This is from religionclause.blogspot.com which you can find here:
In two decisions issued last week, a South Carolina federal district court rejected Establishment Clause challenges to waivers from federal anti-discrimination requirements granted faith-based child placement agencies. In Rogers v. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, (D SC, Sept. 29, 2023), plaintiff challenged an Executive Order issued by the governor of South Carolina allowing licensing of religious child placement agencies that worked only with clients who shared their religious beliefs. At issue in the case was the rejection by Miracle Hill Ministries of a foster-parent application submitted by a same-sex couple who belonged to the local Unitarian-Universalist Church. The court rejected plaintiffs’ Equal Protection claim because plaintiffs had not identified any state action involved. It rejected their Establishment Clause claim, saying in part:
Plaintiffs’ legal premise is based on the now abandoned framework of the “Lemon Test” by focusing their argument on the third factor in Lemon regarding an “excessive government entanglement with religion.” … Instead, based on historical practices and understandings which Kennedy requires, Establishment Clause protections are more likely triggered “when the government use[s] the established church to carry out certain civil functions, often by giving ‘the established church a monopoly over a specific function.’” …
Plaintiffs identify but misstate three “hallmarks” of “founding-era religious establishments” that “reflect[] ‘forms of coerc[ion]’ regarding ‘religion or its exercise.’”… Stated in full, they are: 1) “the government punished dissenting churches and individuals for their religious exercise,” 2) “the government provided financial support for the established church, often in a way that preferred the established denomination over other churches,” and 3) “the government used the established church to carry out certain civil functions, often by giving the established church a monopoly over a specific function[.]” …
Plaintiffs fail to meet their burden to show that these “hallmarks” exist here…
In Madonna v. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, (D SC, Sept. 29, 2023), plaintiff was rejected by Miracle Hill because she did not share its evangelical-Christian beliefs and could not affirm its statement of faith. Rejecting plaintiff’s Establishment Clause claims, the court said in part:
Defendants did not compel Maddonna to sign Miracle Hill’s statement or leave her without an adequate alternative to signing it. To the contrary, Maddonna could foster the same children at any of twenty-six other private agencies in the State… or with the State itself…. Accordingly, Maddonna has not shown “a historically disfavored establishmentarian practice” based on a claim of “subtle and indirect pressure.”…
Maddonna’s attempt to implicate an impermissible religious accommodation is foreclosed by Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, an analogous case in which the Supreme Court found the denial of a similar religious accommodation for foster care agencies burdened the Free Exercise Clause.
Becket issued a press release announcing the decisions.
You can learn more about this issue here.
judicialsupport 