Around the Web

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

  • In Babiy v. Oregon Health and Science University, the District of Oregon dismissed claims for damages brought by a patient access specialist against a medical school and other individuals after she was denied a religious exemption from the school’s Covid vaccine mandate. University policy was to deny religious exemptions where their claim was based solely on fetal cell concerns, and the court dismissed the plaintiff’s claim against the individual defendants on the basis of qualified immunity.
  • Alliance Defending Freedom filed an amicus brief in Garrick v. Moody Bible Institute asking the 7th Circuit to support the freedom of religious institutions to make employment decisions in accordance with their beliefs. In the case, a professor’s contract was not renewed at Moody since she admittedly did not share Moody’s beliefs.
  • The Department of Education issued final rules under Title IX on sex discrimination in schools protecting against LGBTQ+ discrimination. However, in its release, the DOE said that the relevant sections of the rules “do not apply to an educational institution that is controlled by a religious organization to the extent that the provisions’ application would not be consistent with the religious tenets of such organization.”
  • President Biden issued a Statement on Passover in which he reiterated his commitment to the safety of Jewish people, the security of Israel and its right to exist independently. In addition, he promised to continue working toward a two-state solution to provide peace for Israelis and Palestinians.
  • In Florida, Governor Ron DeSantis signed a bill that allows public school districts the option of hiring volunteer chaplains to counsel students. The program is entirely voluntary and takes effect on July 1.
  • Spain approved a plan providing for economic compensation and other reparations for victims of sex abuse committed by people within the Catholic Church. The plan, in addition to providing economic compensation, includes free legal assistance for all victims and it will reinforce the prevention supervision in schools.

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.

Around the Web

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

Around the Web

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

Around the Web

Some important law-and-religion stories from around the web:

Becket Fund on the Hasidic Dress Code Controversy

Eric Rassbach of the Becket Fund writes about NYC’s lawsuit against Hasidic-owned stores in Brooklyn. The city’s lawsuit alleges that the stores’ dress code discriminates against women. CLR Forum covered the story here.

NYC Sues Hasidic Shopkeepers Over Dress Codes

New York City residents have lots to worry about. The city’s outstanding debt exceeds $100 billion. The interest alone exceeds $6 billion annually. The city’s tax base continues to shrink as businesses, fed up with New York’s high rates, flee to lower-tax jurisdictions. The city’s infrastructure desperately needs an upgrade. And Hasidic shopkeepers in Brooklyn are engaged in a blatant campaign to violate customers’ human rights.

At least that’s what the city’s human rights commission argues. The commission is suing Hasidic shopkeepers who have hung signs in their windows stating, “No shorts, no barefoot, no sleeveless, no low cut neckline allowed in this store.” The commission argues that this dress code discriminates against women in violation of the city’s public accommodations law. According to the deputy commissioner, the signs are “pretty specific to women,” and requiring women to “dress modestly if they come into the store” is illegal.

Now, generally speaking, anti-discrimination laws allow public accommodations to have dress codes, as long as the codes don’t discriminate against protected classes. On its face, it’s not clear how this dress code is discriminatory. It treats men and women the same. Let’s say a barefoot woman wearing shorts walks into a store. She may be asked to leave. Let’s say a barefoot man in shorts tries to do the same thing. He also may be asked to leave. Where’s the discrimination? Now, it’s true that the stores might apply a facially neutral dress code in a discriminatory way.  So, for example, if the shopkeepers in practice excluded only women, that would be a problem. According to the stores’ lawyer, though, there’s no evidence that the stores have ever excluded any woman–or man, for that matter– for any reason.

In short, it’s not clear where the illegality lies. But there’s a deeper point. New York is a cosmopolitan city  in which people with very different lifestyles must find some way to get along. Mostly, New Yorkers do that by tolerating things that offend us. That works fine, most of the time. Maybe these religious storeowners should simply put up with dress they find immodest in the interests of a more expressive society. But is it really too much to ask someone to abide by this fairly innocuous dress code before going into a store, if that’s what the store owner wants? Is the injustice really so great that the store owner must be hauled into court and taught a lesson? Aren’t there more important problems for the city to tackle?

Sugary soft drinks, for instance.

Render on Religious Practices, Sex Discrimination and Toleration

Meredith Render (U. of Alabama School of Law) has posted Religious Practice and Sex Discrimination: An Uneasy Case for Toleration. The abstract follows.

This essay considers two questions: (1) whether there are moral or instrument reasons to tolerate religious practices that contravene our fundamental public values; and (2) in instances in which there is no moral or instrumental reason to tolerate a practice that contravenes public values, whether it is appropriate to condition the availability of tax exempt status on religious institutions’ fidelity to public values.

The essay offers a response and supplement to the insights contained in Caroline Mala Corbin’s interesting essay, “Expanding the Bob Jones Compromise” in which Corbin thoughtfully argues that we should withdraw tax exempt status from religious institutions that discriminate on the basis of sex. Corbin observes that tax exempt status is already conditioned on nondiscrimination with respect to race, and she offers the insight that there is no principled reason to treat sex and race discrimination differently in the this context. While this essay accepts the latter insight, I argue that there may be instrumental reasons why we would be concerned about the government determining which religious practices contravene our nondiscrimination norms and which do not. I further raise concerns about the mechanism Corbin selects (conditional tax exempt status) in light of Hosanna-Tabor, the Supreme Court’s latest articulation of the degree of protection offered by the Religious Clauses to religious practices that implicate the selection of ministers.