judicialsupport

Legal Writing for Legal Reading!

Archive for the tag “physical”

Michigan Will Allow Secular Marriage Celebrants

This is from religionclause.blogspot.com which you can find here:

In an April 2 press release, the Center for Inquiry reports:

Secular celebrants are now permitted to officiate and solemnize marriages in Michigan, after the state attorney general reversed the government’s opposition to a lawsuit brought by the Center for Inquiry (CFI). Promising that the state considers CFI-trained and certified Secular Celebrants to be covered by existing statutes regarding marriage solemnization, the presiding federal court brought the case to a close.

You can learn more about this issue here.

10th Circuit Reverses Dismissal Of Inmate’s 1st Amendment Claims

This is from religionclause.blogspot.com which you can find here:

In Khan v. Barela, (10th Cir., March 26, 2020), the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in a 35-page opinion reversed a New Mexico federal district court’s sua sponte dismissal of a federal pre-trial detainee’s pro se 1st and 4th Amendment claims. Erik Khan was a pre-trial detainee for some four years. His 1st Amendment free speech claims involved a prohibition on his reading hard-cover books, newspaper and newspaper clippings. His 1st Amendment free-exercise claims revolved around prison chaplains’ refusal to allow him a clock, prayer schedule, and Muslim calendar to track the timing of Ramadan, and his inability to obtain Ramadan-compliant meals.

You can learn more about this issue here.

Court Interprets Defenses Under Illinois RFRA and Right of Conscience Act

This is from religionclause.blogspot.com which you can find here:

In Rojas v. Martell, (IL App., March 6, 2020), an Illinois state appellate court answered four certified questions on the state’s  Health Care Right of Conscience Act and its Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The court held that neither the analytic framework not the reasonable accommodation defense of Title VII should be read into these state statutes. It also concluded that transfer of an employee to a job that does not include the religiously objectionable duties may be permissible under the Right of Conscience Act. The issues arose in a case in which a county health department nurse claimed that the health department discriminated against her after she asserted that her Catholic religious beliefs prevented her from providing birth control, from providing Plan B emergency contraception, and from making abortion referrals.

You can learn more about this issue here.

Justice Department Sides With Wedding Photographer In District Court Case

This is from religionclause.blogspot.com which you can find here:

The Department of Justice announced yesterday that it has filed a Statement of Interest (full text) in Chelsey Nelson Photography, LLC v. Louisville/ Jefferson County Metro Government, (WD KY, filed 2/27/20).  As previously reported, in the case the owner of a wedding photography business seeks a preliminary injunction to prevent enforcement of Louisville’s public accommodation ordinance against her. Plaintiff “only accepts requests for services which are consistent with her editorial, artistic, and religious judgment.”  This precludes her from providing photography and social media services for same-sex weddings. DOJ sides with the photographer, arguing in part:

Most commercial transactions will not involve requiring an unwilling speaker to participate in someone else’s expressive activity. But where public accommodations laws do intrude on expression in this way, they are subject to heightened scrutiny….

Photography—and particularly the bespoke wedding photography in which Ms. Nelson engages—is inherently expressive…. By … compelling her to engage in expression promoting and celebrating a ceremony in violation of her conscience, Defendants infringe upon the fundamental “principle of autonomy to control one’s own speech.”

… That is not to say that every application of a public accommodations law to protected expression will violate the Constitution. In particular, laws targeting race-based discrimination may survive heightened First Amendment scrutiny….  The Supreme Court has not similarly held that classifications based on sexual orientation are subject to strict scrutiny or that eradicating private individuals’ opposition to same-sex marriage is a uniquely compelling interest.

You can learn more about this issue here.

No 1st Amendment Violation In Requiring Parolee To Live At Christian Homeless Shelter

This is from religionclause.blogspot.com which you can find here:

In Janny v. Gamez, (D CO, Feb. 21, 2020), a Colorado federal district court dismissed an inmate’s First Amendment challenge to his arrest for parole violations. Mark Janny’s parole officer directed him to stay at a Christian homeless shelter in order to meet the parole requirement that he establish a residence of record. Janny was expelled from the shelter’s program when he refused to attend chapel religious services. The court held that plaintiff’s Establishment Clause rights were not infringed because there was a secular purpose for the homeless shelter requirement. The court also accepted defendant’s qualified immunity defense to an assertion of free exercise violations, saying that it was not clearly established that a parole officer violates a parolee’s rights by requiring him to reside at a facility that provides religious programming.

You can learn more about this issue here.

6th Circuit: Non-Recognition Substantially Burdened Christian Identity Inmates

This is from religionclause.blogspot.com which you can find here:

In Fox v. Washington, (6th Cir., Feb, 6, 2020), the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals held that the trial court had misapplied RLUIPA in upholding Michigan’s refusal to recognize prison inmates’ Christian Identity, white separatist religion. The prison system denied Christian Identity adherents the right to group worship and full immersion baptism. The court said in part:

… [P]laintiffs have met their burden ,,, to show that the Department has imposed a substantial burden on their religious exercise with respect to group worship for the Sabbath and holidays….

At step three of RLUIPA, the burden shifts to the Department to make two showings. First, it must prove that the imposition of the substantial burden on plaintiffs’ religious exercise was “in  furtherance of a compelling governmental interest.” … Second, the Department must establish that it used “the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.”… The district court made no such rulings, and the record is not well developed on these issues. “As ‘a court of review, not of first view,’ we will remand the case to the district court to resolve the point in the first instance.”

You can learn more about this issue here.

Family Law Tip: Custody Orders and School Buses

I  post some tips regarding family to my Linkedin page (see here) from time to time, and I thought I should start sharing them here too. Below is one of my family law tips, and you can read my articles on family law here and other posts on family law here and all are cataloged here.

DC Circuit Rejects NLRB’s Test For Jurisdiction Over Adjunct Faculty At Religiously-Affiliated Colleges

This is from religionclause.blogspot.com which you can find here:

In Duquesne University of the Holy Spirit v. NLRB, (DC Cir., Jan. 28, 2020), the Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, in a 2-1 decision, held that the National Labor Relations Board lacks jurisdiction over adjunct faculty at Duquesne University.  In doing so, the majority rejected the test developed by the National Labor Relations Board in its 2014 Pacific Lutheran decision. The NLRB took the position that it lacks jurisdiction over adjunct faculty at non-profit religiously-affiliated colleges only if both the school holds itself out to the public as a religious institution and the particular faculty group petitioning performs a specific religious role. The majority held that the role played by the particular faculty may not be considered:

Pacific Lutheran impermissibly intrudes into religious matters. The Board suggests that it can avoid constitutional problems by considering only whether a religious school “holds out” faculty members as playing a specific religious role, … but such an inquiry would still require the Board to define what counts as a “religious role” or a “religious function.” … Defining which roles qualify would be far outside the competence of Board members and judges.

Judge Pillard dissenting said in part:

The Board’s approach has several advantages…. It recognizes the significant structural and functional differences between adjuncts and full faculty at many schools, as well as the heterogeneity of schools’ religious exercise. It thereby not only respects precedent and protects religious exercise, but also affords schools leeway to delineate for themselves the scope of the academic teaching corps that embodies their religious mission. In contrast to the automatic presumption of religiosity that the court adopts today, the Board’s approach adds a measure of tailoring at the exemption’s outer edge, eliminating needless sacrifice of adjuncts’ NLRA rights but extending the exemption to them where called for by a religious role the school itself identifies.

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reports on the decision.

You can learn more about this issue here.

HHS Says California Violated Federal Conscience Protections On Abortion Coverage

This is from religionclause.blogspot.com which you can find here:

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office of Civil Rights today issued a Notice of Violation (full text) to the state of California finding that the state violated federal law by making elective abortion coverage mandatory in all policies offered by insurance companies regulated by the state’s Department of Managed Health Care. A Christian church and a Catholic religious order filed complaints with HHS saying that California’s Mandate Letters to health care plans resulted in the religious organizations being required to offer their employees policies that cover abortions, in violation of the conscience provisions of the federal Weldon Amendment.

The Notice of Violation explains:

… [T]he only exemption California offered (to a health plan issuer) was limited to plans covering a narrow set of “religious employers” under California law. However, the Weldon Amendment protects from discrimination all plans that decline to cover abortion, without requiring any plan issuers, sponsors, or beneficiaries to have a religious character or have a religious reason for not providing or paying for such coverage…. [E]ven a categorical exemption of “religious employers,” as defined by California law, would have only been available to approximately 37% of those employer groups who, prior to the Mandate Letters, had health care coverage that limited or excluded abortion.

The Notice of Violation concludes:

If OCR does not receive sufficient assurance that California will cease requiring all health care plans, as a class, to cover abortion, or that it is willing to negotiate in good faith towards that end, OCR will forward this Notice of Violation and the evidence supporting OCR’s findings in this matter to the appropriate HHS funding components for further action under applicable grants and contracts regulations. Such referral may ultimately result in limitations on continued receipt of certain HHS funds in accordance with the Constitution and applicable Supreme Court case law.

HHS also issued a press release explaining its action which in part quotes the Director of HHS’s Office of Civil Rights:

We are putting California on notice that it must stop forcing people of good will to subsidize the taking of human life, not only because it’s the moral thing to do, but because it’s the law.

You can learn more about this issue here.

Tennessee Passes Law Protecting Faith-Based Adoption/ Foster Care Agencies

This is from religionclause.blogspot.com which you can find here:

Yesterday, the Tennessee General Assembly gave final passage to HB0836 (full text) which bars denial of licensing or funding for faith-based child placement agencies. The law protects agencies that refuse to participate in placing a child for foster care or adoption in violation of the agency’s written religious or moral convictions or policies. According to AP, Gov. Bill Lee’s Communications Director says that the governor will sign the bill.

You can learn more about this issue here.

Post Navigation