Posted on by L&R Forum

Around the Web

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

  • In Royce v. Pan, a California federal court upheld the state’s repeal of the “personal belief” exemption from school vaccination requirements, rejecting claims that the law was hostile to religion. The court found that the law was neutral and generally applicable, and that the removal of the exemption did not unfairly target religious practices.
  • In Shash v. City of Pueblo, a Colorado district court rejected a Native American plaintiff’s RLUIPA and free-exercise claims after he was arrested for DUI, as he objected to a blood alcohol test on religious grounds. The court found that RLUIPA did not apply because the plaintiff was not confined to a qualifying institution, and dismissed the First Amendment claim on qualified immunity grounds, noting there was no evidence that the officers were aware of his religious beliefs or intentionally burdened his exercise of religion.
  • In Atlantic Korean American Presbytery v. Shalom Presbyterian Church of Washington, Inc., a Virginia appellate court dismissed a church property dispute, invoking the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine, which bars civil courts from intervening in religious matters. The court ruled that Shalom Presbyterian Church’s decision to seek civil court relief after previously submitting to the Presbyterian Church Synod’s authority amounted to a collateral attack on the Synod’s decision, violating constitutional principles of religious freedom.
  • Wyoming Governor Mark Gordon recently signed HB 0207, establishing the Wyoming Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), which mandates strict scrutiny of state actions that significantly burden a person’s religious exercise. Wyoming becomes the 29th state to adopt such a law.
  • Georgetown University argues that the government cannot control its DEI curriculum, citing the First Amendment and its Jesuit mission. This raises the question of whether religious freedom could protect religiously affiliated institutions from attacks on DEI practices, as faith-based colleges often defend their right to make decisions based on their religious tenets.
  • The U.S. Acting Solicitor General filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to overturn an Oklahoma ruling that a Catholic-sponsored charter school violated the state constitution and the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause. The brief argues that the Free Exercise Clause prohibits excluding the religious school, noting that charter schools do not perform functions exclusively reserved to the state, and thus are not subject to the same constitutional constraints as government-run institutions.
    • Stay tuned for our Symposium on this case!
Posted on by L&R Forum

Around the Web

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

  • In Gaddy v. Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, the 10th Circuit heard oral arguments in a class action lawsuit accusing the LDS Church of fraudulently misrepresenting its founding and the use of tithing funds. A Utah federal court had previously dismissed the case, which was brought by former members claiming the Church’s leaders did not sincerely believe in the foundational narrative.
  • In Catholic Benefits Association v. Burrows, a federal district court in North Dakota blocked the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission from enforcing rules that would compel a Catholic organization to accommodate employee’s abortions and infertility treatments in violation of the organization’s religious teachings. The court ruled that such mandates would infringe on religious freedom.
  • In In re Calvary Chapel Iowa, an Iowa Administrative Law Judge ruled that the state’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act shields churches from taxpayer lawsuits challenging their property tax exemptions. The court held that such lawsuits impose a substantial burden on religious exercise, and that tax enforcement is better handled by the state, not individuals, to avoid retaliatory actions against religious organizations.
  • Jewish students filed a lawsuit against Haverford College alleging the college violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act by failing to enforce its nondiscrimination policy and protect Jewish students from harassment over their pro-Israel views. The complaint also includes a breach of contract claim, accusing the college of fostering a hostile environment where Jewish students feel unsafe expressing support for Israel.
  • Ukraine signed a new law, No. 3894-IX, effective August 24, banning the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC) for justifying and supporting Russia’s invasion, and introducing legal procedures to dissolve Ukrainian religious organizations connected to the ROC. The law specifically targets the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (UOC) by prohibiting affiliations with any Russian religious groups involved in supporting the war.
Posted on by L&R Forum

Around the Web

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

  • In Garrick v. Moody Bible Institute, the Seventh Circuit permitted a sex discrimination lawsuit against the Moody Bible Institute to proceed, rejecting the institution’s argument for dismissal based on the religious autonomy doctrine. The court reasoned that while religious autonomy is important, it does not provide immunity in cases of non-ministerial employee discrimination.
  • In The Satanic Temple v. The City of Chicago, an Illinois district court allowed the Satanic Temple’s claim that the city violated the Establishment Clause by consistently delaying a request for a Satanic clergyman to deliver an invocation at a City Council meeting to proceed, stating that the city must treat the Satanic clergy member equally with those of other religions.
  • Iowa enacted a state Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which protects individuals’ religious exercise from government interference unless the government proves a compelling interest and uses the least restrictive means.
  • In Omid v. Ahmadi, a Connecticut trial court declined to enforce an Islamic mahr agreement in a divorce case. The court found the agreement’s terms ambiguous and intertwined with Islamic law and therefore deemed the agreement unenforceable due to difficulty in separating secular from religious considerations.
  • In Ramirez v. World Mission Society, Church of God, a plaintiff sued a church and its pastor for fraud, emotional distress, and negligence. The plaintiff alleges she was pressured into joining the church through concealment of its leader’s identity and coerced into donating money based on a misrepresented charitable use of funds.
  • Six inmates at the Woodbourne Correctional Facility in New York filed a lawsuit against a statewide prison lockdown preventing them from viewing the solar eclipse. The inmates are arguing they hold sincerely-held religious belief that this eclipse is important to the practice of their religion.
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 of the United States denied certiorari in Missouri Department of Corrections v. Finney, a case in which a Missouri state appellate court upheld a trial court’s striking of three potential jurors who were disqualified because of their religious belief that homosexuality is a sin. The underlying suit against the Department of Corrections involved sex discrimination and hostile work environment claims by a lesbian employee.
  •  In United States v. Rourke, the 9th Circuit held that it was “plain error” for a district court to impose a condition to a defendant’s supervised release that the defendant live at and participate in a 12-step rehabilitation program, which asks the participant to call on a spiritual power to overcome addiction problems. The court found that without a non-religious alternative, the supervised release violates the Establishment Clause.
  • In Prodan v. Legacy Health, a federal district court in Oregon found that two former health care workers who challenged their employer’s denial of a request for a religious exemption from a Covid vaccine requirement made out a prima facie case of religious discrimination in the workplace under Title VII.
  • In Annunciation House, Inc. v. Paxton, a Catholic agency serving migrants and refugees in Texas filed suit against the Texas Attorney General, arguing that his demand for certain records violated the agency’s religious freedom. A Texas state court granted a TRO barring the Attorney General from examining the records.
  • In Tennessee, Governor Bill Lee signed a bill which says, in relevant part, “[a] person shall not be required to solemnize a marriage.” The original bill would have allowed refusals by those who objected to the solemnization on religious belief.
  • The Utah legislature passed a bill that prohibits the government from imposing substantial burdens on the free exercise of religion unless it can show that it had a compelling interest to do so, and it used the least restrictive means to further that interest.
Posted on by L&R Forum

Around the Web

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

Posted on by Daniel Vitagliano

Around the Web

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

Posted on by Marc O. DeGirolami

On the State RFRA Contretemps: Doug Laycock (and Me)

Two little items to report. First, Professor Doug Laycock has a very good piece at the Religion and Politics Blog.

Second, I participated in a Bloomberg Law podcast with Professor Robert Katz on these issues. I thought we had a useful exchange. At the end of the interview, however, Rob was asked a question about the relevance of Hobby Lobby to these matters, to which he responded essentially that the two were disconnected. I didn’t get a chance to jump in (had to leave to teach class!) but I have a different view and thought this quote from Doug’s piece was apt:

For the first time in American history, government had made it unlawful, at least if you were an employer, to practice a well-known teaching of the largest religions in the country. The same-sex marriage debate has the same feature. This attempt to suppress practices of the largest faiths is a new thing in the American experience. And this huge escalation in the level of government regulation of religious practices is of course producing a reaction from religious conservatives, and is part of the reason for the current polarization.

Posted on by Marc O. DeGirolami · 2 Comments

Why Not Repeal RFRA?

The media coverage of the now-vetoed Arizona bill amending the existing Arizona RFRA has been abominable. The claim that the bill would have permitted private businesses to refuse to serve gay people is simply untrue; the bill did not say that. The bill was short–just two pages long. Anybody could have read it quickly to see what it provided: expansion of state RFRA coverage for businesses and an amendment that private actions are now covered (as in, what the government cannot do directly, it cannot do indirectly by giving private parties a cause of action). The bill would have done nothing to change the basic burden-shifting framework of the Arizona RFRA–the same framework used by the federal RFRA–in which a judge is charged to determine whether there is a substantial burden counterbalanced by a compelling government interest achieved by the least restrictive means.

Perhaps that is the point, though. Anger against this bill is entirely misdirected. If one truly believes that laws which provide for the possibility of religious exemptions against generally applicable laws are anathema, the obvious course is to repeal the state and federal RFRAs themselves. Several prominent law and religion scholars have been advocating vigorously for just that result for some time. It appears that public sentiment is turning in their direction.

Posted on by Marc O. DeGirolami

District Court: Prohibiting Religious Groups From Feeding the Homeless in Park Likely to Violate Pennsylvania RFRA

Here’s an interesting case from Philadelphia involving the religious mission to feed the homeless.  The City of Philadelphia enacted a local ordinance prohibiting the distribution of food free of charge to three or more people anywhere in the Fairmont Park System (picnics for individual families, school trips, and so on, as well as special events, were exempted from the ordinance).  The City’s reasons for the ordinance had to do with civil order, sanitation, and also an asserted dignitarian interest on behalf of the homeless.  Several Christian religious groups had for decades distributed food to the homeless in the parks, but the mayor wanted these programs moved indoors.  A temporary relocation effort of one of the religious groups’ food-sharing programs resulted in a drastic reduction in the number of homeless people who partook of the food-sharing services.

Plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction prohibiting the City from enforcing the ordinance, alleging that the ordinance violated their rights under the Pennsylvania Religious Freedom Protection Act (PRFPA), which is essentially Pennsylvania’s version of the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, as well as the First Amendment.  Readers will know that RFRA (as well as PRFPA) reinstated the interest-balancing test which preceded Employment Division v. Smith.  (One interesting feature of PRFPA is that it requires “clear and convincing evidence” as its standard for the “substantial burden” component).

The Court granted the preliminary injunction on PRFPA grounds (it avoided the constitutional issue).  It held that the plaintiffs (1) have a sincere belief that it is their religious obligation to “provide sustenance to the poor and needy” (and, added the Court, “Plaintiffs are not unique in this respect.  Acts of charity are central to Christian worship”); (2) the ordinance constitutes a “substantial burden” on the free exercise of plaintiffs’ religion; (3) the dignitarian “compelling interest” offered by the City was “difficult to comprehend”: “I am at a loss to understand how taking choice away from the homeless advances their dignity”; (4) even if reducing litter and other waste is a “compelling interest” (about which the Court expressed some skepticism), the City had not used the least restrictive means to achieve that interest (portable restrooms, trash compactors, additional maintenance staff, and other methods were raised by the Court).

One noteworthy item, which may have various broader applications.  In response to the City’s claim that it did not burden the plaintiffs’ free exercise because it did not impose “restrictions upon praying or preaching or reading the Gospel or engaging with the homeless [in the Park],” the Court said:

What defendants fail to appreciate is that to plaintiffs, sharing food with the poor is as much a form of religious worship as is prayer, preaching, or reading the Bible . . . . But defendants’ argument is not persuasive for an additional and more fundamental reason. Essentially, defendants have assumed the authority to ascribe [to] some of plaintiffs’ religious activities more religious significance than others, irrespective of the significance that plaintiffs themselves ascribe to their own religious activities. Defendants compound this error by offering to grant Rev. Little a limited exception for the food and drink she uses during her Communion service, which they characterize as a “core component of a religious service,” but not for the food Rev. Little shares with the homeless after the service despite the fact that Rev. Little considers this food an ongoing representation of the Communion observed during the service . . . . It is no more appropriate for defendants to “presume to determine the place of a particular belief in a religion” than it would be for me to do so.
 
The case is Chosen 300 Ministries, Inc. v. City of Philadelphia, 2012 WL 3235317 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 9, 2012).