrutiny standard, but other issues, including whether the denial imposed a significant religious burden, remained unresolved. The case emphasizes that under RLUIPA, there must be evidence of intent to discriminate when regulations are neutral.
  • The Catholic Archdiocese of Denver and two Catholic schools filed a lawsuit in Colorado federal district court against restrictions in Colorado’s universal preschool funding program. The suit, St. Mary Catholic Parish in Littleton v. Roy, argues that the program’s conditions infringe on their free exercise and free speech rights by not allowing preference for Catholic families and imposing non-discrimination requirements that conflict with Catholic teachings. The program’s rules also challenge the schools’ stances on matters of marriage, gender, sexuality, and biological sex-based regulations.
  • In Chesley v. City of Mesquite, a Nevada federal district court dismissed former police chief Joseph Chesley’s lawsuit against the city and its former city manager for circulating damaging rumors about him, including to his church members. Chesley claimed that the rumors and the city’s failure to stop them violated his free exercise rights by tarnishing his reputation within his church and hindering his worship experience. The court rejected this claim, noting that the subjective harm to his reputation didn’t amount to a “substantial burden” on his religious rights.
  • In Cristello v. St. Theresa School, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled in favor of a Catholic school that terminated an unmarried art teacher who became pregnant, due to her violation of an employment agreement to abide by the teachings of the Catholic Church, which agreement prohibited premarital sex. The teacher had claimed pregnancy and marital status discrimination under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD). The court determined that the school was protected by the LAD’s exception for religious organizations, asserting that such decisions can be made using neutral principles of law without entangling courts in religious matters.
  • Following accusations of blasphemy against a young Christian man, a mob in Faisalabad, Pakistan, attacked multiple Christian homes and churches, setting them ablaze. The outburst of violence was triggered when torn pages from the Quran with alleged blasphemous content were found near the Christian community, leading local religious leaders to call for protests.
  • The Nicaraguan government has seized the University of Central America, a prominent Jesuit-run institution, alleging it to be a “center of terrorism.” This move is the latest in a series of crackdowns on the Catholic Church, opposition figures, and academic institutions by President Ortega’s regime, with over 26 Nicaraguan universities confiscated since December 2021. The widespread confiscations and expulsions, targeting churches, civic groups, and opposition members, reflect a broader erosion of democratic norms and a suppression of civil society in Nicaragua.
Posted on by L&R Forum

Around the Web

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

  • In Forter v. Young, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected a former prisoner’s complaints about the procedure used to deny his religious meal accommodation request. In seeking access to kosher meals, the former prisoner cited a Bible verse, and a prison official cited an additional verse to express his disagreement. The court found that the official’s response did not constitute an establishment of religion in violation of the establishment clause.
  • In Doe I v. Cisco Systems, Inc., the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held that Falun Gong members, who were victims of human rights abuses carried out by China, can move ahead with claims against Cisco Systems and its executives for their assistance that enabled China to carry out monitoring of Internet activity by Falun Gong members. Falun Gong is a religion that originated in China in the 1990’s.
  • In Fitzgerald v. Roncalli High School, Inc., the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed a suit based on the ministerial exception doctrine where a Catholic high school guidance counselor’s contract was not renewed because her same-sex marriage was inconsistent with the Catholic school’s religious mission. The court found this to be an easy case because of a recent ministerial exception doctrine decision the court issued last year. 
  • In Must v. County of Fillmore, the Minnesota Court of Appeals found that the County of Fillmore did not meet its burden of showing it had a compelling interest in requiring the appellants to use septic tanks in violation of their religious beliefs. The appellants were three members of the Amish community who brought suit against the county under RLUIPA.
  • In Britain, the House of Commons held a 90-minute debate on a current law which gives 26 bishops of the Church of England the right to automatically have seats in the House of Lords.
Posted on by L&R Forum

Around the Web

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

  • In 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, the United States Supreme Court held 6-3 that the 1st Amendment’s free speech clause prohibit Colorado from requiring that a website designer create websites for same-sex weddings contrary to her religious beliefs.
  • In Groff v. DeJoy, a religious accommodation case under Title VII, a unanimous Supreme Court clarified that “undue hardship” exists where “‘a burden is substantial in the overall context of an employer’s business.'”
  • In Fox v. Washington, the 6th Circuit held that the Michigan Department of Corrections must recognize “Christian Identity” as a religion for purposes of the Michigan prison system.
  • In Goldstein v. Hochul, a federal court in New York refused to issue a preliminary injunction in a challenge to New York’s 2022 Concealed Carry Improvement Act, which bans carrying firearms in “any place of worship or religious observation.”  The suit was filed by an Orthodox Jewish congregation, its president, and Jewish residents of New York who say that they have carried handguns for self-defense in synagogues.
  • In Doe v. Alpine School District, a federal court in Utah rejected claims by parents of a high school student that the school’s practice of giving students long periods of unsupervised time, during which the student had premarital sex with his girlfriend, violated their religious free exercise rights. The court found that although premarital sex is against the parents’ religious beliefs, the school did not coerce the student into violating the parents’ religious beliefs.
  • In Alulddin v. Alfartousi, an Arizona state appeals court held that civil courts can enforce an Islamic marriage contract’s dowry provision. The court found that in deciding the dowry provision was a valid premarital agreement, it did not violate the 1st Amendment’s free exercise clause.
  • In Foundation for the Advancement of Catholic Schools, Inc. v. The Most Reverend Leonard P. Blair, a Connecticut trial court held that “the constitutional bar on court jurisdiction over religious matters” required it to abstain from a suit over whether the Archbishop could appoint Board of Trustee members other than those recommended by the Governance Committee.
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 Supreme Court in Faith Bible Chapel International v. Tucker. The Tenth Circuit denied an en banc review of a panel decision that held that interlocutory appeals from the denial of a ministerial exception defense are not permitted. In the case, a former high school teacher and administrator/chaplain contends that he was fired for opposing alleged racial discrimination by a Christian school. 
  • In Belya v. Kapral, the Second Circuit denied en banc review of a three-judge panel decision which held that the collateral order doctrine does not allow the appeal of an interlocutory order rejecting a church autonomy defense. The defense was raised in an action in which the plaintiff contended that he was defamed when the defendants publicly accused him of forging a series of letters regarding his appointment as Bishop of Miami in the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia. 
  • The Second Circuit heard oral arguments in New Yorkers For Religious Liberty, Inc. v. The City of New York. At issue are First and Fourteenth Amendment challenges to New York City’s public employee COVID vaccine mandate by employees with religious objections to the vaccines. 
  • The Fifth Circuit heard oral arguments in U.S. Navy SEALs 1-26 v. Biden. In the case, a Texas federal district court issued preliminary injunctions barring the U.S. Navy from imposing its COVID-19 vaccine mandate on Navy service members who sought religious exemptions from the requirement. 
  • In Lubavitch of Old Westbury, Inc. v. Incorporated Village of Old Westbury, New York, a New York federal magistrate judge recommended that the district court dismiss on various procedural and jurisdictional grounds a number of claims in a long-running suit by an Orthodox Jewish Chabad organization, which has been unable to obtain permission to use its property for religious education, worship, and related activities. The Second Amended Complaint in the case asserted seventeen causes of action under the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments. It also asserted causes of action under RLUIPA and the state Constitution. 
  • In Collins v. City University of New York, a New York federal district court rejected a student’s claims that his free exercise, equal protection, and procedural due process rights were violated when he was denied a religious exemption from City University’s COVID vaccine mandate. In rejecting the student’s free exercise claim, the court said that the Vaccination Policy is neutral, generally applicable, and easily passes rational basis review. 
Posted on by L&R Forum

Around the Web

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

  • In Adams v. School Board of St. John’s County, Florida, the Eleventh Circuit held that separating the use of male and female bathrooms in public schools based on students’ biological sex does not violate either the Equal Protection Clause or Title IX. 
  • In Spivack v. City of Philadelphia, a Pennsylvania federal district court held that Philadelphia’s District Attorney Lawrence Krasner did not violate the religious rights of an Orthodox Jewish Assistant District Attorney when he refused to grant her an exemption from the Office’s COVID vaccine mandate. The final mandate offered no religious exemptions and only limited medical exemptions. 
  • In Edgewood High School of the Sacred Heart, Inc. v. City of Madison, Wisconsin, a Wisconsin federal district court rejected RLUIPA, free speech, and other challenges by a Catholic high school to the city’s denial of a permit for outdoor lighting at its athletic fields. The surrounding residential neighborhood association objected to the proposal. 
  • In Markel v. Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, a California federal district court held that the “ministerial exception” doctrine bars claims rooted in the California Labor Code brought against a synagogue organization by a mashgiach formerly employed by it. The court found that the Orthodox Union meets the requirements for a religious organization and that the mashgiach, whose responsibilities involve supervising and inspecting the preparation of kosher food, should be categorized as a “minister.” 
  • In In re Moscatelli v. New York City Police Department, a New York trial court annulled an administrative determination that denied a New York City Detective a religious exemption from the city’s COVID vaccine mandate. The court held that the administrative determination was arbitrary and capricious, saying that “the NYPD EEOD’s determination is a prime example of a determination that sets forth only the most perfunctory discussion of reasons for administrative action.” 
  • On December 23, 2022, New York Governor Kathy Hochul vetoed New York Senate Bill 7313A which would have required courts, in imposing alcohol or substance abuse treatment on a defendant, to inquire if the defendant has religious objections to the program, and if the defendant does, to identify an alternative nonreligious treatment program for the defendant. 
  • In two recent Chamber Judgments, the European Court of Human Rights reaffirmed its prior holding in a 2021 case that the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, whose adherents are known as Pastafarians, does not qualify as a “religion” or “belief” protected by Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In Sager v. Austria, Austria’s Office for Religious Affairs refused to recognize the Church as a religious community. In ALM v. Austria, Austrian authorities refused to issue the petitioner an identity card with a photograph showing him wearing a crown made of pasta. 
Posted on by L&R Forum

Around the Web

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

  • In Dykes-Bey v. Schroeder, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a suit brought under the First Amendment and RLUIPA by a Michigan inmate, concluding that the Michigan prison system had not imposed a “substantial burden” on the inmate’s free exercise of religion. 
  • In Sisters for Life, Inc. v. Louisville-Jefferson County, KY Metro Government, the Sixth Circuit held that an ordinance imposing a 10-foot buffer zone around the entrance of any healthcare facility abridges the free speech rights of pro-life groups who wish to hand out leaflets and speak with women entering abortion clinics. 
  • An English teacher filed suit in an Arizona federal district court after he was fired for urging the school’s principal to show acceptance and understanding of a student who identifies as pansexual. The complaint in McDorman v. Valley Christian Schools alleges that McDorman’s firing amounted to religious discrimination and retaliation for opposing discriminatory practices in violation of Title VII and Title IX. 
  • In Kingston v. Kingston, the plaintiff is challenging a trial court’s order in a divorce proceeding that barred him from encouraging his children to adopt the teachings of any religion without the consent of his former wife. In a 3-2 decision, the Court remanded the case to the trial court for it to “craft a more narrowly tailored remedy.” 
  • The EEOC has announced that it filed a Title VII religious discrimination suit against a Williamsburg, Kentucky IGA grocery store. The suit, filed in a Kentucky federal district court, alleges that the grocery refused to hire Spiritualist Rastafarian Matthew Barnett as an assistant manager after he refused to cut his dreadlocks which he wears for religious reasons. The EEOC says that employers must consider reasonable accommodations for religious beliefs. 
  • In Hordyk v. Wansiea Family Services, Inc., the State Administrative Tribunal of Western Australia held that a non-profit family services agency that contracts with the state to arrange foster care for children placed in the custody of the state violated Section 62 of the Western Australia Equal Opportunity Act 1984 when it rejected a couple who are members of the Free Reformed Church of Australia as foster parents.
Posted on by L&R Forum

Around the Web

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

  • In Jones v. Shinn, the Ninth Circuit held that the district court should not have dismissed an inmate’s claim that his rights under RLUIPA were violated when prison authorities denied him access to four texts by Elijah Muhammad. However, the court affirmed the dismissal of Plaintiff’s First Amendment free exercise claim because the defendants showed the exclusion was reasonably related to a legitimate penological interest. 
  • A federal class action lawsuit has been filed in Phillips v. Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia, alleging that the University of Virginia Health System violated free exercise and establishment clause provisions of the federal and state constitutions, as well as equal protection rights, in the manner in which it administered applications from employees for religious exemptions from its COVID vaccine mandate. 
  • In YU Pride Alliance v. Yeshiva University, a New York state appellate court affirmed a trial court’s decision that New York City’s public accommodation law requires Yeshiva University to officially recognize as a student organization an LGBTQ group, YU Pride Alliance.
  • In Beaudoin v. Attorney General of British Columbia, the highest court in the Canadian province of British Columbia upheld 2020 and 2021 COVID orders of BC’s Provincial Health Officer that prohibited in-person worship services. The court concluded that the Gathering and Events Order did not violate §15 of the Charter of Rights of Freedoms, which protects the equality rights of the churches that were plaintiffs in the suit. The court also concluded that Plaintiffs’ religious freedom rights under §2 of the Charter were not infringed. 
  • In Tonchev v. Bulgaria, the European Court of Human Rights, in a Chamber Judgment, held that municipal officials in Bulgaria violated Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights when they circulated materials to schools containing hostile information about Christian evangelical churches. 
  • In Zemmour v. France, the European Court of Human Rights upheld France’s conviction of a journalist for inciting discrimination and religious hatred against the French Muslim community through anti-Muslim remarks he made on a 2016 television talk show. The Court found no violation of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights protecting freedom of expression. 
Posted on by L&R Forum

Around the Web

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

  • In Keene v. City and County of San Francisco, a California federal district court dismissed a suit by two city employees who objected on religious grounds to the city’s COVID vaccine mandate. The court held that neither Plaintiff has demonstrated that their religious beliefs are sincere or that those beliefs conflict with receiving the vaccine. 
  • Suit was filed in a New Jersey federal district court by seven police officers and firefighters who were denied a religious accommodation to excuse them from a COVID vaccine mandate. The complaint in Aliano v. Township of Maplewood contends that the denial violates Title VII and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination. 
  • Suit was filed in an Ohio federal district court by a University Heights, Ohio homeowner who was told by the city that he needed to obtain a special use permit in order to hold Jewish prayer services with ten friends in his home. The complaint in Grand v. City of University Heights, Ohio challenges, among other things, certain provisions of the city ordinances under the United States Constitution, RLUIPA, the Ohio Constitution, and Ohio common law. 
  • Suit was filed in an Indiana federal district court by The Satanic Temple challenging Indiana’s recently enacted law regulating access to abortion with limited exceptions. The complaint in The Satanic Temple v. Holcomb not only alleges that the ban violates Indiana’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act because it outlaws the Satanic Abortion Ritual, but also alleges other constitutional defects. 
  • In Adam Community Center v. City of Troy, a Michigan federal district court refused to dismiss RLUIPA and constitutional claims against the city of Troy, Michigan. Plaintiff alleged wrongful denial of necessary zoning variances so plaintiff could use its property for Muslim religious services and classes. The court previously concluded that the city had violated the equal terms and substantial burden provisions of RLUIPA, and now ordered a hearing on damages for those violations. 
  • In In re Ayad, the Texas Supreme Court held that the trial court should determine the validity and enforceability of an Islamic Pre-Nuptial Agreement before, rather than after, ordering the parties to arbitration by a Fiqh Panel pursuant to the agreement. In a divorce proceeding, the wife challenged the agreement’s enforceability on various grounds, including that the term “Islamic Law” is too indefinite and that the agreement is void as violating public policy. 
Posted on by L&R Forum

Around the Web

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

  • In West v. Radtke, the Seventh Circuit held that a Muslim inmate’s rights under RLUIPA were violated when prison authorities refused to exempt him from strip searches conducted by transgender men. The court rejected the prison’s Title VII and equal protection defenses and remanded the case for further development of the inmate’s Fourth Amendment claims.
  • In Maisonet v. Commissioner, Alabama Department of Corrections, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a suit by a Muslim volunteer chaplain who claimed that his free exercise rights were infringed when he was prevented from being in the execution chamber when two inmates to whom he ministered were executed. 
  • A Christian rescue mission filed suit in a Wyoming federal district court by a challenging interpretations by the EEOC and the Wyoming Department of Workforce Services (“WDWS”) of the employment discrimination provisions of state and federal law. The complaint in Rescue Mission v. EEOC contends that the Rescue Mission’s free exercise and free expression rights were violated when the EEOC and WDWS found probable cause that the Mission engaged in religious discrimination in refusing to hire non-Christians as associates in its Thrift Stores. 
  • Four former employees of a continuing care retirement community filed suit in an Alabama federal district court alleging that they were wrongly fired for refusing the COVID vaccine on religious grounds. The complaint in Hamil v. Acts Retirement-Life Communities, Inc. contends that plaintiffs were subjected to a hostile work environment, harassment, and wrongful termination based on their sincerely held religious beliefs. 
  • Suit was filed in a South Carolina state trial court contending that a state budget appropriation to Christian Learning Centers of Greenville County violates the provision in South Carolina’s constitution that bars the use of public funds “for the direct benefit of any religious or other private educational institution.” The complaint in Parker v. McMaster asserts that the appropriation also contravenes the state constitution’s Establishment Clause.
  • The Hindu American Foundation (“HAF”) has sued the California Department of Civil Rights for alleged misrepresentation of Hindu beliefs and practices. HAF’s lawsuit claims that the Department of Civil Rights wrongly asserts that the caste system and caste-based system are integral parts of Hindu teaching and practices, and that in doing so, the California Department of Civil Rights violated the First Amendment rights of Hindus.